CAR_Public/140929.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 193

                             Headlines


ACORN CAPITAL: Won't Get Retrial in Ponzi Scheme Fraud Case
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiff Filed Writ to Appeal
AMYLIN PHARMA: Motion for Discovery in Incretin MDL Denied
APPLE INC: Bid to Identify Class Members in "Adkins" Case Tossed
ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES: No Appeal Filed on Class Action Dismissal

ATLAS ROOFING: "Makowski" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
AVIS BUDGET: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal Denied in "Ruffin" Case
BACK YARD BURGERS: Claims Period in "Keith" Suit to Begin Nov. 1
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unfair Mortgage Lending Practices
BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Settles Storm Financial Suit for AU$20-Mil.

BAYVILLE LAND: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in New York
BBC4 LLC: Sued by Ex-Chef in Michigan Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BBVA COMPASS: Continues to Defend "Deaver" Class Action
BLACK PEPPER PHO: Bid to Approve Blocklin Suit Settlement Denied
BODY CENTRAL: Parties to Settle Class Action for $3.4 Million

CAFEPRESS INC: "Desmarais" and "Jinnah" Cases Consolidated
CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: 9th Cir. Vacates Ruling in "Gomez" TCPA Suit
CANNAVEST CORP: Has Not Yet Answered "Sallustro" Complaint
CARDINAL HEALTH: Removed "Hitt" Suit to California District Court
CARE ONE: Judge Tosses Bid to Sanction Plaintiff in TCPA Suit

CARPENTERS PENSION: Court Certifies Class in ERISA Case
CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Insurer to Pay $837,500 Portion of Deal
CITICORP USA: Obtains Final Approval of "Barela" Suit Settlement
COLLECTION BUREAU: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CONNECTICUT, USA: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations

COVENTRY FIRST: Arbitration Denied in Insurance Class Action
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Meyer" Suit Over Faulty Pinnacle Hips
DIGICON CORP: Former Employee Files Overtime Class Action
DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Flournoy" Suit in Middle District of Florida
DUNKIN' DONUTS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Pittsburgh

ECOLAB INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Territory Reps, Suit Claims
ECOTALITY INC: Court Dismisses Claims in Securities Litigation
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Investor Sues Over Student Aid Violations
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Has Overstated Its Revenue, Suit Claims
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Bid to Stay Discovery in "Garcia" Case Nixed

ENTIRE OILFIELD: Faces "Haley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FAIRFIELD FUTURES: Agreement Reached in Morgan Stanley Litigation
FJC SECURITY: Did Not Fully Pay Overtime Wages, N.J. Suit Claims
FOUR OAKS: No Ruling Yet on Bids to Dismiss Payday Lending Cases
GADSDEN, AL: District Court Ruling in Firefighters' Case Upheld

GENERAL MOTORS: Amended "Scott" Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
GOOGLE INC: "Joffe" Plaintiffs May See Data From Street View
GREAT GULF: Condo Owner Files Class Action Over Water Valves
HAWAII: Human Services Department Faces ABA Class Action
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Final Judgment Entered in Securities Litigation

HM777 INC: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Ex-Foreman Says
HOME DEPOT: Faces Chautauqua Union Suit Alleging Property Damage
HOME DEPOT: Faces Suit in Louisiana Alleging Property Damage
HOME DEPOT: McPhadden Samac Files Data Breach Class Action
HOSPICE OF EAST TEXAS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid FLSA Wages

ICM PARTNERS: Former Interns Respond to Class Suit Dismissal Bid
IMH FINANCIAL: Exchange Offering in Class Action Accord Completed
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Lawyers Begin Final Arguments in C$18BB Action
INDEPENDENT ORDER: Faces "Fitzhenry" Suit Over TCPA Violations
J&G TRANSPORT: Bid for Conditional Cert. in "Collado" Case Denied

JACKSON HEALTH: Discriminates Against Old Pharmacist, Suit Says
JAMBA JUICE: Court Certifies Class in Suit Over Deceptive Labels
LA-Z-BOY INC: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Advertisement
LIME ENERGY: Insurance Will Cover Cost of Defending Class Action
LIME ENERGY: Final Approval of Settlement in "Satterfield" Action

LIME ENERGY: Bid for Reconsideration in "Kuberski" Action Denied
MAGNA-RX INC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Dismisses Mental Health Class Action
MARICOPA COUNTY CCD: Removed "Roberts" Suit to D. Arizona
MCDONALD'S CORP: Bid for Conditional Certification Denied

MEIJER INC: Gets $2-Mil. Fine for Selling Recalled Products
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in "FDCPA" Case
MORGAN STANLEY: Defendants' Petition to Appeal Class Cert. Denied
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Expects to Settle Remaining Counts
NATIONAL MILK: Court Grants Class Cert. Bid in Antitrust Case

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NCL CORP: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
NETVISION LTD: Israeli Supreme Court Dismisses Class Suit Appeal
NEVADA PROPERTY: Files Bid to Expunge and Remove Plaintiffs' Lien
NEVADA PROPERTY: Suit Over Unlawful Taping in Early Stages

NEVADA PROPERTY: Plaintiff to Dismiss "Spangler" Class Action
NEVADA PROPERTY: "Okada" Class Action Dismissed
NEWS CORPORATION: Deal Reached in Class Actions in Canada
NEWS CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeding in In-Store Marketing Case
NOBLE ENERGY: "Phelps" Suit Removed to Colorado District Court

NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NY CITY TRANSIT: Accused of Retaliation and Retaliatory Discharge
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
PEG PEREGO: Removed "Hoffman" Suit to California District Court
PLASTIC2OIL INC: Additional Briefing Submitted to Support Accord

POKERTEK INC: Inks Memorandum of Understanding in Class Suit
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Has $8MM Reserve for Class Action Settlement
QC HOLDINGS: Reached Deals With 2 Plaintiffs in N.C. Cases
QC HOLDINGS: "Lee" Case Settlement to be Finalized by Yearend
QC HOLDINGS: Parties in "Stemple" Case Briefing Class Cert Issues

RACEWAY FORD: Appeals Court Issues Ruling in Consumers' Case
RIVER REGION: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Court Refused to Compel Arbitration
SAN DIEGO HOSPICE: Removed "Ross" Class Suit to S.D. California
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Court Approves Settlement and Certifies Class

SMARTHEAT INC: Class Action Delays Chief Financial Officer Hiring
SMITH LIMOUSINE: Drivers Seek to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
SPENDSMART NETWORKS: SMS Masterminds Faces Class Action
ST. PETER'S UNIVERSITY: Judge Grants Leave for ERISA Ruling Appeal
SWEETWATER UNION: 9th Cir. Affirmed Judgment in "Ollier" Suit

TANDY CARTER: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Assa'ad-Faltas Case
TARGET CORP: Judge Approves $350,000 Class Action Settlement
TELOMERASE ACTIVATION: Judge Tosses TAS-65 Supplement Class Suit
TEMPLETON RYE: Sued Over Misleading Whiskey Marketing Materials
TITLE CLOSING: Sued for Not Paying OT on Hours Above 40 in a Week

TREMOR VIDEO: Filed Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action
TSM PROPERTIES: Wage Case Gets Conditional Certification
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: To Defend Against Wilder Litigation
UCBH HOLDINGS: "Zhu" Case Stayed Pending Shabudin and Yu Trial
UMPQUA BANK: Dec. 19 Opt-Out Deadline in Hawthorne Suit Deal Set

UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots Fail to Sway Appellate Court on Deal
UNITED STATES: Forest Service Female Firefighters File Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
WARNER MUSIC: Bid for Leave to File Late Jury Demand Denied
ZAPPOS.COM INC: Refused to Dismiss Claims in Data Breach Suit


                            *********


ACORN CAPITAL: Won't Get Retrial in Ponzi Scheme Fraud Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hedge fund manager and his companies will not get a retrial in a
securities fraud case springing from Thomas Petters' $3.7 billion
Ponzi scheme, a federal judge ruled.  But they will not suffer
civil penalties, and the manager's wife was dismissed as a relief
defendant, according to Molly Willms, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

Marlon Quan and his companies Acorn Capital Group LLC, Stewardship
Investment Advisors LLC and ACG II LLC were found liable in
February for securities fraud for their participation in Petters'
Ponzi scheme.  Petters is serving 50 years for the scam in which
he claimed to be selling electronics to big-box retailers.

Quan and his companies invested hedge fund money in Petters'
scheme, but were not charged with knowingly investing in
fraudulent notes, U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery wrote in her
Sept. 19 ruling.

Quan's offense was telling investors about "risk management
techniques" that were not taken with the money defendants put into
Petters' notes.  When the notes began to fail, Quan et al.
restructured them to disguise their default while assuring
investors that "few defaults have occurred," Judge Montgomery
found.

The defendants were found liable for securities fraud in February.

The SEC sought disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and civil
penalties.

Quan sought a new trial, claiming that the verdict was
"inconsistent, non-unanimous, against the greater weight of the
evidence, and based on inadmissible testimony by the SEC's expert
witness."

Relief defendant Florene Quan, Quan's wife, sought dismissal
because she has an ownership interest in two properties, together
worth $3 million, that were transferred to her from Marlon Quan's
assets.  The SEC sought to include the properties in the assets
available for disgorgement.

The Quans argued that the jury's finding of liability contradicted
itself, and should have required unanimous agreement about which
particular action contradicted a particular statute.

But because the jurors agreed that fraud had been committed,
unanimity of verdict is not necessary, Judge Montgomery wrote.

Defendants also argued for a judgment as a matter of law based on
the SEC's lack of evidence that Quan knowingly covered up
defaults.

But Montgomery ruled: "In deciding a motion for judgment as a
matter of law, the court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the party who prevailed before the jury, making all
reasonable inferences in that party's favor.  The court must not
substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact."

After examining the evidence through that lens, Montgomery wrote,
it is clear that defendants acted deliberately in misrepresenting
the status of the hedge funds.

Montgomery also dismissed defendant's claims that the SEC's expert
witness was unqualified to testify, because a retrial based on
this would be unlikely to yield different results.

The court ordered the defendants to pay more than $80 million in
disgorgement plus pre-judgment interest.  Payments toward class-
action settlements brought by investors will count toward that
balance.

Defendants are enjoined from violating the Securities Act but will
not be required to pay a civil penalty.  The $80 million
disgorgement satisfies the goal of civil penalties, which is "to
punish the wrongdoer and discourage future violations of the
securities laws."

The court also determined Florene Quan was more than just an agent
of defendants, having invested her own honestly obtained money and
time in improving the properties she was transferred.  Because she
has an ownership interest in the properties, she is not a proper
relief defendant and thus her portion of the properties is not
subject to the disgorgement.  But the SEC may foreclose on Marlon
Quan's interest in the properties.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is represented by:

          John E. Birkenheier, Esq.
          Charles J. Kerstetter, Esq.
          Michael J. Mueller, Esq.
          Sally J. Hewitt, Esq.
          Timothy S. Leiman, Esq.
          U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
          175 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 353-7390

               - and -

          James Alexander, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          U.S. Courthouse
          300 S 4th Street, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55415

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bruce E. Coolidge, Esq.
          Laura Schwalbe, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
          E-mail: bruce.coolidge@wilmerhale.com
                  laura.schwalbe@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Christopher T. Casamassima, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          350 S Grand Ave., Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-5374
          Facsimile: (213) 443-5400
          E-mail: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com

The case is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Marlon
Quan, et al., Case No. 0:11-cv-00723-ADM-JSM, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiff Filed Writ to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March
20, 2013, the Company was served with a Class Action Petition for
Damages and Penalties for Arbitrary and Capricious Behavior filed
in the 13th Judicial District Court, Parish of Evangeline,
Louisiana against USAgencies Casualty Insurance Company
(USAgencies), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AIC. The named
plaintiffs allege that the denial of their first-party property
damage claim based on USAgencies' policy exclusion for driving
under the influence of alcohol was arbitrary and capricious, and
that USAgencies' enforcement of the subject policy exclusion
violates Louisiana public policy.

On August 2, 2013, the Court ruled that USAgencies' policy
exclusion violated Louisiana public policy and was unenforceable.
USAgencies pursued an appeal of this ruling in the Louisiana Third
Circuit Court of Appeal.

On June 4, 2014, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal
entered its opinion reversing the lower court ruling and finding
in favor of USAgencies on all claims. Plaintiff has filed a writ
to appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which is pending.

The Company is a provider of non-standard personal automobile
insurance policies for individual consumers in targeted geographic
markets.


AMYLIN PHARMA: Motion for Discovery in Incretin MDL Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the federal judge presiding over the multidistrict
litigation involving incretin-based therapies has denied a motion
to compel discovery about the defendants' analysis of a causal
association between the drugs and pancreatic cancer.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia ruled last week against the
plaintiffs' motion to compel.  Over 460 plaintiffs allege they
developed pancreatic cancer from taking one of four incretin-based
drugs, according to court statistics from July.  The multidistrict
litigation is pending in the Southern District of California.

The pharmaceutical companies defending their Incretin-based
therapies also oppose a motion to compel discovery about adverse
events involving their products that were reported to the Food and
Drug Administration.  That motion appears to still be pending.

Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC faces lawsuits over Byetta, Eli Lilly &
Co. for its collaboration with Amylin in the promotion of Byetta,
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. over its Januvia and Janumet, and Novo
Nordisk Inc. for its Victoza.  Incretin-based treatments are
prescribed to lower blood sugar levels in people with Type 2
diabetes, the most common form of that disease.

The drugmakers said in court papers that the plaintiffs already
have the adverse event reports, but the plaintiffs now have moved
to compel production of the underlying medical records of patients
used to compile those reports.

The drugmakers argue that the motion to compel regarding adverse
events should be denied because the adverse event reports cannot
establish general causation and the source files "are even less
meaningful," the defendants said.  The plaintiffs want to create a
"series of mini-trials" about whether the adverse event reports
were accurately reported to the FDA, the defendants also alleged.

The defendants also object to the portion of the plaintiffs'
motion seeking to get their native databases containing adverse
event information.


APPLE INC: Bid to Identify Class Members in "Adkins" Case Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick denied a motion to identify class
members in the case captioned PATRICIA SUE ADKINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-
01619-WHO, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs have sought precertification discovery to identity
class members because plaintiffs Patricia Sue Adkins, Jennifer
Galindo may prove inadequate class representatives or withdraw for
other reasons.

Judge Orrick denied the request saying it it is a procedurally
improper discovery motion, premature, and lacks merit.

A copy of Judge Orricks's September 15, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/7q2diFfrom Leagle.com.

Patricia Sue Adkins, Plaintiff, represented by Renee Fagan Kennedy
& Seth Wesley Wiener -- sethwiener@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of
Seth W. Wiener.

Jennifer Galindo, Plaintiff, represented by Renee Fagan Kennedy &
Seth Wesley Wiener, Law Offices of Seth W. Wiener.

Fabrienne English, Plaintiff, represented by Renee Fagan Kennedy &
Seth Wesley Wiener, Law Offices of Seth W. Wiener.

Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by Purvi Govindlal Patel --
ppatel@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Margaret Elizabeth
Mayo -- mmayo@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP San Francisco &
Penelope A Preovolos -- ppreovolos@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP.

Applecare Service Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Purvi
Govindlal Patel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Margaret Elizabeth Mayo,
Morrison & Foerster LLP San Francisco & Penelope A Preovolos,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Apple CSC Inc, Defendant, represented by Purvi Govindlal Patel,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Margaret Elizabeth Mayo, Morrison &
Foerster LLP San Francisco & Penelope A Preovolos, Morrison &
Foerster LLP.


ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES: No Appeal Filed on Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
No appeal was filed on the dismissal of a class action against
Assembly Biosciences, Inc., fka Ventrus Biosciences, Inc., the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

In June 2012, the Company announced that its product iferanserin
(VEN 309), failed to meet its end point at the completion of its
Phase III clinical trial.

The Company said, "On May 9 and May 21, 2013, respectively, two
purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against us, two of our
executive officers and the lead underwriter of our initial public
offering: Ted Davison, William Gould and Ray Lenci, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated , Plaintiffs v.
Ventrus Biosciences, Inc., et al, 13CIV 3119; and Michael Bartley,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated ,
Plaintiffs v. Ventrus Biosciences, Inc., et al, 13CIV 3429."

"The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class
actions, and, in general, include allegations that, during the
class period between December 17, 2010 and June 25, 2012, we and
our two executive officers violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and our two executive officers and
the lead underwriter of our initial public offering violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making various statements
related to our product, iferanserin (VEN 309), a topical treatment
for symptomatic hemorrhoids, including but not limited to, the
market for the product, the potential competitors, and the results
of clinical trials, thereby inflating the price of our common
stock. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.

"On July 8, 2013, three prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions
to consolidate, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead counsel
(the "Motions to Consolidate").  The Court took the Motions to
Consolidate under submission on July 17, 2013.  On July 23, 2013,
the Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel.   On September 16, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  On November 22, 2013, we filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint (the "Motion
to Dismiss").

On May 5, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the class action with prejudice. On May 19,
2014, lead plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's order dismissing the class action with prejudice (the
"Motion for Reconsideration"). On July 2, 2014, the Court entered
an order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Lead plaintiffs
had until August 2, 2014 to file notice of an appeal, but no
appeal was filed.

Assembly Biosciences, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
developing novel therapies for infectious diseases and other
disorders of the gastrointestinal system.


ATLAS ROOFING: "Makowski" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Makowski v. Atlas Roofing
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00157, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03034-TWT to
the proceeding.

The case is a product liability class action asserting claims in
connection with alleged defective roofing shingles that were
designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised and sold by Atlas
under the "Chalet" product name.

Atlas Roofing Corporation, doing business as Meridian Roofing
Company, is a Mississippi corporation headquartered in Meridian,
Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Whitfield, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          19 North Main Street
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 821-0656
          E-mail: John@wbmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel G. Pieper, Esq.
          WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP
          271 17th Street, NW, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30363-1017
          Telephone: (404) 888-7435
          Facsimile: (404) 870-4831
          E-mail: jpieper@wcsr.com


AVIS BUDGET: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal Denied in "Ruffin" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan D. Wigenton denied a motion for interlocutory
appeal, and to stay the action captioned FREDERICK RUFFIN, JR. and
LORETTA DONATELLI, individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, v. AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC and
AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-01069-
SDW-MCA, (D.N.J.).

The Plaintiffs obtained conditional collective action
certification on June 28, 2012.  In August 2013, Defendants moved
for decertification of the conditional certification which was
denied.  On February 18, 2014, Defendants moved for leave to file
an interlocutory appeal and for a stay of proceedings under 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

A copy of Judge Wigenton's September 15, 2014 opinion is available
at http://is.gd/w8oF8cfrom Leagle.com.

FREDERICK RUFFIN, JR, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER --
seth@blbglaw.com -- KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP.

LORETTA DONATELLI, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER,
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP.

Jesus Siasoco, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER
OLSEN & LESSER, LLP.

Jennifer Rollins, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER,
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP.

Marilyn Pizarro, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Johnny Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER
OLSEN & LESSER, LLP.

Krystal L. Beck, Plaintiff, represented by Krystal L. Beck, Pro
Se.

Tony Haugabook, Plaintiff, represented by Tony Haugabook, Pro Se.

Ricardo Barriga-Galindo, Plaintiff, represented by Ricardo
Barriga-Galindo, Pro Se.

Kelvin L. Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Kelvin L. Martin, Pro
Se.

Darren Bow, Plaintiff, represented by Darren Bow, Pro Se.

Vitta Bargainer, Plaintiff, represented by Vitta Bargainer, Pro
Se.

Everette Sharpe, Plaintiff, represented by SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER
OLSEN & LESSER, LLP.

AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC, Defendant, represented by KIMBERLY J.
GOST -- kgost@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., NINA K.
MARKEY -- nmarkey@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, SARAH BRYAN
FASK -- sfask@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., HOLLY
ELIZABETH RICH -- hrich@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC &
MICHAEL D. JONES -- mdjones@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH.

AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, Defendant, represented by KIMBERLY J.
GOST, LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., NINA K. MARKEY, LITTLER MENDELSON
PC, SARAH BRYAN FASK, Littler Mendelson, P.C., HOLLY ELIZABETH
RICH, LITTLER MENDELSON PC & MICHAEL D. JONES, REED SMITH.

                           *     *     *

Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Newark won't let Avis Budget Car Rental bring
an interlocutory appeal of an order certifying a collective action
by shift managers claiming they were misclassified as exempt from
overtime.

Interlocutory review is not warranted because the defendant did
not show a substantial ground for difference of opinion beyond
mere disagreement with the court's ruling, U.S. District Judge
Susan Wigenton ruled Sept. 15 in Ruffin v. Avis Budget Car Rental.

Avis claimed certification was not warranted because of variations
in duties performed by its shift managers and in the amount of
overtime they put in, but Ms. Wigenton said the variations were
insignificant and outweighed by similarities.

The case was brought on behalf of Avis employees who claim they
were wrongly classified as exempt from overtime, even though most
have no significant managerial duties and spend a good part of
their time on menial tasks like cleaning and counting cars,
according to court documents.

Ms. Wigenton granted certification in June 2013, and Avis moved
for decertification in August 2013.  The company cited deposition
testimony indicating variations in the employees' duties and a
lack of common evidence.  On Jan. 27, Ms. Wigenton denied the
defendant's motion for decertification, finding the plaintiffs had
satisfactorily demonstrated that they were similarly situated.  On
Feb. 18, Avis moved for leave to file an interlocutory appeal and
for a stay of the proceedings.

Interlocutory relief is warranted if the court's order involves a
controlling question of law, offers substantial ground for
difference of opinion as to its correctness, and, if appealed,
would immediately materially advance the ultimate termination of
the litigation, Ms. Wigenton said.

The judge found no controlling question of law after finding two
cases cited by Avis were unavailing. Avis said the U.S. Supreme
Court's 2013 ruling in Comcast v. Behrend compels interlocutory
review.  In Comcast, the court found that a class of two million
cable television customers who sought damages for antitrust
violations was improperly certified because plaintiffs fell short
of tying their damages theory to the particular antitrust theory
upon which liability was premised.

But Ms. Wigenton said the Comcast case was distinguishable because
it concerns class certification under Rule 23, while the present
case involves a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  The Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit have repeatedly held Rule 23 certification
requirements to not apply to FLSA collective actions, she said.

Ms. Wigenton similarly rejected the defendant's reliance on the
2011 Supreme Court ruling in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes in support
of its contention that a collective action would violate its due
process rights.  The Wal-Mart case also applies to class
certification under Rule 23, Ms. Wigenton said.

Second, Ms. Wigenton said the lack of any conflicting precedent,
absence of controlling law on a particular issue, or novel and
complex issues of statutory interpretation indicated no
substantial ground for a difference of opinion exists in the
present case.  The defendant's mere disagreement with the court's
finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that they
are similarly situated failed to constitute a substantial ground
for a difference in opinion, Ms. Wigenton said.

Finally, Ms. Wigenton said an interlocutory appeal would not
materially advance the litigation, since the plaintiffs would be
able to refile their cases individually if decertification were
granted upon interlocutory appeal, and the ease and cost of
discovery would remain the same, she said.

The New Jersey collective action involves about 60 workers, and a
similar suit is pending against Avis in the Eastern District of
New York, with about 200 workers.  In the New York case, a motion
to decertify the class is still pending, according to Seth Lesser
of Klafter Olsen & Lesser in Rye Brook, N.Y., who represents
plaintiffs in both cases.  A third misclassification case against
Avis is pending in the Central District of Florida.

Lesser said the defendant's position was that "unless each of
these people are identical to each other, you can't proceed as a
class action," but the law in the Third Circuit does support that
view, he said.  Discovery in the New Jersey case is nearly
complete, and a trial is approaching, he said.

Kimberly Gost -- kgost@littler.com -- and Nina Markey --
nmarkey@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson in Philadelphia,
representing Avis, did not respond to a request for comment about
the ruling.


BACK YARD BURGERS: Claims Period in "Keith" Suit to Begin Nov. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Laurie Smith Camp granted preliminary
approval of a settlement in the case captioned BRADY KEITH,
Individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff, v. BACK YARD
BURGERS OF NEBRASKA, INC.; BACKYARD BURGERS, INC., and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, CASE NO. 8:11-CV-00135, (D. Neb.).

A copy of Judge Camp's September 15, 2014 order which is available
at http://is.gd/vI55Kufrom Leagle.com.

The "Class," as defined in Section 2.1, of the Agreement of
Settlement, consists of all persons who used a Visa, MasterCard,
or Discover debit or credit card, and/or American Express credit
card at any of Defendant's restaurant where Defendant provided an
electronically printed receipt at the point of sale or transaction
that violated FACTA's truncation requirements of that person's
credit or debit card for a time period beginning November 3, 2010,
until the date of the filing of the Action, April 15, 2011.

Plaintiff Brady Keith is appointed as Class Representative.

Joshua C. Dickinson and Bryant T. Lamer of the law firm of Spencer
Fane Britt & Browne LLP are appointed as Class Counsel.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held on February 19 at 1:00 p.m.
in Courtroom 2 of the Hruska United States Courthouse, 111 S 18th
Plaza, Omaha, NE 68102.

The Claims Period will begin on November 1, 2014. Class Members
may submit claims during the Claims Period for determination
whether their claims constitute Valid Claims.

The Settling Defendant will cause to be filed with the Court
affidavit(s) or declaration(s) of the person or persons under
whose general direction Notice will have been provided, showing
that such Notice has been provided in accordance with the Order by
December 30, 2014.

Class Counsel will submit to the Court any papers in support of
its application for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and
class representative inventive fee by February 10, 2014.

Written notice of objection, together with a statement of reasons
for the objection, must be postmarked and mailed to the Clerk of
Court within 90 days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order
and pursuant to its terms.

A request for exclusion from the Settlement Agreement must be
appropriately postmarked and mailed within 90 days after entry of
the Preliminary Approval Order and pursuant to its terms.

Brady Keith, Plaintiff, represented by Bryant T. Lamer --
blamer@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM, Joshua C.
Dickinson -- jdickinson@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM
& Lindsay T. Perkins, SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM.

Back Yard Burgers of Nebraska, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Scaglione -- greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY,
JESSEN LAW FIRM & J.Daniel Weidner --
daniel.weidner@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM.

Does 1-10, Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Scaglione, KOLEY,
JESSEN LAW FIRM & J.Daniel Weidner, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM.

Backyard Burgers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian H.
Eldridge -- beldridge@smsm.com -- SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE LAW FIRM &
Dan H. Ketcham -- dketcham@ekoklaw.com -- ENGLES, KETCHAM LAW
FIRM.

Backyard Burgers, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Brian H.
Eldridge, SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE LAW FIRM & Dan H. Ketcham, ENGLES,
KETCHAM LAW FIRM.

Back Yard Burgers of Nebraska, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Gregory C. Scaglione, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM & J.Daniel
Weidner, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unfair Mortgage Lending Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Unified School District v. Bank of America
Corporation; Bank of America, N.A.; Countrywide Financial
Corporation; Countrywide Home Loans; and Countrywide Bank, FSB,
Case No. 2:14-cv-07364-PA-JC (C.D. Cal., September 19, 2014)
alleges that BoA has engaged in a continuing pattern of
discriminatory mortgage lending practices in Los Angeles resulting
in foreclosures.

LAUSD seeks injunctive relief and damages for the injuries caused
by alleged foreclosures on BoA's loans in minority neighborhoods
and to minority borrowers that are the result of the Bank's
unlawful and discriminatory lending practices.  The alleged
unlawful conduct consists of both intentional discrimination and
disparate impact discrimination, the complaint said.

Los Angeles Unified School District is the second largest school
district in the nation. LAUSD's boundaries spread over 720 square
miles and include the City of Los Angeles as well as all or parts
of 31 smaller municipalities plus several unincorporated sections
of Southern California.

Bank of America, N.A., is organized as a national banking
association headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.  BoA
maintains multiple offices in California, including in the city of
Los Angeles, for the purposes of soliciting applications for and
making residential mortgage loans and engaging in other business
activities.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. is a New York-incorporated wholly-
owned subsidiary of CFC with its principal business office in
Calabasas, California.  Countrywide Bank, FSB was originally
chartered as a national bank subject to supervision by the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, and was a subsidiary of
financial holding company CFC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com
                  lee@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          David R. Holmquist, Esq.
          Gregory L. McNair, Esq.
          OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
          LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
          333 S. Beaudry Avenue, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 241-6601
          Facsimile: (213) 241-8993
          E-mail: david.holmquist@lausd.net
                  gregory.mcnair@lausd.net

               - and -

          Clifton Albright, Esq.
          ALBRIGHT YEE & SCHMIT
          888 West 6th Street, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 833-1700
          Facsimile: (213) 833-1710
          E-mail: clifton.albright@ayslaw.com


BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Settles Storm Financial Suit for AU$20-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Walsh, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that Bank of
Queensland has bitten the bullet and decided to settle legal
actions with Storm Financial victims in a AU$20 million payout.
But BoQ still maintained in an announcement on Sept. 22 that it
denied wrongdoing.

The move marks a backtrack after BoQ for years argued it would
defend the actions, and engaged in lengthy litigation.

Storm Financial was a Townsville-based financial advisory firm
whose clients were wiped out around the global financial crisis as
their share portfolios got wiped out.  Unfortunately, many of them
had borrowed from banks -- including BoQ -- to invest in stocks.
It would settle actions launched by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission and a class action.

The settlement would mean a gross payout of AU$19.7 million
including a AU$17 million payout to customers.  Boq would take a
AU$22 million profit hit.

The Storm saga erupted under previous management at BoQ, but new
management in recent years had indicated they would not settle.
The latest accounts also stated that Boq was awaiting a judgment
in the ASIC matter and would "vigorously defend" the class action.


BAYVILLE LAND: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Scott Bebry v. Bayville Land Holdings, LLC, a Domestic
Limited Liability Company and Bayville Avenue Hospitality
Management, Inc a Domestic Business Corporation d/b/a Breakers
Sports Bar and Grill, Case No. 1:14-cv-05537 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 22, 2014) is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the New York State Civil Rights Law and the New York State Human
Rights Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he made several visits to the
Defendants' Breakers Sports Bar and Grill, a restaurant located in
Bayville, New York, but was denied full and equal access to the
facilities at the Defendants' Property.  The Plaintiff is
paralyzed as a result of an accident and uses a wheelchair for
mobility.

The Defendants are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Robles, Esq.
          471 54th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11220
          Telephone: (718) 492-3600
          Facsimile: (718) 492-3008
          E-mail: detect2112@yahoo.com


BBC4 LLC: Sued by Ex-Chef in Michigan Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suei Kuang Lee v. BBC4, LLC d/b/a Big Blues Ribs and More and
Jeremy Syrocki, individually and in his capacity as Manager of
BBC4, LLC, and Anthony Syrocki, individually and in his capacity
as Manager of BBC4, LLC, joint and severally liable, Case No.
2:14-cv-13635-VAR-MKM (E.D. Mich., September 19, 2014) is brought
to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Suei Kuang Lee is a resident of Michigan and was employed by BBC4,
LLC, as a "Chef" in its Monroe, Michigan restaurant for
approximately 3 years.

Headquartered and organized in Michigan, BBC4, LLC, doing business
as Big Blues Ribs and More, is engaged in the restaurant business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Delekta, Esq.
          Diane Hubel Delekta, Esq.
          DELEKTA & DELEKTA P.C.
          80880 Main Street, Box 595
          Memphis, MI 48041
          Telephone: (810) 392-3834
          E-mail: brian@delektalaw.com
                  diane@delektalaw.com


BBVA COMPASS: Continues to Defend "Deaver" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in November
2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, Cheryl Deaver, on behalf of herself
and others so situated v. Compass Bank, wherein the plaintiff
alleges the Company failed to provide lawful meal periods or wages
in lieu thereof, full compensation for hours worked, or timely
wages due at termination (the plaintiff had previously filed a
similar lawsuit in May 2011 which was dismissed without prejudice
when the plaintiff failed to meet certain filing deadlines). The
plaintiff further alleges that the Company did not comply with
wage statement requirements. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial
defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously.


BLACK PEPPER PHO: Bid to Approve Blocklin Suit Settlement Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix denied without prejudice a joint
motion for court approval of a settlement in CHELSEA BLOCKLIN,
JALEN AQUINO, HUYEN TRAN DUONG, JACQUELINE DALLMAN, KHAI TRAN, and
PHUONG-ANH CAI, On their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLACK PEPPER PHO, LLC, HUONG
DANG, and CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-
01252-WJM-KLM, (D. Col.).

The Court found that the parties have omitted any discussion of
each party's estimate of the number of hours worked and the
applicable wage.

"Before the Court can approve the parties' proposed settlement
agreement, the parties must address these factors, as well as the
factors listed in Baker regarding whether to approve a class
action settlement: "(1) whether the parties fairly and honestly
negotiated the settlement; (2) whether serious questions of law
and fact exist which place the ultimate outcome of the litigation
in doubt; (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs
the mere possibility of future relief after protracted litigation;
and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair
and reasonable,"" ruled Magistrate Judge Mix.  "The Court will
reevaluate the proposed settlement after filing of a renewed
motion by the parties that discusses each of these factors. The
renewed motion should include a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement as well," he added.

The parties may file an Amended Joint Motion for Court Approval of
Settlement on or before October 15, 2014.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Mix's September 15, 2014 order is
available at http://is.gd/tULmFufrom Leagle.com.

Chelsea Blocklin, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein
-- Brandt@MilsteinLawOffice.com -- Milstein Law Office.

Jalen Aquino, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein,
Milstein Law Office.

Huyen Tran Duong, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers
Milstein, Milstein Law Office.

Jacqueline Dallman, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers
Milstein, Milstein Law Office.

Khai Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein,
Milstein Law Office.

Phuong-Anh Cai, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers
Milstein, Milstein Law Office.

Black Pepper Pho, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se.

Huong Dang, Defendant, Pro Se.

Christopher John, Defendant, Pro Se.


BODY CENTRAL: Parties to Settle Class Action for $3.4 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action lawsuit against Body Central Corp.
informed the court that the parties had reached an agreement in
principle to settle this action for $3.4 million and requested a
30-day extension to allow the parties an opportunity to execute a
settlement agreement, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2014.

On August 27, 2012, a securities class action, Mogensen v. Body
Central Corp. et al., 3:12-cv-00954, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors.  An amended complaint, filed on February
22, 2013, on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's stock
between November 10, 2011 and June 18, 2012, alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false or
misleading statements about the business and operations, thereby
causing the stock price to be artificially inflated during that
period.  The amended complaint seeks monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees.

On March 19, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The court gave plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.

A second amended complaint was subsequently filed on April 23,
2014, which, in addition to the allegations previously filed,
further alleges that one of the defendants, a former officer and
director, violated Section 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934.

On May 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On July 18, 2014, the parties informed the
court that the parties had reached an agreement in principle to
settle this action for $3.4 million and requested a 30-day
extension to allow the parties an opportunity to execute a
settlement agreement.

The Company does not believe that the outcome of the class action
will have a material adverse effect on the business, financial
statements, or disclosures as it is fully insured subject to an
insurance deductible of $200,000 recorded in fiscal 2012. The full
amount of the proposed settlement is reflected on the Company's
unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheets as an insurance recoverable
and claim settlement payable.

Body Central Corp. is a specialty retailer of young women's
apparel and accessories operating retail stores in the South,
Southwest, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions of the United States.
The Company operates specialty apparel stores under the Body
Central and Body Shop banners as well as a direct business unit
marketed through the www.bodycentral.com website.


CAFEPRESS INC: "Desmarais" and "Jinnah" Cases Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The complaints captioned Desmarais v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-
522744 and captioned Jinnah v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-522976
were consolidated into one litigation matter, CafePress Inc. said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

The complaint captioned Desmarais v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-
522744 was filed on July 10, 2013, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Mateo naming as defendants the Company,
certain of its directors, its former chief executive officer, its
former chief financial officer and certain underwriters of its
IPO.  The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that
the registration statement for the IPO contained materially false
or misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.

On July 14, 2013 a similar compliant making substantially
identical allegations and captioned Jinnah v. CafePress Inc., et
al. CIV-522976 was filed in the same court against the same
defendants. In the second quarter of 2014, the cases were
consolidated into one litigation matter.

"We are, at this time, unable to assess whether any loss or
adverse effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or
to estimate the range of potential loss, if any. We believe these
suits to be without merit and will defend ourselves vigorously,"
the Company said.


CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: 9th Cir. Vacates Ruling in "Gomez" TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Navy contractor that hired a third party to send unsolicited
text messages to cellphone users as a recruitment method may be
liable for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
the 9th Circuit ruled, according to Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing
for Courthouse News Service.

The three-judge panel vacated a ruling from California's Central
District in favor of Campbell-Ewald Company on the basis of
immunity under the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity
because the Navy participated in the text-messaging campaign.

Lead plaintiff Jose Gomez filed the class action after receiving a
text message on May 11, 2006, stating: "Destined for something
big? Do it in the Navy.  Get a career.  An education.  And a
chance to serve a greater cause.  For a FREE Navy video call
[number]."

Campbell-Ewald, a marketing consultant hired to develop and
execute a multimedia recruiting campaign for the Navy, hired
third-party Mindmatics to send the message to thousands of
cellphones.  Campbell-Ewald and the Navy, which is not a
defendant, agreed to send the message to people between the ages
of 18 and 24, and only to those who had consented to solicitation.
Mindmatics, not a defendant, was responsible for generating a list
of phone numbers fitting these conditions and for transmitting the
messages.

A Navy representative testified that the Navy did not authorize
messages to be sent to people who had not opted in.

But Gomez said he did not consent to receiving the test message
and was 40 years old at the time, well outside of the specified
age range.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found in favor of Campbell-Ewald,
holding that the company was immune because it was working at the
Navy's direction to implement the text message recruitment
campaign.


But in vacating and remanding, the 9th Circuit found that Gee
applied the standard for liability under the wrong precedent, the
1940 Supreme Court decision in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction
Co.  In that case, which involved unconstitutional taking of
property, the Supreme Court found that a contractor was immune
from suit because its work was done in accordance with express
congressional directive and because the government had impliedly
promised to compensate the plaintiffs.

Ninth Circuit Judge Fortunato Benavides found that the reasoning
employed in that decision is not relevant to Gomez's case, because
his claims do not implicate a constitutional promise to compensate
injured plaintiffs.

"Instead, Congress has expressly created a federal cause of action
affording individuals like Gomez standing to seek compensation for
violations of the TCPA.  In the 70-year history of the Yearsley
doctrine, it has apparently never been invoked to preclude
litigation of a dispute like the one before us," Benavides wrote
for the court.  "This court, in particular, has rarely allowed use
of the defense, and only in the context of property damage
resulting from public works projects."

Benavides also rejected Campbell-Ewald's argument that more recent
cases provide the company with immunity, as they were not
applicable to Gomez's case.

The 9th Circuit declined to establish a new immunity for
government service contractors as suggested by Campbell-Ewald,
noting that "immunity must be extended with the utmost care."

"The record contains sufficient evidence that the text messages
were contrary to the Navy's policy permitting texts only to
persons who had opted in to receive them.  Consequently, we
decline the invitation to craft a new immunity doctrine or extend
an existing one," Benavides wrote.

The 9th Circuit also rejected Campbell-Ewald's argument that it
cannot be held liable for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
violations because it outsourced the sending of the text messages
to Mindmatics.

Several district courts have concluded that the TCPA imposes
vicarious liability between a defendant and a third-party caller,
and the Federal Communications Commission recognizes vicarious
liability for violations committed by third-party telemarketers.

"The present case affords an opportunity to clarify that a
defendant may be held vicariously liable for TCPA violations where
the plaintiff establishes an agency relationship, as defined by
federal common law, between the defendant and a third-party
caller," Benavides wrote.

The 9th Circuit also rejected Campbell-Ewald's claim that the
federal statute restricting unsolicited text messaging is
unconstitutional.  The government's imposition of restrictions of
protected speech do not extend only to the protection of
residential privacy.

There is no evidence that the government's interest in privacy
ends at home, and furthermore, "the nature of cell phones renders
the restriction of unsolicited text messaging all the more
necessary to ensure that privacy.  After all, it seems safe to
assume that most cellular users have their phones with them when
they are at home.  Campbell-Ewald itself notes that in many
households a cell phone is the home phone," Benavides wrote.

Campbell-Ewald also argued that the military recruiting messages
were a form of government speech, afforded greater protection by
the First Amendment.  However, the government speech doctrine is a
theory that states that the government need not maintain viewpoint
neutrality in its own speech.

"(I)n this context, the doctrine would preclude Campbell-Ewald
from demanding that the Navy create an advertising campaign that
discourages military participation.  The government speech
doctrine is simply immaterial to the present dispute, in which the
plaintiff is not advocating for viewpoint neutrality, but is
instead challenging the regulation of a particular means of
communication," Benavides wrote.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          161 N. Clark St., 47th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 216-5179

               - and -

          Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
          MCMORROW LAW, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, 44th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 265-0708
          E-mail: mike@mjmcmorrow.com

               - and -

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine St., Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Laura A. Wytsma, Esq.
          Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
          Christine M. Reilly, Esq.
          Meredith J. Siller, Esq.
          LOEB & LOEB LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282-2000
          Facsimile: (310) 282-2200
          E-mail: lwytsma@loeb.com
                  mmallow@loeb.com
                  creilly@loeb.com
                  msiller@loeb.com

The appellate case is Jose Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Company, Case
No. 13-55486, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The trial court case is Jose Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald
Company, Case No. 2:10-cv-02007-DMG-CW, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.


CANNAVEST CORP: Has Not Yet Answered "Sallustro" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
CannaVEST Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Tanya Sallustro filed
on April 23, 2014, a purported class action complaint (the
"Complaint") in the Southern District of New York (the "Court")
alleging securities fraud and related claims against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors and seeking compensatory
damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro alleges that
between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares of the
Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791. The
Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current
Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014
and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously
disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were
restated to $1,082,375 - reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).
Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent
to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals have
filed a motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the
litigation. The Court scheduled a hearing on August 14, 2014 to
consider the motions for designation as lead plaintiff. The other
individuals seeking lead plaintiff designation are: Wayne Chesner;
Anamaria Schelling; Mark Williams; Otilda LaMont; Jane Ish and
Steve Schuck.

The Company has not yet answered the Complaint and management
intends to vigorously defend the allegations. Since the action was
recently filed and no discovery has been conducted, an estimate of
the possible loss cannot be made at this time.

CannaVEST Corp. (formerly Foreclosure Solutions, Inc.) is in the
business of developing, producing, marketing and selling end
consumer products to the nutraceutical industry containing the
hemp plant extract, Cannabidiol ("CBD"), and reselling to third
parties raw product acquired by us pursuant to our supply
relationships in Europe.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Removed "Hitt" Suit to California District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hitt v. Cardinal Health 414
LLC, et al., Case No. BC553697, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-07403 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lois M. Kosch, Esq.
          WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1050
          San Diego, CA 92101-3532
          Telephone: (619) 236-9600
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
          E-mail: lkosch@wilsonturnerkosmo.com


CARE ONE: Judge Tosses Bid to Sanction Plaintiff in TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee and David Siegel, writing for Law360, report that a
New Jersey federal judge on Sept. 22 rejected health care provider
Care One LLC's bid to sanction a plaintiff and his attorney for
knowingly filing false statements in a proposed class action
accusing the company of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton denied Care One's motion for
sanctions against Stephen J. Simoni, who represents his spouse,
John Sacchi, in the suit alleging Care One sent Mr. Sacchi
unauthorized telephone solicitations.  The judge didn't include
any information on the decision beyond a two-page order, which
said the motion was "denied for reasons set forth on the record."

Counsel for Care One, attorneys at Cole Schotz Meisel Forman &
Leonard PA, filed the motion for sanctions last month on the basis
that Mr. Simoni's filings on behalf of Mr. Sacchi knowingly made
false statements.  But Mr. Simoni says the motion was meritless.

"My suspicion is that Care One's attorneys at Cole Schotz are
fighting this so vociferously and refusing to settle for even a
nominal amount because Cole Schotz may have mistakenly advised
Care One that the RoboCall Campaign was lawful, which it
absolutely is not," Mr. Simoni told Law360 on Sept. 22, further
noting that the affidavit of their marketing vendor was a
"veritable blueprint for how to commit a TCPA violation."

"Cole Schotz apparently advised Care One incorrectly that such a
RoboCall campaign was permissible and is fighting tooth-and-nail
to avoid having to concede same," Mr. Simoni added.

Judge Wigenton handed down two orders on Sept. 22.  The judge
rejected Care One's motion for sanctions against Mr. Sacchi and
his attorney for filing allegedly false statements and, in a
separate brief order, denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment
on the pleadings.

On Aug. 22, Care One filed its motion saying that Mr. Simoni, who
is a registered nurse, was the actual recipient of the allegedly
unauthorized communications after he or someone on his behalf
consented to receive telephone updates about employment
opportunities in the health care industry from Guide Publications,
an outside company hired by Care One.

Mr. Simoni claims that, despite Care One's stating that his name
appears on a list of nurses whom Guide Publications was authorized
to contact on Care One's behalf and that Mr. Simoni was the
intended recipient, the calls instead went to Mr. Sacchi's phone,
therefore making them unsolicited communications prohibited by the
TCPA.

Mr. Simoni previously argued that Care One's motion for sanctions
was meant to serve as a substitution for a viable defense, citing
an August letter from Mr. Simoni to counsel for Care One stating
that Care One's answer to Mr. Sacchi's complaint failed to assert
any denial that it made unauthorized prerecorded sales calls.
However, Care One's motion for sanctions stated it "categorically
denied" making any illegal calls in its answer to the complaint.

Mr. Sacchi is represented by Stephen J. Simoni of The Law Offices
of Stephen J. Simoni and Richard S. Meisner -- rich@jmslawyers.com
-- of Jardim Meisner & Susser PC.

Care One is represented by Michael D. Sirota --
msirota@coleschotz.com -- and Jamie P. Clare --
jclare@coleschotz.com -- of Cole Schotz Meisel Forman & Leonard
PA.

The case is John Sacchi v. Care One LLC, case number 2:14-cv-
00698, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


CARPENTERS PENSION: Court Certifies Class in ERISA Case
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Laurie J. Michelson certified the class in the case
captioned THOMAS E. UNDERWOOD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST
FUND-DETROIT AND VICINITY, and TRUSTEES OF CARPENTERS PENSION
TRUST FUND-DETROIT AND VICINITY, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-14464,
(E.D. Mich.).

The Court certified the class defined as: All persons who
commenced receiving disability benefits from Carpenters Pension
Trust Fund-Detroit & Vicinity Pension Plan on or after September
1, 2008, and who were receiving those disability benefits on
August 1, 2013.

The class is certified to pursue their claims under ERISA Section
502(a)(1)(B) (29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B)) to recover benefits
due under the terms of the Plan, enforce their rights under the
terms of the Plan, and clarify their rights to future benefits
under the terms of the Plan.

Thomas E. Underwood is appointed as the class representative.

Hertz Schram, P.C., is appointed as class counsel.

To provide notice to the class as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), the Court ordered the Defendants'
counsel to provide to class counsel by September 30, 2014, a list
of all individuals who meet the class definition, with all current
contact information in Defendants' possession.

Class counsel is ordered to file a Notice Plan with the Court by
October 15, 2014. The Plan will set forth proposed language for
the notice and will address the relevant checkpoints in the
Federal Judicial Center's Class Action Notice and Claims Process
Checklist, available at: http://is.gd/6dxPhw

A copy of Judge Michelson's September 15, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/RYnZ0cfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas E. Underwood, Plaintiff, represented by Eva T. Cantarella
-- ecantarella@hertzschram.com -- Hertz, Schram.

Carpenters Pension Trust Fund - Detroit and Vicinity Pension Plan,
Defendant, represented by Edward J. Pasternak --
ejp@novaratesija.com -- Novara, Tesija.

Carpenters Pension Trust Fund - Detroit and Vicinity Pension Plan,
Trustees of, Defendant, represented by Edward J. Pasternak,
Novara, Tesija.


CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Insurer to Pay $837,500 Portion of Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Francis Howard
("Howard"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed on October 12, 2012, a lawsuit against the
Company, Michael D. Pruitt, Eric S. Lederer, Michael Carroll, Paul
I. Moskowitz, Keith Johnson (the "Individual Defendants"),
Merriman Capital, Inc., Dawson James Securities, Inc. (the
"Underwriter Defendants"), and Creason & Associates P.L.L.C.
("Creason"), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.  The class action lawsuit alleges violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act against all Defendants,
violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against only
the Underwriter Defendants, and violations of Section 15 against
the Individual Defendants.  Howard seeks unspecified damages,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, and such
other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

On October 31, 2012, the Company and the Individual Defendants
retained Stanley Wakshlag at Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. to represent
them in this litigation. On December 12, 2012, Howard filed a
Motion to Appoint himself lead Plaintiff and to approve his
selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as his counsel.  An Order
appointing Francis Howard and the Rosen Law Firm as lead Plaintiff
and lead Plaintiff's counsel was entered on January 4, 2013.

On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
alleging similar claims to those previously asserted.  On May 20,
2013, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without
prejudice of Defendants Dawson James Securities, Inc. and Merriman
Capital, Inc.

On September 17, 2013, Judge Cohn denied the Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss and ordered that Defendants file Answers to Plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint by October 8, 2013, and that the
trial be set for the two-week period commencing May 12, 2014. The
Company and Individual Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint on October 7, 2013.

A Scheduling Order was entered on October 8, 2013 after a
Scheduling Conference was held, whereby a timeframe was set for
Disclosures, Mediation, Joinder of Parties and Amendment of
Pleadings, Discovery, and Pre-Trial Motions. The parties have made
initial disclosures, and document requests and interrogatories
have been served. On December 18, 2013, the parties filed a Joint
Status Report Relating to Mediation, whereby the parties disclosed
details of a class-wide settlement of this action.

The parties have agreed on a total settlement amount of $850,000,
with $837,500 to be paid by the Company's insurance carrier and
$12,500 to be paid by Creason, subject to court approval. All
parties have executed a definitive settlement agreement consistent
with terms previously disclosed, which was  filed with the court
on March 31, 2014, along with a request seeking preliminary
approval of the settlement.

Preliminary approval was received from the court on April 23,
2014. The final hearing was set for August 14, 2014.

The amount of $837,500 was paid by the Company's insurance carrier
into an escrow account. The Company has and will continue to
vigorously defend itself in this matter.


CITICORP USA: Obtains Final Approval of "Barela" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales granted final approval of a
settlement in the case captioned DANIEL BARELA and ERICA BEGAY on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITICORP USA, INC., Defendant, CIV. NO. 11-506
KG/GBW, (D.N.M.).

The Class is approved which consists of all current and former
telephone-dedicated representatives who have been employees of
Citi's Albuquerque, New Mexico call center from May 5, 2007 until
June 4, 2014 and who did not participate in the settlement in
Tolanda Osby et al. v. Citigroup Inc. et al., No. 5:07-CV-06085-
NKL (W.D. Mo.). The Class does not include Pamela Benavidez or
Patti Psomas, who were the only two Settlement Class Members to
opt out of the Class.

The Court confirms Youtz and Valdez, P.C., Franklin D. Azar and
Associates, PC, and Paul McInnes LLP as Class Counsel.

The Court awards $133,333.33 in Class Counsel attorneys' fees and
$30,000 in expenses.

The Court approves the Service Awards requested and orders that
payment in these amounts be made in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement: $2,500 each to Daniel Barela and Erica
Begay.

The case is dismissed with prejudice, with the Court retaining
continuing jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Gonzales' September 15, 2014 final order and
judgment is available at http://is.gd/nPBSUYfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel Barela, Plaintiff, represented by Franklin D Azar --
azarf@fdazar.com -- Franklin D Azar & Associates, Jack D. McInnes
-- mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes, LLP, James A.
Montalbano, Youtz & Valdez, PC, Jane Good Rowe, Franklin D. Azar &
Associates, Keith R. Scranton, Franklin D Azar & Associates PC,
Nathan J Axvig -- axvign@fdazar.com -- Frank D. Azar & Associates,
Richard M. Paul -- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes, LLP,
Shane C Youtz -- Shane@youtzvaldez.com -- Youtz & Valdez PC &
Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, PC.

Erica Begay, Plaintiff, represented by Franklin D Azar, Franklin D
Azar & Associates, Jack D. McInnes, Paul McInnes, LLP, James A.
Montalbano, Youtz & Valdez, PC, Jane Good Rowe, Franklin D. Azar &
Associates, Keith R. Scranton, Franklin D Azar & Associates PC,
Nathan J Axvig, Frank D. Azar & Associates, Richard M. Paul, Paul
McInnes, LLP, Shane C Youtz, Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice,
Youtz & Valdez, PC.

Citicorp USA INC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Gregory P. Abrams -- gabrams@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Samuel Shaulson -- sshaulson@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sari Alamuddin --
salamuddin@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Whitney Warner, Moody & Warner PC.


COLLECTION BUREAU: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Menachem Tirnover, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Collection Bureau Hudson Valley, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-05556 (E.D.N.Y., September 22, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating 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


CONNECTICUT, USA: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Huminski, for himself and Those similarly situated v. State
of Connecticut, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01390-MPS (D. Conn.,
September 22, 2014) seeks relief under the Civil Rights Act.

The Defendants are the State of Connecticut; Shumlin, Governor;
Joseph Arpaio, Sheriff; Maricopa County Sheriff's Office; State of
Vermont; William Sorrell, Attorney Gen.; Malloy, Governor; Jepson,
Connecticut Atty. General; State of Arizona, The; Jan Brewer,
Governor; Horne, Arizona Attorney General; Town of Gilbert,
Arizona; Gilbert Police Department; Debra Hartin, Detective;
Gilbert Police John Doe #1; Town of Wilton, Connecticut; Wilton
Police Department; Pete Trehan, Detective; City of Surprise,
Arizona; Surprise Police Department; John Bacon, LT.; Harold
Brady, LT.; Hector Heredia, Officer; Hector Heredia, Police
Officer; City of Norwalk, Connecticut; Norwalk Police Department;
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Maricopa County Attorney's Office;
Martha Coakley, MA A.G.; Devel Patrick, Gov.; and Tim Dorn.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


COVENTRY FIRST: Arbitration Denied in Insurance Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael N. Wolgin, Esq. -- mwolgin@cfjblaw.com -- of Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for Lexology, reports that in a
life settlement transaction, in which a life insurance policy is
sold by its owner to another for more than its cash-surrender
value but less than the net death benefit, the seller contended
that the broker and purchaser conspired to rig the bidding
process, resulting in undisclosed kickbacks to the broker.  The
seller filed a putative class action against the broker,
purchaser, and related entities alleging fraud and other similar
claims.  The defendants moved to compel arbitration (among other
things), relying on an arbitration clause in the purchase
agreement.  The seller, however, had formed a trust to acquire the
policy and never personally participated in the purchase
agreement.  The trial court thus denied arbitration, finding that
the seller was a non-signatory against whom arbitration could not
be compelled.  The defendants appealed, and the Third Circuit
affirmed, holding that the seller of the policy could not be
equitably estopped from avoiding the reach of the purchase
agreement.  The court explained that the "alleged fraud was
related to the purchase agreement -- it set the purchase price
and, allegedly, the inflated, undisclosed broker's commission.
But that alone is not sufficient to compel arbitration under the
equitable estoppel doctrine: the claims must be based directly on
the agreement."  Here, the allegedly fraudulent kickback agreement
"took place prior to and apart from the execution of the purchase
agreement." Griswold v. Coventry First LLC, Case No. 13-1879 (3d
Cir. Aug. 11, 2014).


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Meyer" Suit Over Faulty Pinnacle Hips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Meyer v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson and Johnson
Services, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-03394-K
(N.D. Tex., September 19, 2014) alleges that because of the
defective design of the Defendants' Pinnacle Hips products,
thousands of patients, including the Plaintiff, continue to have
problems, including pain, discomfort, swelling and decreased
mobility as well as increased levels of metal ions in victims'
blood.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants knew or should have
known the Pinnacle Hip could fail early in patients and, thereby,
give rise to pain and suffering, debilitation and the need for
additional surgery to replace the device with continuing risks and
complications.

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is an Indiana corporation headquartered
in Warsaw, Indiana.  Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., is a New
Jersey corporation headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
DePuy and Johnson and Johnson Services are subsidiaries of Johnson
and Johnson.  Defendant Johnson and Johnson is a New Jersey
corporation also headquartered in New Brunswick.  The Defendants
design, manufacture, market and sell medical devices, including
reconstructive hip implants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Drew Parker, Esq.
          PARKER & PARKER
          411 Hamilton Blvd., Suite 1900
          Peoria, IL 61602
          Telephone: (309) 673-0069
          Facsimile: (309) 673-8791
          E-mail: parkerparker@mtco.com


DIGICON CORP: Former Employee Files Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jill R. Aitoro, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports
that Digicon Corp. is being accused of misclassifying employees as
exempt in an attempt to get out of paying overtime.

Jacqueline Thompson, a former help desk specialist with the
Herndon government contractor, filed a class-action lawsuit
Sept. 19 in the U.S. District Court in D.C., alleging the company
violated fair labor laws by claiming the exemptions for
information technology services staff despite the fact that the
individuals -- "far more than 50," according to the complaint --
are paid hourly and hold no supervisory duties or
responsibilities, or decision-making authority.

While no other plaintiffs were noted, individuals who would
qualify to be a part of the suit include IT services staff in the
U.S. and/or supporting federal contracts elsewhere, who performed
their duties from Sept. 19, 2011 to present, and who were
misclassified as exempt and not paid overtime for all hours worked
in excess of forty ours work week.

Thompson noted in the complaint that her exempt status was
assigned when she began to support a contract with the Commodities
Futures Trading Commission.  She previously had been deemed non-
exempt while performing "essentially identical duties" under a
contract with the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

Thompson claimed she frequently worked more than 40 hours per work
week in both positions and was required to inform her supervisor
when she did so.  According to the complaint, at no time while she
was working in the CFTC position was she paid time and a half for
the overtime hours she worked.

The alleged practice by Digicon of claiming employees to be
exempt, and subsequently not paying overtime, began more than
three years ago, the complaint states.

Digicon, which according to the lawsuit has an annual gross volume
of sales that exceeds $500 million, has not yet been served with
the complaint, said Amanda Vaccaro, an attorney with Jackson Lewis
P.C. that represents the company. Regardless, she added, it would
not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit includes individual and collective claims against
Digicon for violations of the Federal labor Standards Act and D.C.
wage and hour laws.  It's asking that Digicon be ordered to pay
all owed overtime wages as well as liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest and legal fees to Thompson and all other
members that qualify under the class action.


DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Flournoy" Suit in Middle District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tegwyn Flournoy, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01153-BJD-MCR (M.D.
Fla., September 22, 2014) is brought over restrictions on use of
telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON, PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com
                  jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com
                  mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com


DUNKIN' DONUTS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Pittsburgh
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul DeBenedetto, writing for Law360, reports that a Dunkin'
Donuts franchisee violated federal and state law when it refused
to pay overtime to Pittsburgh-area assistant managers for at least
two years, a proposed class action filed in Pennsylvania federal
court on Sept. 19 claims.

Plaintiff Helen Rambo, an employee with the doughnut shop from
January 2012 through April 2014, alleges she and other assistant
managers were incorrectly categorized as overtime-exempt
employees, even though they didn't meet the requirements under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The group, culled from throughout the company's 29 Pittsburgh-area
locations, says Dunkin' Donuts altered time sheets to say that the
assistant managers worked 50 hours a week, even though they
routinely worked more than 55 hours per week and sometimes more
than 65 hours, at a flat salary of $462.50 per week.  Many of
their duties overlapped with those of nonexempt employees,
including baking, working the cash register and preparing and
serving food, the complaint says.

"Considering the hours she worked, [Rambo] made the same or even
less per hour than the hourly employees, particularly when the
hourly employees also earned overtime pay," the complaint said.

The plaintiffs argued that they were eligible for overtime and did
not qualify for the FLSA's executive employee overtime exemption
because they did not regularly manage more than one employee at a
time.

The complaint identified about 10 other assistant managers
allegedly denied overtime by Dunkin' Donuts dating back to at
least September 2011, within the PMWA three-year statute of
limitations and the FLSA statute of limitations for willful
violations.

A spokesman for Dunkin' Donuts said the company was aware of the
suit but declined to comment.

The doughnut chain got into similar hot water last year, when the
U.S. Department of Labor found that a franchisee with more than 55
New York and New Jersey locations failed to pay about $200,000 in
overtime wages.

In that investigation, the DOL's Wage and Hour Division also found
that management at two Dunkin' Donuts locations used tips to cover
register shortages.

Rambo and the other assistant managers are looking for unspecified
back pay for all overtime worked since September 2011, as well as
reimbursement of attorneys' fees.

The proposed class is represented by Joseph H. Chivers and John R.
Linkosky from the Employment Rights Group in Pittsburgh.

The case is Helen Rambo v. Heartland Restaurant Group, d.b.a.
Dunkin' Donuts, case number 2:14-cv-01257-MRH, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.


ECOLAB INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Territory Reps, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lavalley, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. Ecolab, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-03649-DWF-JSM (D.
Minn., September 22, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and the
proposed class members regularly work in excess of 40 hours in a
week for which Ecolab does not pay them overtime at a rate of one
and one-half their regular rate of pay.

The Plaintiff and the Class worked for Ecolab as Territory
Representatives and Senior Territory Representatives, whose
primary duty is performing service work on customers' commercial
machinery at the customers' commercial location.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, Ecolab, Inc. is a Fortune 500
company that had revenues of over $13 billion in 2011.  Ecolab has
more than 25,000 employees who serve customers in more than 170
countries in a wide range of industries, including equipment care.
Ecolab is a Delaware corporation that develops and markets
technologies and services to the food, energy, healthcare, and
hospitality industries.  The services Ecolab provides include
providing cleaning and sanitizing services to quick service
restaurants and food retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3205
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com

               - and -

          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          GETMAN & SWEENEY
          9 Paradies Lane
          New Paltz, NY 12561
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8749
          E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


ECOTALITY INC: Court Dismisses Claims in Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti granted a motion to dismiss claims in
IN RE ECOTALITY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, MASTER FILE NO. 13-
03791-SC, (N.D. Cal.).  This is putative class action against
Defendants and ECOtality, Inc. for making allegedly misleading
statements that caused them to buy overvalued ECOtality stock.

Some of Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice, while
others are dismissed with leave to amend, ruled Judge Conti.
Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint that addresses the
court's concerns within 30 days. Failure to do so may result in
the dismissal of all claims in the action with prejudice, he
added.

A copy of Judge Conti's September 16, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/Fj7udOfrom Leagle.com.

Hua-Chen Jenny Lin, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Paul
Seefer, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Amber L. Eck, Zeldes Haeggquist
& Eck, LLP, Mary K. Blasy, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Samuel H. Rudman, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.

Jonathan W. Diamond, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Paul
Seefer, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Amber L. Eck, Zeldes Haeggquist
& Eck, LLP, Mary K. Blasy, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Samuel H. Rudman, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.

Joseph W. Vale, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Edward Cochran,
Robbins Geller, et al., Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Christopher Paul Seefer, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

H. Ravi Brar, Defendant, represented by Adam Christopher Trigg,
Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael Walker, Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP, Joseph Bernard
Woodring, Cooley LLP & Tower Charles Snow, Jr., Cooley LLP.

Susie Herrman, Defendant, represented by Adam Christopher Trigg,
Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael Walker, Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP, Joseph Bernard
Woodring, Cooley LLP & Tower Charles Snow, Jr., Cooley LLP.

Enrique Santacana, Defendant, represented by Adam Christopher
Trigg, Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP,
Joseph Bernard Woodring, Cooley LLP & Tower Charles Snow, Jr.,
Cooley LLP.

Kevin Cameron, Defendant, represented by Adam Christopher Trigg,
Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Joseph
Bernard Woodring, Cooley LLP & Tower Charles Snow, Jr., Cooley
LLP.

Andrew Tang, Defendant, represented by Adam Christopher Trigg,
Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP, Joseph
Bernard Woodring, Cooley LLP & Tower Charles Snow, Jr., Cooley
LLP.

Paul Sarnoff, Movant, represented by Mark Punzalan, Punzalan Law,
P.C..

Marvin Hoffman, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Edgar D. Marcha, Movant, represented by Hal Davis Cunningham,
Scott + Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP.

George Dixon III, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner, The
Wagner Firm.

Thomas J. Bishop, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Eric M Cohen, Miscellaneous, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Investor Sues Over Student Aid Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mandak, writing for Associated Press, reports that an investor
has filed a federal lawsuit seeking class-action status against
Pittsburgh-based Education Management Corp. seeking to recoup
losses resulting from the for-profit college company's ongoing
run-ins with federal regulators.

The lawsuit contends an investor identified as Brian H. Robb and
others have lost money since August 2012 because the company has
come under Justice Department scrutiny for the way it recruited
students and alleged violations of new federal regulations
governing federal student aid.

EDMC runs 110 schools in 32 states, including trade schools for
chefs and artists. Its schools include Argosy University, The Art
Institutes, Brown Mackie Colleges and South University.

The lawsuit contends the company's earnings statements have
obscured the fallout from EDMC's running battle with the Justice
Department and an effort by the Securities and Exchange Commission
to subpoena its records last year, causing its stock to drop.

"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," the lawsuit filed on Sept. 22
said.

EDMC shares were trading at $1.09 on the NASDAQ exchange on
Sept. 22, down 5 cents -- and a small-fraction of the company's
52-week high of $16.94.

EDMC spokesman Tyler Gronbach said the company has no comment on
the lawsuit.

The company, which has about 23,000 employees, including 2,000 in
Pittsburgh, has laid off about 450 employees nationwide and sold
off its Art Institute of Pittsburgh building in recent months.
The company's troubles began in 2007 when two former whistle-
blowing employees filed a lawsuit that remained sealed and unknown
to the public until the U.S. Justice Department and several states
intervened in 2011.

The lawsuit contends EDMC exaggerated its career placement
abilities and paid recruiters using enrollment-based incentives
that violate federal financial aid regulations.  The Justice
Department and attorneys general from 13 states want the school to
forfeit more than $11 billion the company received in federal and
state student aid it's received since 2003.

The school has denied the allegations, and provided statistics it
contends prove its recruiters weren't solely paid on enrollment
statistics, which is illegal.

The SEC has since also questioned how the company paid its
recruiters and last year subpoenaed documents about how EDMC has
calculated and reported its bad debt expenses on earnings reports.

The school has blamed its debt problems on federal rules that
tightened the availability of student loans.  EDMC has begun
offering more scholarships and giving students more time to pay
back such loans, but has said it still expects bad debts to
increase compared to net revenue.

The investor lawsuit parrots federal regulatory concerns that the
company knowingly recruited students it knew were likely to drop
out of school after a few months, without regard to the students'
welfare, in order to receive federal education funds.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Has Overstated Its Revenue, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian H. Robb, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Education Management Corporation, Edward H. West,
Randall J. Killeen, and Mick J. Beekhuizen, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01287-DSC (W.D. Pa., September 19, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.

Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendants made false or
misleading statements and failed to disclose that:

   (1) EDMC was overstating revenue by not properly increasing
       its bad debt reserve upon student withdrawals;

   (2) EDMC was overstating goodwill;

   (3) EDMC manipulated federal student loan and grant programs
       in order to appear to be in compliance with new federal
       regulations enacted in June 2011;

   (4) EDMC's predatory and deceptive recruiting and enrollment
       practices violated federal regulations enacted beginning
       in June 2011; and

   (5) as a result of the foregoing, EDMC's public statements
       were materially false and misleading at all relevant
       times.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Education Management
Corporation is a publicly traded, for-profit education company.
The Company offers academic programs to students through campus-
based and online instruction to earn undergraduate and graduate
degrees, including doctoral degrees, and specialized non-degree
diplomas in a range of disciplines.  The Company operates 110
locations across 32 states of the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates. Jr., Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          519 Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

               - and -

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


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Bid to Stay Discovery in "Garcia" Case Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in MIGUEL GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS,
INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-00596-SBA (KAW), (N.D.
Cal.) filed a joint discovery letter brief in which they dispute
whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of
Defendants' motion to dismiss, filed on April 28, 2014.

On September 15, 2014, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied
the Defendants' request for a stay of discovery saying, among
other things, that the Defendants have not convinced the Court
that their motion is meritorious.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Westmore's opinion which is available
at http://is.gd/DfNH3Cfrom Leagle.com.

Miguel Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Scott Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Chandler Randolph Givens -
- cgivens@edelson.com -- Edelson McGuire, LLC, Jack D. Yamin --
jyamin@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Jay Edelson --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC & Mark Stephen Eisen --
meisen@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

Enterprise Holdings, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Defendant,
represented by J. Daniel Sharp -- dsharp@crowell.com -- Crowell &
Moring LLP & Rachael Elizabeth Meny -- rem@kvn.com -- Keker & Van
Nest LLP.

Lyft Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Ann Huber --
jhuber@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, Michelle Sabrina Ybarra --
mybarra@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP & Rachael Elizabeth Meny,
Keker & Van Nest LLP.


ENTIRE OILFIELD: Faces "Haley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Haley, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated
v. Entire Oilfield Services & Supply, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00479-
ZJH (E.D. Tex., September 19, 2014) alleges that although the
Company's workers regularly work more than 40 hours a week, Entire
does not pay them overtime.

Entire Oilfield Services & Supply LLC is an oilfield support
services company, providing a variety services, particularly
solids control services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


FAIRFIELD FUTURES: Agreement Reached in Morgan Stanley Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
litigation, In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Litigation, Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

On May 7, 2009, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co."), was named as
a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Litigation and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). The
third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges,
among other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-
through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading
information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed
these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief,
class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary
damages, costs, interest and fees.  On July 22, 2014, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The
settlement is subject to court approval.


FJC SECURITY: Did Not Fully Pay Overtime Wages, N.J. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wafaa Shedid v. FJC Security Services, Inc., and Frank Califano,
individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-05850-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
September 19, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff routinely worked
five days per week and on average 54 hours per workweek on behalf
of Defendants but was not fully compensated for all of his
overtime hours worked.

The Defendants provide protection in high priority buildings
throughout the state of New Jersey.  FJC Security is headquartered
in Morristown, Union County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Lawrence Office Park
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Bldg. 2, Suite 220
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


FOUR OAKS: No Ruling Yet on Bids to Dismiss Payday Lending Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss in two payday lending cases are awaiting
decision, Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in October 2013
in United States district courts across the country against a
number of different banks based on the banks' alleged role in
"payday lending". Four of these lawsuits, pending in the Northern
District of Georgia, the Middle District of North Carolina, the
District of Maryland, and the Southern District of Florida, name
Four Oaks Bank & Trust Company (the "Bank") as one of the
defendants. The lawsuits allege that, by processing Automated
Clearing House transactions indirectly on behalf of "payday
lenders," the Bank is illegally participating in an enterprise to
collect unlawful debts and is therefore liable to plaintiffs for
damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The lawsuits also allege a variety of state law claims. The Bank
moved to dismiss each of these lawsuits. The District of Maryland
granted the motion and dismissed the case; that ruling is on
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. The Middle District of North Carolina granted the motion
in part and denied it in part. The motions to dismiss in the two
other cases are awaiting decision.


GADSDEN, AL: District Court Ruling in Firefighters' Case Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, the city of Gadsen, Alabama's pension program --
administered by the State of Alabama but comprised of local funds
-- had an unfunded liability of $50.9 million. In fact, Gadsden
anticipated having to pay 24.54% of its employees' total
compensation out of public funds during the following year to
prevent default. This projected expense contributed to a $1.5
million shortage in Gadsden's proposed budget.

With its back against the wall -- and in an effort to resuscitate
its flailing pension program -- Gadsden raised its employees'
pension contributions by 2.5% of their total compensation. It did
so pursuant to an Act passed by the Alabama legislature mandating
such an increase for state employees and permitting, but not
requiring, localities to do the same. In response, a class of
Gadsden firefighters -- whose contribution rate was raised from 6%
to 8.5% -- brought a lawsuit. They alleged that the City's actions
impaired the terms of their employment contracts, in violation of
both the United States Constitution and the Alabama Constitution.

After extensive record development, and on cross-motions for
summary judgment, the District Court dismissed the complaint for
failing to demonstrate that any contractual right had been
impaired.

In an opinion dated September 16, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/mgEjYLfrom Leagle.com, the United
States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District
Court ruling.

The case is JOE TAYLOR, JEFF MAYBEN, LECIL HARRELSON, JEFF MORRIS,
JOHN ALAN CALVERT, DAVID PUTMAN, DERRECK SHERRILL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. CITY OF GADSDEN, an Alabama Municipal corporation,
SHERMAN GUYTON, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of
Gadsden, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-13885.


GENERAL MOTORS: Amended "Scott" Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed with prejudice an
amended complaint in the case captioned GEORGE G. SCOTT,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY et al., Defendants, NO.
12CV5124-LTS-JLC, (S.D. N.Y.).

A copy of Judge Swain's September 15, 2014 amended memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/03LAhkfrom
Leagle.com.

George Scott, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Straite, Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Katharine M. Ryan, Ryan & Maniskas, LLP,
Michele S. Carino, Stewarts Law US LLP, Ralph Nicholas Sianni,
Stewarts Law US LLP & Richard A. Maniskas, Schiffrin & Barroway
L.L.P..

Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Andrea
Yoon Lee, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Brian O. O'Mara,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mario Alba, Jr, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

General Motors Company, Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Kopecky, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis,
LLP & Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Edward E. Whitacre, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Kopecky,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP &
Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Christopher P. Liddell, Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Kopecky, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis,
LLP & Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Nick S. Cyprus, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Kopecky,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP &
Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Daniel F. Akerson, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Kopecky,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP &
Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

David Bonderman, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Kopecky,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP &
Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Erroll B. Davis, Jr., Defendant, represented by Robert J. Kopecky,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP &
Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Stephen J. Girsky, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Kopecky,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP &
Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

E. Neville Isdell, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Kopecky,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP &
Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Robert D. Krebs, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Kopecky,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP &
Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Philip A. Laskaway, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Kopecky,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Diana M Watral, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP &
Lauren Oland Casazza, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
William G. McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
LLP, Israel David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson &
Samuel Pianko Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

J.P. Morgan Securiries LLC., Defendant, represented by William G.
McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Israel
David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson & Samuel Pianko
Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendant, represented by William
G. McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP,
Israel David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson & Samuel
Pianko Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Barclays Capital Inc., Defendant, represented by William G.
McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Israel
David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson & Samuel Pianko
Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC., Defendant, represented by
William G. McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
LLP, Israel David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson &
Samuel Pianko Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by William
G. McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP,
Israel David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson & Samuel
Pianko Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Goldman Sachs & Co., Defendant, represented by William G.
McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Israel
David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson & Samuel Pianko
Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Defendant, represented by William
G. McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP,
Israel David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson & Samuel
Pianko Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Banco Bradesco BBI S.A., Defendant, represented by William G.
McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Israel
David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson & Samuel Pianko
Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

CIBC World Markets Corp., Defendant, represented by William G.
McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Israel
David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson & Samuel Pianko
Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Commerz Markets LLC., Defendant, represented by William G.
McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Israel
David, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson & Samuel Pianko
Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Merril Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Defendant,
represented by William G. McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris,
Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Israel David, Fried, Frank, Harris,
Shriver & Jacobson & Samuel Pianko Groner, Fried, Frank, Harris,
Shriver & Jacobson.


GOOGLE INC: "Joffe" Plaintiffs May See Data From Street View
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge will allow the plaintiffs in a class action accusing
Google of collecting unencrypted WiFi data through its Street View
vehicles to see the results of a search of the company's Street
View data.

Google admitted in 2010 that its vehicles, which began mapping
American roads in 2007, inadvertently collected usernames,
passwords and emails from unprotected personal and business
wireless networks as they snapped photographs and collected GPS
data.

Lead plaintiff Benjamin Joffe filed a class action against Google,
accusing it of violating the federal Wiretap Act, which prohibits
the interception of "wire, oral, or electronic communication."

Joffe and the other plaintiffs hoped to find "a needle in the
haystack" -- evidence of their communications that would help them
to demonstrate standing -- by searching through Google's Street
View data.

Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James issued a Report and
Recommendation as to how the Street View data should be searched.
She recommended that the court appoint a special master to conduct
the search, and to use "Google's Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal
for selection of the special master, development of protocol and
depositing of information, and all related matters."

Plaintiffs objected to the recommendation because they say that
Google's discovery proposal improperly limits the special master's
searches of the Street View Data to the point of interception.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer agreed, noting that the "case
was brought on behalf of '[a]ll persons in the United States whose
electronic communications sent or received on wireless internet
connections were intercepted by defendant Google Street View
vehicles.'"

In addition to including each of plaintiff's networks from which
communications might have been sent, the search should also
include any other network on which their communications might have
been received.

Breyer also agreed with plaintiffs' argument that the special
master should be required to share each result with them to
determine whether any of their communications are among those
returned by the search.

"Plaintiffs have persuasively argued that the Street View Data is
'not susceptible to a simple "keyword" search,' and instead
requires plaintiffs to 'study the data, review search results, and
develop new strategies based on what they find or what they learn
about the data,'" Breyer said.

However, Breyer rejected plaintiffs' argument that Google should
not be allowed to participate in the formulation of the searches.
They claimed that Google would only delay and interfere with their
ability to find the intercepted communications.

"If plaintiffs' predictions bear out, plaintiffs may raise this
issue again with Judge James.  In the meantime, the court has
every expectation that the parties will work together to
facilitate the Special Master's task and to accomplish the
discovery this court has ordered," Breyer said.

The case is Benjamin Joffe, et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. C10-
md-02184 CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


GREAT GULF: Condo Owner Files Class Action Over Water Valves
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Pigg, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a frustrated
Toronto condo owner has launched a $29 million class-action suit
over a relatively small, but potentially dangerous, issue --
wildly fluctuating water temperatures in a Charles St. highrise
project that are being blamed on the installation of improper
water valves.

In a lawsuit filed late last week, Etienne de Muelenaere alleges
that Great Gulf, the developer of his 44-storey X Condominium
building, is "negligent" and in breach of contract because the
wrong water valves were installed in some 417 units.

After Great Gulf failed to act quickly to fix the problem -- the
lawsuit says some residents have been scalded -- he spent $4,000
to have tiles in his two bathrooms cracked and the valves
replaced.

Great Gulf not only refused to compensate him, says Mr. de
Muelenaere, but he couldn't find replacement tiles four years
after the building was finished and was forced to use more
affordable plastic liners which, he believes, have devalued his
unit.

"It's been really frustrating.  You try to be patient.  But I'm
tired of getting emails back from Great Gulf saying we're working
on a solution and there's never a time line," said de
Mr. Muelenaere, 26.

A class-action suit may seem like a drastic move over a little
plumbing problem, but it's unlikely to be the last as Toronto's
condo boom continues to play out across the skyline.

The law firm driving this latest legal salvo against condo
developers, Charney Lawyers and Sutts, Strosberg LLP, has also
heard from condo owners who have just moved into brand new condos,
bought from blueprints two or three years ago, to find promised
nine-foot ceilings are only eight.

"The more new buildings that go up, the more we're finding there
are some issues common to the whole building," says lawyer
Ted Charney, who is handling Mr. de Muelenaere's suit.

"Part of what we're trying to do is hold developers accountable."
Not long after he moved into his 5th floor condo in January, 2012
and took a shower, Mr. de Muelenaere realized there was a problem
which he suspects has been an issue since the building was
completed in late 2010.  Every time someone in a nearby unit
flushed a toilet or started up their dish or clothes washer, the
water in his shower suddenly got hot or cold.

There were numerous complaints which the condo board, Great Gulf
and even officials of Ontario's new home warranty program, Tarion,
investigated.  So did Mr. de Muelenaere.

"I work in construction, so I did a bit of research," he says,
suspecting that non pressure-balanced valves were used instead of
pressure-balanced valves which keep temperatures constant, despite
fluctuations in the hot or cold water supply lines.

Great Gulf became aware of the valve problem in 2012 but says it
took until 2013 to discover the reason. No one has been scalded,
it stresses.

Great Gulf has "been working on a solution for several months,"
and has tested a prototype device in a few units which would stop
the temperature fluctuations without having to crack out the tiles
in all 417 units, many of which have two bathrooms, says Great
Gulf spokesperson Madeline Zito.

"We advised the condo board and the residents who complained that
we were working on a solution.  But we have to be careful to come
up with a solution that works and where we're not being intrusive
to a homeowner and creating problems for them," Ms. Zito added.
Great Gulf is about to start implementing the fix, which is
expected to cost less than $1 million, she said.

Mr. Charney said he became aware of the X Condominium water
problem through an anonymous phone call, pointing him to a number
of frustrated residents, including Mr. de Muelenaere.

So far Mr. Charney has launched a number of condo class-action
suits against developers and sub-contractors, four of which have
been certified to move ahead by Ontario's Superior Court.

Three related to glass panes which fell from buildings and a
fourth relates to faulty balcony railings that left the outdoor
space off limits to many residents for months.

Since then, Mr. Charney has also initiated a $30 million class-
action suit against Elad Canada Inc., claiming that it failed to
deliver on marketing promises of "easy underground access" to the
Sheppard subway line and nearby Fairview Mall from its Emerald
City Condominiums project at Don Mills Rd. and Sheppard Ave. E.
Instead, residents were surprised to find on move in that there
was no tunnel.


HAWAII: Human Services Department Faces ABA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing (AHFI) and the Hawaii Disability Rights
Center filed a lawsuit on September 5th in U.S. District Court
accusing the State of Hawai'i Department of Human Services of
denying critically needed treatment for autistic children. The
suit alleges that without the service, called applied behavioral
analysis (ABA) treatment, children with autism are less likely to
reach their full developmental capacity and are more likely to be
institutionalized as adults, according to the CDC.  The suit seeks
an injunction to require the state to provide ABA to be in
compliance with federal Medicaid rules.  AHFI attorneys Paul
Alston, Kristin Holland and Maile Osika represent the plaintiffs.

                 About Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing

Founded in 1991, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing counsels and represents
clients in all types of civil matters, including business
disputes, real property matters, bankruptcy and insolvency, civil
rights, healthcare law, employment law, government contracts,
government relations, and strategic planning.

Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing is a member of the International Society
of Primerus Law Firms.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Final Judgment Entered in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrew J. Guilford entered a revised final judgment
and order approving a settlement in IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
SECURITIES LITIGATION, CASE NO. SACV 11-1404 AG (RNBX), (C.D.
Cal.).

The Court's September 15, 2014 order, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/YePZcZfrom Leagle.com, provides that the Court
finally certifies the class defined as: All persons and entities
that, during the period from November 22, 2010 to and through
August 18, 2011 (the "Class Period"), purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Hewlett-Packard Company's publicly traded
common stock in the open market, and were damaged thereby.

The Court affirmed its appointment of Lead Plaintiffs Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System, Union Asset Management Holding AG,
Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada, LIUNA
National (Industrial) Pension Fund and LIUNA Staff & Affiliates
Pension Fund as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class and
Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws, filed in this Action on October 19, 2012,
is dismissed with prejudice. The Settling Parties are to bear
their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement
Agreement or this Judgment.

ISAACS FRIEDBERG & LABATON LLP, Mark Labaton --
mlabaton@iflcounsel.com -- Los Angeles, California, MOTLEY RICE
LLC, Gregg S. Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- (pro hac vice),
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, Jonathan
Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- (pro hac vice), New York, New
York, Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Institutional Investor Group
and Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class.


HM777 INC: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Ex-Foreman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Moser v. HM777, Inc., a California corporation, doing
business as Holland Fire and Plumbing; Jeff Holland, an
individual; and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-at-
01166 (E.D. Cal., September 19, 2014) alleges non-payment of
overtime compensation and minimum wages, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Moser worked as a Plumbing Foreman for the Defendants until
his resignation in May 2013.

HM777, Inc., doing business as Holland Fire and Plumbing, is a
business entity, registered and licensed to conduct business in
the state of California.  Jeff Holland is the primary shareholder
in Holland Fire and Plumbing.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are not presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan J. McCormack, Esq.
          MCCORMACK & ERLICH, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 742
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 296-8420
          Facsimile: (415) 296-8552
          E-mail: bryan@mcelawfirm.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Chautauqua Union Suit Alleging Property Damage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03020-AT (N.D. Ga., September 19, 2014) asserts
claims for property damage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, Esq.
          W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
          W. PITTS CARR AND ASSOCIATES, PC
          4200 Northside Parkway, N.W.
          10 North Parkway Square, Building 10
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 442-9000
          Facsimile: (404) 442-9700
          E-mail: aweatherby@carrpalmer.com
                  pcarr@wpcarr.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Suit in Louisiana Alleging Property Damage
------------------------------------------------------------
First NBC Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02182-JCZ-MBN (E.D.
La., September 22, 2014) asserts property damage claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Barnett Murray, Esq.
          Arthur Mahony Murray, Esq.
          Korey Arthur Nelson, Esq.
          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          Poydras Center
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          E-mail: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  knelson@murray-lawfirm.com
                  smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com


HOME DEPOT: McPhadden Samac Files Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Toronto law firm McPhadden Samac Tuovi LLP on Sept. 22 disclosed
that it has commenced a class action law suit against Home Depot
of Canada Inc. and its American parent, The Home Depot, Inc.,
arising from the recent data breach said to have affected up to 56
million people in North America. The law suit was filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The case is the first class action commenced in Ontario against
Home Depot regarding the data breach.

The lawsuit is on behalf of Home Depot customers who used a
payment card at Home Depot stores in Canada between April and
September 2014.  Home Depot publicly acknowledged that malware was
found on its networks in Canada and the United States.

Named as plaintiff in the action is Mr. Steven Lozanski, an Ottawa
area resident, who has learned that about $8,000 was improperly
charged against his Visa card in a series of transactions in early
September.  Mr. Lozanski had used his Visa card at Home Depot
store just days before the fraudulent transactions.

Mr. Lozanski says he did not suspect anything was wrong until his
credit card was rejected when he tried to register at hotel on a
recent business trip.  He had to make alternative arrangements in
order to register and pay the hotel.  He found the experience
quite distressing as he knew that his credit card was in good
standing.  He added that "Home Depot has not been in contact with
me to tell me what personal information has been taken.  I feel I
need to do this for myself and for others so that this kind of
thing does not happen again."

The amount of the claim is $500 million, although the full extent
of losses is not known at this time.  The losses may be much
higher or lower than that amount.

One of the primary objectives of the lawsuit is behavior
modification by Home Depot and other retailers.  "After the
massive data breach of customer information at Target, you would
think that other major retailers like Home Depot would have taken
steps to make such a breach impossible", said Bryan McPhadden --
bmcphadden@mcst.ca -- one of the plaintiff's lawyers.


HOSPICE OF EAST TEXAS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid FLSA Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Dean and Rita Rampy v. The Hospice of East Texas, Case No.
6:14-cv-00766 (E.D. Tex., September 19, 2014) seeks to recover
unpaid compensation due to them under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Hospice of East Texas does business in the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, #363
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903)593-5588
          Facsimile: (214) 853-9382
          E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


ICM PARTNERS: Former Interns Respond to Class Suit Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that two weeks after
ICM Partners sought to have the potential class-action lawsuit by
two former interns dismissed, Kimberly Behzadi and Jason Rindenau
have hit back.

"The Court should deny Defendant International Creative Management
Partners LLC's motion to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act
claims of Plaintiff Jason Rindenau because the motion is premature
and cannot be decided at the pleading stage before the parties
have engaged in discovery," said the opposition filing of
September 19.  The two ex-ICM interns are claiming that they
performed duties that were like those of paid employees while at
the agency on the East and West coasts, respectively.  To that
end, they, like other interns in similar recent cases, want to be
paid.  In a class action, that could come to include hundreds of
ex-interns; that's something ICM does not want to see occur, so it
is trying to stop this potentially sprawling matter fast.

ICM, in its September 5 motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
has cited the statute of limitations to get the case thrown out.
When the amended complaint was filed on August 15, more than three
years had passed since Mr. Rindenau's May 23-August 5, 2011,
internship in the ICM L.A. office.  The interns' lawyers say no
way and that this isn't something to be decided at the pleading
stage.  "ICM relies on a declaration from its Vice President of
Human Resources, Karen Abrams," says the 10-page filing in federal
court in NY.  "The Court should not rely on the declaration
because it is evidence outside the pleading with respect to which
Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to take discovery, and thus
cannot support a motion."

This is actually ICM's second attempt to have the case dismissed.
Back in late July, the agency filed a motion "dismissing this
action because all claims contained in the Complaint are subject
to arbitration under a valid arbitration agreement."  While that
addressed Ms. Behzadi's action filed on June 17, it was before
Mr. Rindenau joined the case. His presence meant the plaintiffs
had to file an amended complaint was filed in federal district
court in mid-August.  That was followed on August 26, when
Ms. Behzadi and Mr. Rindenau filed a motion for reclassification
of the suit -- a move that could dramatically expand the matter.

Another way ICM has tried to have the case dealt with is to say a
California court should handle Mr. Rindenau's claims because he
was stationed in the L.A. office.  Again, no dice, say the
plaintiffs' lawyers, who want everything to stay in federal court
in NYC.  "The fact that Rindenau worked in California one year
before Behzadi is irrelevant because the claim is the same
regardless of where and when they worked," attorney Rachel Bien of
NYC's Outten & Golden.  "The court has supplemental jurisdiction
over Rindenau's California claims because they 'are so related to'
the FLSA claim 'that they form part of the same case or
controversy,' and use the same legal standard as the FLSA claim,"
she adds "The claims rest on the very same allegation -- that ICM
had a policy of failing to pay its interns based on its unlawful
determination that they are not covered by minimum wage
protection."

Ms. Bien is joined by Justin Swartz and Sally Abrahamson of the
labor-issues firm Outten & Golden representing the plaintiffs and
any future additions to the action.  Mr. Swartz also is handing
legal duties on a class action launched against NBCUniversal by a
former MSNBC intern and an ex-Saturday Night Live intern.  ICM
Partners are represented by Elise Michelle Bloom --
ebloom@proskauer.com -- and Steven Hurd -- shurd@proskauer.com --
of Proskauer Rose's NYC office and Michelle Annese --
mannese@proskauer.com -- of the firm's Newark office.


IMH FINANCIAL: Exchange Offering in Class Action Accord Completed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IMH Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company is required
under the terms of a class action settlement to effect an offering
to issue up to $20.0 million in five-year, 4%, unsecured notes to
participating shareholders in exchange for common stock held by
such shareholders at a price of $8.02 per share ("Exchange
Offering"). The Exchange Offering was completed on April 28, 2014
and the Company ultimately issued Exchange Offering notes ("EO
Notes") to participating shareholders with a face value of $10.2
million, which were recorded by the Company at fair value.

The estimated fair value of the EO Notes was $6.4 million based on
the fair value and the imputed effective yield of such notes of
14.6% (as compared to the note rate of 4%) resulting in a debt
discount of the EO Notes of $3.8 million. This amount was recorded
as a debt discount on the Company's financial statements during
the six months ended June 30, 2014, and is being amortized as an
adjustment to interest expense using the effective interest method
over the term of the EO Notes. The amortized discount added to the
principal balance of the EO Notes during the six months ended June
30, 2014 totaled $93,000. Interest is payable quarterly in arrears
each April, July, October, and January during the term of the EO
Notes with the initial interest payment due in July 2014. The EO
Notes mature on April 28, 2019, and may be prepaid in whole or in
part without penalty at the option of the Company. However,
subject to certain minimum cash and profitability conditions, the
terms of the EO Notes require a 50% prepayment on April 29, 2018.

The Company also said that an additional requirement under the
terms of the same class action settlement was to effect an
offering to issue up to $10.0 million in senior secured
convertible notes to participating accredited shareholders at
terms economically equivalent to the NW Capital loan ("Rights
Offering"). The Rights Offering was also completed on April 28,
2014 and we ultimately issued $70,000 to participating
shareholders. The notes issued under the Rights Offering ("RO
Notes") were recorded by the Company at their fair value.

Based on the fair value assessment performed, management
determined that the estimated fair value of the RO Notes was
$96,000 (as compared to the face amount of $70,000) based on the
derived fair value and the imputed effective yield of such notes
of 7.1% (as compared to the note rate of 17% plus the derived exit
fee of $12,000 resulting in an effective rate of approximately
22.3%) as of the offering settlement date. The difference between
the fair value of the RO Notes and its actual face amount totaling
$26,000 was recorded as a debt premium on the Company's financial
statements. This debt premium and exit fee will be recorded as a
reduction of interest expense using the effective interest method
over the term of the RO Notes. The maturity date of the RO Notes
is June 26, 2016, however, subsequent to June 30, 2014, the
Company, entered into agreements with the participating
shareholders to repurchase all of the outstanding RO Notes in
connection with the restructure and refinancing of the NW Capital
loan.

Last November, IMH received final approval of the class action
litigation settlement when the last remaining appeal was dismissed
by the Delaware Supreme Court.

By the terms of the class action litigation settlement, IMH has
reconstituted its board of directors by appointing four new
independent board members: Dr. Andrew Fishleder, MD, Leigh
Feuerstein, Lori Wittman, and Michael M. Racy.  Seth Singerman and
Jay Wolf, the designees of the holders of the Company's newly-
issued preferred shares, also have been appointed to serve on the
board, as has Lawrence Bain.


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Lawyers Begin Final Arguments in C$18BB Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Chittley, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that with nearly
$18 billion on the line, lawyers for Quebec smokers and Big
Tobacco began their final arguments on Sept. 22, in a landmark
case that has been underway for years.

Two groups representing an estimated 1 million Quebec smokers are
suing three major Canadian tobacco manufacturers to recover health
care costs associated with using tobacco products.

The two groups include those who developed serious illnesses as a
result of tobacco use, and those who are unable to quit because
they are addicted.

The smokers' lawyers have argued that, for decades, tobacco
companies lied about the health risks associated with smoking,
marketed a product they knew to be addictive, and destroyed
documents that might have proved otherwise.

On the other side of the argument, Imperial Tobacco spokesperson
Eric Gagnon doesn't believe a company should be responsible for
consumers' decisions.

"We don't believe that the tobacco industry should be held
responsible for personal choices that people made, knowing there
were some health risks associated with smoking," he told CTV
Montreal.

The lawsuit can trace its roots to 16 years ago, when two cases
were filed.  They were consolidated in 2005, but because of
procedural issues the trial only began in March, 2012.

More than 27,000 documents were presented and 78 witnesses were
called to testify over 234 days of trial.

Closing arguments could take weeks, and the verdict isn't expected
anytime soon.  However, no matter what this Superior Court judge
rules, the case will likely be appealed up to the Quebec Court of
Appeal and possibly even to the Supreme Court.

Jean-Yves Blais, who initiated the lawsuit on behalf of those who
developed serious illnesses from tobacco, was 68 years old when he
died from lung cancer in the summer of 2012.  He picked up the
habit at just 10 years old, and smoked more than a pack a day for
50 years.

"We didn't know at that time smoking was dangerous," Mr. Blais
said before his death.


INDEPENDENT ORDER: Faces "Fitzhenry" Suit Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. Independent Order of
Foresters, The, Thad Michael Sipple and Savant Insurance
Solutions, Case No. 2:14-cv-03690-DCN (D.S.C., September 18, 2014)
alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance Shealy Boozer, Esq.
          BOOZER LAW FIRM
          1331 Park Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 608-5543
          E-mail: lsb@boozerlawfirm.com


J&G TRANSPORT: Bid for Conditional Cert. in "Collado" Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE COLLADO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. J. & G. TRANSPORT, INC. et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-80467-CIV-GOODMAN, (S.D. Fla.) is
before the Court on the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification and facilitation of court-authorized notice.
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman in an order dated September 16,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/YEwheYfrom
Leagle.com, denied the Motion without prejudice.

Enrique Collado, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Francisco
Zacarias -- czacarias@zacariaslaw.com -- Law Offices of
Christopher F. Zacarias, P.A..

Juan Giron, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Francisco
Zacarias, Law Offices of Christopher F. Zacarias, P.A..

J. & G. Transport, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Robert
Pickett -- rpickett@taylorattorneys.net -- Taylor & Associates,
Attorneys at Law, P.L..

Ivis Guzman, Defendant, represented by Charles Robert Pickett,
Taylor & Associates, Attorneys at Law, P.L..

Javier Guzman, Defendant, represented by Charles Robert Pickett,
Taylor & Associates, Attorneys at Law, P.L..


JACKSON HEALTH: Discriminates Against Old Pharmacist, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Straus v. Jackson Health System, A Miami-Dade County Public
Trust, Case No. 1:14-cv-23456-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
September 18, 2014) is an action for damages and equitable relief
for age discrimination brought pursuant to the Florida Civil
Rights Act of 1992 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Mr. Straus is 82 years old and a resident of Broward County,
Florida.  Prior to his termination, the Defendant employed him as
a Clinical Practice Pharmacist.

Jackson Health System is a not-for-profit Miami-Dade County Public
Trust.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana M. Gallup, Esq.
          GALLUP LAW
          Presidential Circle, Suite 265 South
          4000 Hollywood Boulevard
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 894-3035
          Facsimile: (954) 894-8015
          E-mail: dgallup@gallup-law.com


JAMBA JUICE: Court Certifies Class in Suit Over Deceptive Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who claim that the "All Natural" Jamba Juice home
smoothie kits they purchased contained non-natural ingredients
were granted class certification, but solely for the purposes of
determining liability, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse
News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Lead plaintiffs Aleta Lilly and David Cox seek to represent
individuals in California who purchased a Mango-a-go-go,
Strawberries Wild, Caribbean Passion, Orange Dream Machine and
Razzmatazz smoothie kits.

The kits are sold in a three-sided pouch with the words "All
Natural" appearing prominently on the front of the package.  The
consumers say that the kits contain ascorbic acid, xanthan gum,
steviol glycosides, modified corn starch and gelatin, which are
not "all natural."

They assert causes of action under California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law,
as well as a cause of action for breach of warranty.

U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar rejected Jamba Juice's
argument that a class cannot be certified because neither the
consumers nor Jamba Juice have produced records demonstrating the
specific individual class members who purchased the smoothie kits
from the retail outlets to which Jamba Juice distributed them.

"Few people retain receipts for low-priced goods, since there is
little possibility they will need to later verify that they made
the purchase.  Yet it is precisely in circumstances like these,
where the injury to any individual consumer is small, but the
cumulative injury to consumers as a group is substantial, that the
class action mechanism provides one of its most important social
benefits," Tigar said.  "In the absence of a class action, the
injury would go unaddressed."

Tigar also noted that direct notice to every class member is not
always possible.  The consumers provided a plan for notice, in
which they will give direct notice to those retail customers whose
contact information may be on file with the retailer where they
purchased the kits, such as those who purchased products from a
retailer with store-specific membership cards.  They also said
that they will do an extensive media campaign to provide notice to
other potential class members.

Jamba Juice also tried to argue that Lilly and Cox are not typical
of class members because they have sometimes consumed other
products that contain the ingredients they complaint about in the
smoothie kits.

However, "when Lilly and Cox consumed those other products, they
did so with full knowledge of what they were eating, because the
ingredients were disclosed.  That the named plaintiffs sometimes
consume products with ingredients they challenge in this action
does not harm their case any more than a person who sometimes eats
ice cream would be deprived of her legal ability to challenge a
product falsely labeled to contain no sugar," Tigar said.

The consumers have also demonstrated that there are numerous
questions common to the class, including whether Jamba Juice's
"All Natural" representations are misleading, whether the
challenged ingredients may legally be included in a product
labeled "All Natural," and whether the representations are likely
to deceive consumers.

The consumers did not produce evidence as to the feasibility of
their methods for calculating damages, though.  They did not
submit expert reports or detailed explanation as to how the three
damage models they put forward could be fairly determined or at
least estimated.

"Plaintiffs seek 'full refund' as one remedy, but considering the
proper value of a restitution remedy may require the court to take
into account the benefit consumers receive even from a mislabeled
product.  Similarly, while plaintiffs also seek disgorgement of
defendants' profits, they may have to demonstrate what portion of
those damages stem from the defendants' purportedly unlawful
conduct.  Nothing in the record allows the court to determine
these issues," Tigar said.

Therefore, the class cannot be satisfied for purposes of seeking
damages.  That does not mean that it cannot be certified at all,
though.  The certification of the consumers' action is limited to
determining liability on a class-wide basis.  Some of the problems
in determining individual damages may fall away after liability is
determined, Tigar said.

The case is Aleta Lilly, et al. v. Jamba Juice Company, et al.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-02998-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


LA-Z-BOY INC: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Bunch Associates, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability
company, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. La-Z-Boy Incorporated, La-Z-Boy
Global Limited, Michigan corporations, Hydropool Inc., 2217044
Ontario Inc., Canadian corporations, and John Does 1-10, Case No.
2:14-cv-13665-LPZ-PJK (E.D. Mich., September 22, 2014) challenges
the Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.

Keith Bunch Associates, LLC, is a North Carolina limited liability
company.

La-Z-Boy Incorporated and La-Z-Boy Global Limited are Michigan
corporations with their principal place of business in Monroe,
Michigan.  Hydropool Inc. and 2217044 Ontario Inc. are Canadian
corporations with their principal place of business in
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.  The Doe Defendants are not
presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
          2000 Town Center, Suite 900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com


LIME ENERGY: Insurance Will Cover Cost of Defending Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lime Energy Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company carries
Directors and Officers insurance with an aggregate limit of $10
million, which it anticipates will cover the cost of defending an
existing class action suit and derivative action and any related
awards or settlements, up to the limit of the policy. At this
point in the legal process, the Company estimates that its
reasonably possible costs, over and above the amounts covered by
insurance, of responding to these lawsuits, responding to the SEC
investigation and completing its internal investigation and
restatement will be between $6.5 million and $7.0 million, of
which $6.0 million had been incurred through June 30, 2014. There
are many factors that could cause the actual costs to exceed or be
less than this estimate; therefore the Company has not accrued for
these potential future costs.


LIME ENERGY: Final Approval of Settlement in "Satterfield" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara Ellis on June 4, 2014, entered an order granting final
approval of the class action settlement and notice to the
settlement class in the matter Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et
al., Case No. 12-cv-5704 (N.D. Ill.), the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "This is a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of our securities between May 14, 2008 and December 27,
2012, inclusive.  Following an announcement by us dated July 17,
2012, four separate putative class actions were filed alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and naming as Defendants
the Company and two of its officers, John O'Rourke and Jeffrey
Mistarz.  The four cases were consolidated."

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(the "PSLRA"), on October 26, 2012, the Court appointed Lead
Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint on January 18, 2013, alleging that Defendants
issued false and misleading statements concerning Lime Energy's
revenues during the class period and thereby artificially inflated
our stock price.  On January 21, 2014, following several months of
arm's length negotiations, the Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants
entered into a stipulation of settlement under which this matter
would be fully and finally settled.  As part of the settlement,
Defendants agreed to cause $2.5 million to be paid into a
settlement fund, which $2.5 million has been provided by the
Company's directors and officers liability insurers.  On January
28, 2014, Judge Sara Ellis entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the class action settlement and notice to the
settlement class in the matter. On June 4, 2014, Judge Sara Ellis
entered an order granting final approval of the class action
settlement and notice to the settlement class in the matter
Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case No. 12-cv-05704.


LIME ENERGY: Bid for Reconsideration in "Kuberski" Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court on June 25, 2014 denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration in the case Kuberski v. Lime Energy Co. et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-7993 (N.D. Ill.), the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "This is a putative shareholder derivative
action alleging that certain of our officers and directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company from May 14, 2008
through the present by failing to maintain adequate internal
controls and causing the Company to issue false and misleading
statements concerning our revenues."

An initial derivative complaint was filed on October 5, 2012.  A
second derivative action was filed on March 5, 2013.  The two
cases were consolidated and the Court appointed Lead Counsel for
the Plaintiffs on April 9, 2013.  On May 9, 2013, the Plaintiffs
filed a Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint.
On June 10, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to make a demand on the Board of Directors of the Company or to
adequately plead why demand should be excused, as required by Rule
23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Delaware law.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed as of July 22,
2013.  On March 25, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice.  On April 22, 2014,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
ruling.  On June 25, 2014 the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration.


MAGNA-RX INC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Magna-Rx Inc. faces a class action over its male enhancement
product.

Could Magna-Rx+ be the potency potion sought by men in a seemingly
eternal quest to enhance their manliness?  No, said Trevor Dixon,
who spent $50 to try a bottle of it, found it worthless and has
now commenced a proposed class action to consign it to the heap of
alleged aphrodisiacs and enlargers that have enticed many through
the ages but disappointed most.

In his Sept. 15 complaint against Magna-Rx Inc., filed in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, plaintiff
Dixon alleges that he was enticed to try the supplements by the
label's claims that the product will provide "Maximum Male
Strength and Performance" and is "The World's #1 Male Performance
Pill."  In some ads, Magna-Rx+ is touted as the key to "Maximum
Bedroom Muscle on Demand."

Mr. Dixon alleges that's all unlawful bunk, as is the allegedly
fraudulent message, conveyed on labels with the phrase "Real
Doctors, Real Results," that the supplement has been endorsed and
recommended by physicians, when in fact it has not, nor has it
ever been the subject of a legitimate scientific study, nor been
evaluated, much less approved, by the FDA, according to the
complaint, Dixon v. Magna-Rx.

Also appearing on labels is a photograph of a "George Aguilar,
M.D.," who is described in Magna-Rx promotional material as a
board-certified urologist who has treated more than 70,000
patients with erectile problems.  But in the complaint, he is
identified as the proprietor of a small, storefront "alternative
medicine" clinic in northern Mexico who is not licensed to
practice medicine in the U.S.

And what is it that powers these pills? According to an image of a
label included in the complaint: Small amounts of herbs, spices
and roots, including Horney Goat Weed, Oyster Meat, Asian Ginseng,
Stinging Nettle, Orchic Substance, Cayenne, Pygeum (bark), and L-
Arginine HCl.

"None of the ingredients in Magna-Rx+, individually or in
combination, however, increase male strength and performance or
are effective as an aphrodisiac," the complaint states.

Mr. Dixon alleges Magna-Rx Inc. has violated California's Unfair
Competition, False Advertising and Consumer Legal Remedies acts,
as well as the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.  He seeks
restitution, the disgorgement of money earned from sales of the
products, and orders to Magna-Rx Inc. to conduct a "corrective
advertising campaign," and to destroy all misleading and deceptive
advertising materials and product labels.

Mr. Dixon's attorney is Ronald Marron.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Dismisses Mental Health Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Jung, writing for KJZZ, reports that the Maricopa County
Superior Court officially dismissed the Arnold v. Sarn lawsuit on
Sept. 22.  The class action lawsuit accused the state and Maricopa
County of not properly funding a mental health system required by
a state statute.

The 30-year-old court case was originally settled in January.  The
agreement expanded treatment opportunities, job placement services
and housing programs to cover all Maricopa County residents with
serious mental illnesses.

Anne Ronan is an attorney with the Center for Law and the Public
Interest, the organization representing the plaintiffs.  She said
she's pleased with the progress she's seen in the last nine
months.

"It's a large system and it has a brand new provider," Ms. Ronan
said.  "So there may be some bumps as a result of the changeover
in the management of the system. But so far, what we've seen in
the way of Mercy Maricopa's work on implementation has been
according to the agreement."

The Sept. 22 dismissal also means the county will keep the
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.


MARICOPA COUNTY CCD: Removed "Roberts" Suit to D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Roberts, et al. v. Maricopa County
Community College District, Case No. CV2014-007411, was removed
from the Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02086-PGR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher William Thompson, Esq.
          Jeffrey Thomas Pyburn, Esq.
          Kiersten Ann Murphy, Esq.
          Mark Andrew Fuller, Esq.
          Paul Lincoln Stoller, Esq.
          GALLAGHER & KENNEDY PA
          2575 E Camelback Rd., Suite 1100
          Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
          Telephone: (602) 530-8393
          Facsimile: (602) 530-8500
          E-mail: chris.thompson@gknet.com
                  jtp@gknet.com
                  KAM@gknet.com
                  maf@gknet.com
                  paul.stoller@gknet.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mona Mehta Stone, Esq.
          Pamela M. Overton, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2375 E Camelback Rd., Suite 700
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 445-8466
          Facsimile: (602) 445-8680
          E-mail: stonem@gtlaw.com
                  overtonp@gtlaw.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: Bid for Conditional Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Corbett O'Meara denied motions for conditional
certification and judicial notice filed by plaintiffs in the case
captioned MONTEL PULLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McDONALD'S
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, and SHAMIA WILSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. McDONALD'S CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE
NOS. 14-11081, 14-11082, (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs have sought conditional certification of their Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims as a collective action, along
with judicial approval to notify what they believe to be more than
1,0002 similarly situated workers who currently work or have
worked at Defendants' restaurants during the past three years.

A copy of Judge O'Meara's September 15, 2014 opinion and order
is available at http://is.gd/1tm9Jjfrom Leagle.com.

Montel Pullen, Plaintiff, represented by Darcie R. Brault --
dbrault@michworklaw.com -- Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow &
Canzano, Darin M. Dalmat -- dmdalmat@jamhoff.com -- James &
Hoffman, P.C., Edgar N. James -- ejames@jamhoff.com -- James &
Hoffman, P.C., John R. Canzano -- jcanzano@michworklaw.com --
Klimist, McKnight, Ryan E. Griffin -- regriffin@jamhoff.com --
James & Hoffman, P.C. & David P. Dean -- dpdean@jamhoff.com --
James and Hoffman.

Sharnell Grandberry, Plaintiff, represented by Darcie R. Brault,
Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, Darin M. Dalmat, James
& Hoffman, P.C., Edgar N. James, James & Hoffman, P.C., John R.
Canzano, Klimist, McKnight, Ryan E. Griffin, James & Hoffman, P.C.
& David P. Dean, James and Hoffman.

Dominique Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by Darcie R. Brault,
Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, Darin M. Dalmat, James
& Hoffman, P.C., Edgar N. James, James & Hoffman, P.C., John R.
Canzano, Klimist, McKnight, Ryan E. Griffin, James & Hoffman, P.C.
& David P. Dean, James and Hoffman.

Adrian Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Darcie R. Brault,
Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, Darin M. Dalmat, James
& Hoffman, P.C., Edgar N. James, James & Hoffman, P.C., John R.
Canzano, Klimist, McKnight, Ryan E. Griffin, James & Hoffman, P.C.
& David P. Dean, James and Hoffman.

McDonald's Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kathryn S. Wood
-- kwood@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright, Elizabeth B.
McRee -- emcree@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Jonathan Linas --
jlinas@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Matthew W. Lampe --
mwlampe@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

McDonald's USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathryn S. Wood,
Dickinson Wright, Elizabeth B. McRee, Jones Day, Jonathan Linas,
Jones Day & Matthew W. Lampe, Jones Day.

ECS Partnership, Defendant, represented by James D. Kurek --
jkurek@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher and Phillips LLP & Linda J
Somers -- linda.somers@waltondonnelly.com -- Walton & Donnelly.


MEIJER INC: Gets $2-Mil. Fine for Selling Recalled Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Brenzing, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced on
Sept. 17 that Meijer, Inc. has agreed to pay a $2 million civil
penalty that is knowingly sold 12 different recalled products.

According to the CPSC, Meijer distributed the products through a
system operated with a third party contractor.  The CPSC says that
Meijer received information about the recalls, but failed to take
action to prevent the distribution of the recalled products.  As a
result, approximately 1,700 units of the recalled items were
resold to consumers between April 2010 and April 2011.

The recalled items were:

   -- Discovery Kids Animated Marine and Safari Lamps imported by
      Innovage LLC
   -- SlingRider Baby Slings made by Infantino
   -- Hoover WindTunnel T-Series Bagless Upright Vacuum Cleaners
      with Cord Rewind Feature imported by Hoover
   -- Fisher-Price Trikes and Tough Trikes toddler tricycles
   -- Little People Wheelies Stand 'n Play Rampways by Fisher
      Price
   -- Ocean Wonders Kick & Crawl Aquariums by Fisher Price
   -- Bathtub Subs imported by Munchkin, Inc.
   -- Refreshing Rings Infant Teether/Rattles imported by Sassy
   -- Touch Point Oscillating Ceramic Heater
   -- Harmony High Chair made by Graco Children's Products
   -- Random Orbit Sander made by Black & Decker
   -- Box Fans made by Lasko

The CPSC and Meijer reannounced the recall of the ceramic heater
on July 13, 2011 and reannounced eight of the other recalls on
March 6, 2012.

As part of the $2 million penalty, Meijer has agreed to implement
and maintain a "reverse logistics compliance program" to ensure
Meijer does not sell or redistribute recalled products again.
Also, according to the CPSC, Meijer neither admits nor denies the
CPSC charges.

A Meijer spokesperson tells WZZM that since the incidents in 2010
and 2011, the compliance program has kept the situation from
happening again.

The CPSC say Meijer is not aware of any reported incidents or
injuries with the recalled products.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in "FDCPA" Case
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss the case captioned MARY OBERTHER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and ENCORE
CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-30014-MGM,
(D. Mass.).

Ms. Oberther asserts that Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practice Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. (FDCPA)
by sending a letter that uses false representations and deceptive
means to collect a debt (Count I) and that "overshadows" her right
to dispute a debt (Count II). Defendants filed the motion to
dismiss asserting that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.

The court allowed Defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent it
seeks dismissal of Count I and that portion of Count II which
asserts an "overshadowing" claim based on the requests that
Plaintiff call Midland Credit. The court, however, denied
Defendant's motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks dismissal of
that portion of Count II which asserts an "overshadowing" claim
based on the two options for avoiding referral of the account to
an attorney.

A copy of Judge Mastroianni's September 15, 2014 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/hx6eihfrom Leagle.com.

Mary Oberther, Plaintiff, represented by Sergei Lemberg --
slemberg@lemberglaw.com -- Lemberg & Associates.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kara G.
Thorvaldsen -- kara.thorvaldsen@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser,
Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP & William T. Bogaert --
William.Bogaert@WilsonElser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Midland Funding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kara G.
Thorvaldsen, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP &
William T. Bogaert, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker
LLP.

Encore Capital Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kara G.
Thorvaldsen, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP &
William T. Bogaert, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker
LLP.


MORGAN STANLEY: Defendants' Petition to Appeal Class Cert. Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co."), certain affiliates and
Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle, on
October 25, 2010, were named as defendants in a purported class
action related to securities issued by the special purpose vehicle
in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes.  The case is
styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("SDNY").  An amended complaint was filed on
October 22, 2012.

The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on
October 17, 2013.  On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a
petition for permission to appeal the court's decision granting
class certification.

On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants engaged
in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the
Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the
securities' failure.  In addition, the second amended complaint
alleges that the securities' offering materials contained material
misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying
assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the
defendants and the investors.  The second amended complaint
asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud,
fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement,
and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On March 25, 2014, the court denied defendants' petition seeking
permission to appeal the court's decision granting class
certification.  Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7
million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest, Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Currency and Commodity L.P. said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Expects to Settle Remaining Counts
------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit and two
derivative suits originally filed in 2008.  The plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit claim to represent a class of investors in
the Company's shares who allegedly were injured by misstatements
in press releases and SEC filings between May 3, 2004, and January
28, 2008.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages for
themselves and the shareholders of the class they purported to
represent.

In the derivative suits, the plaintiffs claimed, among other
things, that the Company was injured because its directors and
certain named officers did not fulfill duties regarding the
accuracy of its financial disclosures.  Both the class action and
the derivative cases were brought in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action and in June
2012, the Court issued a ruling dismissing all of the counts
alleging any knowing or intentional wrongdoing by the Company or
its affiliates, directors and officers.

The plaintiffs appealed the Court's ruling and on March 7, 2014,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
unanimously affirmed the lower Court's ruling. As a result of
these rulings, the only counts remaining in the class action
relate to the Company's dividend reinvestment plan and the
plaintiffs in the derivative case have voluntarily dismissed their
case outright.

The Company expects to settle the remaining counts at an amount
between $0.5 million and $1.0 million and had a contingent
obligation of $0.5 million recorded at June 30, 2014.  Any
settlement is expected to be covered in full by insurance
proceeds.

The Company owns and manages a portfolio of real estate related
assets.


NATIONAL MILK: Court Grants Class Cert. Bid in Antitrust Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Edwards filed a putative antitrust class action against
National Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperatives Working
Together (CWT), Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Land O'Lakes,
Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc. on behalf of
all consumers who indirectly purchased milk and/or other fresh
milk products for their own use from 2003 to the present as
residents of fifteen states and of Washington, D.C.  The
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated the state antitrust
laws of Washington, D.C. and these fifteen states: Arizona,
California, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

District Judge Jeffrey S. White in an order dated September 16,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/NVylo9from
Leagle.com, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion with
respect to the class action from West Virginia based on lack of
standing, but granted the remainder of Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiff have sought class certification in each of the 15
states, plus Washington, D.C., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 for these classes:  All consumers who, from 2003 to
the present, as residents of [State], indirectly purchased milk
and/or other fresh milk products (including cream, half & half,
yogurt, cottage cheese, cream cheese, and/or sour cream) for their
own use and not for resale.

The case is MATTHEW EDWARDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MILK
PRODUCERS FEDERATION, aka COOPERATIVES WORKING TOGETHER, et al.,
Defendants, NO. C 11-04766 JSW, (N.D. Cal.).

Matthew Edwards, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk
Law PLLC, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Elaine T. Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shaprio LLP, Elizabeth A.
Fegan, George W. Sampson, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jason
Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Torah Montessori School, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk,
Berk Law PLLC, Elaine T. Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shaprio
LLP, Elizabeth A. Fegan, George W. Sampson, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Jason Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Danell Tomasella, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk
Law PLLC.

Jeffrey Robb, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Nels Thogersen, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Boys and Girls Club of the East Valley, Plaintiff, represented by
Steven N. Berk, Berk Law PLLC.

Alex Weinstein, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Justin Paczesny, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk
Law PLLC.

Robert Deloss, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Teresa Tobin, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Tiffany Marie Havener, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk,
Berk Law PLLC.

Scott Cook, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Kory Pentland, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Chloe Britzius, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Mary Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Julie Ewald, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Ian Groves, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Robert George, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Scott Weber, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

Harmonie Skipper, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk
Law PLLC.

Jennifer Clites, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk
Law PLLC.

Corlea Burnett, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

John Murray, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N. Berk, Berk Law
PLLC.

National Milk Producers Federation, Defendant, represented by
Chong Seok Park, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Dylan Ruga, Steptoe &
Johnson LLP, John J. Kavanagh, III, Steptoe and Johnson LLP &
Kenneth P. Ewing, Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.,, Defendant, represented by Jesse
William Markham, Carl R Metz, Williams and Connolly LLP, Greg
Scott Hillson, Willaims Connolly, Ishai Zvi Mooreville, Baker and
Miller PLLC, Kevin Hardy, Steven R Kuney, & W. Todd Miller, Baker
& Miller PLLC.

Dairylea Cooperative Inc., Defendant, represented by Clifford G.
Tsan, Bond Schoeneck and King, PLLC, Edward R. Conan, Bond,
Schoeneck and King, PLLC, Jacob P. Alpren, Farmer Brownstein
Jaeger LLP, Lucy S Clippinger, Bond, Schoeneck and King, PLLC,
Suzanne O. Galbato, Bond, Schoeneck and King, PLLC & William S
Farmer, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP.

Agrimark, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jan Nielsen Little,
Keker & Van Nest, LLP, Jill M O'Toole, Shipman and Goodwin LLP,
Diane Curran Polletta, Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, Eric Goldstein,
Shipman and Goodwin LLP, Sarah Josephine McGinley, Shipman and
Goodwin LLP & Susan S Murphy, Shipman and Goodwin.

Land O'Lakes, Inc., Defendant, represented by George Arnold
Nicoud, III, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Scott C. Solberg, Eimer
Stahl, LLP, Daniel David Birk, Eimer Stahl LLP, Matthew Stewart
Kahn, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl
Klevorn & Solberg LLP, Sarah Malkerson, Eimer Stahl LLP, Scott
Charles Solberg, Eimer Stahl LLP & Vanessa Greenwood Jacobsen,
Eimer Stahl LLP.

Nels Thorgersen, Interested Party, represented by Elaine T.
Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shaprio LLP.

Kory Pentland, Interested Party, represented by Elaine T.
Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shaprio LLP.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jahanger Siddiqei, on behalf of himself individually and all
others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-05521 (E.D.N.Y., September 19, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
          E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


NCL CORP: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Paul, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. NCL Corporation Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-
23469-JLK (S.D. Fla., September 19, 2014)

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NETVISION LTD: Israeli Supreme Court Dismisses Class Suit Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
RTT News reports that Cellcom Israel Ltd. announced the Israeli
Supreme Court has dismissed with prejudice an appeal filed in 2011
against the dismissal with prejudice of a class action filed
against Netvision Ltd., the company's wholly owned subsidiary, and
other defendants, regarding on-line auctions of goods.  A class
action was filed against 013 Netvision Ltd., or Netvision, the
company's wholly owned subsidiary, in relation to sums Netvision
allegedly wrongfully charged its subscribers, relating to their
payment method.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. is the largest Israeli cellular provider, with
a broad range of value added services including cellular and
landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and
for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of
music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's
technologically advanced infrastructure.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Files Bid to Expunge and Remove Plaintiffs' Lien
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that during late 2012, the
Company was put on notice and/or served with two separate
purported class action lawsuits related to alleged unpaid
compensation for time incurred by CoStars' while on Property for
donning and doffing of the CoStars' required uniform, alleged
improper rounding of time for hours worked and various other
claims related to alleged unpaid compensation. One of the
purported wage and hour class action lawsuits is pending in the
Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, and one
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
The discovery period as to liability has closed in both cases.

A motion to certify the class was filed in the Eighth Judicial
District Court for Clark County, Nevada in late-March 2014. A
motion to conditionally certify certain classes of employees was
filed in the federal court action, but that motion has been denied
in part and stayed in part. A recently filed renewed motion to
certify a subset of employees was denied by the court in the U.S.
District action.

In June 2014 liens were filed by the plaintiffs. The Company has
filed a motion to expunge and remove the lien with a hearing
anticipated to occur during the third quarter of 2014. Substantial
questions of law and fact remain unresolved in both cases.

Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in
Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of
Las Vegas, which commenced operations on December 15, 2010.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Suit Over Unlawful Taping in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed during the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2012 in Superior Court in the State of California
against the Company, alleging violation of the California Penal
Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording of calls.
Subsequently, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, to strike the class allegations. On July 15, 2013,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
issued an order denying these Company motions.

This matter is in the early stages of proceedings. Discovery has
commenced, no depositions have occurred, and no motions to certify
a class or subclasses have been filed. Substantial questions of
law and fact are unresolved. Specific additional factors
applicable to this case that prevent the Company from providing an
estimate of reasonably possible loss or range of loss include, but
are not limited to: (1) whether class certification will be
granted and the scope of any class or subclass; (2) the
quantification of highly variable damages claimed by the purported
class are unspecified or indeterminate; and (3) the outcome of any
future settlement negotiations, should they occur, as they may
apply to limit the class or eliminate all class claims. As a
result, the Company cannot at this time determine the potential
impact of the lawsuit on the consolidated financial position, cash
flows, or results of operations of the Company. The Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to this
matter and intends to defend its position vigorously.

Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in
Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of
Las Vegas, which commenced operations on December 15, 2010.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Plaintiff to Dismiss "Spangler" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed on or about August 26, 2013, against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Lenny Spangler v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, et
al., alleging, among other things, that former class action
settlements entered into by the Company with buyers of condominium
hotel units in the project were fraudulently induced, and seeking
to recover all amounts paid to or retained by the Company in such
settlements. During 2014, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case
in exchange for a waiver and release by the Company of its claims
for costs related to the lawsuit. A formal order of dismissal was
subsequently entered with the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada.

Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in
Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of
Las Vegas, which commenced operations on December 15, 2010.


NEVADA PROPERTY: "Okada" Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a complaint was filed
on or about March 3, 2014, against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, captioned
Donald Okada v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, et al., alleging, among
other things, that former class action settlements entered into by
the Company with buyers of condominium hotel units in the project
were fraudulently induced thus permitting the plaintiff to recover
the full earnest money deposit and related attorney fees. During
July 2014, the complaint against the Company was dismissed.

Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in
Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of
Las Vegas, which commenced operations on December 15, 2010.


NEWS CORPORATION: Deal Reached in Class Actions in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation said in its Form 10-K Annual Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that commencing on February 24,
2012, five purported consumer class actions were filed in the
Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, which
relate to the decisions by certain publishers, including
HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. ("HarperCollins"), to sell their
e-books in Canada pursuant to an agency relationship. The actions
seek as relief special, general and punitive damages, injunctive
relief and the costs of the litigations. On May 8, 2014, the
parties entered into a settlement agreement, which is subject to
court approval, the terms of which will not be material to the
Company.


NEWS CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeding in In-Store Marketing Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation said in its Form 10-K Annual Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that on April 8, 2014, in
connection with a pending action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in which The Dial
Corporation, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., H.J. Heinz Company, H.J.
Heinz Company, L.P., Foster Poultry Farms, Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
HP Hood LLC, BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum Brands, Inc. allege
various claims under federal and state antitrust law against News
Corporation, News America Incorporated ("NAI"), News America
Marketing FSI L.L.C. ("NAM FSI"), and News America Marketing In-
Store Services L.L.C. ("NAM In-Store Services" and, together with
News Corporation, NAI and NAM FSI, the "NAM Group"), plaintiffs
filed a fourth amended complaint on consent of the parties. The
fourth amended complaint asserts federal and state antitrust
claims both individually and on behalf of the two putative classes
in connection with plaintiffs' purchase of in-store marketing
services and free-standing insert coupons. The complaint seeks
treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The NAM
Group answered the fourth amended complaint and asserted
counterclaims against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company,
H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry Farms on April 21,
2014, and discovery is proceeding.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree
of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the NAM Group
believes it has been compliant with applicable antitrust laws and
intends to defend itself vigorously.


NOBLE ENERGY: "Phelps" Suit Removed to Colorado District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DCP Midstream, LP, removed the class action lawsuit
styled Phelps Oil and Gas, LLC v. Noble Energy, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2014CV033135, from the Denver District Court to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver).  The
Colorado District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-02604-REB
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts breach of contract claims.

Defendant DCP Midstream, LP, is represented by:

          Lucy H. Deakins, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP
          1200 17th Street, Suite 1000
          Denver, CO 80202-5835
          Telephone: (303) 801-2700
          Facsimile: (303) 801-2777
          E-mail: ldeakins@fulbright.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orli Avtalion, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Northland Group, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:14-cv-05487-CBA-SMG (E.D.N.Y., September 18, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NY CITY TRANSIT: Accused of Retaliation and Retaliatory Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Colella v. New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan
and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07617-UA (S.D.N.Y., September 19, 2014) is brought against the
Defendants for retaliation and retaliatory discharge in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Headquartered in Brooklyn, New York, New York City Transit
Authority provides bus and subway service throughout the city of
New York.  NYCTA is a public benefit corporation and affiliate of
the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority.  NYCTA
operates under the trade name "MTA New York City Transit."

Also headquartered in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Bronx Surface
Transit Operating Authority provides bus service throughout the
city of New York.  MABSTOA is a public benefit corporation and
statutory subsidiary of NYCTA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald L. Sapir, Esq.
          Howard Schragin, Esq.
          SAPIR SCHRAGIN LLP
          399 Knollwood Road, Suite 310
          White Plains, NY 10603
          Telephone: (914) 328-0366
          Facsimile: (914) 682-9128
          E-mail: DSapir@sapirschragin.com
                  hschragin@sapirschragin.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hopkins and Phyllis Nugent, on their own behalf and for all
others similarly situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC, Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A.,
Altisource Solutions, Inc., and William Erbey, Case No. 9:14-cv-
81197-WJZ (S.D. Fla., September 22, 2014) seeks relief from
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq.
          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS
          & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: mark@pathtojustice.com
                  seth@pathtojustice.com
                  steve@pathtojustice.com


PEG PEREGO: Removed "Hoffman" Suit to California District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Hoffman v. Peg Perego U.S.A.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00026807-CU-NP-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02227-CAB-JLB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts personal injury claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Donboli, Esq.
          DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP
          12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-6244
          Facsimile: (858) 793-6005
          E-mail: jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Devin J. Stone, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 284-3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          E-mail: dstone@btlaw.com


PLASTIC2OIL INC: Additional Briefing Submitted to Support Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plastic2Oil, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that certain of the
Company's stockholders filed on July 28, 2011, a class action
lawsuit against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin on
behalf of purchasers of its securities.  In an amended complaint
filed on July 10, 2012, these stockholders sought to represent
such purchasers during the period from August 28, 2009 through
January 4, 2012.

The original and amended complaints in that case, filed in federal
court in Nevada, allege that the defendants made false or
misleading statements, or both, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects in press releases and filings made with the SEC.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants made false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose material
information, or a combination thereof regarding: (1) that certain
media credits ("Media Credits") were substantially overvalued; (2)
that the Company improperly accounted for acquisitions; (3) that,
as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (4)
that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.
During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was
appointed in the case and an amended complaint was filed. The
defendants' answer to the amended complaint was filed during the
fourth quarter of 2012.

On August 8, 2013, JBI, Inc., entered a stipulation agreement (the
"Stipulation Agreement") in potential settlement of the previously
reported class action lawsuit filed by certain stockholders of the
Company against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin
(both former officers of the Company) on behalf of a settlement
class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from August 28, 2009 through January 4, 2012
(the "Proposed Class Period").  Under the Stipulation Agreement,
the Company would agree to issue shares of its common stock that
will comprise a settlement fund.  The number of shares to be
issued will be dependent on the price per share of the Company's
common stock during a period preceding the date of the Court's
entry of final judgment in the case (the "Judgment Date").  If the
price of the Company's common stock is less than $0.50 per share
based upon the average closing price for the 90 trading days
preceding the Judgment Date, the Company would issue 3 million
shares of its common stock. If the price of the Company's common
stock is between $0.50 and $0.70 per share, based upon the same
90-day average closing price, the Company would issue 2.5 million
shares of its common stock.  If the price of the Company's common
stock is more than $0.70 per share based upon the same 90-day
average closing price the Company will issue 1.75 million shares
of its common stock.  The shares will not be distributed to class
members in kind.  At any time after final approval by the Court,
class counsel would have the option to sell all or any portion of
such shares for the benefit of class members, subject to certain
volume limitations.  Plaintiff's counsel's attorneys' fees,
subject to Court approval, would be paid out of the settlement
fund.  The Company would also pay settlement-related costs up to a
maximum of $200,000.  The plaintiffs and each of the class members
who purchased the Company's common stock during the Proposed Class
Period and alleged they were damaged would be deemed to have fully
released all claims against the Company and other defendants upon
entry of judgment.

On September 10, 2013, that agreement was submitted to the Court,
and class counsel moved for entry of an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement, including the mailing of a settlement
notice that will include, among other things, the general terms of
the settlement, proposed plan of allocation, and terms of
plaintiff's counsel's fee application.  On April 1, 2014, the
Court issued an Order denying that motion. Additional briefing has
been submitted to the Court in support of the motion, and it is
anticipated that the Court will reconsider its Order. The Company
cannot predict the outcome of the class action litigation at this
time.


POKERTEK INC: Inks Memorandum of Understanding in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
PokerTek, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company faces
litigation to a merger with Multimedia Games, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("MGAM"), and 23 Acquisition Co., a North Carolina
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of MGAM ("Merger Sub").

A purported class action complaint on behalf of the Company's
shareholders was filed on May 9, 2014 in the General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division in and for Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina, Case No. 14-CVS-8300, captioned Robert Simmer, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
PokerTek, Inc., Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., Multimedia
Games, Inc., 23 Acquisition Co., James Crawford, Joe Lahti, Lyle
Berman, Lou White and Arthur L. Lomax, Defendants, and a purported
amended class action complaint was filed on June 6, 2014 ("Action
#1").

A second purported class action complaint on behalf of the
Company's shareholders was filed on May 15, 2014 in the General
Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in and for Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, Case No 14-CVS-8911, captioned Jeffrey
Weber and James Dabord, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PokerTek, Inc., Multimedia Games
Holding Company, Inc., Multimedia Games, Inc., 23 Acquisition Co.,
James Crawford, Joe Lahti, Lyle Berman, Lou White and Arthur L.
Lomax, Defendants, and an purported amended class action complaint
was filed on June 6, 2014 ("Action #2").

A third purported class action complaint on behalf of the
Company's shareholders was filed on May 16, 2014 in the General
Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in and for Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, Case No. 14-CVS-9215, captioned Herald J.
Stephens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as Plaintiff, v. Mark D. Roberson, James T. Crawford
III, Joseph J. Lahti, Lyle A. Berman, Gehrig H. White, Arthur L.
Lomax, PokerTek, Inc., Multimedia Games, Inc., Multimedia Games
Holding Company, Inc. and 23 Acquisition Co., Defendants ("Action
#3").

A fourth purported class action complaint on behalf of the
Company's shareholders was filed on May 19, 2014 in the General
Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in and for Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, Case No 14-CVS-9271, captioned Luis Lobo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as
Plaintiff, v. PokerTek, Inc., James Crawford, Joe Lahti, Lyle
Berman, Gehrig White, Lee Lomax, Mark Roberson, Multimedia Games,
Inc. and 23 Acquisition Co., Defendants, and an purported amended
class action complaint was filed on June 6, 2014 ("Action #4").

A firth purported class action and shareholder derivative
complaint on behalf of the Company's shareholders was filed on
June 9, 2014 in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division in and for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Case No
14-CVS-10579, captioned Arkady Sandler, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, as Plaintiff, v. Joseph J.
Lahti, Lyle A. Berman, Gehrig H. White, Arthur L. Lomax, James T.
Crawford III, Multimedia Games, Inc. and 23 Acquisition Co.,
Defendants and PokerTek, Inc., Nominal Defendant ("Action #5").

On July 8, 2014, the Actions were consolidated into a single
action under the caption of Action #5 (the "Consolidated Action").

On July 10, 2014, a substantially similar shareholder action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina, captioned Clark v. PokerTek, Inc., Case No.
3:14 cv 00380 (W.D.N.C.), alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and
aiding and abetting thereof and related violations of federal
securities laws relating to the Proposed Transaction. The Company
has not received service of process in the Federal Action.

The Company believes that the Actions are without merit and that
the defendants committed no breach of any duty, aided or abetted
any breach or violated any federal securities laws or other laws
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. Further, the Company
believes no further disclosure was required to supplement the
Definitive Proxy Statement under any applicable rule, statute,
regulation or law.

However, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in all such litigation, on July 13, 2014, the defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") regarding settlement of the Consolidated Action.
The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties'
agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were
or could have been asserted in the Consolidated Action and the
Federal Action.

In consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to
the Consolidated Action agreed that the Company would make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Definitive Proxy Statement, and
those disclosures were made in a Current Report on Form 8-K dated
July 13, 2014. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that
the parties will attempt in good faith to agree promptly upon a
stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the assigned Judge of
the North Carolina Business Court of the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina for
approval at the earliest practicable time.

The stipulation will be subject to customary conditions, including
confirmatory discovery and approval by the Court, which will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement.

The parties have also agreed to negotiate in good faith regarding
the amount of attorneys' fees, if any, to be paid to Plaintiffs'
counsel. Any amount of agreed attorneys' fees in the stipulation
is subject to court approval, and in the event there is no
agreement on attorneys' fees or Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award
of fees in excess of the negotiated amount then the Company has
reserved the right to object to the requested award of attorneys'
fees.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, following final
approval by the Court, the Consolidated Action will be dismissed
with prejudice. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into the stipulation or that the Court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into the
stipulation. In such event, or if the Merger is not consummated
for any reason, the proposed settlement will be null and void and
of no force and effect.

The settlement does not affect the amount of merger consideration
to be paid to shareholders in connection with the proposed Merger.

PokerTek, Inc. develops, manufactures and markets electronic table
games and related products for casinos, cruise lines, racinos,
card clubs and lotteries worldwide.  Its products line consists of
two primary platforms -- PokerPro and ProCore.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Has $8MM Reserve for Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc. and Prosper Funding LLC said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014,
that plaintiffs filed in 2008 a class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its executive officers and directors in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The suit was brought on behalf of all promissory note purchasers
on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. The
lawsuit alleged that the Company offered and sold unqualified and
unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal
securities laws. On July 19, 2013 solely to avoid the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action
litigation agreed to enter into a settlement to resolve all claims
related thereto (the "Settlement"). In connection with the
Settlement, the Company agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $10
million into a settlement fund, split into four annual
installments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015, $3 million
in 2016 and $3 million in 2017. The Settlement received final
approval in a final order and judgment entered by the Superior
Court on April 16, 2014. Pursuant to the final order and judgment,
the claims in the class action were dismissed, and at the
effective time of the Settlement (June 16, 2014), the defendants
will have been released by the plaintiffs from all claims that
were or could have been asserted concerning the issues alleged in
the class action lawsuit. The reserve for the class action
settlement liability is $8 million in the condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of June 30, 2014.

Prosper Marketplace, Inc. ("PMI") developed and began operating a
peer-to-peer online credit platform (the "platform") in 2006.


QC HOLDINGS: Reached Deals With 2 Plaintiffs in N.C. Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on February 8, 2005,
the Company, two of its subsidiaries, including its subsidiary
doing business in North Carolina, and Mr. Don Early, the Company's
Chairman of the Board, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover
County, North Carolina in a putative class action lawsuit filed by
James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of
a Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the Company provided
certain services in connection with the bank's origination of
payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the
Company's North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005.

In July 2011, the parties completed a weeklong hearing on the
Company's motion to enforce its class action waiver provision and
its arbitration provision.

In January 2012, the trial court denied the Company's motion to
enforce its class action and arbitration provisions. The Company
appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

On February 4, 2014, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial
court erred, and ordered the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit
and that the parties proceed to arbitration.

On June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court of North Carolina refused to
hear an appeal of this ruling.

The Company and the two plaintiffs have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the two individual arbitration proceedings
(including any right to seek class arbitration) for an amount that
is not material to the Company. The agreement is subject to
negotiation and execution of a written settlement agreement.

QC Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide various financial
services (primarily payday loans and installment loans) through
its retail branches and Internet lending operations.


QC HOLDINGS: "Lee" Case Settlement to be Finalized by Yearend
-------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company acquired
all the outstanding shares of Direct Credit, a British Columbia
company engaged in short-term, consumer Internet lending in
certain Canadian provinces. On October 18, 2011, Matthew Lee, an
alleged Alberta, Canada resident sued Direct Credit, all of its
subsidiaries and three former directors of those subsidiaries in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia in a purported class action.
The plaintiff alleges that Direct Credit and its subsidiaries
violated Canada's criminal usury laws by charging interest on its
loans at rates higher than 60%. The plaintiff purports to
represent all Canadian borrowers of the subsidiary who resided
outside of British Columbia.

The parties have executed a written settlement of this matter,
subject to an audit verification of proposed settlement amounts
and receipt of required court approval of the settlement terms.
The Company's share of the settlement amount and ancillary
expenses, net of indemnification from the prior owners of Direct
Credit, is $500,000 (Canadian).

In June 2014, the Company's share of the settlement and the
indemnification amount due from the prior owners of Direct Credit,
were funded into a settlement trust held by an independent third
party trustee.  It is expected that the settlement will be
finalized by the end of 2014, with execution of its requirements
to continue into 2015.

QC Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide various financial
services (primarily payday loans and installment loans) through
its retail branches and Internet lending operations.


QC HOLDINGS: Parties in "Stemple" Case Briefing Class Cert Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on August 13, 2012, the
Company was sued in the United States District Court for the South
District of California in a putative class action lawsuit filed by
Paul Stemple. Mr. Stemple alleges that the Company used an
automatic telephone dialing system with an "artificial or
prerecorded voice" in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. The complaint does not
identify any other members of the proposed class, nor how many
members may be in the proposed class. This matter is in the early
stages of litigation. The Company has filed an answer denying all
claims. The parties are currently briefing class certification
issues.

QC Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide various financial
services (primarily payday loans and installment loans) through
its retail branches and Internet lending operations.


RACEWAY FORD: Appeals Court Issues Ruling in Consumers' Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs, appellants, and cross-respondents (plaintiffs) in
RACEWAY FORD CASES, NOS. E054517, E056595 are consumers who
purchased vehicles from defendant, respondent, and cross-appellant
Raceway Ford (Raceway), an automobile dealership. Plaintiffs
alleged numerous causes of action based on laws proscribing
certain acts against consumers, unfair competition, and deceptive
business practices, bringing both individual claims and claims on
behalf of two certified classes. The trial court, after a bench
trial, entered judgment in favor of Raceway and against plaintiffs
on all causes of action, except that a single plaintiff was
granted rescission on a single cause of action. Separately, the
trial court awarded attorneys' fees and costs to Raceway in the
amount of $1,503,084.50.

In appeals filed with the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth
District, Division Two, which were consolidated for oral argument
and decision, plaintiffs challenged the trial court's judgment on
the merits (case No. E054517) and fee order (case No. E056595);
Raceway has cross-appealed regarding one aspect of the trial
court's fee order.

In an opinion dated September 16, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/rhGC8mfrom Leagle.com, the Calif.
Appeals Court ruled that in case No. E054517, the judgment below
is affirmed in part and reversed in part:

* With respect to Class One's cause of action for violation of the
Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA), the judgment is reversed, and
the matter remanded to the trial court for any further proceedings
necessary to determine whether the members of Class One, or some
subsection thereof, can establish a violation of the ASFA under
the law as explicated in this opinion.

* With respect to Class One's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) causes of action, the judgment
is affirmed.

* With respect to Class Two's claims under the ASFA, the judgment
is affirmed.

* With respect to the claims of plaintiffs Carl Stone, Deborah
Stone, Francisco Salcedo, Anselmo Alaniz, Joe Contreras, Edelmira
Contreras, Jonathan Ott, Martha Ott, Eldridge Johnson, Randal
Kidd, Macon Pollard, Ozetta Pollard, and Suzanna Moreno under the
ASFA in their individual capacities regarding their credit
applications, the judgment is affirmed.

* With respect to the causes of action asserted by plaintiff
Francisco Salcedo under the UCL and the CLRA in his individual
capacity, the judgment is reversed; the trial court is directed to
enter judgment in favor of Mr. Salcedo on those causes of action,
and to determine what additional remedies, if any, other than
those he has already been awarded with respect to his cause of
action for common law fraud, he should receive.

* The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

In case No. E056595, the trial court's fee order is vacated, and
the matter of an award of attorney fees and costs remanded for
determination by the trial court, after final adjudication of all
claims.

Rosner, Barry & Babbitt and Hallen D. Rosner, Christopher P. Barry
and Angela J. Smith for Plaintiffs and Appellants Carl Stone et
al.

Callahan, Thompson, Sherman & Caudill and Kellie S. Christianson
for Defendant and Respondent Raceway Ford, Inc.


RIVER REGION: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah A. Young v. River Region Human Services, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-01150-MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla., September 22, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of failing to pay the Plaintiff's minimum wages and
overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

River Region Human Services, Inc. is a Florida Non-Profit
Corporation located in Jacksonville, Florida.  The Defendant
provides "mental health and substance abuse treatment, supportive
housing, HIV/AIDS testing and education, and a wide range of Youth
& Family Services."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
          FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
          100 N. Biscayne Blvd.
          29th Floor, Suite 2902
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 222-7850
          Facsimile: (305) 384-4676
          E-mail: erosenberg@ffmlawgroup.com


SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Court Refused to Compel Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit claiming Samsung's Galaxy S4 phone isn't as
fast or high-performing as the company claims will not be sent to
an arbitrator, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge James Donato denied Samsung's motion to compel
arbitration, concluding that no arbitration agreement existed
between the parties after a Verizon salesperson unboxed the phone
and handed it to name plaintiff Daniel Norcia without also giving
him the warranty booklet, which contained the arbitration
provisions.

In February Daniel Norcia sued Samsung, alleging the company
"intentionally programmed the Galaxy S4 to fool benchmark apps and
create false perceptions regarding the speed and performance of
those devices."

Benchmarking apps assess how well devices work, and compare the
score to similar devices.

Samsung moved to compel arbitration, pointing to an arbitration
provision in the phone's warranty.  Page 70 of the Samsung
warranty booklet says, "All disputes with Samsung arising in any
way from this limited warranty or the sale, condition or
performance of the products shall be resolved exclusively through
final and binding arbitration, and not by a court or jury,"
Donato's order says.

Norcia says he never knew about that provision, because when he
bought the phone he only took the hardware and left the box and
booklet in the store.

Samsung argued that Norcia must have received notice of the
arbitration contract because he said in his complaint that he
looked at Samsung's Web site, and the website contains a link to
the warranty.

Norcia later said the complaint's reference to the web page was a
"mistake," the order says.

Judge Donato ruled that though Norcia voluntarily declined the
box, and must be treated as though he received it, that doesn't
constitute a contract for arbitration.

"The inconspicuous placement of the arbitration provisions in the
warranty booklet, and Samsung's failure to inform customers in any
way about the proposal to require arbitration, bar a finding that
a valid and enforceable contract was formed," Donato wrote.

The judge also ruled that Samsung's product web page "is not
sufficient by itself to constitute inquiry notice."

Donato then directed Norcia to file an accurate amended complaint
with no further inaccuracies.

The case is Daniel Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications America,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00582-JD, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


SAN DIEGO HOSPICE: Removed "Ross" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ross v. San Diego Hospice &
Palliative Care Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2014-0016055-CU-
WT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02236-W-JMA to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from claims of job discrimination due to age.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gail Judith Higgins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GAIL HIGGINS
          1017 North La Cienega, Suite 103
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 409-7080
          Facsimile: (301) 388-1018
          E-mail: ghigginse@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shauna Lee Michelle Sinnott, Esq.
          ANDREWS, LAGASSE, BRANCH & BELL LLP
          4365 Executive Drive, Suite 950
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 345-5080
          Facsimile: (858) 345-5025
          E-mail: ssinnott@albblaw.com


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Court Approves Settlement and Certifies Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2011, plaintiff Paul Kubala (on behalf of his minor
child N.K.) filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against SkyPeople Fruit Juice, Inc., certain of its individual
officers and/or directors, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the
underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering consummated
in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On June 20, 2011, plaintiff Benjamin Padnos filed a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and/or directors, the Company's former
independent auditors Child Van Wagner & Bradshaw, PLLC and BDO
Limited, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the underwriter of the
Company's follow-on public offering consummated in August 2010,
alleging violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On August 30, 2011, the Court consolidated the foregoing two
actions and appointed Zachary Lewy as lead plaintiff. On September
30, 2011, pursuant to the Court's order, Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint, which names the Company, Rodman & Renshaw,
LLC, BDO Limited, Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC and certain of
the Company's current and former directors and/or officers and
majority shareholders as defendants, and alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and the rules promulgated
thereunder.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action.
On December 21, 2011, the Company and certain of the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On May 3, 2012, Lead Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims
against BDO Limited and Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC. On
September 10, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On January 11, 2013, defendant Rodman & Renshaw LLC filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and, on January 18, 2013 the
court imposed an automatic stay on Plaintiffs claims against
Rodman pursuant to Section 326(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The parties settled this matter by the Company agreeing to
contribute $2,200,000 into a settlement fund to pay class members
(the "Settlement"). On October 4, 2013, the Company's insurance
company, Navigators Insurance Company, wired a total of $2,200,000
into the settlement escrow account, which was confirmed by the
plaintiff counsel.

On January 27, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the
Settlement, certifying the class for settlement purposes and
dismissing the suit with prejudice, SkyPeople Fruit Juice said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.


SMARTHEAT INC: Class Action Delays Chief Financial Officer Hiring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SmartHeat Inc. said in its Form 12b-25 Notification of Late
Filing, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 14, 2014, that the Company is currently searching for a
Chief Financial Officer to replace Michael Wilhelm, who resigned
on February 20, 2013, due to being "named personally in a
groundless shareholder suit, where the alleged (unproven) actions
in question are alleged to have taken place long before his
involvement in the Company." The difficulty in retaining a
suitable Chief Financial Officer, who is qualified to sign the
requisite Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, due to the legal
harassment of the Company's officers by the plaintiffs and lawyers
in the class action, will delay the filing of the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014.


SMITH LIMOUSINE: Drivers Seek to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Williams, Milton McDaniel, Matthew Nobles, Roderick Coulter,
Mary Koontz, Melba Rush on Behalf of the Estate of Anthony Rush v.
Ibrahim Haddad dba Smith Limousine and Vantage Way, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-03379-D (N.D. Tex., September 18, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
drivers the minimum and overtime wages required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ibrahim Haddad, doing business as Smith Limousine, is an
individual, who may be served with process in Dallas, Texas.
Vantage Way, Inc., is a Texas for-profit corporation whose
registered agent is Ibrahim Haddad.

The Defendants employ the Plaintiffs as limousine drivers.  The
Defendants' customers are individuals, who request to be picked-up
and dropped off: around the Dallas and Fort Worth metroplex;
Travel to and from various locations around the state of Texas; or
travel to and from Texas' contiguous states.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Delia Cruz-Bruno, Esq.
          CRUZ-BRUNO, PLLC
          545 East John Carpenter, Ste. 300
          Irving, TX 75062
          Telephone: (972) 719-9012
          Facsimile: (972) 719-9016
          E-mail: dcbruno@cruzbrunolaw.com


SPENDSMART NETWORKS: SMS Masterminds Faces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the complaint alleges that SMS Masterminds sent
unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff and other recipients
without the prior express invitation or permission of the
recipients and such plaintiff is now seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that SMS Masterminds was
named in a potential class-action lawsuit filed on January 1,
2014, in the United States District Court Eastern District of New
York relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The plaintiff's lawsuit has
sought the certification of a class, though as of the date of this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q such class certification has not
been approved by the court.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that SMS Masterminds sent
unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff and other recipients
without the prior express invitation or permission of the
recipients and such plaintiff is now seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "Litigation is subject to numerous uncertainties
and we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this or any
other matter. Moreover, the amount of any potential liability in
connection with this lawsuit will depend, to a large extent, on
whether a class in a class action lawsuit is certified and, if one
is certified, on the scope of the class, neither of which we can
predict at this time. These and any future lawsuits that we may
face regarding these issues could materially and adversely affect
our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition,
cause us to incur significant expenses and divert the attention of
our management and key personnel from our business operations."


ST. PETER'S UNIVERSITY: Judge Grants Leave for ERISA Ruling Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
St. Peter's University Hospital in New Brunswick, N.J., has been
granted leave for an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit on whether a $70 million shortfall
in its pension plan is allowed under a religious exemption to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp of the District of New Jersey
granted the hospital's motion to certify an appeal of his March 31
decision, which denied its motion to dismiss a putative class
action by plan participants and beneficiaries.  Judge Shipp said
the case presents a question of first impression in the Third
Circuit: whether a nonprofit health-care corporation that is
controlled by or associated with a church is entitled to the
so-called church plan exemption from ERISA.

The plaintiff opposed the interlocutory appeal, arguing that it
was not warranted because the case did not present exceptional
circumstances.  The hospital said the appeal was warranted because
the March 31 ruling created "chaos" for "hundreds of institutions
across the country" that are impacted by the issue.  Judge Shipp
said he did not agree that the ruling created nationwide "chaos,"
but he did agree with the defendant's assertion that the case is
an exceptional one.

The interlocutory appeal is warranted because the question of
whether a hospital can establish a church plan pension is a
controlling question of law in the case, Judge Shipp said.

Furthermore, an appeal is warranted because of conflicting
interpretations of the issue from other courts that have dealt
with the same issue, Judge Shipp said.

"In sum, this is the rare case where an interlocutory appeal is
appropriate," Judge Shipp said.

Although the Third Circuit might not permit the hospital to take
an appeal, the defendant should have the opportunity to ask for
one, Judge Shipp said.

The suit, Kaplan v. St. Peter's Healthcare System, is one of a
half-dozen pending nationwide that challenge the use of church
plan status by pension plans at hospitals with religious
affiliation.  The plaintiffs claim St. Peter's falls short of
ERISA's minimum vesting levels and other regulatory provisions
designed to ensure the plan remains viable, but since 2006 the
hospital has represented its pension as a church plan.

According to the plaintiffs, a pension plan is entitled to
exemption from ERISA regulations if it is "established and
maintained for its employees by a church or by a convention or
association of churches."

In its argument for dismissal of the complaint, St. Peter's cited
an August 2013 letter it received from the Internal Revenue
Service saying the pension plan is a church plan, but Judge Shipp
found the IRS's position was not entitled to deference.  He said
the IRS letter conflicts with the plain text of the statute and
was issued in a nonadversarial setting based on information
provided by the hospital.

St. Peter's had also relied on a decision from a federal court in
Minnesota, saying that a tax-exempt publishing company associated
with a Lutheran group can establish a church plan.  But Judge
Shipp said the Minnesota court did not undertake a detailed
statutory analysis.  He instead relied on a California court's
ruling denying church plan status to a health-care organization
because it was not established by a church or group of churches.

Judge Shipp also granted a stay of the litigation until the Third
Circuit decides whether it will permit an appeal to be taken.

Karen Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen, Milstein
Sellers & Toll in Washington, D.C., representing the plaintiff,
said her client opposed the interlocutory appeal based on the
potential that the pension could become more underfunded or could
encounter other problems as the result of the lack of oversight
under ERISA.  But in light of a similar case that's on appeal
before the Sixth Circuit, in a case that was decided in favor of a
hospital being granted church plan status, Ms. Handorf said.
"There is a dispute in the courts.  In a way, it makes sense for
the decision to get some guidance."

Ms. Handorf's co-counsel, Matthew Smith --
msmith@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein, said, "We're
reviewing our legal position with regard to the interlocutory
appeal.  We have every confidence that Judge Shipp's ruling was an
excellent one and it will be upheld on appeal."

Cohen Milstein is also plaintiffs counsel in five other cases
brought in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Illinois and
California to challenge use of the church plan exemption to ERISA
regulation by health-care providers with religious affiliations.

In one of those cases, in federal court in Philadelphia, the
defendant is Catholic Health East, the operator of 35 hospitals,
including four in New Jersey -- St. Michael's Medical Center in
Newark, St. Francis Medical Center in Trenton, N.J., Our Lady of
Lourdes Medical Center in Camden, N.J., and Lourdes Medical Center
of Burlington County in Willingboro, N.J.

The lawyer for St. Peter's, Jeffrey Greenbaum --
jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com -- of Sills, Cummis & Gross in Newark,
said of the ruling, "we're delighted that Judge Shipp recognized
that an immediate determination by the Third Circuit of this
threshold issue is justified.  We obviously disagree with Judge
Shipp's initial ruling and were pleased that he's recognized that
there's grounds for a difference of opinion."


SWEETWATER UNION: 9th Cir. Affirmed Judgment in "Ollier" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A San Diego high school must face claims that it fired the
softball coach for demanding equal treatment in the girls' sports
program, reports Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service, citing
a 9th Circuit ruling entered on September 19, 2014.

The ruling stems from a 2007 class action filed by five girls on
the softball team at Castle Park High School in Chula Vista.
Among other things, the girls contended that Sweetwater Union High
School District discouraged girls from participating in athletics
by giving boys more opportunities to play sports; gave boys better
practice facilities, locker rooms and equipment; publicizing boys'
events more than girls' events; and giving boys' sports programs
more funding.

They also claimed the school district fired Chris Martinez, the
girls' softball coach, after two of the girls' parents filed
complaints under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that
prohibits sexual discrimination in education.

U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz concluded in February 2012
after a 10-day bench trial that Sweetwater had discriminated
against female athletes and had retaliated against Coach Martinez
in violation of Title IX.

A three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit affirmed September 19,
2014.

Sweetwater had claimed in its defense that the discrepancy between
female and male participation in Castle Park athletics correlated
to the school's lower female enrollment generally.  It also said
that girls' participation in sports was on the rise, but that
Castle Park girls were not interested enough in certain sports to
merit permanent teams.

In siding with the girls September 22, the 9th Circuit highlighted
that the disparity between girls' enrollment at Castle Park and
girls' participation in sports was never less than 6.7 percent,
and was often as high as 13 percent.

As such, 47 girls could have played sports if opportunities were
available to them, according to the ruling.  Since Sweetwater
could not explain why 47 girls were not enough to maintain at
least one competitive team, its defense fails, the court found.

Equal proportionality also would not help Sweetwater pass Title
IX's "effective accommodation" test because it lacks a steady
history of expanding girls' sports programs at Castle Park, the
court found.

In fact, it cut the girls' field hockey team twice despite active
interest in the sport and enough athletes to sustain a team, the
ruling states.

Sweetwater also failed to show that testimony from two of its
expert witnesses -- retired superintendant Peter Schiff and
assistant principal Penny Parker -- had been improperly excluded.
Neither could support their opinions with clear, reliable
methodology, according to the ruling.

"Schiff and Parker based their proposed testimony on superficial
inspections of the Castle Park facilities," Judge Ronald Gould
wrote for the court.  "Even if a visual walkthrough, without more,
could be enough in some cases to render expert testimony
admissible under Rule 702, it certainly does not compel that
conclusion in all cases.  Moreover, as the district court found,
Schiff and Parker's conclusions were based on their 'personal
opinions and speculation rather than on a systematic assessment of
[Castle Park's] athletic facilities and programs.'  But personal
opinion testimony is inadmissible as a matter of law under Rule
702, and speculative testimony is inherently unreliable."

As for the exclusion of 38 Sweetwater witnesses, the court found
that Sweetwater improperly waited 15 months after the conclusion
of discovery to disclose them.

"The theory of disclosure under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is to encourage parties to try cases on the merits, not
by surprise, and not by ambush," Gould wrote.

"That another witness has made a passing reference in a deposition
to a person with knowledge or responsibilities who could
conceivably be a witness does not satisfy a party's disclosure
obligations," he added.  "An adverse party should not have to
guess which undisclosed witnesses may be called to testify."

It was neither justifiable nor harmless to spring a long list of
new witnesses on the plaintiffs a mere eight months before trial,
and the District Court did not abuse its discretion by excluding
them, the ruling states.

Pointing to the trial court's finding, after reviewing some
contemporaneous evidence, that improvements to the softball
facilities were still inadequate, the appellate court said
Sweetwater could not show an abuse of discretion.

In light of the "systematic problem of gender inequality" still
present in Castle Park's sports programs, "an injunction based on
past harm" was reasonable, Gould wrote.  Sweetwater likewise could
not show that the students did not have standing to bring Title IX
retaliation claims for its firing of Coach Martinez.

This argument "misunderstands plaintiffs' claim, which asserts
that Sweetwater impermissibly retaliated against them by firing
Coach Martinez in response to Title IX complaints he made on
[their] behalf," Gould wrote.

After firing Martinez, Sweetwater took away the team's assistant
coaches, canceled their awards banquet and "forbade them from
participating in a Las Vegas tournament attended by college
recruiters," injuries that affirm the girls' standing, the ruling
states.

The timing of when the girls complained about sex discrimination,
Coach Martinez's firing and the canceling of the awards banquet is
enough to show requisite causation, the ruling also states.

Moreover, Sweetwater's "shifting, inconsistent reasons" for firing
Coach Martinez imply that the reasons it gave for firing him --
including that he allegedly allowed an ineligible student to play
and that it wanted to replace him with an on-site coach -- were
pretextual, and the district court correctly identified them as
such, the court found.

"We reject Sweetwater's attempt to relitigate the merits of its
case," the ruling states.  "Title IX helps level the playing field
for female athletes.  In implementing this important principle,
the district court committed no error."

Judge N.R. Smith and Chief U.S. District Judge Morrison England,
sitting by designation from Sacramento, concurred.

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Paul V. Carelli, IV, Esq.
          Daniel R. Shinoff, Esq.
          Patrice M. Coady, Esq.
          STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ, APC
          2488 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 232-3122
          Facsimile: (619) 232-3264
          E-mail: pcarelli@stutzartiano.com
                  wshinoff@stutzartiano.com
                  pcoady@stutzartiano.com

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Elizabeth Kristen, Esq.
          Robert Borton, Esq.
          Kim Turner, Esq.
          THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY-EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 864-8848
          Facsimile: (415) 593-0096
          E-mail: bob.borton@yahoo.com
                  ekristen@las-elc.org
                  kturner@las-elc.org

               - and -

          Vicky L. Barker, Esq.
          Cacilia Kim, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
          360 North Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2070
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (323) 951-1041
          E-mail: vicky.barker@cwlc.org
                  cacilia.kim@cwlc.org

               - and -

          Joanna S. McCallum, Esq.
          Erin Witkow, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: jmccallum@manatt.com
                  ewitkow@manatt.com

Amicus Curiae United States of America is represented by:

          Erin H. Flynn, Esq.
          Dennis J. Dimsey, Esq.
          Holly A. Thomas, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, APPELLATE SECTION

               - and -

          Vanessa Santos, Esq.
          Philip H. Rosenfelt, Esq.
          Thomas E. Perez, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
          OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Amicus Curiae National Women's Law Center, et al., are represented
by:

          Fatima Goss Graves, Esq.
          Neena K. Chaudhry, Esq.
          Valarie Hogan, Esq.
          NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
          11 Dupont Circle, NW, # 800
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 588-5180
          Facsimile: (202) 588-5185

               - and -

          Lauren B. Fletcher, Esq.
          Anant K. Saraswat, Esq.
          WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE & DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6000
          Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
          E-mail: lauren.fletcher@wilmerhale.com
                  anant.saraswat@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Megan Barbero, Esq.
          Dina B. Mishra, Esq.
          Brittany Blueitt Amadi, Esq.
          WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE & DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
          E-mail: dina.mishra@wilmerhale.com
                  brittany.amadi@wilmerhale.com

Amicus Curiae Women's Sports Foundation, et al., are represented
by:

          Kristen Galles, Esq.
          EQUITY LEGAL
          10 Rosecrest Ave.
          Alexandria, VA 22301
          Telephone: (703) 683-4491
          Facsimile: (703) 683-4636

               - and -

          Nancy Hogshead-Makar, Esq.
          WOMEN'S SPORTS FOUNDATION
          Jacksonville, FL

The appellate case is Ollier, et al. v. Sweetwater Union 46 High
Sch. Dist., et al., Case No. 12-56348, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The trial court case is Ollier,
et al. v. Sweetwater Union 46 High Sch. Dist., et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00714-L-WMC, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.


TANDY CARTER: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Assa'ad-Faltas Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE-THERESE H. ASSA'AD-FALTAS, Plaintiff, v. TANDY CARTER, et
al., Defendants, NO. 1:14CV678, (M.D. N.C.) is before the Court on
the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperi,
filed in conjunction with her pro se Complaint and Motion for
Leave to File Electronically.

Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld issued a memorandum opinion,
order, and recommendation on September 15, 2014 permitting the
Plaintiff to proceed as a pauper solely to allow consideration of
a recommendation of dismissal.  He pointed out that in the
Complaint's caption and title, as well as in its body, the
Plaintiff purports to seek "qui tam recovery" and/or to proceed on
behalf of a class.  "The fact that Plaintiff persisted in framing
her Complaint in this fashion after at least two other courts
explained to her the impropriety of such conduct, underscores the
abusive nature of this litigation," Magistrate Judge Auld held.

"It is recommended that this action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and malicious, for failure to
state a claim, and due to the immunity of some Defendants,"
Magistrate Judge Auld wrote in his opinion, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/bbCjJPfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Electronically is denied.

MARIE-THERESE H. ASSA'AD-FALTAS, MD, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


TARGET CORP: Judge Approves $350,000 Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
satisfied that plaintiffs' attorneys had scrubbed $404 in
Starbucks purchases, meals and other charges from their request
for litigation costs in a $350,000 class-action settlement, a
California federal judge has signed off on the deal between Target
Corp. and thousands of employees.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, of the Northern
District of California, had balked on Sept. 2 at approving the
agreement upon examining the line-by-line breakdown of $6,339.41
in costs submitted by plaintiffs' attorneys.  Her objection:
Fourteen charges at cafes and restaurants, including a $104 .14
bill at a San Francisco sushi place.

On Sept. 3, Gonzalez Rogers ordered Setareh Law Group, of Beverly
Hills, Calif., to produce a "revised bill of costs," which it did
on Sept. 5. Gone were the meal and food costs.

That apparently did the trick. On Sept. 16, the judge signed off
on the settlement of Bernardino v. Target, which was brought by
former employees who alleged the company violated California labor
laws by delaying final paychecks to workers who were terminated.

The settlement includes about $200,000 for 4,300 class members,
which breaks down to a mean award of $46, according to the
agreement documents.  Settlement expenses will claim about
$35,000. Lawyers' fees are set at $87,500.  Lead plaintiffs will
get $7,500. And final litigation costs, minus coffee and food, are
$5,935.32.

Aside from the Setareh firm, plaintiffs are also represented by
the Law Offices of Louis Benowitz, and Meyers Fozi.  Target's
counsel are with the firm of Paul Hasting, LLP.


TELOMERASE ACTIVATION: Judge Tosses TAS-65 Supplement Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for Law.com, reports that the supplements
company Telomerase Activation Sciences Inc. has taken its share of
reputational licks from Brian Egan, a former TAS executive who
says the pill-maker's marquee product gave him prostate cancer.
TAS' fortunes improved a bit last week, though, when one judge
blocked a class action lawsuit spearheaded by Mr. Egan, and
another ruled that TAS' libel suit against Mr. Egan can move
forward.

In an order dated Sept. 5 but issued on Sept. 17, New York Supreme
Court Justice Eileen Bransten refused to certify a class action
lawsuit alleging that TAS deceptively marketed TA-65, an antiaging
supplement sold widely online.  The judge ruled that Mr. Egan, the
lead plaintiff, failed to show that numerous New York plaintiffs
got duped by the same advertisement for TA-65, so the case isn't
amenable to class action treatment.

Meanwhile U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in Manhattan gave
Mr. Egan more bad news in a related case on Sept. 18, denying him
summary judgment on claims by TAS' leaders that he libeled the
company and tortuously interfered with its business prospects.
The ruling was mixed, however, because Judge Schofield allowed
Mr. Egan to proceed with a defamation counterclaim against his
former colleagues and mostly denied a bid to cap Egan's potential
damages.

Mr. Egan joined TAS as vice president of global business
development in May 2011.  His main duty was to increase
international sales of TA-65, which has never been approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  To know the product better,
Egan began taking it as soon as he started the job. (Mr. Egan says
he was obligated to take TA-65.  TAS' leaders say they didn't
force him.)

TAS chairman Noel Patton fired Mr. Egan just four months later.
Mr. Egan says he was canned because he revealed that his doctor
diagnosed him with prostate cancer and warned him to immediately
stop taking TA-65.  According to Mr. Egan, Mr. Patton was not only
unsympathetic, but fumed that a cancer scare would harm the
company and offered Egan $50,000 in hush money.

Mr. Patton tells a very different story.  He says he fired Egan
for performance reasons. Egan allegedly got belligerent and said,
"You haven't heard the last of me."  In the days that followed,
Egan allegedly concocted his version of the events and shared the
details with TAS employees and potential business partners,
harming the company.

TAS brought its libel and tortious interference case against Egan
in early 2012.  Both TAS and Mr. Patton were named as plaintiffs
in the case.  They're represented by Stephen Tisman --
STisman@BlankRome.com -- of Blank Rome.

Mr. Egan, who is represented by New Jersey-based solo Mark Lurie,
counterclaimed for defamation.  He separately brought the
deceptive practices class action in state court in July 2012,
alleging that TAS has hid from the public that "opinions have been
expressed in the scientific community that a year of continuous
telomerase activation (i.e., TA-65) could reasonably allow
premalignant lesions in the human body to expand into large
tumors."  The Manhattan firm Blau Brown & Leonard filed the class
action complaint.

In the federal suit, Judge Schofield ruled last week that each
side had put forward allegations worthy of jury determination.  If
Mr. Egan was in fact fired for performance reasons and lied about
it, his old colleagues have viable libel and tortious interference
claims against them.  But if Mr. Egan really got canned because of
his cancer, Mr. Patton's statements about his job performance
could be defamatory, the judge ruled.

No trial date has been set in the case.


TEMPLETON RYE: Sued Over Misleading Whiskey Marketing Materials
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Rodgers, writing for Des Moine Register, reports that a
Chicago law firm has filed a lawsuit against Templeton Rye,
claiming the Iowa company broke consumer protection laws and
misled drinkers with stories of its whiskey's prohibition-era
origins.

The class-action lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court in
Illinois on behalf of "all individuals in the United States who've
purchased a bottle of Templeton Rye," comes after revelations in
August that the whiskey is made using the stock recipe of an
Indiana distillery.

Since the company released its first bottles of whiskey in 2006,
its marketing materials have said the founders were inspired by
the Prohibition-era recipe of Alphonse Kerkhoff handed down
through his family on a scrap of paper.  But in an interview last
month with The Des Moines Register, company chairman Vern
Underwood said federal regulations prevent the company from making
the whiskey using the Kerkhoff recipe.

The company also announced plans to begin printing on its labels
that the whiskey is distilled in Indiana.  The issue gained
national media attention after The Daily Beast published an
article in July detailing how numerous "craft" whiskey brands buy
their product from MGP Ingredients, a Lawrenceburg, Ind.
distillery.

Prior to the company's recent admissions, Templeton Rye worked to
deceive drinkers into believing "the good stuff" was a craft
whiskey made in Iowa, violating the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act,
according to the lawsuit.  The complaint includes pictures of the
company's marketing tools, including a T-shirt reading, "Templeton
Rye: Made in Iowa" and a flyer from a tasting at a Chicago bar
that advertises the "small-batch rye whiskey made in the tiny town
of Templeton."

"Consumers, seeking an alternative to mainstream, mass-produced
alcoholic beverages have purchased hundreds of thousands of
bottles of Defendant's Templeton Rye and have paid a premium price
over other whiskeys to obtain those qualities," the lawsuit said.
"Unfortunately, thousands of consumers across the country have
been injured by Defendant's deceptive marketing practices."

Christopher McNair, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, is a Chicago
resident who purchased "more than a dozen" bottles of Templeton
Rye between 2008 and 2014, the lawsuit said.  Mr. McNair paid
approximately $35 for each bottle, believing he was paying extra
for the whiskey because of its craft distillation process and
roots to small-town Iowa.

"He's someone who takes it seriously and does not like to have
purchased things under what he believes to be false information,"
said Christopher Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- an attorney with
Edelson PC, the firm handling the case.

Templeton Rye to change labels, clarifies how much made in Iowa
The Chicago-based law firm has ran an online advertisement looking
for clients to join a class-action lawsuit against several whiskey
companies, including the makers of Templeton Rye, WhistlePig Rye
and Bulleit Rye.  The class action lawsuit filed earlier this
month against Templeton Rye does not specify the amount of damages
attorneys are seeking, Mr. Dore said.

Seattle food safety lawyer Bill Marler told the Register in August
that he believed the company's marketing tactics were creating a
ripe situation for a class-action lawsuit.  Mr. Dore said he
believes the Chicago firm's lawsuit against the Iowa company is
currently the only one that's been filed over consumer protection
issues.

Company co-founder Scott Bush did not immediately respond to a
call from a reporter.

On its website, the company has highlighted the positive benefits
it's brought to the Carroll County city of Templeton, including
putting more than $1 million back into the local economy.  The
company hopes to begin building a distillery in Templeton in 2015
to bring its distilling functions back to Iowa.

Bottles of Iowa-made Templeton Rye could be available by 2020-
2021, the company has said.


TITLE CLOSING: Sued for Not Paying OT on Hours Above 40 in a Week
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Papa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Title Closing Services, LLC and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 2:14-cv-05871-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., September 22, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants required the Plaintiff to work in excess of 40
hours per week without overtime pay throughout the proposed
collective action period.

The Defendants are engaged in a wide range of title closings
throughout New Jersey with a facility located in Morris Plains,
New Jersey.  The Doe Defendants are officers, directors or
managing agents of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. McKinney, Esq.
          CASTRONOVO & McKINNEY, LLC
          71 Maple Avenue
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 920-7888
          Facsimile: (973) 920-7924
          E-mail: tom@cmlaw.com


TREMOR VIDEO: Filed Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Tremor Video, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the amended class
action complaint, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "In November 2013, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us, our directors, and
certain of our executive officers. The lawsuit alleges certain
misrepresentations by us in connection with our IPO concerning our
business and prospects.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On April 22, 2014, lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.  On July 14, 2014, we filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint."

"We intend to vigorously defend against these claims.  Due to the
early stage of these proceedings, we cannot predict the likely
outcome of the lawsuit, and an adverse result could have a
material effect on our financial statements," the Company said.

Tremor Video, Inc., is an advertising technology company elevating
brand performance across all screens for the world's leading
brands and publishers.


TSM PROPERTIES: Wage Case Gets Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert E. Blackburn conditionally certified as a
collective action the case captioned ILDEFONSO VARA, SANDRA
ESTRADA, YAZMIN NAVA, MARIO ESPINOZA, GILBERTO RAMIREZ, RICARDA
NAVA, and JOSE VARA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TSM PROPERTIES, LLC,
d/b/a COSTA VIDA LT, DISCIPLE FOODS, LLC, COSTA VIDA - LONE TREE,
LC, COSTA VIDA - LONE TREE, LLC, and SPENCER BOWEN, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-00390-REB-BNB, (D. Col.).

The Court certified the case as a collective action concerning the
claims of the named plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act
on behalf of all current and former employees of one or more of
the defendants who worked for one or more of the defendants on or
after February 12, 2011, and who were not paid overtime wages, had
tips taken by one or more of the defendants, and/or were not paid
for all hours worked.

The "Notice and the Consent To Join" form are approved. The notice
will provide that any and all Consent To Join forms must be
received by counsel for plaintiffs no later than December 12,
2014.

On or before October 10, 2014, the defendants will provide to the
plaintiffs, the names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail
addresses of all current or former employees of any one or more of
the defendants who were employed by any one or more of the
defendants on or after February 12, 2011.

On or before October 24, 2014, counsel for the plaintiffs will
deliver the Notice and the Consent To Join form, as approved, to
all potential plaintiffs via first class mail.

On or before September 26, 2014, counsel for the plaintiffs will
provide to counsel for the defendants copies of the Notice and
Consent To Join form, as approved in this order, in English and
Spanish.

From October 24, 2014, through December 12, 2014, each of the
defendants will post copies of the Notice and Consent To Join
form, in English and Spanish, at a conspicuous place in their
business where all employees are likely to see the Notice and
Consent To Join form.

On one occasion on or before October 17, 2014, each of the
defendants will provide a copy of the Notice and Consent To Join
form, in English and Spanish, to each of its current employees
with the paycheck or other form of payment of wages for each
employee.

A copy of Judge Blackburn's September 15, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/PFvOkhfrom Leagle.com.

Ildefonso Vara, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein
-- Brandt@MilsteinLawOffice.com -- Milstein Law Office.

Sandra Estrada, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein,
Milstein Law Office.

Yazmin Nava, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein,
Milstein Law Office.

Mario Espinoza, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein,
Milstein Law Office.

Gilberto Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers
Milstein, Milstein Law Office.

Ricarda Nava, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein,
Milstein Law Office.

Jose Vara, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers Milstein,
Milstein Law Office.

TSM Properties, LLC, Defendant, represented by James Keith
Townsend, Kumpf, Charsley & Hansen, LLC & Scott DuWayne Kumpf --
scott@kch-law.com -- Kumpf, Charsley & Hansen, LLC.

Disciple Foods, LLC, Defendant, represented by James Keith
Townsend, Kumpf, Charsley & Hansen, LLC & Scott DuWayne Kumpf,
Kumpf, Charsley & Hansen, LLC.

Costa Vida - Lone Tree, LC, Defendant, represented by James Keith
Townsend, Kumpf, Charsley & Hansen, LLC & Scott DuWayne Kumpf,
Kumpf, Charsley & Hansen, LLC.

Costa Vida - Lone Tree, LLC, Defendant, represented by James Keith
Townsend, Kumpf, Charsley & Hansen, LLC & Scott DuWayne Kumpf,
Kumpf, Charsley & Hansen, LLC.

Spencer Bowen, Defendant, represented by James Keith Townsend,
Kumpf, Charsley & Hansen, LLC & Scott DuWayne Kumpf, Kumpf,
Charsley & Hansen, LLC.


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: To Defend Against Wilder Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Annual Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14,
2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that on July 19,
2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News
Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 3, 2011 and
July 11, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought claims under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act,
alleging that false and misleading statements were issued
regarding the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News
of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company, Rupert
Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks compensatory
damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs.

On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court
issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint
shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended
consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things,
added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK &
Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to
include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were
granted by the court on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs were allowed to
amend their complaint, and on April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the
allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands
the class period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011.

The Company's management believes the claims in the Wilder
Litigation are entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously
defend those claims.


UCBH HOLDINGS: "Zhu" Case Stayed Pending Shabudin and Yu Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Guohua Zhu, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UCBH
HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CV 09-4208 JSW (LB),
(N.D. Cal.), two of the individual defendants in this civil case
-- Ebrahim Shabudin and Thomas Yu -- were indicted on September
15, 2011, in the Northern District of California on various
criminal charges, including securities fraud. On November 15,
2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California determined that United States v. Shabudin and Yu was
related to the civil case, as defined by Crim. L.R. 8-1(b), and
ordered the Clerk of Court to reassign United States v. Shabudin
and Yu to the N.D. Cal. Court.

The N.D. Cal. Court set a trial date of February 9, 2015 in United
States v. Shabudin and Yu. On September 8, 2014, the Court set an
October 7, 2014 change of plea hearing for Thomas Yu. The criminal
case pending against Ebrahim Shabudin remains set for trial on
February 9, 2015.

Accordingly, District Judge Jeffrey S. White signed September 16,
2014, a stipulation wherein the parties agreed that the civil
action is stayed in its entirety as to all parties until further
order by the Court, to be entered after the conclusion of trial in
United States v. Shabudin and Yu.

A copy of court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/1ya8BJfrom Leagle.com.

Mary McNamara, Britt Evangelist, SWANSON & McNAMARA LLP, San
Francisco, California, Attorneys for defendant JOHN CINDEREY.
Laurence M. Rosen, THE ROSEN FIRM P.A., Attorney for GUOHUA ZHU
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated.
Steven M. Bauer, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Attorney for THOMAS WU.
James A. Lassart, MURPHY PEARSON BRADLEY & FEENEY LLP, Attorney
for EBRAHIM SHABUDIN.

Nanci L. Clarence -- nclarence@clarencedyer.com -- CLARENCE DYER &
COHEN LLP, Attorney for CRAIG ON.

Daniel J. Bergeson -- dbergeson@be-law.com -- BERGESON LLP,
Attorney for ROBERT NAGEL DOUGLAS MITCHELL DANIEL GAUTSCH.

Anthony P. Schoenberg -- tschoenberg@fbm.com -- FARELLA BRAUN
MARTEL LLP, Attorney for JOHN KERR.

Jeffrey L. Bornstein -- jeff.bornstein@klgates.com -- K&L GATES
LLP, Attorney for BURTON D. THOMPSON.

Anna Erickson White -- awhite@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP,
Attorney for JOSEPH J. JOU LI-LIN KO GODWIN WONG DAVID NG DANIEL
P. RILEY RICHARD LI-
CHUNG WANG DENNIS WU.

Jill B. Rowe -- jrowe@cwclaw.com -- COOPER WHITE & COOPER LLP,
Attorney for THOMAS YU.


UMPQUA BANK: Dec. 19 Opt-Out Deadline in Hawthorne Suit Deal Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in the class action captioned AMBER HAWTHORNE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. UMPQUA BANK, Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-06700-JST,
(N.D. Cal.).

The Court found appropriate the conditional certification of the
proposed settlement class defined as: All Umpqua Bank customers in
the United States who, within the Class Period [January 1, 2006
through October 15, 2010], incurred an overdraft fee as a result
of Umpqua's practice of sequencing Debit Card Transactions in
highest to lowest dollar amount order.

The Court appointed Amber Hawthorne, and Victoria and Christopher
Kneer as class representatives.

The Court set the final approval hearing for February 19. On or
before October 13, the settlement administrator will complete the
initial mailing of postcard notices. The opt-out period will last
for at least sixty days, beginning on the date that the settlement
administrator completes the initial mailed notice and ending not
sooner than December 19, 2014. All mailed notice will be completed
on or before December 12, 2014. Plaintiffs will file their motion
for final approval of the settlement, and their application for
attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and service awards no later than
January 5, 2015.

Judge Tigar stayed the action against Umpqua Bank pending final
approval of the settlement.

A copy of Judge Tigar's September 15, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/kXe5RLfrom Leagle.com.

Amber Hawthorne, on Behalf of Herself and All Others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Hassan Ali Zavareei --
hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei, LLP, Byron T. Ball --
jwoodward@balllawllp.com -- The Ball Law Firm, L.L.P., Jason Henry
Alperstein -- alperstein@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.,
Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei,
LLP, Jeffrey M. Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz
Ostrow, P.C. & Jonathan M. Streisfeld -- streisfeld@kolawyers.com
-- Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A..

Christopher Kneer, Plaintiff, represented by Hassan Ali Zavareei,
Tycko & Zavareei, LLP, Byron T. Ball, The Ball Law Firm, L.L.P.,
Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Tycko & Zavareei, LLP, Jeffrey M. Ostrow,
Kopelowitz Ostrow, P.C. & Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Kopelowitz
Ostrow P.A..

Victoria Kneer, Plaintiff, represented by Hassan Ali Zavareei,
Tycko & Zavareei, LLP, Byron T. Ball, The Ball Law Firm, L.L.P.,
Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Tycko & Zavareei, LLP, Jeffrey M. Ostrow,
Kopelowitz Ostrow, P.C. & Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Kopelowitz
Ostrow P.A..

Umpqua Bank, Defendant, represented by Scott H. Jacobs --
shjacobs@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Abraham J. Coleman --
acolman@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Kasey J. Curtis --
kcurtis@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Thomas Lee Allen --
tallen@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots Fail to Sway Appellate Court on Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
United pilots who claim they are being cheated out of millions of
dollars of seniority-based pay found little sympathy on
September 22, 2014, from the 7th Circuit, reports Jack
Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service.

The federal appeals court heard oral arguments on September 22 in
a class action brought by 470 United Airlines pilots against the
51,000-member Air Line Pilots Association union and United.

At issue is an agreement the union negotiated after United's $3
billion merger with Continental, which gave premerger United
pilots less than five years of time-worked credit no matter how
long they had actually flown.  The complaint says that pilots have
been paid at least $12 per hour too little since December 2012,
indicating that millions of dollars are at stake.

Judge James Holderman threw out the claims in March, calling them
"minor disputes" subject to arbitration as opposed to grounds for
a class action.

On September 22, 2014, the 7th Circuit appeared ready to do the
same, with Judge Diane Wood beginning the salvo: "Are you saying
we have the wrong collective bargaining agreement or non-
compliance with it?"

"Both," class counsel Alan Press replied.

"You can't be saying both," Wood interrupted, pointing out that
noncompliance claims should be sent to an arbitrator.

Judge Frank Easterbrook added: "I thought it was just hornbook law
that, without being able to win the contract claim against the
employer, you can't bring a representation claim against the
union."

Press explained that "a union's breach of its duty of fair
representation is never a minor dispute."

"The union insisted upon this discriminatory treatment," he added.

Wood then asked whether the issue is if the union "intentionally
got a bad deal."

"In any negotiation some employees might end up worse off," Wood
said.  "I don't see why if your employees come up on the short end
of the stick this was any more than typical negotiation."

Wood interrupted as Press answered that "there was no
countervailing benefit to any other group of pilots-"

"We don't know that!" she said.

"Why would anybody do such a thing?" Easterbrook said.  "You don't
have any 'because' clause."

Both judges noticed that the plaintiffs had failed to explain why
they had been targeted.

"I don't see how one could address the claim without digging all
the way into the collective-bargaining process and renegotiating,"
Wood said.  "This happens in airline mergers, this complicated
process of integrating seniority lists."

As Press emphasized that his clients do not seek "to unwind the
negotiations," Easterbrook just shrugged and spent the next
several minutes with an almost pitying smile on his face.

Press also had trouble explaining whether his clients wanted an
injunction requiring United to pay them more, one requiring new
negotiations or actual damages.

"So you want the union to pay the difference every week?" an
incredulous Judge Diane Sykes asked.

"Yes," Press said.  Easterbrook laughed heartily and looked ready
for it all to end.

Defense attorney Michael Abram took the podium with the poise and
confidence of a 40-year labor-law veteran.

He insisted that things panned out in a way typical of union
bargaining: in which some employees inevitably end up better off
than others.  "Plaintiffs can't say the association took away
longevity," Abram said.  "It negotiated an improvement.  'Well,
you didn't negotiate as much as you could have,' they say.  Why?
They allege the reason was to prevent premerger United pilots from
benefiting.  That is not bad faith."

Asked about whether it is cognizable to challenge how hard a union
bargained, Abram said, "only if for a bad reason," such as
"they're our opponents, let them suffer."

By some measures, many of the alleged plaintiffs had lost nothing,
the attorney added.

Abram returned time and again to the notion that this dispute
should go to arbitration, although the plaintiffs had previously
argued that an arbitration panel including arbitrators selected by
United and the union "would be a basically 'rigged' arbitration,"
considering the conspiracy to discriminate against them.


UNITED STATES: Forest Service Female Firefighters File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ron Nixon, writing for The New York Times, reports that current
and former female firefighters of the United States Forest Service
have filed a complaint with the Department of Agriculture alleging
that they suffered job discrimination, harassment and sexual abuse
at the hands of male co-workers and that top agency officials
failed to stop it.

The women said the complaint, the first step in a potential class-
action lawsuit, was filed late last month on behalf of hundreds of
women who worked in the Forest Service's Region 5, which
encompasses more than 20 million acres in 18 national forests in
California. The seven women who are the lead complainants said
they faced retaliation when they reported the offenses to
superiors.

The complaint was the latest in a number of race and gender
disputes in the Agriculture Department, the parent agency of the
Forest Service. In recent years the department has settled a
class-action suit brought by Native American farmers, offered
payments to Hispanic and female farmers who alleged discrimination
and approved a $1.15 billion settlement with black farmers,
decades after the farmers said that they were denied loans and
subject to racial discrimination in agriculture programs.

In response to the firefighters, a Forest Service official said
the agency would review the complaint and was focused on
correcting any problems. "The Forest Service takes these and all
allegations of civil rights violations very seriously and is
committed to providing a work environment that is free of
harassment and discrimination," said Lenise Lago, the Forest
Service's deputy chief of business operations.

But advocates for past complainants said problems remain.

"There is something about the culture at the agency, maybe because
so many of its programs are in rural areas, where most of the
offices are staffed by white men who think this is acceptable
behavior," said John Boyd, a Virginia farmer and president of the
National Black Farmers Association, who led the fight for black
farmer compensation. "The Obama administration has tried its best
to deal with this issue, but it's entrenched because the
bureaucrats outlast administrations."

One of the current complainants, Alicia Dabney, a former
firefighter in the Sequoia National Forest in Centerville, Calif.,
said in an interview that she was the subject of repeated verbal
abuse and physical taunts. "It was a frat boy atmosphere," said
Ms. Dabney, who was usually the only woman on her 20-person crew.
"You are often isolated because where you work is so remote."

Ms. Dabney said that her supervisor, who is still employed by the
Forest Service, put her in a chokehold and tried to rape her in
2012. In another instance, she said, fliers with the words "Alicia
Dabney is a whore" were left on the floor of the fire station.

She said that after she reported the harassment, the Forest
Service fired her in 2012, citing what her superiors said was her
failure to disclose her past criminal record on her job
application. Ms. Dabney said that the agency had long known about
her record and that "this was dredged up after I complained."

Darlene Hall, another complainant, who is a still a Forest Service
firefighter, said that she had been subjected to abusive language
from some of the men she supervised. "I had one instance where a
man who worked under me came into my office and just started
cursing at me," she said. "He was threatening, and I was afraid
because you're out there alone." Ms. Hall said that she reported
the incident to supervisors but that nothing was done and she was
denied promotions as a result.

Asked to respond to the allegations of Ms. Dabney and Ms. Hall,
the Forest Service said that it was reviewing their complaints.

Agency officials acknowledged that there had been past
discrimination problems in Region 5 but said they had eased in
recent years. Discrimination findings fell from 12 last year to
one so far this year, they said.

The current gender discrimination complaint is similar to ones
filed in the 1970s and 1990s by female workers in Region 5 who
said they were denied promotions and harassed by male co-workers.
As part of the settlements stemming from those complaints, the
Agriculture Department required the Forest Service in California
to hire more women and to put in place civil rights enforcement
programs, sensitivity training and a unit to investigate and
resolve sexual harassment and hostile environment claims.

According to the agency, women now represent about 12 percent of
the fire service in Region 5 and nearly 24 percent of the fire
leadership positions. Four of nine regional fire directors are
women, including the director for Region 5.

The complaint filed with the Agriculture Department is the first
step in what could be a long process. The department has 180 days
to investigate and potentially settle the claim, but if there is
no resolution it will go to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission for another investigation and potential settlement. If
there is no resolution at the commission, the complaint could go
to federal court.


VIVINT SOLAR: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 16, 2014, the San Diego employment lawyers at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action Complaint
against Vivint Solar, Inc. alleging that the solar company failed
to fully pay their Installation Technicians and Electrician
Helpers for their work performed under the California Labor Code.
The proposed class action lawsuit against Vivint Solar, Inc. for
alleged unpaid wages and missed meal periods is currently pending
in the San Diego County Superior Court, Case No 37-2014-00031385-
CU-OE-CTL.

The lawsuit filed against Vivint Solar, Inc. by the San Diego
labor attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik alleges that
the solar company inaccurately recorded the actual amount of time
worked and as a result failed to pay the Installation Technicians
the correct amount of minimum wages and overtime compensation.
The Complaint asserts that the Installation Technicians working
for Vivint Solar were paid on a piece-rate basis, but allegedly
only while they were performing installations for Vivint Solar.
As a result, the Complaint alleges the Installation Technicians
were not paid while performing non-installation related work
tasks.  The Complaint also asserts a claim under California's meal
and rest period laws for Vivint Solar's alleged failure to provide
full off-duty, thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods to its
Installation Technicians and Electrician Helpers.

With employment law offices located in San Diego County, San
Francisco County, and Los Angeles County, the California
employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik have
a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency
basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay,
discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types
of illegal workplace conduct.


WARNER MUSIC: Bid for Leave to File Late Jury Demand Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied a motion for leave to file
a late jury demand in KYLE GRANT, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated who were employed by WARNER MUSIC
GROUP CORP. and ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v.
WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., and ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION,
Defendants, NO. 13 CIV. 4449 (PGG), (S.D. N.Y.).

In this putative collective action, Plaintiff Kyle Grant claims
that Defendants Warner Music Group Corp. and Atlantic Recording
Corporation have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. Sections 207 and 216(b), by misclassifying current and
former interns as exempt from minimum wage and overtime
requirements.  The Plaintiffs filed the motion for leave to file a
late jury demand.

A copy of Judge Gardephe's September 12, 2014 memorandum order
is available at http://is.gd/ujBbV2from Leagle.com.

Kyle Grant, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Harris Markowitz,
Leeds Brown Law PC, James Emmet Murphy, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP,
Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Leeds Morelli & Brown, LaDonna Marie Lusher,
Virginia & Ainbinder, LLP, Lenard Leeds, Leeds, Morelli, & Brown,
P.C., Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, Maurice
Samuel Pianko, Aycrigg Lda, Inc., Michael Alexander Tompkins,
Leeds Brown Law PC & Suzanne Brooke Leeds, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP.

Samuel Westerkon, Plaintiff, represented by Maurice Samuel Pianko,
Aycrigg Lda, Inc., Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP, Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law PC & Suzanne
Brooke Leeds, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP.

Evan Brieff, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Harris Markowitz,
Leeds Brown Law PC & Suzanne Brooke Leeds, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP.

Danielle Grubb, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd Robert Ambinder,
Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Suzanne Brooke Leeds, Virginia &
Ambinder, LLP.

Warner Music Group Corp., Defendant, represented by Laura Sack,
Vedder Price P.C., Lyle Stewart Zuckerman, Vedder Price P.C. &
Michael John Goettig, Vedder Price P.C..

Atlantic Recording Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laura
Sack, Vedder Price P.C., Lyle Stewart Zuckerman, Vedder Price P.C.
& Michael John Goettig, Vedder Price P.C..


ZAPPOS.COM INC: Refused to Dismiss Claims in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citing progress toward settlement, a federal judge denied Zappos'
motions to dismiss and strike in a class action blaming it for a
2012 online breach of customer data, according to Mike Heuer,
reporting for Courthouse News Service.

"The parties report that they are making good progress toward
settlement, and they have stipulated to stay the proceedings until
January 2015 pending further mediation," U.S. District Judge
Robert Jones wrote in an order on September 18, 2014. "Therefore,
the court, without expressing any position on the merits of the
case, denies without prejudice defendant's motions."

Zappos claimed in its motion to dismiss that the "alleged data
breach occurred in Nevada to data in possession of a Nevada
company" and that the plaintiffs "have already conceded that
Nevada law applies.  Thus, non-Nevada statutory claims are barred
by conflicts-of-law principles."

Zappos denied that it had unjustly enriched itself.

"As more and more time has passed since the incident occurred, it
is ever clearer that the incident had no material adverse effect
on any consumer.  Although nearly two years have passed, it
appears that no one suffered any out-of-pocket loss in the form of
fraud, identity theft or unauthorized purchases as a result of the
incident," Zappos said in the motion.  "This lack of any impact
from the incident is most likely because of the limited nature of
the data potentially affected, because password data was not taken
in a form usable by the thieves and because of Zappos' rapid
action to reset customer passwords."

Zappos also asked the court to strike the class's claims for
punitive damages and restitution, saying Nevada law allows
punitive damages "only where it is proven by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendant has been guilty of 'oppression, fraud
or malice, express or implied.'"

Zappos claimed the class did not "allege the requisite elements of
a punitive damages claim, much less a single fact evidencing any
oppressive, fraudulent or malicious conduct by Zappos."

Zappos claimed the class is not owed any restitution, as its
members were "indisputably recompensed when Zappos provided the
goods purchased."

The class action arose from a January 2012 hacker attack on Zappo
servers in Shepherdsville, Ky. Hackers obtained the names, phone
numbers, account numbers, passwords, e-mail addresses, billing and
shipping addresses and last four digits of credit cards of
millions of Zappos customers.  On Jan. 16, 2012, Zappos sent e-
mails to 24 million customers notifying them of the data breach.

Zappos was bought by Amazon.com in 2009.

The class, which sued on June 14, 2012, is represented by Mark
Gray, Esq.

Zappos is represented by:

          Robert McCoy, Esq.
          Raleigh C. Thompson, Esq.
          MORRIS LAW GROUP
          900 Bank of America Plaza
          300 South Fourth Street
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 474-9400
          Facsimile: (702) 474-9422
          E-mail: rrm@morrislawgroup.com
                  rct@morrislawgroup.com

The case is In Re Zappos.Com Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-325-RCJ-VPC, in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada.


                              *********

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  * * *