CAR_Public/140930.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 30, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 194

                             Headlines


181 DUANE: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
21VIANET GROUP: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
244 WEST: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Uddin" Suit Claims
7-ELEVEN INC: "Spavlik" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Scheduled in "Schmidt" Case

ADS WASTE: Georgia Class Action Dismissed in March 2014
ALPHABET HOLDING: Appeal in Glucosamine Actions Remain Pending
ALPHABET HOLDING: NBTY Cross-Claimed Against CCG
AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ARBITRON INC: Sued in N.D. California Over Violation of TCPA

BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Prelim. OK of $3.6MM Deal in "Lopez" Suit
BANKRATE INC: Faces "Tong" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Statements
BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S: Sued by Nurses Union Over Unwanted Flu Shots
BROOKFIELD DTLA: Provides Update on Calif. and Maryland Actions
BUTTERFIELD 8 STAMFORD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Class Action Over Traffic Cameras Expanded
CHEVRON CORPORATION: "Bushansky" to Voluntarily Dismiss Case
COWS IN THE KITCHEN: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Andrade" Suit Claims
CP MANAGEMENT: Faces "Isidro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
CUSTOM COATINGS: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

D & D's IMPRESSIVE: Faces "Perez" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
DIGICON CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces "Cano" Suit Over Cold-Calling
EASTERN ACCOUNT SYSTEM: Faces "Gindi" Suit Over Debt Collection
ECOTALITY INC: Securities Complaint Dismissed With Leave to Amend

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
ENDO HEALTH: Restricts Availability of Opana ER, Action Claims
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: No Class Cert. Rulings Yet in "Bartoni" Case
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery to Continue Through 2014
FIFTH DIMENSION: Faces Class Action Over Tito's Handmade Vodka

FIVE FOUR GROUP: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Says
FUMIZER LLC: Sued in Cal. Over False Claims About Healthy Smoking
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Bledrose" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GHC LLC: Faces "Harvey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GOODYEAR TIRE: Jan. 5 Trial Scheduled for Entran 3 Class Action

HARVARD COLLECTION: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
HCA HOLDINGS: Securities Fraud Obtains Class-Action Status
HEARTLAND RESTAURANT: "Rambo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Dismissed Suit Over Officejet Pro Printers
HOOPER HOLMES: Intends to Object to Magistrate Judge's Report

HOOPER HOLMES: Settled Individual Claim with Named Plaintiff
HUMANA INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Commissions & OT Wages
IGUANA GRILL: Sued in Ala. Over FLSA Violations
INFINITY PROFESSIONAL: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ISIS PARENTING: Sued Over Failure to Inform Workers of Shutdown

JACK'S BAR-B-Q: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
JESUIT RETREAT: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
JGWPT HOLDINGS: Class Action Removed to S.D. Illinois
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Sued in Va. Over Securities Laws Violation
MACQUARIE GROUP: May Face Class Action Over Van Eyk Collapse

MAJOR LEAGUE: 2013 All-Star Week Volunteer Wants Compensation
MANDALAY DIGITAL: Not Liable in Class Action Against Coral Tell
MASTERS HEALTH: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MIKE ROUNDS: Commissioner Wants to Save Evidence on Fraud Claims
MORGAN KEEGAN: Judge Allows Mamtek Class Action to Proceed

NATIONAL MILK: Sued Over Manipulation of Raw Farm Milk Production
NEW SOLDIER'S: Faces "Cuthbert" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NICKY'S CARRY: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OILTANKING TEXAS: "Guerra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
OVER EASY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act

PERRIGO COMPANY: Eltroxin Class Actions in Early Stages
PERRIGO COMPANY: Faces Tysabri(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
PDL BIOPHARMA: Sued in Nev. Over Misleading Financial Statements
PDL BIOPHARMA: To Vigorously Defend Securities Class Action
PREMIER NEVADA: Illegally Collects Debts, "Palace" Suit Claims

QUEENS CARPET: Faces "Bhagwat" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RCS CAPITAL: Negotiating Stipulation of Settlement in Summit Case
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Kiosk Design
RIVER CITY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
SAFEWAY INC: Judge Trims Claims in False Advertising Class Action

SAKS & COMPANY: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Divljanovic" Suit Claims
SEALE 76 INC: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces "Yarris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Action Over "Blackfish" Documentary
SPARTANNASH COMPANY: Minnesota Class Action Now Closed

SPIRIT AIRLINES: 11th Circuit Revives RICO Suit Over Hidden Fees
STADIUM GROUP: "Eley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
STRATA ENERGY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
TARGET CORP: Wins Final OK of $350,000 Deal to Settle Labor Suit
TESCO: Glancy Binkow Mulls Securities Class Action

TRIBECA PEDIATRICS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
UNITED SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debts, "Lezell" Suit Claims
UNITED SERVICES: Disabled Veteran May Amend Claims in Class Suit
VISA INC: Munroe & Company Files Class Action Over Gift Card
WALGREEN CO: December 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

WYKA LLC: Faces "Isakson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
YEXT INC: Sued Over Misrepresentation of Business & Services


                            *********


181 DUANE: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Misael Flores, Saul Campohermoso, Miguel Granillo Islas, Oliverio
Sanchez, and Pedro Toxqui, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. 181 Duane Ristorante Inc. d/b/a Max Tribeca,
51 Ave. B. Osteria LLC d/b/a Max, and Luigi Iasilli, Case No.
1:14-cv-07559 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation.

181 Duane Ristorante Inc. owns and operates Max Tribeca, an
Italian restaurant located at 181 Duane Street, New York, New
York, 10013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Yesenia Francisco, Esq.
      BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
      E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com
              francisco@bwp-law.com


21VIANET GROUP: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Sun, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. 21vianet Group, Inc., Sheng Chen, and Shang-Wen Hsiao,
Case No. 4:14-cv-02677 (S.D. Tex., September 17, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading financial statements
in the Initial Public Offering.

21vianet Group, Inc. is a Cayman Islands corporation that provides
carrier-neutral Internet data center services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
      ABRAHAM WATKINS NICHOLS SORRELS AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce St
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-7211
      E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. 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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLP
      60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile: (212) 697-7296


244 WEST: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Uddin" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monir Uddin, Moidul Islam, Mohammed Uddin and Jayed Ali, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals v. 244 West 14th LLC d/b/a The Butter Group, Scott
Sartiano and Richie Akiva, Case No. 1:14-cv-07528 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and lounge, located at
244 West 14th Street in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Evan Gottlieb, Esq.
      Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq.
      Tanvir Haque Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl.
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
              dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
              trahman@wigdorlaw.com


7-ELEVEN INC: "Spavlik" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Spavlik and Deborah Kish, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
05796 (D.N.J., September 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

7-Eleven, Inc. is a Texas corporation that owns and operates
numerous convenience stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald Allen Marks, Esq.
      MARKS & KLEIN, LLP
      63 Riverside Avenue
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (732) 747-7100
      E-mail: jerry@marksklein.com


ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Scheduled in "Schmidt" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Access Pharmaceuticals, 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 Alan Schmidt, a
former shareholder of Genaera Corporation ("Genaera"), and a
former unitholder of the Genaera Liquidating Trust (the "Trust"),
filed a purported class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in June 2012. The lawsuit
named thirty defendants, including Access, MacroChem Corporation,
which was acquired by the Company in February 2009, Jeffrey Davis,
the CEO and a director of Access, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark
Alvino, both of whom are the Company's directors (the "Access
Defendants").

With respect to the Access Defendants, the complaint alleged
direct and derivative claims asserting that directors of Genaera
and the Trustee of the Trust breached their fiduciary duties to
Genaera, Genaera's shareholders and the Trust's unitholders in
connection with the licensing and disposition of certain assets,
aided and abetted by numerous defendants including the Access
Defendants. Schmidt seeks money damages, disgorgement of any
distributions received from the Trust, rescission of sales made by
the Trust, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs.

On December 19, 2012, Schmidt filed an amended complaint which
asserted substantially the same allegations with respect to the
Access Defendants. On February 4, 2013, the Access Defendants
moved to dismiss all claims asserted against them. On August 12,
2013 the court granted Access Defendants' motions to dismiss and
entered judgment in favor of Access Defendants on all claims. On
August 26, 2013, Schmidt filed a motion for reconsideration. On
September 10, 2013 Schmidt filed a Notice of Appeal with the
District Court. On September 17, 2013, Schmidt filed his appeal
with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 25,
2013, the District Court denied Schmidt's motion for
reconsideration. On October 17, 2013, Schmidt amended his appeal
to include the District court's denial of his motion for
reconsideration.

On March 20, 2014, Appellant Schmidt filed his Brief and Joint
Appendix. On May 22, 2014, Appellees filed their Oppositions to
Appellant's Brief. On May 29, 2014, the Appellant was granted an
extension of time until June 23, 2014 to file their Reply brief,
and filed his Reply brief on that date. The Third Circuit has
scheduled oral argument for September 12, 2014.

The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously.

Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an emerging biopharmaceutical
company focused on developing a range of pharmaceutical products
primarily based upon nanopolymer chemistry technologies and other
drug delivery technologies.


ADS WASTE: Georgia Class Action Dismissed in March 2014
-------------------------------------------------------
ADS Waste 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 in February 2009, the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants
in a purported class action suit in Circuit Court of Macon County,
Alabama. Similar class action complaints were brought against the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County,
Florida and in 2013 in Quitman County, Georgia, and Barbour
County, Alabama, and in Chester County, Pennsylvania in 2014. The
Georgia case was dismissed in March 2014. The plaintiffs in those
cases primarily allege that the defendants charged improper fees
(fuel, administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach
of the plaintiff's contract with the Company and seek damages in
an unspecified amount. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses against these purported class actions, which
it will vigorously pursue.

ADS Waste Holdings is a regional environmental services company
providing nonhazardous solid waste collection, transfer, recycling
and disposal services to customers in the Southeast, Midwest and
Eastern regions of the United States, as well as in the
Commonwealth of the Bahamas.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Appeal in Glucosamine Actions Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, 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 beginning in
June 2011, certain putative class actions have been filed in
various jurisdictions against NBTY Inc., its subsidiary Rexall
Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there
may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing
of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states'
consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and its
subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive
damages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of
Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory
damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive
relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against
certain wholesale customers as to which we may have certain
indemnification obligations.

The Nunez Case settled on an individual basis on June 20, 2013.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the
remaining plaintiffs, which includes all cases and resolves all
pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability
by NBTY, and which provides for a release of all claims in return
for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and
notice and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on
October 4, 2013 and November 20, 2013.

On January 3, 2014, the court issued an opinion and order
approving the settlement as modified ("the Order"). The final
judgment was issued on January 22, 2014 ("the Judgment").

Certain objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the
Judgment on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal on February 3, 2014, and those appeals are pending.

In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12,000,000
reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class
together with attorney's fees, and notice and administrative costs
in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of
the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the
claims period, NBTY has reduced its estimate of exposure to
$6,100,000. This reduction in the estimated exposure was reflected
in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014. Until the
appeal is resolved, no final determination can be made as to the
ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on
the part of NBTY.

Alphabet Holding Company, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary
NBTY, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer, distributor and retailer of a
broad line of high-quality vitamins, nutritional supplements and
related products in the United States, with operations worldwide.


ALPHABET HOLDING: NBTY Cross-Claimed Against CCG
------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, 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 NBTY Inc., and
certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-action
lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.;
Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.; Corporate
Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and John Does
1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff
alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to plaintiff and
others without invitation or permission, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-
claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,
and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants
on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an
unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and that motion is pending.

"At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate
outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on the part
of NBTY, however we do not believe the ultimate outcome will have
a material adverse effect on each of our consolidated financial
statements," the Company said.

Alphabet Holding Company, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary
NBTY, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a global vertically
integrated manufacturer, marketer, distributor and retailer of a
broad line of high-quality vitamins, nutritional supplements and
related products in the United States, with operations worldwide.


AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Saba, and Marrion D. Gregory, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Americare Systems, Inc. and
Quaker Hill Nursing, LLC, Case No. 6:14-cv-01308 (D. Kan.,
September 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Americare Systems, Inc. owns and operates numerous assisted living
facilities in Kansas, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee.

Quaker Hill Nursing, LLC is one of the many assisted living
facilities owned and operated by Americare Systems, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald N. Peterson II, Esq.
      WITHERS, GOUGH, PIKE, PFAFF & PETERSON LLC
      O.W. Garvey Building
      200 W. Douglas, Suite 1010
      Wichita, KS 67202
      Telephone: (316) 266-5023
      Facsimile: (316) 303-1018
      E-mail: dpeterson@withersgough.com


ARBITRON INC: Sued in N.D. California Over Violation of TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Leon Orea, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Arbitron, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04235 (N.D.
Cal., September 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Arbitron, Inc. is engaged in the business of surveying consumers
in order to supply companies with data on what consumers watch and
buy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Prelim. OK of $3.6MM Deal in "Lopez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
With some modifications, a federal judge conditionally certified a
$3.6 million settlement in the employment class action against
Bank of America, according to Courthouse News Service.

The case is Albert Lopez, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case
No. 10-cv-01207-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


BANKRATE INC: Faces "Tong" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shunyi Tong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Thomas R. Evans, Kenneth S. Esterow, Edward J.
Dimaria, and Bankrate, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-81183 (S.D. Fla.,
September 17, 2014), alleges that during the Class Period, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Bankrate, Inc. is a leading publisher, aggregator and distributor
of personal finance content on the Internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S: Sued by Nurses Union Over Unwanted Flu Shots
---------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Nurses Association v. Brigham & Women's Hospital,
Case No. 14-2985 (Mass. Super. Ct., September 22, 2014) is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff's members, who:

   (a) work for the Defendant;

   (b) are under a pending order from the Defendant --
       enforceable under threat of discipline -- to accept the
       seasonal influenza vaccination; and

   (c) wish to decline the vaccination.

The MNA is a not-for-profit membership organization that has a
principal place of business in Canton, Massachusetts.  The MNA
serves as the collective bargaining representative of
approximately 23,000 registered nurses and other health care
professionals, who work for hospitals throughout Massachusetts.

Brigham & Women's Hospital is a not-for-profit general medical and
surgical health care facility with a principal place of business
in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Defendant is a hospital and employs
approximately 3,200 RNs in positions within the MNA bargaining
unit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J. McDonald, Esq.
          James F. Lamond, Esq.
          MCDONALD, LAMOND, CANZONERI & HICKERNELL
          352 Turnpike Road, Suite 310
          Southborough, MA 01772-1756
          Telephone: (508) 485-6600
          Facsimile: (508) 485-4477
          E-mail: amcdonald@masslaborlawyers.com
                  jlamond@masslaborlawyers.com


BROOKFIELD DTLA: Provides Update on Calif. and Maryland Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor 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 following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the
"Merger Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed
against Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield
DTLA, Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office
Trust Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the
"Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P.,
and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.
Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"),
and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the
"Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on
April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three
lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-
C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso
Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013,
respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two
lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No.
24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et
al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and
July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock
Actions," together with the Common Stock Actions, the "Merger
Litigations").

In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by
failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and
ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action further
alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breaches
of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors,
and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust,
Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.

On June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical,
amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an
amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well as
the Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the SEC on May 21,
2013 is false and/or misleading because it fails to include
certain details of the process leading up to the merger and fails
to provide adequate information concerning MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s financial advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the
Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached
the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG
preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement
that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty.

On July 15, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions
filed a joint amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s
board of directors failed to disclose material information
regarding BPO's extension of the tender offer.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
merger has been consummated, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and
the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"), regarding a proposed
settlement of all claims asserted therein. The parties
subsequently entered into a stipulation of settlement dated
November 21, 2013 providing for the release of all asserted
claims, additional disclosures by MPG concerning the merger made
prior to the merger's approval, and the payment, by defendants, of
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $475,000.

After a hearing on June 4, 2014, the California State Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement,
and entered a Final Order and Judgment, awarding plaintiffs'
counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $475,000,
which was paid by MPG Office LLC on June 18, 2014.  BPO is seeking
reimbursement for the settlement payment from MPG's insurers.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the
Maryland State Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer.  The plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added
additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new
preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred
shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion
concluded on February 28, 2014.

At a hearing on June 18, 2014, the Maryland State Court heard oral
arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss and reserved
judgment on the decision.  As of the date of the Form 10-Q report,
no decision date can be reasonably estimated.


BUTTERFIELD 8 STAMFORD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren E. Marsteller, and all others similarly situated v.
Butterfield 8 Stamford LLC, Butterfield 8 WP LLC, Public House
Investments LLC, Lolas Stamford LLC, John Gazzola, Ralph Battista,
Jr., Douglas Newhook, and Ryan Slavin, Case No. 3:14-cv-01371 (D.
Conn., September 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant with a
principal place of business at 112 Bedford Street, Stamford, CT
06901-1901.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Boyd, Esq.
      THE BOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC
      370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1705
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 867-3675
      Facsimile: (212) 867-5765
      E-mail: pboyd@theboydlawgroup.com


CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Class Action Over Traffic Cameras Expanded
------------------------------------------------------------
B.A. Morelli, writing for The Gazette, reports that a class-action
lawsuit challenging automated traffic cameras in Cedar Rapids has
been expanded to include six more plaintiffs in addition to the
original two.

An amendment to the lawsuit was filed on Sept. 22 in Linn County
District Court.

The new plaintiffs include three residents of Linn County and
three out-of-state residents.  Named are David L. Mazgaj, of Cedar
Rapids, James Louis Sparks, an employee of the Linn County
Sheriff's Office from Palo, and Edward G. Robinson, an e-commerce
shipping employee from Marion, Jerry Northrup, an employee in the
sign-making industry from Clearwater, Fla., Daniel Ray French, of
Lake City, Minn., and Jeffrey V. Stimpson, a commercial airline
pilot from Bluefield, West Virginia.

The lawsuit, which was filed on Sept. 2, claims the speed cameras
fail to provide adequate notice to motorists, and that the cameras
target certain motorists while thousands more are exempt, such as
more than 50,000 Iowa vehicles without rear license plates, 3,200
government vehicles not included in a state database, more than
100,000 out of state vehicles without rear-facing license plates,
and others not included in a database used to issue tickets.

Each of the six new plaintiffs was ticketed by a system they
believe is "unfair and unjust," but paid the fee under threat of
being sent to a collection agency or civil litigation, according
to the lawsuit.  The lawsuit seeks an injunction to turn the
cameras off pending the outcome of the lawsuit, and refunds for
people who've received tickets in the last two years.

The new plaintiffs join Gary Hughes, of Marion, and Arash
Yarpezeshkan, of Cedar Rapids.

The City of Cedar Rapids and Gatso USA, the camera vendor
incorporated in Delaware, are named defendants.

A message seeking comment was left for Cedar Rapids, and a defense
attorney for Gatso declined to comment.  A message was also left
for James Larew, attorney for the plaintiffs.

The camera program, which has faced criticism by some for fairness
and due process and praise by others for improving safety since
being launched in 2010, came under a new round of scrutiny.

The Iowa Department of Transportation pointed out in August that
two of the most prolific cameras in the system don't comply with
new state rules requiring at least 1,000 feet between a camera and
a speed limit change.

Cedar Rapids has stood behind the program and offered solutions
such as a waiver or moving speed limit signs.

According to Cedar Rapids' contract with Gatso, which is cited in
the lawsuit, Gatso is responsible for costs of maintaining the
cameras including keeping them in compliance with standards of
Cedar Rapids and the Iowa DOT.


CHEVRON CORPORATION: "Bushansky" to Voluntarily Dismiss Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Chevron Corporation, in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, advised
shareholders that plaintiff, Stephen Bushansky, in a derivative
action pending before the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California wishes to voluntarily dismiss the
case.

THE SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION

On March 30, 2012, plaintiff Stephen Bushansky filed a purported
shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 12-CV-
01597-JST (the "California Derivative Action"), against members of
Chevron Corporation's board of directors (the "Individual
Defendants") seeking relief on behalf of Chevron Corporation, a
nominal defendant. The California Derivative Action arises from
the decision by the board of directors on September 29, 2010 to
amend Chevron's By-Laws to add a provision providing that the
Delaware Court of Chancery would serve as the exclusive forum for
(1) any derivative action brought on behalf of the company, (2)
any action asserting breaches of fiduciary duty, (3) any action
arising under Delaware corporate law, and (4) any other action
asserting claims governed by the internal affairs doctrine (the
"forum selection By-Law"). The California Derivative Action
purports to allege six causes of action related to the adoption of
the forum selection By-Law: (I) breach of fiduciary duties against
the Individual Defendants, (II) aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty against the Individual Defendants, (III) abuse of
control against all defendants, (IV) waste of corporate assets
against all defendants, (V) indemnification, and (VI) declaratory
judgment against all defendants.

On February 6, 2012, approximately one month before the California
Derivative Action was filed, a purported shareholder class action
challenging the validity of the forum selection By-Law was filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery, titled Boilermakers Local 154
Ret. Fund v. Chevron Corp., C.A. No. 7220-CS (the "Delaware
Action"). This case also named all of Chevron's directors, as well
as Chevron Corporation, as defendants. Like the California
Derivative Action, the Delaware Action challenged the decision by
Chevron's Board of Directors to adopt the forum selection By-Law,
and asserted many of the same claims that were subsequently raised
in the California Derivative Action.

On August 9, 2012, the District Court in the California Derivative
Action stayed the California Derivative Action pending the outcome
of the parallel Delaware Action.

On June 25, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled in favor of
the defendants, finding that the forum selection By-Law was
legally valid and dismissed Counts I and IV of the Delaware Action
with prejudice. On July 22, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery
entered a final judgment against the plaintiffs on those grounds.
The plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a notice of appeal to
the Delaware Supreme Court, but on October 15, 2013, voluntarily
dismissed their appeal. On October 28, 2013, the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Action filed a motion to dismiss the case without
prejudice. Chevron has since asked the Delaware Court of Chancery
to postpone any ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Delaware
Action until after the pending voluntary dismissal of the
California Derivative Action.

On February 14, 2014, plaintiff Bushansky sought to voluntarily
dismiss the California Derivative Action.

On February 19, 2014, plaintiff Bushansky further notified the
District Court that he had sold all of his stock in Chevron
Corporation and that he therefore no longer had the requisite
legal standing to pursue the California Derivative Action on
behalf of the company because he was no longer a Chevron
shareholder. On June 25, 2014, the District Court ordered that
notice of the voluntary dismissal be provided to Chevron
Corporation shareholders before the California Derivative Action
could be dismissed with prejudice. If no other Chevron Corporation
shareholder seeks to intervene in the California Derivative
Action, the voluntary dismissal will be approved and the
California Derivative Action will be dismissed with prejudice.

THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THE CALIFORNIA DERIVATIVE ACTION

Any Chevron Corporation shareholder may seek to intervene as a
plaintiff in the California Derivative Action if he, she, or it
(1) owns shares in Chevron and (2) wishes to pursue the claims in
the California Derivative Action or has any reason why the action
should not be voluntarily dismissed. All motions to intervene must
be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than September 29,
2014. Every motion to intervene must contain: (1) the caption of
the California Derivative Action; (2) the intervenor's name,
address and phone number; (3) proof or certification of the date
the intervenor purchased Chevron Corporation stock; and (4) any
supporting papers, including all documents and writings that the
intervenor desires the Court to consider.

Any motions to intervene must be filed with the District Court at:
Clerk of Court

United States District Court for the Northern District of
California

Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102

A copy of any motion to intervene must also be mailed to:

     David J. Berger
     WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
     PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     650 Page Mill Road
     Palo Alto, CA 94304

Attorneys for Defendants Samuel H. Armacost, Linnet F. Deily,
Robert E. Denham, Robert J. Eaton, Chuck Hagel, Enrique Hernandez,
Jr., Franklyn G. Jenifer, George L. Kirkland, Sam Nunn, Donald B.
Rice, Kevin W. Sharer, Charles R. Shoemate, John G. Stumpf, Ronald
D. Sugar, Carl Ware, John S. Watson, and Nominal Party Chevron
Corporation

     Joseph H. Weiss
     WeissLaw LLP
     1500 Broadway
     New York, NY 10036

Attorneys for Plaintiff Stephen Bushansky


COWS IN THE KITCHEN: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Andrade" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Andrade, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Cows in the Kitchen, LTD., d/b/a Burnt Toast
and Konstantinos Drivas, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07321
(N.D. Ill., September 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Cows in the Kitchen, LTD owns and operates a food and beverage
establishment known as Burnt Toast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CP MANAGEMENT: Faces "Isidro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Lopez and Isidro Lopez, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. CP Management, LLC, and Tony K.
Youshaei, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07326 (N.D. Ill.,
September 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

CP Management, LLC is the largest third party property manager
Northern District of Illinois and is owned and operated by Tony K.
Youshaei.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CUSTOM COATINGS: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandi Lewis and Jeffrey Lewis, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals v. Custom Coatings of St.
Augustine, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and Craig N. Taylor,
individually, Case No. 3:14-cv-01131 (M.D. Fla., September 17,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Custom Coatings of St. Augustine, Inc. is a Florida corporation
that provides auto paint, collision repair and auto restoration.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Hanna
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: MHanna@forthepeople.com


D & D's IMPRESSIVE: Faces "Perez" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. D & D's Impressive Auto Collision Inc., Daniel Steininger, and
Domenick Genise, Case No. 1:14-cv-07558 (S.D.N.Y., September 18,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

D & D's Impressive Auto Collision Inc. owns and operates an
automotive mechanical and electrical repair shop located at
334East 126th Street, New York, New York, 10035.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Yesenia Francisco, Esq.
      BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
      E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com
              francisco@bwp-law.com


DIGICON CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline R. Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Digicon Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01597
(D.D.C., September 19, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest, costs, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other relief available pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Digicon Corporation provides information technology support to
governments and corporations nationwide, including federal
government agencies in the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Catharine E. Edwards, Esq.
      Sharon Yvette Eubanks, Esq.
      EDWARDS KIRBY, LLP
      2000 P Street, NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 223-2732
      Facsimile: (202) 478-2690
      E-mail: cedwards@edwardskirby.com
              seubanks@edwardskirby.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces "Cano" Suit Over Cold-Calling
---------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Cano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., Pixar, Lucas Film
Ltd.; The Walt Disney Company; Digital Domain 3.0 Inc.; Image
Movers LLC; Image Movers Digital; Sony Pictures Animation Inc.;
Sony Pictures Image Works Inc.; Blue Sky Studios, Inc; and Does 1
through 100, Case No. 5:14-cv-04203 (N.D. Cal., September 17,
2014), alleges that the Defendants entered into an anti-
solicitation agreement that controls their employees' compensation
and mobility by not recruiting each other's technical employees,
and by agreeing not to increase base salary offers in
circumstances where an employee was considering both companies.

The Defendants are among the largest technology and animation
companies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Gerald Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
      1901 Ave Of The Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 789-3123
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3014
      E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Julian Ari Hammond, Esq.
      HAMMONDLAW, PC
      1180 S Beverly Dr Ste 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 601-6766
      Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
      E-mail: hammond.julian@gmail.com

         - and -

      Craig Ackermann, Esq.
      ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC
      1180 S Beverly Dr Ste 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 277-0614
      Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
      E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


EASTERN ACCOUNT SYSTEM: Faces "Gindi" Suit Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Gindi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Eastern Account System of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-05790 (D.N.J., September 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for using an unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

Eastern Account System of Connecticut, Inc. is a collection agency
with its principal office located at 75 Glen Road, #110, Sandy
Hook, CT 06482.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


ECOTALITY INC: Securities Complaint Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has dismissed
five Ecotality officers from a securities class action but said
some of the claims may be amended.

The consolidated case In Re Ecotality, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 13-03791-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
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
(W.D. Pa., September 19, 2014), alleges that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

Education Management Corporation 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 Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq.
      Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR.
      429 Forbes Avenue, 519 Allegheny Building
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 391-5164
      E-mail: Yateslaw@aol.com
         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMERANTZ, LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100


ENDO HEALTH: Restricts Availability of Opana ER, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Endo Health
Solutions Inc. Endo pharmaceuticals Inc. Penwest Pharmaceuticals
Co. and Impax Laboratories Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07320 (N.D.
Ill., September 19, 2014), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful
scheme to allocate and monopolize the market for extended release
oxymorphone hydrochloride, under the brand name Opana ER.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of manufacture and
distribution of therapeutic drugs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David P. Germaine, Esq.
      Joseph Michael Vanek, Esq.
      VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
      55 W. Monroe St., #3500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 224-1500
      E-mail: dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
              jvanek@vaneklaw.com

         - and -

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
      Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: 212-687-1980
      Facsimile: 212-687-7714
      E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
              rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
              mmccahill@kaplanfox.com


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: No Class Cert. Rulings Yet in "Bartoni" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare 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 four
different putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws.

On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8,
2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura
Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles: and on March 11, 2010, Melanie
Aguilar filed suit in Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.  The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases
have been coordinated in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian
cases have subsequently been consolidated into a single action.

In these cases, the plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR
entities failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in
compliance with California law, and failed to provide required
meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium compensation for missed
breaks.  The plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes on these
claims and are seeking lost wages, various penalties, and
attorneys' fees under California law.

The Court has certified classes in the consolidated Karapetian
/Aguilar case on claims alleging that AMR has not provided meal
periods in compliance with the law as to dispatchers and call
takers, that AMR has an unlawful time round policy, and that AMR
has an unlawful practice of setting rates for those employees; the
Court denied certification of the rest period claims of these
employees.  In Banta, the Court denied certification of the meal
and rest period claims as to EMTs and paramedics, a decision that
is being appealed; the Court indicated that it would certify a
class on overtime claims, but plaintiff's counsel have indicated
that they intend to dismiss that claim as AMR's policy complies
with a recent Court of Appeal decision.  No rulings have been made
as to class certification in Bartoni.

The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of
potential damages, if any in any of these actions.

Envision Healthcare is a provider of physician-led, outsourced
medical services in the United States with more than 20,000
affiliated clinicians.  It markets market its services on a stand-
alone, multi-service and integrated basis, primarily under its
EmCare and AMR brands.  EmCare is a provider of integrated
facility-based physician services, including emergency,
anesthesiology, hospitalist/inpatient care, radiology,
teleradiology and surgery. EmCare also offers physician-led care
management solutions outside the hospital. AMR is a provider and
manager of community based healthcare transportation services,
including emergency "911", non-emergency, managed transportation,
fixed-wing ambulance and disaster response.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery to Continue Through 2014
------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies 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 David M. Loritz filed
on April 15, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr.,
and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of certain federal
securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf filed a nearly
identical complaint against the same named defendants in the same
court. These cases were filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock between February 9, 2012 and
April 3, 2013.

On June 4, 2013, James Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a
substantially similar action in the same court, purportedly on
behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between June 1,
2011 and April 24, 2013, against the Company, Messrs. Bolch,
Damaska, Hirt, and Louis E. Martinez. On July 9, 2013, Judge
Stephen V. Wilson consolidated these cases under the Loritz v.
Exide Technologies, Inc. caption, lead docket number 2:13-02607-
SVW-E, and appointed Sandra Weitsman and James Cassella Lead
Plaintiffs of the putative class of former Exide stockholders.
Judge Wilson ordered Lead Plaintiffs to file their consolidated
amended complaint on or before August 23, 2013.

On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against the Company, without prejudice, to re-file at a
future date. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to
pursue their claims against the individual defendants during the
pendency of Exide's bankruptcy and may seek to reinstate their
claims against the Company when it emerges from bankruptcy.

On September 6, 2013, pursuant to an order extending the previous
deadline, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Complaint, naming as defendants Messrs. James R. Bolch, Phillip A.
Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., Louis E. Martinez, John P. Reilly,
Herbert F. Aspbury, Michael R. D'Appolonia, David S. Ferguson,
John O'Higgins, and Dominic J. Pilleggi.  Lead Plaintiffs did not
name Mr. Ostermann as a defendant in the Consolidated Amended
Complaint. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint Lead Plaintiffs
purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock during the period June 1, 2011 and May 24, 2013.

In addition, Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's senior secured notes during the period
August 8, 2011 through May 24, 2013. Lead Plaintiffs allege that
certain public statements made by the Company and its officers
during these periods were materially false and misleading. The
Consolidated Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of
damages sought.

Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to
vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants moved to dismiss all
claims against them and, on December 19, 2013, Judge Wilson
granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, without
prejudice. Judge Wilson gave Lead Plaintiffs leave to file their
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on or before January 30,
2014.

On January 30, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Second Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical in every
material respect to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint does not specify an amount
of damages sought.   On February 13, 2014, Defendants filed their
Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint.

On August 11, 2014, Judge Wilson entered an order dismissing
Plaintiffs' Section 15 claim against R. Paul Hirt, Jr., former
Executive Vice President and President of Exide Americas, but
denying the remainder of Defendants' motion to dismiss.  Discovery
in this litigation will now proceed and it is expected to continue
through the remainder of 2014.  No trial date has been set in this
matter. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to
vigorously pursue their defense.


FIFTH DIMENSION: Faces Class Action Over Tito's Handmade Vodka
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
although marketed as a craft alcoholic beverage, Tito's Handmade
Vodka actually is mass-produced in a large industrial complex in a
process "devoid of human hands," a proposed class action alleges.

California plaintiff Gary Hofmann filed suit on Sept. 15 in
San Diego Superior Court against Fifth Dimension Inc., maker of
the niche vodka, alleging it trades on its profile as a lovingly
crafted throwback that produces a higher quality drink than the
products of large commercial distilleries.

But Mr. Hofmann, in Hofmann v. Fifth Dimension, alleges that
characterization is built on negligent misrepresentation and
violations of California business and consumer codes.

"There is simply nothing 'handmade' about the vodka, under any
definition of the term," the complaint says.  In fact, the
attestation on bottle labels that the vodka is "Crafted in an Old
Fashioned Pot Still by America's Original Microdistillery," could
not be further from the truth, it says.

Tito's vodka actually is produced in massive buildings containing
10 floor-to-ceiling stills, where 500 cases per hour are bottled
using technologically advanced automated machinery, the complaint
contends.  Published reports say Tito's produced 850,000 cases in
2013 and earned about $85 million in revenue.

Mr. Hofmann alleges he bought Tito's vodka in August at a San
Diego store, at a premium price, because of the representations on
the label.  "Plaintiff believed at the time he purchased the vodka
that he was in fact buying a high-quality product made by human
hands that was not made in large industrial vats in mass
quantities, etc.," the complaint says.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments, injunctive relief and
restitution, court documents show.

Mr. Hofmann is represented by attorneys John Donboli and Sean
Slattery of the Del Mar Law Group.


FIVE FOUR GROUP: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Agazanof, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Five Four Group, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-07313 (C.D.
Cal., September 18, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for
negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Five Four Group, LLC is in the retail business, and offers a
clothing club where members receive clothes selected by stylists
on a monthly basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FUMIZER LLC: Sued in Cal. Over False Claims About Healthy Smoking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fumizer pushes its
e-cigarettes with false claims about "healthy smoking," a class
action claims in California Superior Court.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Bledrose" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Bledsoe, Celestine Elliott, Lawrence Elliott, Cina Farmer,
Paul Fordham, Momoh Kanu, Tynesia Mitchell, Dierra Thomas, and
James Tibbs v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07631
(S.D.N.Y., September 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to disclose ignition switch defect of General Motors
vehicles.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that is
engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing,
assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, leasing,
and servicing automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Peller, Esq.
      THE LAE OFFICE OF GARY PELLER
      600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
      Washington, DC 20781
      Telephone: (202) 662-9122
      Facsimile: (202) 662-9680
      E-mail: peller@law.georgetown.edu


GHC LLC: Faces "Harvey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamarche Harvey and Jasmine Harvey, On behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated v. GHC LLC d/b/a Genesis Healthcare
and Harborside of Cleveland LP d/b/a Park East Center, Case No.
1:14-cv-02079 (N.D. Ohio, September 18, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for all of
the hours worked over 40 each workweek.

GHC LLC and Harborside of Cleveland LP own and operate a
rehabilitation and nursing facility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
     SPITZ LAW FIRM
     Ste. 290, 4620 Richmond Road
     Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
     Telephone: (216) 291-4744
     Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
     E-mail: brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com


GOODYEAR TIRE: Jan. 5 Trial Scheduled for Entran 3 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL NOTICE TO COLORADO PROPERTY OWNERS

If you own or owned a home, building or other structure in the
state of Colorado with a radiant heating system containing
Entran 3 heating hose, a class action lawsuit may affect your
rights.

A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

You may be affected by a class action lawsuit about whether The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. designed and manufactured Entran 3
radiant heating hose with alleged defects that will cause the hose
to degrade and fail sooner than expected or in some instances have
already caused the hose to fail.  The lawsuit is in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, and called
Helmer et al v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 1:12-cv-00685.

A federal Court has "certified" this case to proceed to trial on
the issue of Goodyear's liability for product defect on a class-
wide basis.  The case is scheduled for trial beginning on
January 5, 2015.  There is no money available now and no guarantee
that there will be.

ARE YOU AFFECTED?

You may be part of this class action if you own or owned a home,
building or other structure in the state of Colorado
that contains Entran 3 radiant heating hose.  "You" includes
persons, trusts, corporations, partnerships, associations,
and/or entities, including governmental entities.  The Entran 3
hose could be installed in your property as an in-slab,
baseboard, and/or exterior sidewalk/driveway snowmelt system.
Entran 3 is a rubber hose, typically with an orange cover
and the name "entran 3" or "entran 3^" stamped on it.  A good
place to look is where the hose connects to a manifold,
connects to a boiler or enters the walls, ceiling or floor.  If
you cannot find any stamp, then you may wish to call your
plumber or heating contractor to have them inspect for you.  And
of course, you can always consult your paperwork from
when the house was built.  A picture of the hose can be found at
www.Entran3COclass.com

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

The lawsuit claims that Goodyear designed and manufactured
Entran 3 radiant heating hose with alleged defects that will cause
the hose to degrade and fail sooner than expected or in some
instances have already caused the hose to fail.

The lawsuit asks for money to be paid to people and entities that
own or owned homes, buildings and structures in Colorado that
contain Entran 3 radiant heating hose.  Goodyear denies the claim
and all of the allegations in the lawsuit.

No decision about whether the Plaintiffs or Goodyear is right has
been made.  The issue of Goodyear's liability including whether
Entran 3 is defective will be decided at a trial that has been
scheduled to begin on January 5, 2015.

WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS?

Your rights are affected and you have a choice to make now.  By
doing nothing, you are choosing to stay in the lawsuit.
If Entran 3 is determined to be defective, you will be notified
about your right to seek damages in subsequent proceedings.
But, you are giving up the right to sue Goodyear on your own for
claims based on the defects in the design of Entran 3
alleged by the Plaintiffs in this matter.  If you ask to be
excluded and money or benefits are later awarded or obtained, you
will not be able to share in those.  But, you will keep the right
to sue Goodyear on your own about the same legal claim
in this lawsuit. To exclude yourself, send a letter that says you
want to be excluded from the lawsuit bearing the caption
Helmer et al v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 1:12-cv-00685.
Include your name, address, telephone number, and signature.
You must mail your exclusion request letter so that it is
postmarked by December 5, 2014, to: Entran 3 Co Class, c/o
Angeion Group, 1801 Market Street, Suite 660, Philadelphia, PA
19103.

HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION?

Go to the website www.Entran3COclass.com call toll-free 1-800-215-
9433, or write to Entran 3 Co Class, c/o Angeion
Group, 1801 Market Street, Suite 660, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
1-800-215-9433


HARVARD COLLECTION: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian O'Reilly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Harvard Collection Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-05787 (D.N.J., September 17, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for using an unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.

Harvard Collection Services, Inc. is a collection agency located
at 4839 N. Elston Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60630.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


HCA HOLDINGS: Securities Fraud Obtains Class-Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie McGee, writing for The Tennessean, reports that plaintiffs
who filed a securities fraud case against HCA Holdings Inc., the
Nashville-based hospital giant, were granted class-action status
in a suit stemming from the company's $4.3 billion initial public
offering in 2011.

The list of defendants includes HCA's top executives -- Chairman
Richard Bracken and CEO Milton Johnson -- as well as several
high-profile investment banks, including J.P. Morgan Securities,
Lazard Capital Markets and Goldman Sachs & Co.  A private equity
group owned by affiliates of Bain Capital, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Co. and Merrill Lynch's private equity arm is also named in the
suit.

The claim, brought by New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, alleges HCA failed to disclose the
company was experiencing a decline in Medicare and Medicaid
revenues and had improperly accounted for previous reorganizations
in a "false and misleading" initial public offering registration
statement.

On Sept. 22, U.S. District Judge Kevin Sharp granted the class
action status to HCA shareholders who owned common stock that was
bought before the date of filing on Oct. 28, 2011.  Based on the
drop in the stock price from the IPO to the filing of the claim,
the group has suffered more than $1 billion in damages, according
to the complaint.

"That information was not disclosed, and when it was disclosed,
the market reacted with shock," said Darren Robbins, lead counsel
for the plaintiffs.  "The financial losses associated with the
allegations are huge."

HCA is reviewing the court opinion and is considering an appeal,
according to company spokesman Ed Fishbough.

"The decision does not address the merits of the plaintiff's
claims, which we will continue to defend vigorously," he said in
an email.

The plaintiffs allege that HCA failed to disclose that Medicaid
revenue growth had started to decline and was expected to continue
to drop as a result of Medicaid cuts in Florida and Texas.
Instead, HCA touted an almost 40 percent increase in Medicaid
revenue from 2008 to 2010, which was not indicative of the
company's future operating results, according to the claim.

The suit also focuses on HCA's cardiology segment, which was
losing physicians and was under investigation by the Department of
Justice for its cardiac billing practices.  An internal
investigation revealed HCA was routinely performing unnecessary
procedures, according to plaintiffs.  The group alleges in the
suit that HCA knew its revenue from cardiology services was
declining in the quarters before the IPO and that those revenues
were likely to continue to drop, according to Sharp's opinion
granting class action.

In July 2011, four months after the IPO, HCA reported "lower than
anticipated revenue growth," and in September, the company said in
its quarterly report that Medicare revenue "fell short of
expectations and was inconsistent with historical trends,"
according to the court documents.

HCA argues that it disclosed Medicare revenue declines in
quarterly calls before the IPO and that "voluminous data"
concerning the Medicare and Medicaid services was available from
federal data sources concerning the government programs.

The plaintiffs also claim that HCA improperly accounted for two
reorganization transactions as recapitalizations before the IPO,
when the company was taken private in 2006 and was reorganized in
2010.  The accounting error overstated earnings by $790 million,
according to the complaint.

The company's stock, which sold for $30 a share during its IPO,
had dropped by 38 percent and was trading at $18.81 by Oct. 3,
2011, after the company had disclosed the revenue growth declines
and after a Barron's article had questioned its accounting,
according to the court documents.

HCA argues that the Barron's article was based on public
information that the company disclosed before the IPO, according
to the opinion.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison are counsel for the plaintiff group.


HEARTLAND RESTAURANT: "Rambo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Rambo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Heartland Restaurant Group d/b/a Dunkin' Donuts, Case
No. 2:14-cv-01257 (W.D. Pa., September 19, 2014), seeks to recover
damages for non-payment of overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Heartland Restaurant Group is publicly known as Dunkin' Donuts and
maintains approximately 29 stores in the Pittsburgh, PA, area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 227-0763
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

         - and -

      John R. Linkosky, Esq.
      715 Washington Avenue
      Carnegie, PA 15106-4107
      Telephone: (412) 278-1280
      Facsimile: (412) 278-1282
      E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Dismissed Suit Over Officejet Pro Printers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard need not face a class action that said Officejet
Pro 8500 and 8600 Wireless printers "sporadically cease operating
with normal use," reports Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

The case is Vincent Ferranti, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No.
5:13-CV-03847-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


HOOPER HOLMES: Intends to Object to Magistrate Judge's Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, 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 a complaint was filed
on May 24, 2012, against the Company in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things,
that the Company failed to pay overtime compensation to a
purported class of certain independent contractor examiners who,
the complaint alleges, should be treated as employees for purposes
of federal law. The complaints seek award of an unspecified amount
of allegedly unpaid overtime wages to certain examiners. The
Company filed an answer denying the substantive allegations
therein.

On August 1, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation to conditionally certify the class of all contract
examiners from August 16, 2010 to the present. The Company intends
to object to the Report and Recommendation, however, if the
Magistrate's decision stands, notice will be sent to contractors
who performed work for the Company within this time period.

The claim is not covered by insurance, and the Company is
incurring legal costs to defend the litigation which are recorded
in continuing operations. This matter relates to the former
Portamedic service line for which the Company retained liability.
The Company has determined that losses related to the remaining
complaint are not probable or estimable.

Hooper Holmes, Inc. provides on-site health screenings, laboratory
testing, risk assessment and sample collection services to
individual employees through health and care management companies,
including broker and wellness companies, disease management
organizations, reward administrators, third party administrators,
clinical research organizations and, health plans as part of
comprehensive health and wellness programs offered through
corporate and government employers.  Hooper Holmes provides these
services through a national network of health professionals.


HOOPER HOLMES: Settled Individual Claim with Named Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, 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 a complaint was filed
on July 30, 2013, against the Company in the California Superior
Court, San Bernadino County, on behalf of a putative class of
employees alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to
pay wages and other compensation as required by state law. The
complaint seeks award of an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has denied all of the allegations in the
case and believes them to be without merit.

The Company settled the individual claim with the named plaintiff
in July 2014 with prejudice.  As a part of the settlement, the
named plaintiff agreed to dismiss the class claims, without
prejudice.

As a result, the Company has recorded an immaterial accrual as of
June 30, 2014 for the settlement amount as a charge to
discontinued operations in the accompanying consolidated statement
of operations.

Hooper Holmes, Inc. provides on-site health screenings, laboratory
testing, risk assessment and sample collection services to
individual employees through health and care management companies,
including broker and wellness companies, disease management
organizations, reward administrators, third party administrators,
clinical research organizations and, health plans as part of
comprehensive health and wellness programs offered through
corporate and government employers.  Hooper Holmes provides these
services through a national network of health professionals.


HUMANA INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Commissions & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Marc Michel, and all others similarly situated v. Humana,
Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-62139 (S.D. Fla.,
September 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid commissions and
unpaid overtime wages.

Humana, Inc. owns and operates call centers throughout Florida and
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Scott Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL P.A.
      300 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 617-6017
      Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
      E-mail: robnorell@aol.com


IGUANA GRILL: Sued in Ala. Over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------
Corey Smitherman and Jose Rico v. Iguana Grill, Inc., Case No.
7:14-cv-01781 (N.D. Ala., September 17, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Iguana Grill, Inc. owns and operates 2 restaurants within the
State of Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
      Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
      L. William Smith, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building, 301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com
              jcg@wigginschilds.com
              wsmith@wigginschilds.com


INFINITY PROFESSIONAL: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Taboada, Judith Fajardo, and Raul Castaneda, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown v. Infinity Professional Service Company, Inc., The
Outfit, Inc., and Chicago Door Staff, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07269
(N.D. Ill., September 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over forty
40 in a work weeks.

The Defendants provide corporate transactional services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Jenee Gaskin, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      401 S. LaSalle, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121
      Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
      E-mail: aayala@wagetheftlaw.com
              jgaskin@wagetheftlaw.com
              cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com


ISIS PARENTING: Sued Over Failure to Inform Workers of Shutdown
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Gair, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. Isis Parenting, Inc. (f/k/a Isis Maternity, Inc.), Peter
Delahunt, Mark Schwartz, Palladin Consumer Retail Partners, LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-13657 (D. Mass., September 19, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to warn the employees of the
Company's shutdown in violation of the federal Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

Isis Parenting, Inc. serves the greater Boston community with
child and parenting products, services and specialized classes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
      GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
      33 Mount Vernon Street
      Boston, MA 02108
      Telephone: (617) 390-7570
      E-mail: nick@gardnerrosenberg.com


JACK'S BAR-B-Q: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Jones-Alexander v. Jack's Bar-B-Q Smokehouse, Inc., and
Jackie Mays, individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-62162 (S.D. Fla.,
September 20, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, damages for retaliation, reasonable attorney's fee and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jack's Bar-B-Q Smokehouse, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in
Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian Jay Militzok
     MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
     3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Telephone: (954) 727-8570
     Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
     E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


JESUIT RETREAT: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Oberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jesuit Retreat House, George Mravetz, and Barbara
Leggot, Case No. 1:14-cv-02085 (N.D. Ohio, September 18, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for  violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Jesuit Retreat House provides a sacred setting for outreach,
retreats and programs of growth and development for people in the
contemporary Church and society.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Wido, Esq.
      Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
      SPITZ LAW FIRM
      Ste. 290, 4620 Richmond Road
      Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: christopher.wido@spitzlawfirm.com
              brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com


JGWPT HOLDINGS: Class Action Removed to S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
JGWPT 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 defendants in the
most recently filed Illinois purported class action filing removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  Peachtree Settlement Funding filed a motion
to defer responding to the plaintiff's complaint pending a ruling
on the other defendants' 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and also
filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay or dismiss the
claims against it in federal court. The plaintiff filed a motion
for extension of time to respond to the motions to dismiss and
motion to compel arbitration based on his intent to file a second
amended complaint. The plaintiff did file a second amended
complaint asserting substantially similar allegations to those set
forth in the initial amended complaint.

The defendants believe that the allegations are time-barred and
without merit and intends to vigorously defend these claims on a
number of factual and legal grounds.

JGWPT Holdings Inc., a Delaware holding company incorporated on
June 21, 2013, provides liquidity to individuals with financial
assets such as structured settlements, annuities, and lottery
winnings, among others, by either purchasing these financial
assets for a lump-sum payment, issuing installment obligations
payable over time, or serving as a broker to other purchasers of
those financial assets.  The Company also provides pre-settlement
funding to people with pending personal injury claims.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Sued in Va. Over Securities Laws Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters'
Personnel Retirement Trust, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., Robert M.
Lynch, and Daniel E. Terrell, Case No. 1:14-cv-01227 (E.D. Va.,
September 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is one of the largest retailers
of hardwood flooring in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY
      1800 Diagnal Road, Suite 600
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Telephone: (571) 366-1702
      Facsimile: (703) 647-6009
      E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com


MACQUARIE GROUP: May Face Class Action Over Van Eyk Collapse
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian, citing The Australian Financial Review, reports
that The Macquarie Group's role in the downfall of van Eyk is
being considered by Slater & Gordon for a possible class action
lawsuit.

Van Eyk went into voluntary administration after Macquarie opted
to close 13 of the group's 14 Blueprint funds on the back of news
of a AU$31 million illiquid investment tied to the funds.

Slater & Gordon is assessing whether Macquarie engaged in
deceptive handling when dealing with the illiquid investment.

Ben Whitwell, who is heading up the law firm's investigation, told
the AFR that he was seeking to find out "why it took so long to
discover this illiquid investment".


MAJOR LEAGUE: 2013 All-Star Week Volunteer Wants Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action, a Queens man who volunteered for Major League
Baseball claims that the $7 billion business should pay for such
work with cash instead of fanny packs, reports Nick Divito at
Courthouse News Service.

John Chen of Rego Park says he was one of 2,000 volunteers MLB
used to staff events around New York City during its 2013 All-Star
Week, including its All-Star FanFest.  The events brought $191
million into the city, according to the complaint filed on
September 22, 2014, in New York County Supreme Court.

It's "a lucrative for-profit commercial operation that MLB
promoted as 'the largest interactive baseball theme park in the
world,' and described as 'baseball heaven on earth,'" but it was
"almost entirely with unpaid volunteers," the 28-page complaint
states.

"None of these millions of dollars, however, ended up in the
pockets of the New Yorkers whom MLB recruited to provide the labor
necessary to prepare for and run FunFest and other All-Star Week
events," Chen says.

An MLB spokesman declined to comment on September 24, 2014.

Greeters, hospitality staff, hotel workers, ticket takers and
transportation workers were also used as volunteers to staff other
events around the city, including a 5K race, concert, fantasy camp
and parade, Chen says.  MLB additionally used volunteers as pre-
game rehearsal stand-ins, to prepare welcome baskets, assist with
transportation, direct customers to the subways and provide
information at various sites around the city, according to the
complaint.

Chen says MLB began recruiting volunteers for the July 2013 All
Star Week as early as October 2012, and ultimately got 2,000
volunteers to "represent New York by welcoming . . . guests (in
other words, paying customers) from around the world and assisting
in the smooth operations of the [All-Star] events."

FanFest charged adults $35 and children $30 to enter FanFan Fest,
which took in thousands from thousands of adults and children
between July 12 and July 16, according to the complaint.  But
"instead of paying volunteers cash wages for their work, MLB, the
world's preeminent professional baseball league with annual
revenue of more than seven billion dollars, provided these
volunteers with, among other things, a 'shirt, a cap and a cinch
drawstring backpack,'" as well as free admission for the volunteer
and a guest to Fan Fest, Chen says.

Volunteers were also given a water bottle, a baseball and a
lanyard, the lawsuit states.

Back when New York hosted the FanFest in 2008, volunteers got a
fanny pack, along with their tickets and baseball, according to
the complaint.

Chen's complaint also describes the work of "Green Team"
volunteers whom MLB used to collect used beer cups and other
recyclable used food containers from fans.  In exchange for their
help with garbage and recycling, this fleet received free
admission to games and T-shirts, "but no cash wages," Chen says.

"MLB's failure to pay its volunteers any wages violated federal
and state minimum wage laws, which require employees to pay at
least the minimum wage for all work that they 'suffer or permit,'"
the complaint states.

He added: "Unpaid private-sector jobs damage the labor market and
are a detriment to society.  As for-profit companies hire more
unpaid workers, they hire fewer paid workers, especially entry-
level workers."

Named as defendants are Major League Baseball Properties, the
Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and MLB.

The class wants to stop MLB from soliciting and using unpaid
workers and to recover unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2057
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


MANDALAY DIGITAL: Not Liable in Class Action Against Coral Tell
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mandalay Digital Group, 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 a class action
suit in the amount of NIS 19.2 million or $5.3 million was filed
on May 30, 2013, in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court against
Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company which owns and operates a
website offering advertisements and Coral Tell Ltd is currently
being sued in a class action lawsuit regarding phone call overages
and has served a third party notice against Logia and two
additional companies for the Company's alleged involvement in
facilitating the overages. The suit relates to a service offered
by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to display a
virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of their real
cellular number.

The plaintiff claims that calls were charged for the connection
time between two segments of the call, instead of the second
segment alone; that the caller was charged even if the advertiser
did not answer the call (as the charge began upon initiation of
the first segment); and that the caller was charged for text
messages sent to the advertiser, although the service did not
support delivery of text messages.

"We have no contractual relationship with this company. We believe
the lawsuit is without merits and a finding of liability on our
part remote. After conferring with advisors and counsel,
management believes that the ultimate liability, if any, in the
aggregate will not be material to the financial position or
results or operations of the Company for any future period; and no
liability has been accrued," the Company said.

On November 25th, 2013, the Supreme Court ordered the parties to
submit their position as to whether the defendant (applicant) has
a right to appeal the District's Court decision or must request
the Supreme Court to grant a right to appeal.

On December 25th, 2013, after reviewing the parties' positions,
the Supreme Court ordered the respondents (Cellcom, Logia, Ethrix)
to submit their response to defendant's petition to grant the
right to appeal, by January 26th, 2014. Appellant responded
thereafter and the appeal is now under review and pending
judgment.

"Usually, in petitions such as this the Supreme Court makes a
judgment based on the parties' written responses. Such judgment
may take between several weeks to several months," the Company
said.

Mandalay Digital Group, Inc., formerly NeuMedia, Inc.
("NeuMedia"), formerly Mandalay Media, Inc. ("Mandalay Media") and
formerly Mediavest, Inc. ("Mediavest"), through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Digital Turbine, Inc. ("DT USA"), provides end to end
mobile content solutions for wireless carriers and OEMs globally
to enable them to better monetize their subscribers.


MASTERS HEALTH: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isaias Gonzalez, Jairo Ramirez, Jilmar Daniel Ramirez, Fredy
Ramos, Victoriano Perez and Juan Carlos Perez Ramirez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Masters
Health Food Service Inc.(d/b/a Fuel Grill & Juice Bar), John Doe
Inc.(d/b/a Fuel Grill And Juice Bar Express), Ninth Avenue Food
Corp. (d/b/a Fuel Grill And Juice Bar), Jeff Tinney and John Doe,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07603 (S.D.N.Y., September 19, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a chain of health food
restaurants known as Fuel Grill & Juice Bar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


MIKE ROUNDS: Commissioner Wants to Save Evidence on Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lacey Louwagie, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
former South Dakota governor and U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rounds
has been sued in a pre-complaint petition to preserve evidence
that claims he helped defraud immigrant investors and taxpayers in
a "course of conduct so outrageous, so unscrupulous and so
conniving that it boggles the reasonable mind."

Minnehaha County Commissioner Jeff Barth filed the class action on
September 22, 2014, against Rounds, attorney Jeffrey T. Sveen, and
former South Dakota Board of Regents Executive Director Robert
"Tad" Perry, in Federal Court.

Barth also is chairman of the Minnehaha County Democratic Party.

Rounds is a Republican.

Barth's petition for pretrial discovery alleges corruption in the
state's EB-5 program.  The EB-5 program, created by the
Immigration Act of 1990, allows select investors to qualify for
U.S. residency and citizenship if they invest $500,000 or more in
businesses that create jobs in the United States.

Barth claims that the "respondents knew of, should have known of,
or directly engaged in the implementation of manipulative devices
to:

   "a) convert the management and operational control of a
       state-owned and operated entity, to a private entity.

   "b) Fraudulently steered immigrant investors into projects
       that were not viable, for an initial investment $500,000
       dollars with additional one-time fees of at least $85,000
       dollars and ongoing annual fees of $10,000 dollars and an
       additional 1 percent ownership stake in the projects these
       immigrant investors invested in, resulting in these
       immigrant investors in many cases, especially Northern
       Beef Packers in Aberdeen, South Dakota being deprived both
       of their investment and of their visa.

   "c) Failed to ensure that the tens of millions of dollars in
       fees harvested by the fraudulent conversion of the
       management of the South Dakota Regional Center were
       remitted to their rightful owners -- the taxpayers and
       citizens of the State of South Dakota; "[and that]

   "d) Some respondents did personally reap the pecuniary rewards
       of this illicit financial fraud & scheme."

Barth seeks preservation of evidence in what he calls a
"conversion contract between the South Dakota International
Business Institute and the for-profit company SDRC Inc."

He claims that (nonparty) Joop Bollen ran the state's EB-5
program, overseeing the state-run South Dakota International
Business Institute, which the federal government approved to
direct foreign investments in South Dakota's meat processing and
packing plants through EB-5.

Bollen saw "the potential for a huge capital venture, assisting
foreign nationals wanting to obtain visas in the U.S.," according
to the petition.

In 2008, Bollen set up a private company, the South Dakota
Regional Center (SDRC), and in 2009, then-Gov. Rounds awarded it a
no-bid contract from the state to handle all foreign investments,
the petition states.

The Rapid City Journal reported on September 23, 2014, that South
Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley discovered something amiss
while investigating trips that SDRC loan monitor Richard Benda
took to China: that Benda had increased a state loan by $550,000,
then received a payment from Northern Beef Packers for the same
amount.

Benda died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on Oct. 13, 2013,
Jackley's office said in May this year.  Jackley said in July that
his office was preparing to arrest Benda when he committed
suicide.

Rounds told the newspaper that Benda was "the only state official
who acted illegally," and that "the attorney general has clearly
stated I was not a target of his investigation."

Current South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard terminated the state's
contract with SDRC after learning the results of Jackley's
investigation.


MORGAN KEEGAN: Judge Allows Mamtek Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Rudi Keller, writing for Columbia Daily Tribune, reports that a
federal lawsuit alleging securities fraud by investment banker
Morgan Keegan as it sold bonds for the failed Mamtek factory
project in Moberly will move ahead as a class action for all
investors, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey ruled on Sept. 23.

John Cromeans of Alabama filed the six-count lawsuit in October
2012 against Morgan Keegan and Armstrong Teasdale, the banking
firm's legal adviser on the deal.  Mr. Cromeans is seeking to
recover his losses and those of 132 other investors who purchased
$39 million in bonds between July 23, 2010, and Sept. 30, 2011.

"Under the circumstances, and given the predominance of common
questions, the alternatives to class litigation are more
burdensome for individuals than participating in class
litigation," Judge Laughrey wrote in her 31-page order.  "Class
action is the most efficient way to resolve the questions of law
and fact common to all Bond purchasers."

Andrew Campbell -- andy.campbell@campbellguin.com -- Cromeans'
Birmingham, Ala., attorney with the firm Campbell, Guin, Williams,
Guy & Gidiere, could not be reached for comment on Sept. 24.

Morgan Keegan already is facing five bondholder lawsuits in state
courts and a civil case filed by the Missouri Securities
Commissioner pending in Boone County.  A Cole County case pitting
six Shelter Insurance entities and four investment funds managed
by Waddell & Reed against Morgan Keegan, Armstrong Teasdale, and
others is set for a trial in March.

Attorneys for Morgan Keegan are "still reviewing" the ruling, said
Chuck Hatfield of the Stinson Leonard Street law firm.  He
declined to comment further.

In July 2010, Gov. Jay Nixon and Moberly officials appeared with
Mamtek CEO Bruce Cole to announce a partnership to finance a
factory to make sucralose.

Moberly agreed to issue $39 million in bonds through its
industrial development authority, and Nixon promised that the
state would provide $17.6 million in tax credits and other
incentives.  No state tax credits were ever issued.

Morgan Keegan purchased the bonds as the underwriter and sold them
to investors.  The project failed in August 2011 when Mamtek was
unable to make a $3.2 million bond payment.

Mr. Cole pleaded guilty Sept. 2 to criminal securities fraud and
theft charges.  His sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 3.  In a
federal civil case against Mr. Cole, Judge Laughrey ruled Aug. 15
that Mr. Cole had committed fraud to obtain $1.3 million from the
bond sale for his personal use.

Mr. Cromeans made six charges against Morgan Keegan and Armstrong
Teasdale.  His lawsuit alleges negligent underwriting, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and omissions,
violations of the Missouri "Blue Sky Law," improperly receiving
money for fraudulent investments and unjust enrichment.

The class action will be limited to the negligent underwriting
allegation, which is against Morgan Keegan only, and violations of
the Blue Sky Law, which is against both defendants, Judge Laughrey
ruled.

Because each investor might have had different reasons for
purchasing the bonds, the misrepresentation claims cannot be
presented as a single case, Judge Laughrey ruled.  The court order
examines each element that must be met for class certification,
with Judge Laughrey finding that a single lawsuit can serve to
litigate the claims.

While some bondholders have filed lawsuits, she noted, most have
not.  Mr. Cromeans' attorney, Andrew Campbell of Birmingham, Ala.,
is experienced in class action claims, she wrote.

"The class members are geographically dispersed across 19 states
making joinder in a single lawsuit more difficult," she wrote.

"While there is evidence that some class members have initiated
their own lawsuits, Morgan Keegan has not shown that the class
members pursuing individual litigation will opt out of any class
that is certified."

All the state-level lawsuits are being handled by Bob Horn --
rhorn@hab-law.com -- of Horn Aylward & Bandy in Kansas City.  He
declined to comment on whether the ruling will have an effect on
those cases.


NATIONAL MILK: Sued Over Manipulation of Raw Farm Milk Production
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Belle Foods Trust and Bankruptcy Estate of Yarnell's Ice Cream
Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Milk Producers Federation, Cooperatives
Working Together, Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Land O'lakes,
Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., Agri-Mark, Inc. d/b/a Cabot
Creamery Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01014 (S.D. Ill.,
September 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants were engaged in a
conspiracy over the past eight years to limit the production of
raw farm milk through premature herd retirements that require
participating dairy farmers to destroy all of the dairy cows in
all of their herds.

The Defendants own and operates agricultural cooperatives and is
engaged in the production of milk.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
      CHARLES BARRETT, PC
      6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
      Nashville, TN 37205
      Telephone: (615) 515-3393
      Facsimile: (615) 515-3395
      E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MI 39095-0927
      Telephone: (662) 834-9168
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

        - and -

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 923-9300
      Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
      Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
             dgallucci@nastlaw.com
             eburns@nastlaw.com

        - and -

      Michael Roberts, Esq.
      Debra Gaw Josephson, Esq.
      Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
      Jana K. Law, Esq.
      ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20 Rahling Circle, P.O. Box 241790
      Little Rock, AR 72223
      Telephone: (501) 821-5575
      Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
      Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
             debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us
             stephanieegner@robertslawfirm.us
             janalaw@robertslawfirm.us

         - and -

      Joseph Kohn, Esq.
      Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
      Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
             rlarocca@kohnswift.com

        - and -

      Arnold Levin, Esq.
      Michael D. Fishbein, Esq.
      Frederick S. Longer, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
      Email: alevin@lfsblaw.com
             mfishbein@lfsblaw.com
             flonger@lfsblaw.com


NEW SOLDIER'S: Faces "Cuthbert" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Germain Cuthbert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. New Soldier's Restaurant, Inc. and Witcliffe Williams,
an individual, Candy Williams, an individual and Craig Williams,
an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-05466 (E.D.N.Y., September 17,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located 1278 Nostrand
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11225.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Philip Valletti, Esq.
      VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP
      600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7180
      Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
      E-mail: vallettir@vkvlawyers.com


NICKY'S CARRY: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Munoz v. Nicky's Carry Out Foods, Inc., Louis Tsonis,
individually, and Virginia Tsonis, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07236 (N.D. Ill., September 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all time worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by
      Lydia Colunga-Merchant, Esq.
      Yolanda Carrillo, Esq.
      WORKING HANDS LEGAL CLINIC
      401 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9115
      E-mail: lcolungamerchant@workinghandslegalclinic.org
              ycarrillo@workinghandslegalclinic.org


OILTANKING TEXAS: "Guerra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fabian Guerra, Misti Landgrave Gomez, and Jessie Gomez v.
Oiltanking Texas City, LP, OTTC GP, LLC, Oiltanking Beaumont
Partners, L.P., Oiltanking Beaumont GP, LLC, Oiltanking Dupre
Corpus Christi, LLC, Oiltanking Houston, L.P., OTH GP, LLC,
Oiltanking Joliet, LLC, Oiltanking Port Neches, LLC, United Bulk
Terminals Davant, LLC, Oiltanking Partners, LP, OTLP GP, LLC,
Oiltanking GMBH, and Marquard & Bahls AG, Case No. 3:14-cv-00308
(S.D. Tex., September 19, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate as an independent storage partners for
oils, petroleum products, chemicals, biofuels and gases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane A. McClelland, Esq.
      SIMON HERBERT ET AL
      3411 Richmond Ave, Suite 400
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 987-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 987-7120
      E-mail: smcclelland@shmsfirm.com


OVER EASY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia A. McCoy, Retta A. Feldkamp, and Christina L. Reeves,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Over Easy Management, Inc., Over Easy, LP, Over Easy Number IX,
LP, Over Easy Number X, LP, and Gregg A. Hansen, Case No. 6:14-cv-
01309 (D. Kan., September 19, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Kansas Wage Payment Act.

The Defendants are franchisees of Huddle House, a 24/7diner-type
restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark G. Ayesh, Esq.
      Ray E. Simmons, Esq.
      AYESH LAW OFFICES
      8100 E 22nd N Bldg 2300-2, PO Box 781750
      Wichita, KS 67278-1750
      Telephone: (316) 682-7381
      Facsimile: (316) 682-1729
      E-mail: mayesh@ayesh.kscoxmail.com
              rsimmons@ayesh.kscoxmail.com


PERRIGO COMPANY: Eltroxin Class Actions in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------
Class action cases related to Eltroxin are in the early stages,
Perrigo Company PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 28, 2014.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the
manufacturers of the product, and various health care providers
who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health
care system in Israel.

The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated
version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally alleged
that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result,
claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a)
purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.

All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to
determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications. On
July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and
ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated into
one application. On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to
certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead counsel for
the claimants.

Generally, the allegations in the consolidated motion are the same
as those set forth in the individual motions; however, the
consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the reformulated
Eltroxin as a respondent. Several hearings on whether or not to
certify the consolidated application took place in December 2013
and January 2014.

As this matter is in its early stages, the Company cannot
reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if
any, associated with these claims.

From its beginnings as a packager of home remedies in 1887,
Perrigo has grown to become a global healthcare supplier. Perrigo
develops, manufactures and distributes over-the-counter ("OTC")
and generic prescription ("Rx") pharmaceuticals, nutritional
products and active pharmaceutical ingredients ("API"), and has a
specialty sciences business comprised of assets focused
predominantly on the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis (Tysabri(R)).


PERRIGO COMPANY: Faces Tysabri(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 28, 2014, that the Company and collaborator
Biogen Idec are co-defendants in product liability lawsuits
arising out of the occurrence of Progressive Multifocal
Leukoencephalopathy ("PML"), a serious brain infection, and
serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in
patients taking Tysabri(R).

The Company and Biogen Idec will each be responsible for 50% of
losses and expenses arising out of any Tysabri(R) product
liability claims. While these lawsuits will be vigorously
defended, management cannot predict how these cases will be
resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits could
result in substantial judgments against the Company.

From its beginnings as a packager of home remedies in 1887,
Perrigo has grown to become a global healthcare supplier. Perrigo
develops, manufactures and distributes over-the-counter ("OTC")
and generic prescription ("Rx") pharmaceuticals, nutritional
products and active pharmaceutical ingredients ("API"), and has a
specialty sciences business comprised of assets focused
predominantly on the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis (Tysabri(R)).


PDL BIOPHARMA: Sued in Nev. Over Misleading Financial Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee A. Hampe, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. John P. McLaughlin, PDL Biopharma,
Inc., David Montez, and Peter S Garcia, Case No. 2:14-cv-01526 (D.
Nev., September 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements about the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance.

PDL Biopharma, Inc. is involved in the humanization of monoclonal
antibodies and the discovery of a new generation of targeted
treatments for cancer and immunologic diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Griffith H. Hayes, Esq.
     Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
     COOKSEY, TOOLEN, GAGE, DUFFY & WOOG
     3930 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
     Las Vegas, NV 89109
     Telephone: (702) 949-3100
     Facsimile: (702) 949-3104
     E-mail: mtuer@cookseylaw.com
             amuehlbauer@cookseylaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Peretz Bronstien, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROOSMAN LLP
     60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Telephone: (212) 697-6484
     Facsimile: (212) 697-7296


PDL BIOPHARMA: To Vigorously Defend Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
PDL BioPharma has been informed of a class action lawsuit filed
against the company that alleges violations of federal securities
laws.  The company disputes the allegations in the complaint and
will vigorously defend this lawsuit.

"We believe that any claims alleging violations of securities laws
are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend our
position," stated John P. McLaughlin, president and chief
executive officer of PDL.  "We remain committed to our strategy of
acquiring income generating assets and continuing to pay dividends
to our shareholders."


PREMIER NEVADA: Illegally Collects Debts, "Palace" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mordechai Palace and Chava Lezell on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated consumers v. Premier Nevada, LLC, First
Premier Bank, and Premier Bankcard, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-05501
(E.D.N.Y., September 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for unlawful collection of consumer debts in violation of the
Telephone Communications Privacy Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the collection of debts allegedly
owed by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


QUEENS CARPET: Faces "Bhagwat" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kalika Bhagwat v. Queens Carpet Mall, Inc., and Jaankie Tulsie,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05474 (E.D.N.Y., September 18,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work
week.

Queens Carpet Mall, Inc. is engaged in commercial carpet business,
with an address for service of process located at 171-15 Jamaica
Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11432.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park, Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


RCS CAPITAL: Negotiating Stipulation of Settlement in Summit Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital 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 Summit Financial
Services Group, Inc. ("Summit"), its board of directors, the
Company and a wholly owned subsidiary formed by the Company in
connection with the Summit acquisition are named as defendants in
two purported class action lawsuits (now consolidated) filed by
alleged Summit shareholders on November 27, 2013 and December 12,
2013 in Palm Beach County, Florida challenging the Summit
acquisition. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that: (i)
each member of Summit's board of directors breached his fiduciary
duties to Summit and its shareholders in authorizing the Summit
acquisition; (ii) the Summit acquisition does not maximize value
to Summit shareholders; and (iii) we and our acquisition
subsidiary aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the members of Summit's board of directors.

On May 9, 2014, the plaintiff shareholders moved for leave to file
an amended complaint under seal.  The Company said, "The amended
complaint asserts claims similar to those in the original
complaint, adds allegations relating to the amendment of the
Summit merger agreement on March 17, 2014, and also challenges the
adequacy of the disclosures in the registration statement related
to the issuance of shares of our Class A common stock as
consideration in the Summit acquisition, the background of the
transaction, the fairness opinion issued to the Summit special
committee, and Summit's financial projections. The consolidated
lawsuits seek class-action certification, equitable relief,
including an injunction against consummation of the Summit
acquisition on the agreed-upon terms, and damages."

On May 27, 2014, the parties to the consolidated action entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") setting forth their agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated action.  The parties are presently
negotiating a stipulation of settlement based on the terms of the
Memorandum of Understanding.

RCS Capital is an integrated financial services company focused on
retail investors.


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Kiosk Design
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01278
(W.D. Pa., September 17, 2014), failing to design, construct, own,
operate and control DVD rental kiosks that are fully accessible
to, and independently usable by, blind people.

Redbox Automated Retail, LLC specializes in DVD, Blu-ray Discs,
and video game rentals via automated retail kiosks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVER CITY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trudy Brown, Delvin Serrano, Jennifer Serrano, Anna Kimbrell,
Candace Doss, and other similarly situated v. River City Cleaning
& Restoration, Inc. d/b/a Service Master Cleaning & Restoration,
Williams B. Barbee, Jr., and Robert White, Case No. 1:14-cv-00277
(E.D. Tenn., September 19, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of offering cleaning and
restoration services in Hamilton County, Tennessee and surrounding
areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
      BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
      711 Cherry Street
      Chattanooga, TN 37402
      Telephone: (423) 266-2121
      Facsimile: (423) 266-3324
      E-mail: dmikel@bdplawfirm.com


SAFEWAY INC: Judge Trims Claims in False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge tossed unjust enrichment and injunctive relief claims from a
proposed class action alleging Safeway Inc. charges premium prices
for food products falsely advertised as all natural, along with
saying plaintiffs can't rely on information not included on the
products' labels in their suit.

In an order partially granting a motion to dismiss filed by
Safeway, U.S. District Judge James Donato said injunctive relief
claims should be thrown out, citing the fact a growing number of
courts reject consumer class action plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief unless the plaintiff alleges he or she intends
to purchase the products at issue in the future.

Plaintiff Ryan Richards sued Safeway in 2013 alleging the store's
branded multigrain and homestyle waffles were advertised as being
"100 percent natural," but contained sodium acid pyrophosphate, or
SAPP, a chemical preservative, according to his complaint.

"Mr. Richards does not plead -- now that he knows that the Safeway
products contain SAPP -- that he intends to purchase these
products again," Judge Donato wrote.  "He cannot plausibly allege
that he would purchase the products in the future even if they
were properly labeled."

Judge Donato also nixed Richards' unjust enrichment claims,
agreeing with Safeway's argument that unjust enrichment is not a
standalone cause of action under California law, or when it is
duplicative of statutory and common law claims.

Claims based on information not included on the labels of the
products in question, like Safeway's website, were also tossed,
though Judge Donato said Mr. Richards could amend his complaint to
adequately plead the statements not contained on the label of the
products at issue.

"The amended complaint does not state that Mr. Richards read or
relied on the alleged misrepresentations outside of the statements
on the products' labels," Judge Donato wrote.  "Consequently,
Mr. Richards has stated a claim only with respect to the
statements on the product labels that he relied on."

Safeway has a line of products branded as "Open Nature" that it
claims are 100 percent natural and free of chemicals, according to
the complaint.  Safeway's website includes a list of some 130
artificial ingredients that aren't found in the Open Nature line
of products, but SAPP, an odorless white powder used to remove
hair from hogs and feathers from birds at slaughterhouses, isn't
on the list.

Claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, among others,
were allowed to remain in the suit.

Mr. Richards is represented by Scott Edward Cole --
scole@scalaw.com -- Molly A. DeSario -- mDeSario@scalaw.com -- and
Jessica L. Campbell of Scott Cole & Associates APC.

Safeway is represented by Monty Agarwal --
Monty.Agarwal@aporter.com -- and Jonathan L. Koenig --
Jonathan.Koenig@aporter.com -- of Arnold and Porter LLP.

The case is Ryan Richards et al. v. Safeway Inc., case number
3:13-cv-04317, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


SAKS & COMPANY: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Divljanovic" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amra Divljanovic, Ramses Carranza, Mark Askew, Nora Lajqi, Faye
Taghavi, and Rina Toledano, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Saks & Company d/b/a Saks Fifth
Avenue, Case No. 1:14-cv-07533 (S.D.N.Y., September 17, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work more than 40 hours in a workweek.

Saks & Company is an American luxury department store chain with a
principal executive office at 12 East 49th Street, New York, NY
10017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Mikhail Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (917) 774-4155
      Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
      E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


SEALE 76 INC: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Morales, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Seale 76, Inc., d/b/a Jimano's Pizzeria
Outlet 6, and Rod Seale, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07327
(N.D. Ill., September 20, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Seale 76, Inc. and Rod Seale own and operate a restaurant known as
Jimano's Pizzeria Outlet 6.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces "Yarris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Yarris, individually and on behalf of those individuals
similarly situated v. Sears Holdings Corporation, Sears Holdings
Management Corporation, and Sears, Roebuck and Co., Case No. 2:14-
cv-05512 (E.D.N.Y., September 19, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 900 full-line Sears-
branded retail stores throughout the United States that sell
apparel, home furnishings, hardware, and electronics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
      ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
      Bohemia, NY 11716
      Telephone: (631) 589-7242
      Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
      E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Action Over "Blackfish" Documentary
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
stockholder is suing SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. after he claims
it denied its decline was due to the documentary "Blackfish."

The securities class action lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased SEAS stock pursuant to and/or traceable to
the company's registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the company's initial public offering commenced on
or after April 18, 2013.

On April 18, 2013, SeaWorld filed with the SEC an amended
Registration Statement on Form S-1/A in connection with the an
initial public offering,, according to a complaint filed Sept. 9
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

Lou Baker claims the registration statement also contained a
prospectus and both documents contained, among other things, the
company's financial results for the fiscal years ended Dec. 31,
2012.

The registration statement was declared effective on April 18,
2013, and the company filed the final prospectus with the SEC on
April 19, 2013.  The IPO was for 10 million shares of the
company's common stock at a price of $27 per share, according to
the suit.

"Throughout the class period, the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the company's business, operations, prospects and
performance, and internal controls," the complaint states.

Mr. Baker claims when a corrective disclosure was filed by the
company on Aug. 13, SEAS's stock price dropped $9.25 per share or
32.9 percent.

On Jan. 19, 2013, Gabriela Cowperthwaite's documentary,
"Blackfish," premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, and on
Jan. 22, 2013, CNN Films and Magnolia Pictures acquired the rights
to Blackfish, according to the suit.

"Blackfish follows the 39 year tumultuous history of Tilikum, a
SeaWorld Orca Whale, who has been involved in the death or serious
injury of several SeaWorld trainers," the complaint states.
"Blackfish is comprised of interviews of former SeaWorld trainers,
SeaWorld spectators and other experts such as Occupational Safety
and Health Administration employees and scientists."

Mr. Baker claims the film revealed for the first time that
SeaWorld had improperly cared for and mistreated its Orca
population causing mental distress to the company's Orca
population affecting trainer and audience safety; continued to
feature an Orca that had killed and injured numerous trainers; and
consequently exposed the company to material and uncertainties
that could adversely impact attendance at its family oriented
parks.

On July 19, 2013, "Blackfish" was released in theaters in New
York, Los Angeles and Toronto. On Aug. 13, 2013, the company filed
a press release on Form 8-K reporting the financial results for
the first half of 2013 reporting a nine percent drop in
attendance.

"SEAS falsely claimed that the drop in attendance was a product of
the timing of Easter, when in reality, the bad publicity from the
Blackfish film caused families to stay away from SEAS parks," the
complaint states.

CNN aired "Blackfish" on its network on Oct. 24. Nearly 21 million
people watched "Blackfish" on CNN during that broadcast -- an
unusually large audience for CNN programming, according to the
suit.  "Blackfish" was released on DVD in the United States on
Nov. 12.

Mr. Baker claims the dissemination of "Blackfish" sparked a
nationwide debate about whales in captivity and the ethics of
SeaWorld.

On March 13, the company "filed a press release on Form 8-K
reporting the financial results for the fourth quarter and full
year of 2013," the complaint states.  "To explain a 4.1% decline
in attendance in 2013 . . . Atchison falsely stated that
'contributing to the decline in full year attendance was
unexpected adverse weather conditions in the company's second
quarter and July as well as the impact of an early Easter in
2013.'"

Mr. Baker claims, in reality, the decline in attendance was the
result of the mounting backlash from the "Blackfish" film.

"In the August 13 . . . press release [SeaWorld] finally came
clean that the decline in attendance was the results from the
negative publicity from the Blackfish film," the complaint states.
"The press release states in relevant part: In addition, the
company believes attendance in the quarter was impacted by demand
pressures related to recent media attention surrounding proposed
legislation in the state of California."

Mr. Baker claims the proposed California legislation referenced in
the press release, the Orca Welfare and Safety Act, would outlaw
keeping Orca Whales in captivity for the purpose of entertainment.
If violated, the law could impose a $100,000 fine, six months in
jail or both.  The legislation arose out of the public
conversation that was ignited by the documentary "Blackfish."

"The August 13, 2014 announcement caused the price of SEAS stock
to plummet by $9.25 per share, or 32.9%," the complaint states.

Mr. Baker claims the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and caused him and class members damages due to their
wrongful conduct.  Mr. Baker is seeking class certification and
compensatory damages. He is being represented by Laurence Rosen of
the Rosen Law Firm PA.

The case is assigned to District Judge Michael M. Anello.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number: 3:14-cv-02129


SPARTANNASH COMPANY: Minnesota Class Action Now Closed
------------------------------------------------------
SpartanNash Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 12, 2014, that a putative class action
complaint (the "State Court Action") was filed on or about July
24, 2013, in the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District,
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin (the "State Court"), by a
stockholder of Nash-Finch Company in connection with the pending
merger with Spartan Stores, Inc. The State Court Action is styled
Greenblatt v. Nash-Finch Co. et al., Case No. 27-cv-13-13710. That
complaint was amended on August 28, 2013, after Spartan Stores
filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission containing a preliminary version of the joint proxy
statement/prospectus.

On September 9, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
State Court Action. On or about September 19, 2013, a second
putative class action complaint (the "Federal Court Action" and,
together with the State Court Action, the "Putative Class
Actions") was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota (the "Federal Court"), by a stockholder of
Nash-Finch. The Federal Court Action was styled Benson v.
Covington et al., Case No. 0:13-cv-02574.

The Putative Class Actions alleged that the directors of Nash-
Finch breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
approving a merger that provided for inadequate consideration
under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of
interest; that the merger agreement included allegedly preclusive
deal protection provisions; and that Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores
allegedly aided and abetted the directors in breaching their
duties to Nash-Finch's stockholders. Both Putative Class Actions
also alleged that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
was false and misleading due to the omission of a variety of
allegedly material information. The complaint in the Federal Court
Action also asserted additional claims individually on behalf of
the plaintiff under the federal securities laws. The Putative
Class Actions sought, on behalf of their putative classes, various
remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated in
accordance with its agreed-upon terms, damages, and costs and
disbursements relating to the lawsuit.

SpartanNash believed that these lawsuits are without merit;
however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores agreed,
as part of settlement discussions, to make certain supplemental
disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus requested by
the Putative Class Actions in the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus.

On October 30, 2013, the defendants entered into the Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the settlement of the Putative Class
Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding outlined the terms of the
parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims
which were or could have been asserted in the Putative Class
Actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, Nash-
Finch and Spartan Stores acknowledged that the supplemental
disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus were made in
response to the Putative Class Actions. The Memorandum of
Understanding contemplated that the parties will use their best
efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the State Court for
approval a stipulation of settlement within thirty days after the
later of the date that the Merger is consummated or the date that
plaintiffs and their counsel have confirmed the fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement, and that upon
execution of such stipulation, and as a condition to final
approval of the settlement, the plaintiff in the Federal Action
would withdraw the claims in and cause to be dismissed the Federal
Action, with any individual claims being dismissed with prejudice.
The Memorandum of Understanding provides that Nash-Finch will pay,
on behalf of all defendants, the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses, subject to approval by the State Court, in an amount not
to exceed $550,000.

On February 11, 2014, the parties executed the Stipulation and
Agreement Compromise, Settlement and Release (the "Stipulation of
Settlement.") to resolve, discharge and settle the Putative Class
Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to customary
conditions, including approval by the State Court, which will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such
settlement. On February 18, 2014, the Federal Court entered a
final order dismissing the Federal Court Action with prejudice.

On February 28, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement, the plaintiffs in the State Court Action filed an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement, conditional certification of class, and approval of
notice to be furnished to the class.

On March 7, 2014, the State Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement Stipulation, subject to a hearing,
scheduled for May 20, 2014. At the hearing on May 20, 2014, the
Settlement Stipulation was approved. On July 21, 2014, the appeals
period expired and the matter is now closed.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: 11th Circuit Revives RICO Suit Over Hidden Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit Airlines may be liable under the RICO act for hiding a
"passenger usage fee" among government-imposed fees and taxes,
reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing an
11th Circuit ruling.

Spirit Airlines calls itself "the ultra-low cost airline of the
Americas," that gives customers "frill control" by letting them
choose what options they would like to add to the base travel
fare.

But a Florida-based class action says that Spirit's cheap fares
are misleading.  When selecting a flight on Spirit's website,
travelers see just the base fare prices.  Only after selecting a
flight does the website show the additional costs of the ticket,
an undifferentiated amount called "Taxes & Fees."  Yet another
click is required to find out that this figure includes Spirit's
usage fee, which is included by other airlines in the price of a
ticket, as well as government taxes and fees.

"Spirit is employing an 'ancillary revenue model' which forces
consumers to pay unbundled charges that have traditionally been
included in the total price of an airline ticket," the lawsuit
claims.  "Spirit's 'fares,' in effect, are little more than a down
payment on air travel."

A federal judge found for Spirit, ruling that the Federal Aviation
Act (FAA) pre-empts the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) for claims involving deceptive airfare,
fees and fare advertising.

But the 11th Circuit reinstated the class's RICO claims on
September 23, 2014.

Spirit insisted that the FAA covers the plaintiffs' claims, pre-
empting RICO laws in the field of airline liability.  The FAA
gives the Department of Transportation the legal authority to
decide deceptive practice claims involving airlines.

"The District Court was concerned that the federal statutes [, the
FAA and RICO,] overlap," Judge Stanley Marcus wrote for the three-
judge panel.  "But that is how Congress wrote them.  Sometimes a
defendant's actions may qualify both as unfair and deceptive
advertising under the FAA and as mail or wire fraud under federal
criminal statutes.  So long as plaintiffs do not argue that
violation of the first establishes the second, our precedent does
not restrict their RICO action."

Though the plaintiffs could have submitted their complaint to the
Department of Transportation, the fact that they did not does not
bar their claims, the court said.

"Civil RICO claims predicated on mail and wire fraud are not
precluded by the ADA [Airline Deregulation Act] simply because
they involve fraud arising out of pricing, fees, and advertising
in the airline industry," Marcus concluded.

The Atlanta-based appeals court noted it gave no opinion as to
whether plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a RICO claim.

The appellate case is Bryan Ray, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Gretel Dorta, et al. v. Spirit
Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 13-15681, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  The
District Court case is Bryan Ray, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Gretel Dorta, et al. v. Spirit
Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:12-cv-61528-
RNS, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.


STADIUM GROUP: "Eley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miya Eley, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
v. The Stadium Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01594 (D.D.C.,
September 19, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
statutory damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Stadium Group, LLC owns and operates an exotic dance club in
the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
      836 Bonifant Street
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


STRATA ENERGY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Farese, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Strata Energy Services Inc. and Strata Services
International Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00189 (D. Wyo., September 18,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Strata Energy Services Inc. and Strata Services International Inc.
are fully integrated providers of oilfield services with a special
focus on managed pressure and underbalanced drilling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen L. Simonton, Esq.
      STEPHEN L. SIMONTON, PC
      1222 11th Street
      Cody, Wyoming 82414
      Telephone: (307) 587-7010
      Facsimile: (307) 587-2746
      E-mail: office@simontonlaw.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net
              akoropey@bm.net

         - and -

      David A. Hughes, Esq.
      HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
      2121 14th Street
      Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
      Telephone: (205) 344-6690
      Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
      E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com


TARGET CORP: Wins Final OK of $350,000 Deal to Settle Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge granted final approval to a $350,000 settlement
Target reached in a labor class action led by Aileen Bernardino.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          David Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 499-4730
          Facsimile: (310) 499-4739
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 844-5141
          Facsimile: (310) 492-4056
          E-mail: louis@benowitzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Rishi N. Sharma, Esq.
          Peter A. Cooper, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  rishisharma@paulhastings.com
                  petercooper@paulhastings.com

The case is Aileen Bernardino v. Target Corporation, Case No.
4:12-cv-04639-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


TESCO: Glancy Binkow Mulls Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Simon Neville and Mark McSherry, writing for The Independent,
report that Los Angeles-based law firm Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
said it is investigating potential claims on behalf of Tesco's
American shareholders over possible violations of federal
securities laws.  The law firm encouraged Tesco's American
shareholders to get in touch and said its investigation is
focusing on "certain statements" issued by Tesco about its
operations and financial performance.

Tesco's unrelenting freefall was laid bare on Sept. 23 as the
latest industry data showed the supermarket was losing more
customers than all its major competitors combined -- at the
fastest rate since records began.  The revelation comes as new
finance chief Alan Stewart was drafted in three months early,
questions remained over chairman Sir Richard Broadbent's position
and US lawyers were preparing a class action lawsuit against it.
It emerged that Tesco snagged Mr. Stewart's services after Dave
Lewis, the Tesco boss, pleaded with Marc Bolland, the M&S chief
executive, to release him from his contract early.  The new CFO
was spotted in meetings at Tesco's Cheshunt headquarters on Sept.
23.  His first job will be to get to the bottom of a GBP250
million black hole in Tesco's accounts.

However, question marks remain over Tesco chairman Sir Richard's
position after it emerged that no one from the supermarket
approached M&S before any of the three profit warnings.  One
retail source said: "It seems madness that no one thought to call
M&S before a third profit warning.  It would have been far better
to try and get Alan in as early as possible to try and sort out
this mess."

And a former Tesco director said: "Richard [Broadbent] will have
to go.  He's completely out of his depth, bumbling around like an
Inspector Clouseau."

Sir Richard's insistence of a smooth handover from former finance
director Laurie McIlwee to Mr. Stuart has also been challenged as
it was discovered Mr. McIlwee had not been back to Tesco's
headquarters since April.  He was written to by sacked boss Phil
Clarke and told he would not be needed.

A Tesco spokesman said: "We set out in April that until he left
the company in October, Laurie McIlwee would carry out
transitional activities and support handover with colleagues."
However, he was unable to elaborate on what the activities were.

The ongoing problems come as the latest grocery figures from
Kantar Worldpanel showed sales at Tesco fell 4.5 per cent in the
12 weeks to September 14 -- the fastest drop since records began
in 1993.

By comparison, discounters Aldi and Lidl continued growing their
UK position, with sales rises of 29.1 per cent and 17.7 per cent
respectively.

Even Tesco's Big Four rival Morrisons managed to stem the flow of
recent bad results, with sales dropping just 1.3 per cent.  Rival
Sainsbury's suffered a 1.8 per cent fall and Asda managed a 0.8
per cent rise.

Tesco's market share was 28.8 per cent -- a ten-year low -- and
its share price hit a fresh 11-year low.

Alan Stewart, the softly-spoken South African finance chief, has
seen a meteoric rise from the boardroom of stationers WHSmith to
the third biggest retailer in the world -- Tesco.  The 54-year-old
was the money man behind Kate Swann's WHSmith's revival from the
jaws of certain collapse in the financial crisis.

At Marks & Spencer, he did not always see eye to eye with chief
executive Marc Bolland, but he stuck by his side while several
executives quit as the retailer crumbled.  Those who have worked
with him say he drives a hard bargain but is as straight as a die,
which is just what Tesco needs right now.

He joins with a GBP1.7 million golden hello and a 30 per cent pay
rise, earning a basic salary of GBP750,000 a year.


TRIBECA PEDIATRICS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tatiana Castro-Acosta, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Tribeca Pediatrics, PLLC, Tribeca Healthcare
Management Company, LLC, and Michel Ari Cohen, M.D., Case No.
1:14-cv-07584 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to properly compensate Non-Exempt
Workers for overtime hours worked.

The Defendants own and operate a private health care facility in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


UNITED SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debts, "Lezell" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chava Lezell on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. USAA a/k/a United Services Automobile Association,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05483 (E.D.N.Y., September 18, 2014), arises from
the Defendant's unlawfully collection of consumer debts in
violation of the Telephone Communications Privacy Act.

United Services Automobile Association is engaged in the
collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


UNITED SERVICES: Disabled Veteran May Amend Claims in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge called on disabled U.S. veteran Christopher Langan
to amend his class action against the 16 companies that he says
ruined his credit, according to Courthouse News Service.

The case is Christopher Philip Langan v. United Services
Automobile Association, et al., Case No. 13-cv-04994-JST, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


VISA INC: Munroe & Company Files Class Action Over Gift Card
------------------------------------------------------------
Munroe & Company, Barristers & Solicitors, in cooperation with
Branch MacMaster LLP, on Sept. 23 disclosed that it has filed a
proposed national class action in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on behalf of a consumer who purchased "The Perfect Gift"
Visa gift card.  The card purports to expire and charge activation
and monthly fees, all of which is contrary to BC consumer
protection laws.  The lawsuit claims, among other things, the
return of all expired balances and all fees charged to Canadian
consumers since November 1, 2008.

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all consumers
in Canada, including Quebec.  An estimated $2.7 billion of Visa,
MasterCard, and American Express branded prepaid cards are issued
annually in Canada.  This industry is growing at an annual pace of
30%.

Peoples Trust, American Express, Vancity, Citizens Bank, and All
Trans Financial are defendants.

Munroe & Company has filed a similar proposed class action in
Saskatchewan.


WALGREEN CO: December 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE WALGREEN CO. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
Lead Case No. 1:13-cv-05471
Hon. Joan H. Lefkow

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION

TO: ALL HOLDERS OF WALGREEN CO. ("WALGREENS") COMMON STOCK AS
OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS
NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT
INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION" AND NO
INDIVIDUAL SHAREHOLDER HAS THE RIGHT TO BE COMPENSATED AS
A RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.1 and by Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, of the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned consolidated
shareholder derivative action (the "Action").  The terms of the
proposed Settlement of the Action are set forth in a Stipulation
of Settlement dated September 11, 2014 (the "Stipulation"), and
all capitalized terms herein shall have the same meanings as set
forth in the Stipulation.  This summary should be read in
conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to, the text of the Stipulation, which has been filed with the
Court and is attached to a Form 8-K that will be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and published on the investor
relations section of Walgreens' website.

The Action was brought derivatively on behalf of Walgreens against
certain of Walgreens' directors pertaining to alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with failing to prevent the events
that led to Walgreens' June 2013 settlement with the Drug
Enforcement Administration ("DEA").  Defendants have denied and
continue to deny each and every one of the claims and contentions
alleged in the Action.  The terms of the Settlement set forth in
the Stipulation include the adoption by the Company of a number of
corporate governance and compliance enhancements, such as
extending the term of the compliance commitments made to the DEA
and the implementation of periodic reporting of significant
DEA-related matters to the Audit Committee of Walgreens' Board of
Directors.  The Stipulation also provides for Walgreens and/or its
insurance carrier to pay Derivative Counsel's attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount not to exceed $3,500,000, subject to Court
approval.

A hearing on the proposed settlement (the "Settlement Hearing")
will be held on December 9, 2014, at 11:15 a.m., before United
States District Judge Joan H. Lefkow, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley
Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60604 (the "Court"): (i) to determine whether
the terms and conditions of the Settlement provided for in the
Stipulation, taken as a whole, are fair, reasonable, adequate and
in the best interests of Walgreens' shareholders; (ii) to
determine whether a final judgment should be entered dismissing
the Action as to all Defendants with prejudice and extinguishing
and releasing any and all Released Claims (as defined in the
Stipulation); and (iii) to determine, if the Court approves the
Settlement and enters its final judgment, whether it should grant
Derivative Counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses in an amount not exceeding $3,500,000. The date
and location of the Settlement Hearing may be changed by the Court
without further notice.

Any Walgreens Shareholder who wishes to be heard with respect to
the Stipulation, the Settlement, the judgment proposed to be
entered herein and/or the application for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses may appear in person or by his, her or its
attorney at the Settlement Hearing and present any evidence that
may be proper and relevant; provided that no later than fourteen
(14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing, such person submits to
the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States
Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604:
(a) a written notice of the intention to appear; (b) proof of
ownership of Walgreens common stock as well as documentary
evidence of when such stock ownership was acquired; (c) a detailed
statement of the matters to be presented to the Court and the
grounds therefor or the reasons why such person desires to appear
and to be heard; and (d) all documents and writings supporting
such position.  In addition, upon or before filing such papers
with the Clerk of the Court, such papers shall be served by hand
or overnight mail on the following counsel of record:

Christine S. Azar
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1225
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 573-2530

and

Gregg S. Levin
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Tel: (843) 216-9512
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and

Stephen R. DiPrima
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019-6150
Tel: (212) 403-1000

Counsel for the Individual Defendants

and

Kristen R. Seeger
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312) 853-7450
Counsel for Nominal Defendant Walgreens

Attendance at the Settlement Hearing is not necessary for an
objection to be considered by the Court; however, any person
wishing to be heard at the Settlement Hearing is required to
indicate in his, her or its written objection an intention to
appear at the hearing.  Any person who fails to object in the
manner prescribed above shall be deemed to have waived such
objection(s) and shall be forever barred from raising such
objection(s) or otherwise contesting the Settlement in
this or any other action or proceeding.

This Notice does not purport to be a comprehensive description of
the Action, the pleadings, the terms of the proposed Settlement or
Stipulation, or Settlement Hearing.  For a more detailed
statement of the matters involved in this litigation and proposed
Settlement, you may inspect the pleadings, the Stipulation, the
Orders entered by the Court and other papers filed in the Action
at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219
South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, during regular
business hours of each business day.  Questions may be directed
in writing to Christine S. Azar, Labaton Sucharow LLP, 300
Delaware Avenue, Suite 1225, Wilmington, DE 19801 or to Gregg S.
Levin, Motley Rice LLC, 28 Bridgeside Boulevard, Mt. Pleasant, SC
29464.

DATED: September 19, 2014

BY ORDER OF THIS COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE


WYKA LLC: Faces "Isakson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Isakson and Gregory Olson, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Wyka, LLC
d/b/a/ Edison Graphics, Larae Breitenstein and Richard Wyka, Case
No. 1:14-cv-07325 (N.D. Ill., September 19, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all
compensable time worked over 40 hours in a work week.

The Defendants own and operate an industrial printing company in
Des Plaines, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Jenee Gaskin, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      401 S. LaSalle, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121
      Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
      E-mail: aayala@wagetheftlaw.com
              jgaskin@wagetheftlaw.com
              cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com


YEXT INC: Sued Over Misrepresentation of Business & Services
------------------------------------------------------------
Tropical Sails Corp v. Yext, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07582
(S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
intentionally misrepresents the amount of inaccurate information
that exists on the World Wide Web relating to the customer's
business and grossly overstates the efficacy of its service.

Yext, Inc. is an online marketing company that purports, for a
recurring annual fee, to allow small businesses to ensure the
accuracy of information such as their business name, address,
phone number, website, and business type across over 50 leading
Web directories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Carney, Esq.
      David Slade, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      11311 Arcade Drive; Suite 200
      Little Rock, AK 72212
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      E-mail: acarney@cbplaw.com
              dslade@cbplaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY
      489 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 223-0800
      E-mail: tmm@mullaw.org


                              *********

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  * * *