CAR_Public/141014.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 14, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 204

                             Headlines

ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Moshav Nir Residents Pursue Nuisance Lawsuit
AMBIT ENERGY: S.D.N.Y. Has No Jurisdiction on "Simmons" Suit
APPLE INC: Settles Two Suits in Cal. Over ITunes Double-Billing
ARAMARK SERVICES: Removes "Medina" Bias Suit to D. Connecticut
BANK OF AMERICA: Opt Out Cases in Interchange Fee Suit Remain

BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Removes "Rodriguez" Suit to S.D. Cal.
BP PLC: Accuses Federal Judge of Blocking Review of Payments
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Judge Remands 57 Plavix Cases to California
CHARDON POLICE: Judge Oliver Dismisses "Andrews" Lawsuit
CHARLES I. TURNER: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

CHINA GREEN: Nevada Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
CHRYSLER GROUP: Suit Accuses Dodge Rams of Having Death Wobble
CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss Leber Suit on Timeliness Basis Nixed
COMCAST CORP: Plaintiffs File Motion for Spoliation Sanctions
COMMAND TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Wages and Damages

COOPER TIRE: "Bui" Suit on Apollo Merger Transferred to Del. Ct.
CORRECTIONS CORP: Hawaiian Inmates Obtain Class Certification
CROSSMARK INC: "Smith" Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
DOLLAR GENERAL: Georgia Class Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
DOW CHEMICAL: 10th Cir. Upholds $1-Bil. Polyurethane Class Action

EL AHORRO SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Claims
ESPN INC: Student-Athletes Sue in Tennessee Over Use of Likeness
EXTREME NETWORKS: Seeks Indemnification in Suit v. Enterasys
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: FHFA Wins Dismissal of Perry et al Case
FEDEX CORP: Still Faces Suits for Mandatory "Off the Clock" Work

FEDEX CORP: Provides Updates on Independent Contractor Lawsuits
FEDEX GROUND: Kansas High Court Clarifies Definition of Drivers
GALAXY BOOKS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Laborer Says
GARLOCK SEALING: Wants to Unseal Asbestos Plaintiffs' Files
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Got Prelim. OK of $5.25MM Class Settlement

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Can Transfer Paxil Birth-Defects Case to Ohio
GOLD COAST CAR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
HITACHI-LG DATA: Court Won't Certify Classes in ODD Antitrust MDL
HOME DEPOT: Removes "Rogers" Suit to California District Court
IEC ELECTRONICS: New York Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit

IFG MEDICAL: Sued for Violating Communications Act in New Jersey
INTEGRATED TECH: Fails to Pay Back Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
INTRALINKS: Dist. Court Certifies Class in "Wallace" Stock Suit
IXIA: Individuals Seek to Dismiss Securities Suit in California
JACKSONVILLE, FL: "Monaco" Case May Not Proceed as Class Action

LA-Z-BOY INC: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Facsimiles in N.C.
LORDEX INC: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Fax Messages
LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS: Attorneys Get $287K in Fees in TCPA Suit
MARICOPA, AZ: Court Tosses Bid to Terminate 3rd Amended Judgment
MED-1 SOLUTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

MEDICAL ACTION: Shareholders Seek Prelim. Injunction v. Merger
MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Greene" Suit to Tennessee District Court
MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Rozoff" Suit to Tennessee District Court
MOFFETT'S CHICKEN: Sued in Cal. Over Disabilities Act Violations
OMNIAMERICAN BANCORP: Inks MoU to Settle "McDougal" Suit in Md.

NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Rand-Heart Securities Suit in Cal.
PDC ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Suit Over 2010 & 2011 Acquisitions
PHIBRO ANIMAL: Still Faces Injury Lawsuit by Israeli Residents
RIEXINGER & ASSOCIATES: Sued in M.D. Florida for Violating FDCPA
ROYAL DENTAL: Faces Suit Alleging Communications Act Violations

SAC ACQUISITION: Accused of Discriminating Against Ex-Design Lead
SAMSUNG SDI: Court Refuses to Dismiss Battery Price-Fixing Suit
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Class Suit Over Initial Public Offering
SAXON MORTGAGE: "Giordano" Class Suit Survives Dismissal Motion
SPIRIT REALTY: Md. Court Approves Settlement in Merger Suit

SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Class Suits for Ruining Corn Sales to China
TELEXFREE LLC: "Ferrari" Suit Moved to Massachusetts District Ct.
TEMPLETON RYE: Faces Third Class Action Over Whiskey Marketing
TEXAS HEALTH: May Face Suits Over Ebola Exposure Risk
THIRD FEDERAL: Faces "Berry" Class Suit Alleging RICO Violations

THOMAS JUDE HENRY: Sued by Paralegals Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Being Sold for Too Little to Balboa, Suit Claims
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Investor Seek to Stop Going-Private Transaction
TOYS R US: Removes "Rojas" Suit to Southern District of Florida
US BUREAU OF PRISONS: Faces "Cooper" Class Suit in M.D. Florida

WELLS FARGO: Removes "Eggers" Suit to Southern District of Iowa
YAMAHA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in "Pitre" Class Action
YURI SHEARER: Dist. Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss GGNSC Suit

* "Proposition 46" to Lift Medical Malpractice Damages Ceiling
* Three Orange County Schools Closed Over Asbestos Risk


                            *********


ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Moshav Nir Residents Pursue Nuisance Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs alleging damages caused due to odor and noise
nuisances in Moshav Nir Galim filed an appeal against the denial
of certification to the case against Adama Agricultural Solutions
Ltd., according to the company's Sept. 17, 2014, Amendment No. 1
to Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On July 24, 2011, a financial claim and a request for approval of
the claim as a class action were received in the offices of Agan,
which were filed by two residents of Moshav Nir Galim and a
resident of Ashdod alleging damages caused due to odor and noise
nuisances. To the extent the claim will be approved as a class
action, the plaintiffs assess that the amount claimed from Agan is
about NIS 642 million ($185 million). On December 8, 2013, a
decision was rendered by the District Court in Be'er Sheva
rejecting the request for certification of the claim as a class
action and charging the plaintiffs for expenses. Subsequent to the
date of the statement of financial position, on February 10, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the said court decision to the
Supreme Court. In the Company's estimation, based on its legal
advisors, the chances the appeal will be accepted are less than
the chances it will be rejected.


AMBIT ENERGY: S.D.N.Y. Has No Jurisdiction on "Simmons" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Upon review, District Judge Jesse M. Furman for the Southern
District of New York concludes that the court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case TAURSHIA SIMMONS et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AMBIT ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC et al., Defendants, Civil No. 13-CV-
6240 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Accordingly, the judge granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss,
without prejudice to Plaintiffs' refiling their suit in an
appropriate state court.

The putative class action was brought by Plaintiffs Taurshia
Simmons and Navid Kalatizadeh against Defendants Jere W. Thompson
and Chris Chambless, as well as Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC; Ambit
Texas, LLC; Ambit Marketing, LLC; and Ambit New York LLC to
recover damages for alleged violations of New York consumer
protection laws and for unjust enrichment.

A copy of Judge Furman's Opinion and Order dated Sept. 30, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/WRc8MJfrom Leagle.com.

Defendant Ambit Marketing, LLC, is represented by Michael Warren
Stockham, Esq. -- Michael.Stockham@tklaw.com -- of Thompson &
Knight LLP.


APPLE INC: Settles Two Suits in Cal. Over ITunes Double-Billing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple will not have to face claims that it charged more than once
for multiple iTunes downloads after the plaintiffs settled with
the tech giant on October 7, 2014, in federal court, according to
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service

Robert Herskowitz and Phoebe Juel hoped to represent a class of
customers who made repeated downloads of the same song from
iTunes, only to discover that Apple charged them every time.  Juel
said Apple charged her when she downloaded a song from Apple that
she had already downloaded but could not locate on her computer.
Herskowitz alleged he was charged more than once for the same
product.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh found earlier this year that
particular questions about each plaintiff in each case foreclose
class certification.  The judge dismissed the consolidated cases
October 7 without leave to amend pursuant to a signed stipulation
from both sides.

The plaintiffs waived their right to appeal Koh's recent order
denying class certification and agreed that both sides would bear
their own attorney fees and costs, according to the stipulation.

Apple is represented by Penelope Preovolos of Morrison & Foerster,
who told Courthouse News, "You know you have to contact Apple's
public relations department," which did not return a request for
comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
          Anthony D. Phillips, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com
                  aphillips@bermandevalerio.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Penelope A. Preovolos, Esq.
          Sylvia Rivera, Esq.
          Suzanna P. Brickman, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: PPreovolos@mofo.com
                  SRivera@mofo.com
                  SBrickman@mofo.com

The cases are Robert Herskowitz, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
12-CV-02131-LHK, and Phoebe Juel, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
12-CV-03124-LHK, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


ARAMARK SERVICES: Removes "Medina" Bias Suit to D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Medina v. Aramark Services, Inc., Case No.
HHD-CV-14-6053864-S, was removed from the Connecticut Superior
Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, to the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01474-RNC to the
proceeding.

The action seeks redress from alleged discrimination and wrongful
termination based on the Plaintiff's physical disability, race and
national origin.

Aramark Services, Inc., is a foreign Delaware corporation with a
principle place of business located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Company provides facilities management and employees custodial
employees at Trinity College, in Hartford, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda DeMatteis, Esq.
          CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP
          364 Franklin Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06114
          Telephone: (860) 296-3457
          Facsimile: (860) 296-0676
          E-mail: adematteis@cicchielloesq.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Orleans, Esq.
          Rachel L. Ginsburg, Esq.
          PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
          850 Main Street
          P. O. Box 7006
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 330-2000
          Facsimile: (203) 576-8888
          E-mail: jborleans@pullcom.com
                  rginsburg@pullcom.corn

               - and -

          Anna Kolontyrsky, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178-0060
          Telephone: (212) 309-6654
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
          E-mail: akolontyrsky@morganlewis.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Opt Out Cases in Interchange Fee Suit Remain
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
denied defendants' motion to dismiss the opt out complaints in the
settlement of In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Anti-Trust Litigation, including the complaint in the
consolidated proceedings naming Bank of America Corporation as a
defendant, according to BA Credit Card Funding, LLC's Sept. 19,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended June 30, 2014.

In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class
actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.
These actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation, named Visa, MasterCard and several banks and bank
holding companies, including Bank of America Corporation, as
defendants.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to fix
the level of default interchange rates, which represent the fee an
issuing bank charges an acquiring bank on every transaction.
Plaintiffs also challenged as unreasonable restraints of trade
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act certain rules of Visa and
MasterCard related to merchant acceptance of payment cards at the
point of sale.  Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and
injunctive relief based on their assertion that interchange would
be lower or eliminated absent the alleged conduct.

On October 19, 2012, defendants, including Bank of America
Corporation, entered an agreement to settle the class plaintiffs'
claims.  The defendants also separately agreed to resolve the
claims brought by a group of individual retailers that opted out
of the class to pursue independent litigation.  The settlement
agreements provide for, among other things, (i) payments by
defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs totaling
approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) distribution to class merchants
of an amount equal to 10 basis points of default interchange
across all Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions for a
period of eight consecutive months, which period began on July 29,
2013, which otherwise would have been paid to Visa and MasterCard
issuers, including Bank of America Corporation, and which
effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of time;
and (iii) modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules
regarding merchant point of sale practices.

The court granted final approval of the class settlement agreement
on December 13, 2013.  Several class members have appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In addition, a
number of the class members opted out of the settlement of their
past damages claims.  The cash portion of the settlement has been
adjusted downward as a result of these opt outs, subject to
certain conditions.

A number of actions have been filed by merchant class members who
opted out of the settlement.  Bank of America Corporation has been
named as a defendant in some of these opt out suits and, as a
result of various sharing agreements from the main Interchange
litigation, remains liable for any settlement or judgment in opt
out suits where it is not named as a defendant.  All but one of
the opt out suits filed to date have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  On July 18,
2014, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the opt out
complaints, including the complaint in the consolidated
proceedings naming Bank of America Corporation as a defendant.


BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Removes "Rodriguez" Suit to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Rodriguez v. Bio-Medical
Applications of Fresno, Inc., et al., Case No. ECU08346, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Imperial, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02381-H-NLS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 980
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
          E-mail: sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bren Kenneth Thomas, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302
          Fresno, CA 93704-2225
          Telephone: (559) 244-7500
          Facsimile: (559) 244-7525
          E-mail: bkthomas@littler.com


BP PLC: Accuses Federal Judge of Blocking Review of Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that attorneys
for BP returned to a 5th Circuit hearing room on October 6, 2014,
striving to claw back what the energy company claims have been
hundreds of thousands of dollars in oil spill overpayments.

Among the issues, from BP's perspective, are alleged overpayments
accepted by non-profit organizations that suffered no actual harm
from the oil spill and yet have received hundreds of thousands of
dollars in oil spill money simply because of the way the
settlement agreement was crafted.

Thomas Hungar, a partner with the Washington D.C. firm of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, told the three-judge appellate panel the
district Court that approved the settlement is making it
impossible for BP to seek review of payments.  Hungar said BP has
been barred from putting certain documents on the district court
docket and said BP's documents exist in a "shadow docket" state,
which keeps them off the public record and, without record, makes
it impossible to seek appeal.

In response, attorneys for several plaintiffs argued that it is up
to BP to create its own docket.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the
consolidated oil spill litigation, has consistently ruled that
because BP's own attorneys helped to create the 2011 settlement
agreement, and because BP had ample opportunity to verify its
various elements and make changes before it was signed, it is now
too late for the company to dispute the agreement's payment terms
or methods.

Last month Barbier ruled against letting BP claw back certain oil
spill overpayments.  That ruling did not affect the overpayments
BP argued over on October 6.

In regard to Barbier's ruling, Hungar said that in the instances
the judge allowed to be considered, BP was able to show it
"undisputedly overpaid."

Hungar said that one of class council's arguments was the oil
company should have to pay because it failed to appeal the
settlement or the amounts as they were initially approved.  Hungar
said BP could not appeal the payments because it has been denied
appeals of that sort.

U.S. Circuit Judge Edward Prado, "asking for selfish reasons,"
asked how many overpayments BP might appeal, assuming it could.

Hungar said of the 200,000 claims that have been processed to
date, BP has only appealed around 5,000, and of those, only a few
have wound up before the 5th Circuit.

Judge Prado said he remembered there being a release clause, or
"something of the sort," attached to the settlement agreement,
which prevents BP from appealing payments.

Hungar said BP should nevertheless be entitled to appeal and
indicated that only the claimants are "bound" by the terms of the
settlement agreement.

Arguing on behalf of plaintiffs, Samuel Issacharoff, a professor
at New York University School of Law, told the judges that no 5th
Circuit decision has ever addressed anything "so trivial" as BP's
nitpicking its own settlement agreement.

"I don't mean to minimize it," Issacharoff added.

Issacharoff said seven different circuit judges have so far have
had to address "some application" of this issue.

Looking to U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith's previous opinion,
Issacharoff paraphrased Smith saying the 5th Circuit doesn't take
up this sort of issue; it belongs to the district court.

Issacharoff said, with regard to BP's overpayments to nonprofits,
the particular facts of the case are "non-reviewable."  He said
the determination of settlement payments is "across the board" and
has been used to calculate the losses of "thousands upon thousands
upon thousands" of applicants.

Issacharoff said appeals must be both "timely" and "important." He
additionally argued that BP's claims it cannot enter docket or
appeal are false.  BP, he said, could enter documents into docket
themselves and can enter notice of appeal without docketing.

In his rebuttal, Hungar cited a previous order from the district
court that he said was specifically intended to keep BP off the
docket.

BP wants to do away with the "gamesmanship" of the settlement
agreement, Issacharoff said.

Senior U.S. Circuit Court Judge Fortunato Benavides said of the
settlement agreement and BP's complaints: "It's not the
implementation, it's the interpretation."

Issacharoff disagreed, saying "otherwise, everything becomes a
matter of interpretation."

Immediately after the hearing, BP issued a lengthy written
statement amplifying its attorney's statements in the courtroom.

"In the course of BP's challenge of those awards, on May 20, the
District Court issued an order that denied judicial review of all
awards by the settlement program that turn solely on specified
policies issued by the Claims Administrator, improperly depriving
BP of its appeal rights," said the statement, which was attributed
to Geoff Morrell, the former Defense Department press secretary
who joined BP in the wake of the April 2010 oil spill.

"The order also improperly blocked the parties form filing
requests for judicial review on the public court docket, thereby
denying the public the opportunity to be informed about ongoing
judicial proceedings and impermissibly interfering with BP's right
to make an appropriate record for appeal.  To uphold the District
Court's order would violate federal rules, and conflict with the
case law not only in the Fifth Circuit but in other judicial
circuits as well.  These important issues implicate awards
involving tens of millions of dollars," the statement said.

Class counsel declined comment.

Last month Judge Barbier found BP grossly negligent for its part
in the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 and
dumped 4.9 million barrels of oil and more than 1.8 million
gallons of chemical dispersant into the Gulf of Mexico.

The third phase of the trial over the spill is scheduled to begin
in January, and will be heard in Judge Barbier's courtroom without
a jury.  This final phase is to determine exactly how much oil was
spilled.  BP could face up to $18 billion in Clean Water Act
fines.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Judge Remands 57 Plavix Cases to California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Newark ordered 57 cases in the multidistrict
litigation over blood-thinning drug Plavix remanded to California
after rejecting claims that the plaintiffs fraudulently joined a
distributor of the drug to defeat diversity jurisdiction.

In litigation against Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis, the
plaintiffs sought to return to California 60 cases that were filed
in a state court in San Francisco and then removed by the
defendants to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The cases were then transferred to New Jersey in June
2013 under an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation. Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis, who
manufactured and sold Plavix, claimed the plaintiffs added
California-based drug distributor McKesson Co. as a defendant in
the cases without a reasonable basis.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis argued that federal law
preempts application of the suits' failure-to-warn claims against
McKesson, because it has no control over the content of the drug's
safety label.  They also claimed McKesson should not have been
joined because no allegations were made that it actually
distributed the Plavix pills taken by the plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey
denied the motion to remand three of the 60 cases, because
McKesson had not yet been served with the complaint at the time
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis removed them to federal
court.  But Judge Wolfson allowed the other 57 cases to return to
federal court in the Northern District of California for the
purposes of remand to state court in San Francisco.

Judge Wolfson said the question of whether the claims are
preempted should be answered by a state judge in California.  And
she said the plaintiffs had demonstrated that they can bring a
colorable claim against McKesson.

In allowing three cases to remain in the MDL based on the failure
to serve McKesson at the time of removal, Judge Wolfson noted that
courts were split on whether the so-called forum defendant rule
should apply in such circumstances.  She said courts that have
ruled that removal of cases where a properly joined forum
defendant has not been served is improper have relied on putative
congressional and legislative intent, rather than the "plain and
unambiguous language" of the removal statute.  But that approach
goes against the U.S. Supreme Court's doctrine giving more
authority to a statutory text than to extrinsic materials, she
said.

The California suits claim plaintiffs suffered heart attacks,
strokes, internal bleeding, blood disorders or death after taking
Plavix.  They are bringing only state-law claims for failure to
warn of the drug's dangers.

Bristol-Myers Squibb is headquartered in New York; Sanofi-Aventis
is a French company with headquarters in New Jersey, and
subsidiary Sanofi-Synthelabo is a Delaware corporation with
headquarters in New York.  Besides rejecting the defendants'
fraudulent joinder claim for 12 of the 57 California cases,
Judge Wolfson also rejected the defendants' claims of fraudulent
misjoinder in 45 other cases in which at least one plaintiff
resides in New York, New Jersey or Delaware.

In those cases, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis argued
that the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine applied in those cases
because the nondiverse plaintiffs in the 45 cases fail to meet the
minimum standards for joinder and called for those claims to be
severed and dismissed.

Judge Wolfson expressed "concerns with the manner in which
seemingly unrelated plaintiffs and nondiverse plaintiffs have
joined their claims in single, multi-plaintiff actions."  However,
she said the question of misjoinder should be decided by the state
court as a matter of removal jurisprudence.

The cases in question join claims of plaintiffs from different
states who have nothing in common other than taking Plavix,
Judge Wolfson said.  Judge Wolfson said that in pharmaceutical
cases like those before her, "courts should be steadfast in
guarding against plaintiffs' attempts at forum shopping by
employing questionable procedural mechanisms, including misjoinder
of claims."  While acknowledging that California has "particularly
liberal" rules on joinder, she said that "the question of
misjoinder remains in these cases, but will be left to the sound
judgment of the state court."

The 57 cases being remanded to California account for "a couple of
thousand" individual plaintiffs, and the cases remaining in the
MDL now account for about 600 plaintiffs, according to plaintiffs
lawyer Hunter Shkolnik -- Hunter@NapoliBern.com -- of Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates in New York.  The action follows a
similar one in which another 600 cases that were removed from
Illinois were returned to that state, and another one in which
suits by attorneys general of several states were returned to
their respective states of origin, Mr. Shkolnik said.

"This is huge.  We've been fighting this for two years,"
Mr. Shkolnik said.  The MDL "is no longer the head of the dog, now
it's the tail of the dog," he said.

Anand Agneshwar -- Anand.Agneshwar@aporter.com -- of Arnold &
Porter in New York, representing Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-
Aventis, declined to comment on the ruling.


CHARDON POLICE: Judge Oliver Dismisses "Andrews" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., entered orders on Sept.
30, 2014 in the case ANDREWS, Plaintiffs v. FLAIZ, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-623 (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiffs are John Mark Andrews and Judee Andrews, whose claims
pertain to John's arrest and prosecution.  The Defendants are
prosecutors of Geauga County and police officers of Chardon Police
Station.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, acting in their
official and individual capacities, violated Plaintiff's federal
constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants to return their
weapons, and awarding them monetary damages in the amount of
$1,000,000. They also request class action certification.

In his Sept. 30 Order available at http://is.gd/Mgfa5jfrom
Leagle.com, the judge ruled that:

-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment is denied.

-- Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are granted, Plaintiffs' Motion
    to Strike Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, Motion for Objection
    and to Strike Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, Motion to Show
    Cause, and Motion for Objection and to Strike Defendants'
    Motions to Dismiss are denied, and this action is dismissed.

-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for
    Extension of Time are denied as moot.

The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be
taken in good faith.

Defendant John Hiscox is represented by Jaclyn C. Staple, Esq. --
jstaple@mggmlpa.com -- Justin J. Eddy, Esq. -- jeddy@mggmlpa.com
-- and Timothy T. Reid, Esq. -- treid@mggmlpa.com -- of Mansour
Gavin.


CHARLES I. TURNER: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helena Casares, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Charles I. Turner, Esq., Case No. 2:14-cv-
05863-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y., October 7, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN, LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


CHINA GREEN: Nevada Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
entered an order and final judgment granting final approval to a
settlement reached in a securities suit against China Green
Agriculture, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 15, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain of the company's current and former officers
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
(the "Court") on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock between November 12, 2009 and September 1, 2010. The most
recent version of the complaint alleges that the Company and
certain current and former officers and directors violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, by making material misstatements and omissions in the
company's financial statements, securities offering documents, and
related disclosures during the class period. On October 7, 2011,
the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and to
strike portions of it.

On November 2, 2012, the Court issued an order dismissing the
claims for violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants and dismissing two
individual defendants from the complaint but allowing the claims
for violations of section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 to continue with respect to the Company and
the remaining individual defendants. The Court also denied the
defendants' motion to strike. The parties to the securities class
action held a mediation on March 7, 2013, which led to an
agreement in principle to settle the case for a payment of $2.5
million by the company's insurers in exchange for a release of all
claims against all defendants. On August 12, 2014, the Court
entered an order and final judgment granting final approval to the
settlement and dismissing all claims in accordance with the
settlement agreement.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Suit Accuses Dodge Rams of Having Death Wobble
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dodge Ram trucks from 2004 to 2012 model years have defective
steering that makes them shake "uncontrollably when driven at high
speeds," according to a federal class action, reports Matt
Reynolds at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Richard Samuel claims that in early 2013 he was
driving his 2007 Dodge Ram 3500 on the freeway when the truck
began to shake so violently he thought he had had a blowout.  When
he got the truck under control and pulled over, Samuel claims, he
found nothing wrong with his tires.  He says he concluded that
what had happened was a one-off.  In fact, he says, he had
experienced a "death wobble," caused by a defect in Dodge Rams
that makes them shake violently and sometimes uncontrollably at
high speeds.

Samuel sued Chrysler Group on Oct. 3.  He claims the defect occurs
in "certain 2004-2012 Dodge Ram trucks."  Samuel claims that if
his truck hits minor bumps in the road or an uneven surface at
faster than 50 mph the dreaded "death wobble" kicks in.  To keep
his truck under control he has to hold the wheel as firmly as he
can, and the shaking stops only when he has brought the truck to a
complete standstill, Samuel says.  He says the problem is in the
steering linkage system -- which should stabilize front wheels
when trucks roll over bumps or other uneven surfaces at high
speeds.

In the defective Rams the front wheels do not properly stabilize
when the trucks go over uneven surfaces, according to the
complaint.  Eventually, wear and tear results in uncontrollable
shaking.

Samuel says he discovered something might be up when a new
alignment and tires did not stop the death wobble.  An online
search revealed that other drivers were dealing with the same
problem, according to the complaint.  Eventually, Samuel says, he
received a recall notice for the tire rods in his truck.  But a
technician at a Chrysler dealership told him that his Ram did not
include the recalled part.

When he told the dealership about the death wobble, he says, the
employees pleaded ignorance and "shrugged their shoulders."

Samuel claims that Chrysler has known about the problem since the
mid-2000s, and waited almost half a decade before "conducting a
series of botched recalls."

"The recalls omitted many affected vehicles and provided
replacement parts that were themselves defective, forcing Chrysler
to make additional recalls to remedy previous ones," Samuel says
in the lawsuit.

Demand for replacement parts has been so high, Samuel claims, that
Chrysler has been unable to fix all trucks that have been brought
into dealerships.  He claims that five models of Dodge Rams have
the dangerous defect: the 2004-2012 Dodge Ram 2500; 2004-2012
Dodge Ram 3500; the 2007-2012 Dodge Ram 3500 Cab Chassis trucks;
2008-2012 Dodge Ram 4500 and 5500; and 2006-2008 Dodge RAM 1500.

He seeks class certification, wants Chrysler enjoined from
unlawful business practices, plus disgorgement of profits,
restitution, damages for unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, failure to warn and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  dsh@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          Bank of America Center
          550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss Leber Suit on Timeliness Basis Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the action LEBER v. THE CITIGROUP 401(K) PLAN INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE, District Judge Sidney H. Stein denied the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment, opining that the Defendants have
failed to demonstrate pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1113 that
plaintiffs had "actual knowledge" of the alleged breaches three
years before commencing the action.

Moreover, in the recent ruling, the parties are directed to submit
an agreed upon schedule for the remaining discovery in the action
on or before October 17, 2014.

The Defendants' summary judgment asked the Court to dismiss as
untimely plaintiffs' putative class action alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The action is captioned MARYA J. LEBER, SARA L. KENNEDY, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITIGROUP 401(k)
PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, JAMES COSTABILE, ROBERT GROGAN, ROBIN
LEOPOLD, GLENN REGAN, CHRISTINE SIMPSON, RICHARD TAZIK, TIMOTHY
TUCKER, LEO VIOLA, DONALD YOUNG, MARCIA YOUNG, and DOE DEFENDANTS
1-20, Defendants, Case No. 07-CV-9329(SHS), (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs were Citigroup employees who participated in
Citigroup's 401(k) retirement plan.  The gravamen of the Second
Amended Complaint is that defendants included in Citigroup's
401(k) retirement plan mutual funds offered and managed by
subsidiaries of Citigroup (the Affiliated Funds) despite the fact
that those Funds had "higher investment advisory fees than those
of competing funds" with equal performance.

A copy of Judge Stein's Sept. 30, 2014 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/kVXtU2from Leagle.com.

Defendant James Zelter is represented by Lewis Richard Clayton,
Esq. of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.


COMCAST CORP: Plaintiffs File Motion for Spoliation Sanctions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
plaintiffs in a proposed collective action alleging Comcast Corp.
failed to pay overtime to certain employees have asked a Maryland
federal judge to sanction the company for willful failure to keep
records that would show how many hours the employees spent on the
job.

The records, which identify the times Comcast call center
"customer account executives" logged into and out of their
computers and telephones, are central to the allegations in Faust
v. Comcast that the plaintiffs have not been compensated fully for
all the time they worked, according to a motion for spoliation
sanctions filed on Oct. 2 in U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland.

Plaintiffs Joel Faust and Marshall Feldman allege that two months
after they filed suit on Aug. 23, 2010, their attorneys put
Comcast on notice to preserve the records, which ordinarily were
overwritten on a rolling basis; the data typically were preserved
for two to four months at a time.

But it wasn't until April 2011 that Comcast began to preserve log-
in times for workers at White March, Md., call centers, the motion
alleges; older records, it says, "cannot be retrieved and (are)
forever lost."  The plaintiffs allege the employees regularly
logged in and began working before their shifts officially began,
but were not paid for the extra time.

The plaintiffs allege Comcast has shown bad faith and breached its
duty to preserve evidence.  Comcast did not immediately respond to
the allegations.

The motion asks Senior U.S. District Court Judge William Nickerson
to consider assessing attorneys' fees and costs; giving the jury
an adverse-inference instruction; precluding Comcast's evidence;
or granting a default judgment.

In July, Nickerson denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, ruling that class-wide issues did not predominate
and that there was not enough commonality among the plaintiffs'
experiences.  The plaintiffs had alleged Comcast violated the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Maryland labor laws.  The
surviving collective action concerns alleged FLSA violations
alone.

Comcast's counsel are attorneys with Morgan Lewis and Bockius.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with Stephan Zouras and
the Law Office Of Gary M. Gilbert and Associates.


COMMAND TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Wages and Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandy Sturtz, 7816 Harold Road, Baltimore, MD 21222 v. Command
Technologies, Inc., 7505 Resource Court, Curtis Bay, MD 21226; and
George R. Braswell, 7604 Energy Pkwy, Curtis Bay, MD 21226, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03148 (D. Md., October 7, 2014) is brought to recover
unpaid wages and statutory damages under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and for retaliation.

Command Technologies, Inc. is a Maryland corporation.  George R.
Braswell is the owner of Command Technologies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ken C. Gauvey, Esq.
          THE LAW PRACTICE OF KEN C. GAUVEY
          111 South Calvert Street, Suite 2700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 346-2377
          Facsimile: (866) 487-1154
          E-mail: kgauvey@gauveylaw.com


COOPER TIRE: "Bui" Suit on Apollo Merger Transferred to Del. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James G. Carr, Sr., for the District of Ohio
authorized the transfer venue of the case captioned David Bui, et
al., Plaintiff, v. Roy V. Armes, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:14CV428 (D.Ohio), to the District of Delaware.

The case is a shareholder derivative action brought by plaintiffs
David Bui and Henry Zwang against nominal defendant Cooper Tire &
Rubber Company and several of its officers and directors: Roy
Armes, Bradley Hughes, Thomas Capo, Steven Chapman, John Holland,
John Meier, Cynthia Neikamp, John Shuey, Richard Wambold, and
Robert Welding.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants' breached their
fiduciary duty in relation to a failed merger transaction.

Cooper is a multi-national tire company incorporated in Delaware
and headquartered in Findlay, Ohio.  In 2013, the company
attempted to merge with Apollo Tyres Ltd., an Indian company.

Plaintiffs allege that Cooper's proxy statement to its
shareholders downplayed Cooper Changshan Tire Company, Ltd (CCT)'s
opposition and misled the shareholders on the viability of the
proposed merger with Apollo.

In his Oct. 6, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/oeLgXefrom
Leagle.com, Judge Carr Thus said he finds private and public
interests strongly favor transfer of venue to the District of
Delaware.  Currently, a securities class action and a shareholder
derivative action, both of which involve the same or substantially
similar alleged facts and defendants -- -- OFI Risk Arbitrages, et
al., v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, et al., No. 1:14-cv-0068 (D.
Del.) and Fitzgeralad v. Armes, et al., No. 1:14-cv-0479 (D. Del.)
-- are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware.

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, is represented by Amanda
J. Martinsek, Esq. -- amartinsek@tmlpa.com , and Richard S.
Walinski, Esq. -- rwalinski@tmlpa.com -- of Thacker Martinsek.


CORRECTIONS CORP: Hawaiian Inmates Obtain Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Hawaiian prisoners incarcerated in Arizona have won certification
for their class action alleging they are unconstitutionally
prohibited from practicing their native religion.

On Sept. 30, U.S. District Leslie Kobayashi of the District of
Hawaii certified Davis v. Abercrombie, a vigorously contested
lawsuit that alleges hundreds of Native Hawaiian prisoners have
been barred from daily outdoor religious rituals as well as access
to sacred objects that are key to their faith.

Hawaii contracts with Corrections Corp. of America to house many
convicted of crimes in Hawaii in its for-profit mainland prisons;
about 2,000 are in such custody now, according to the complaint.
Among them are at least 179 registered as Native Hawaiian
practitioners in the company's Arizona facilities.

The lawsuit, filed in 2011 and led by the Native Hawaiian Legal
Corp., alleges the company has violated the First Amendment's free
exercise and establishment clauses, as well as the 14th
Amendment's equal-protection clause, and the federal Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  Also named as a
defendant is Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

The plaintiffs allege the company unlawfully forbids participation
in communal outdoor ceremonies during the October to February
season of Makahiki, a harvest and New Year commemoration that
requires gathering daily at sunrise outside.  Plaintiffs also
allege they are illegally denied access to such ritually essential
objects as personal amulets, ohe hano ihu (bamboo nose flutes),
coconut oil, and malo, kihei and pau (native garments).

They also allege that they are subject to restrictions not imposed
on other religious groups, such as Buddhists, who are permitted to
gather outside from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. Monday through Friday.  Also
discriminatory, according to the complaint, is the company's
refusal to allow the wearing of amulets sent to them by kapuna, or
spiritual advisers, while Christian inmates and those of other
faiths are permitted to possess crucifixes and other pendants.
CCA denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability, and
contends it accommodates a reasonable amount of religious practice
for inmates of all faiths.  The company says its accommodations
for Native Hawaiian cultural practices are reasonable, given the
security requirements of a correctional facility.

Plaintiffs ask for declarative and other relief.

Defendant's counsel are attorneys with the firms Struck Wieneke &
Love and Roeca Luria Hiraoka.  Along with the Native Hawaiian
Legal Corp., plaintiffs' attorneys are with the firms Revere and
Associates and Kawahito Shraga & Westrick.


CROSSMARK INC: "Smith" Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Gayle Smith v. Crossmark Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-08624, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).  The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:14-cv-04461-MEJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn C. Westrick, Esq.
          Karen L. Majovski, Esq.
          Timothy Patrick Hennessy, Esq.
          KAWAHITO SHRAGA AND WESTRICK LLP
          1990 South Bundy Drive, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 746-5300
          Facsimile: (310) 593-2520
          E-mail: swestrick@kswlawyers.com
                  kmajovski@kswlawyers.com
                  thennessy@kswlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
          Lara Cardin de Leon, Esq.
          Rafael G. Nendel-Flores, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          695 Town Center Drive Park Tower, Suite 1500
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900
          Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
          E-mail: allison.eckstrom@ogletreedeakins.com
                  lara.deleon@ogletreedeakins.com
                  rafael.nendel-flores@ogletreedeakins.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Georgia Class Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reba Gail Cleland and Terry W. Cleland v. Dollar General, Case No.
5:14-cv-00076-LGW-JEG (S.D. Ga., October 6, 2014) seeks to collect
unpaid wages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph J. Segui, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH J. SEGUI, PC
          P.O. Box 699
          Waynesville, GA 31566
          Telephone: (912) 399-9922
          Facsimile: (404) 671-8569
          E-mail: jseguilaw@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Rita C. Spalding, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RITA SPALDING
          1522 Richmond Street
          Brunswick, GA 31520
          Telephone: (912) 261-8686
          Facsimile: (912) 261-8689
          E-mail: rspaldinglaw@bellsouth.net


DOW CHEMICAL: 10th Cir. Upholds $1-Bil. Polyurethane Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has
upheld a $1 billion antitrust class action judgment against Dow
Chemical Co. involving a conspiracy to fix prices for polyurethane
products.

The jury awarded $400 million against Dow for making purchasers
pay more than they would have in a competitive market.  The total
judgment was $1.1 billion after damages were trebled and
settlements by other defendants were deducted.

Dow argued on appeal that common questions did not predominate and
the case ran afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in
Walmart Stores Inc. v. Dukes and 2013 ruling in Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend.

What matters under Walmart is whether a class action can generate
common answers that will resolve the litigation, Circuit Judge
Robert Bacharach wrote.  In this case, there were common questions
that could yield answers at trial as to whether a conspiracy
existed and whether the conspiracy harmed customers, he said.
"Price-fixing affects all market participants, creating an
inference of class-wide impact even when prices are individually
negotiated," he said.

The plaintiffs alleged that Dow and other chemicals companies
fixed prices between Jan. 1, 1999, and Dec. 31, 2003, in violation
of Sherman Act Section 1 by coordinating price-increase
announcements and by trying "to make the price increases stick in
individual contract negotiations."

The other defendants -- Bayer A.G., Bayer Corp., Bayer Material
Science, BASF Corp. , Huntsman International LLC and Lyondell
Chemical Co., settled with the plaintiffs before trial.


EL AHORRO SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ignay Torrado, Juan Miguel Chacon Bermudez and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. El Ahorro
Supermarket, Corp., Reynaldo Garcia, Juan C. Chavez and Wilder
Padron, Case No. 1:14-cv-23705-JLK (S.D. Fla., October 7, 2014)
arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act brought on behalf of their similarly situated
employees, who have not been paid overtime and minimum wages for
work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

El Ahorro Supermarket, Corp. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.  The Individual Defendants
are corporate officers, owners or managers of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ESPN INC: Student-Athletes Sue in Tennessee Over Use of Likeness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that 10 former college football and basketball players, nine of
them from Tennessee, have filed a class action lawsuit claiming
their images were improperly used without their permission.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of high profile victories for
student-athletes in the courts, but also just days after the U.S.
Supreme Court declined to take up the rights to publicity question
this term.

The lawsuit targets ESPN, the four major television networks and
eight NCAA athletic conferences, and licensing companies with ties
to the athletic conferences.  The plaintiffs include former
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, UT-Chattanooga and Washington football
players as well as Tennessee State and Maryland Eastern Shore
basketball players.

In their complaint they argue that the television networks,
athletic conferences and licensing agencies, conspired to exploit
rules forbidding student athletes from "competing in the
marketplace for the value of their rights to publicity."

The plaintiff's claims are similar to those contained in a lawsuit
filed by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon.

In August a federal judge ruled in O'Bannon's favor, finding that
NCAA limits on what players can receive for playing sports
violates antitrust laws.  The case is now on appeal before the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit comes a month after a federal judge in San Francisco
approved a $60 million settlement for student-athletes who
appeared in NCAA-branded video games since 2003.

In this case the plaintiff's contend that "[t]he alleged 'release'
that the Student Athletes are forced to sign as a condition of
playing football or basketball in college is void as a matter of
public policy, unconscionable, and vague, and therefore void
and/or unenforceable."

Specifically, they take issue with wording on the form that
purports to allow the NCAA to use the student-athlete's name or
picture to "generally promote" its championships, events or
programs.

According to the plaintiff's, "The meaning of 'generally promote'
is not defined, rendering Student Athletes uninformed as to what
they are signing."

"Defendants' use of student athletes' names, images, and
likenesses is unauthorized because student athletes have not
legally assigned their publicity rights to defendants, the NCAA,
or third parties acting on behalf of the NCAA," the complaint
states.  "The waiver student athletes are required to sign . . .
is the linchpin of defendants' unlawful conduct and is invalid or
otherwise unenforceable."

The plaintiffs say that "[t]he conspiracy between and among the
broadcast defendants, licensing defendants, conference defendants
and the NCAA has created a marketplace resembling a plantation
type arrangement where defendants financially benefit in the
collective amount of billions of dollars, while student athletes,
the driving force of college sports, receive nothing more than
their cost of attendance."

"This conspiracy has created an anticompetitive marketplace in
which all defendants commercially exploit the substantial value of
each student athletes' images," the plaintiffs say.

They are seeking unspecified general damages, treble damages, a
disgorgement of all profits the defendants earned through the
wrongful use of their likenesses, declarative and injunctive
relief, and attorneys fees.

The Supreme Court has denied video game-maker Electronic Art's bid
to appeal a 9th Circuit ruling for a class of college athletes led
by former Nebraska and Arizona State quarterback Sam Keller.
Keller sued the NCAA and Electronic Arts (EA) in 2009 for using
his image and likeness to increase profits for its NCAA-branded
football and basketball video games.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen J. Zralek, Esq.
          John P. Branham, Esq.
          BONE McALLESTER NORTON PLLC
          511 Union Street, Suite 1600
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 259-5508
          E-mail: szralek@bonelaw.com
                  jbranham@bonelaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Manson, Esq.
          Ronald A. Stewart, Esq.
          STEWART JOHNSON CONNER & MANSON, LLP
          215 2nd Ave. North, Suite 300
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 254-1600
          Facsimile: (615) 891-2395
          E-mail: richardmanson@comcast.net
                  rstewart@stewartjohnsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick D. McMurtray, Esq.
          McMURTRAY LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 80
          Christiana, TN 37037


EXTREME NETWORKS: Seeks Indemnification in Suit v. Enterasys
------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc. has made a claim for indemnification to
Unify U.S. Holdings, Inc. in relation to a labor lawsuit filed
against Enterasys Networks, Inc. in the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
according to Extreme's Sept. 15, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2014.

On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and
two other defendants. The complaint alleges that Enterasys and its
subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a.
Unbridled Information Technologies ("Subcontractor"), violated
Kentucky's wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing
wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the
"Act") on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky
government agencies since January 2010. Plaintiffs also allege
common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and
they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees,
although there was no quantified amount identified. One of the
defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC ("IFS"), has filed a
cross-claim against Enterasys. The Company denies the claims and
has filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on April
16, 2014. In addition, Company filed a cross-claim for indemnity
against IFS and the Subcontractor. This litigation is in the early
stages of discovery. Furthermore, the Company has made a claim for
indemnification to Unify U.S. Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as
Enterprise Networks Holdings, Inc.) ("Seller"), which claim arises
pursuant to the stock purchase agreement between Seller and
Extreme in connection with Extreme's purchase of Enterasys (the
"Purchase Agreement"). Given the preliminary nature of the
lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular
outcome.


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: FHFA Wins Dismissal of Perry et al Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases PERRY CAPITAL LLC, Plaintiff, v. JACOB J. LEW, et al,
Defendants. FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL
HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants. ARROWOOD INDEMNITY
COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCATION, et al., Defendants. In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action
Litigations, CIVIL NOS. 13-1053 (RCL), 13-1439 (RCL), 13-1025
(RCL), (D.D.C.), the Court ruled on motions to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment, filed by the defendants United
States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and Federal Housing
Finance Agency (FHFA), as well as a cross-motion for summary
judgment on Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims filed by the
Perry, Fairholme, and Arrowood plaintiffs.

District Judge E C. Lamberth, in a memorandum opinion dated
September 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1oPTfedfrom Leagle.com, granted the defendants'
motions to dismiss the complaints for lack of jurisdiction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state
a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).  The Court also denied the individual
plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.

This matter was brought before the Court by both a class action
lawsuit and a set of three individual lawsuits. These four
lawsuits contain numerous overlapping, though not identical,
claims. The purported class plaintiffs consist of private
individual and institutional investors who own either preferred or
common stock in the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie
Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).
The individual plaintiffs comprise a collection of private
investment funds and insurance companies.

The Memorandum Opinion relates to all cases.

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, Defendant, represented by Asim
Varma -- Asim.Varma@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, David
Block Bergman -- david_bergman@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
& Howard Neil Cayne -- Howard.Cayne@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER
LLP.


FEDEX CORP: Still Faces Suits for Mandatory "Off the Clock" Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fedex Corporation continues to face a number of lawsuits
containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour
violations, according to the company's Sept. 18, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 31, 2014.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that
they were forced to work "off the clock," were not paid overtime
or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or
both.


FEDEX CORP: Provides Updates on Independent Contractor Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 26 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors,
according to Fedex Corp.'s Sept. 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 31, 2014.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December
13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all
outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the
owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In
sum, the court ruled on the company's summary judgment motions and
entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of
the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as
class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases
were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The
plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The
Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January
2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a
determination with respect to the correctness of the district
court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the
Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument on
November 5, 2013. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit remain stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme
Court.

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Four of
the cases remain pending in their respective district courts, but
three of these four matters settled for immaterial amounts. The
courts have granted final approval of two of the three
settlements, while the other settlement remains subject to court
approval. One of the cases is on appeal with the Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit. The other three cases, which had been
decided in the company's favor by the respective district courts
in Oregon and California, were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

On August 27, 2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court
decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California and Oregon
were employees as a matter of law. While the company does not
agree with the court's decision and will ask the court to
reconsider and petition for en banc review by the full Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, during the first quarter of 2015 the
company established an accrual for the estimated probable loss in
this case that was required to be recognized pursuant to
applicable accounting standards.


FEDEX GROUND: Kansas High Court Clarifies Definition of Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In CARLENE M. CRAIG, LEO RITTENHOUSE, JEFF BRAMLAGE, LAWRENCE
LIABLE, and KENT WHISTLER, Appellants, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INCORPORATED, Appellee, NO. 108,526, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit are seeking answers from
the Supreme Court of Kansas to two certified questions regarding
the proper classification of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
(FedEx) delivery drivers under the provisions of the Kansas Wage
Payment Act (KWPA), K.S.A. 44-313 et seq.

Specifically, the Seventh Circuit inquires:

"1. Given the undisputed facts presented to the district court in
     this case, are the plaintiff drivers employees of FedEx as a
     matter of law under the KWPA?

"2. Drivers can acquire more than one service area from FedEx.
     .  . .  Is the answer to the preceding question different for
     plaintiff drivers who have more than one service area?" Craig
     v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 686 F.3d 423, 431 (7th
     Cir. 2012).

The Kansas Supreme Court, in an opinion dated October 3, 2014,
answered "yes" to the first certified question.  As applied to
those drivers who are members of the certified class, i.e., those
drivers who "'drive a vehicle on a full-time basis,'" the Supreme
Court answered "no" to the second question, i.e., the answer to
the first question remains the same.

"[U]nder the undisputed facts presented, the FedEx delivery
drivers are employees for purposes of the KWPA," ruled the Kansas
Supreme Court.  Given that the certified class only includes full-
time drivers, the Supreme Court decline to opine on a driver's
status with respect to any assigned service area for which he or
she is not a full-time driver.

A copy of Kansas Supreme Court's Opinion is available at
http://bit.ly/1qfPn5Rfrom Leagle.com.

Justin McFarland deputy general counsel, of Kansas Department of
Labor, was on the brief for amicus curiae Lana Gordon, State of
Kansas Secretary of Labor.

                           *     *     *

Ted Wheeler at Courthouse News Service reports that FedEx
misclassified hundreds of drivers as independent contractors, the
Kansas Supreme Court ruled, echoing a recent finding for
California and Oregon workers.  Aside from the far-reaching
effects that the ruling could have on businesses that use
independent contractors, there are dozens of pending cases against
FedEx in the 7th Circuit that this decision shapes.

FedEx has faced multiple class actions across the country by both
current and former drivers who signed contracts with FedEx between
1998 and 2007.  Drivers say that the shipping giant classified
them as independent contractors, but forced them to buy their own
uniforms and equipment, while also controlling minute details of
their appearance and behavior, with specific guidelines for
hygiene and body odor.

In defending its classification, FedEx pointed out that drivers
are allowed to set their own routes on deliveries.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated more
than 70 class actions in 2005 and transferred the matter to the
U.S. District Court in South Bend, Ind.

Craig v. FedEx, a 479-member class seeking relief under ERISA and
the Kansas Wage Payment Act, was designated the lead case.

Class members sought damages for all costs and expenses they
incurred during their employment, along with overtime wages they
were denied as a result of being improperly classified as
independent contractors.

U.S. District Judge Robert Miller ruled for FedEx and remanded the
cases for separate proceedings.

In 2011 the 7th Circuit affirmed the remand order, but in 2012 the
federal appeals court declined to intervene on the merits of the
lead case, saying the ruling turns on application of Kansas law.

It certified certain questions to the Sunflower State's high
court, and those justices unanimously found on October 3, 2014,
that FedEx misclassified employee drivers in Kansas as independent
contractors.

"FedEx has established an employment relationship with its
delivery drivers but dressed that relationship in independent
contractor clothing," the unsigned opinion states.

Citing stipulations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, the court
noted that "FedEx's control and micromanaging undermine the
benefit that a driver should be able to reap from that
arrangement."  The court also reiterated that a driver's status as
an employee is unchanged whether he covers one or more service
areas.

Important for the court was the fact that FedEx "carefully
structured its drivers' operating agreements so that it could
label the drivers as independent contractors in order to gain a
competitive advantage," the justices said.

The added that "this is a close case by design, not happenstance,"
noting that FedEx's "competitive advantage" came in part at the
expense of its drivers.

Federal regulations do not define the term independent contractor,
thus leaving it to the court to decide if "the worker is
economically dependent on the business to which he or she renders
service or whether the worker, as a matter of economic fact, is in
business for himself or herself."

Here, FedEx drivers lacked independence to alter an operating
agreement that "more closely resembles a unilaterally proffered,
take-it-or-leave-it employment contract," the ruling states.

The justices also emphasized that FedEx provides "manuals,
handbooks, memoranda, training videos, and other means of
communication that direct that manner and means of delivering
packages."

"In short, the plaintiff drivers are integrated into FedEx's
business to the highest degree possible," the 49-page ruling
states.

The court noted that its ruling does not take into account the 9th
Circuit's recent award of similar relief to FedEx drivers in
Oregon and California.

Justin McFarland, Esq., deputy general counsel, of Kansas
Department of Labor, was on the brief for amicus curiae Lana
Gordon, State of Kansas Secretary of Labor.

The Appellants are represented by:

          Steve Six, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: six@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Beth A. Ross, Esq.
          Sandy N. Nathan, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: bross@leonardcarder.com

               - and -

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER, LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
          E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com
                  mhouston@hfesq.com

               - and -

          Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: seellingstad@locklaw.com

               - and -

          George A. Barton, Esq.
          Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON, P.C.
          One Main Plaza
          4435 Main Street, Suite 920
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 300-6250
          Facsimile: (816) 300-6259

The Appellee is represented by:

          James D. Oliver, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
          9225 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 600
          Overland Park, KS 66210-2000
          Telephone: (913) 253-2145
          Facsimile: (913) 498-2101
          E-mail: joliver@foulston.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Hacker, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5285
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: jhacker@omm.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Schwartz, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Los Angeles, California
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 246-6835
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: rschwartz@omm.com

               - and -

          J. Timothy Eaton, Esq.
          SHEFSKY & FROELICH LTD.
          111 East Wacker, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 527-4000
          Facsimile: (312) 527-4011
          E-mail: teaton@taftlaw.com

Amici Curiae American Trucking Associations, Inc. and Kansas Motor
Carrier Association are represented by:

          Greg L. Musil, Esq.
          Amy E. Morgan, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          6201 College Boulevard, Suite 500
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 451-8788
          Facsimile: (913) 451-6205
          E-mail: gmusil@polsinelli.com
                  amorgan@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          James C. Sullivan, Esq.
          900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          Facsimile: (816) 374-0509
          E-mail: jsullivan@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          Richard Pianka, Esq.
          ATA LITIGATION CENTER
          950 N Glebe Rd., Suite 210
          Arlington, VA 22203
          Telephone: (703) 838-1889
          E-mail: rpianka@trucking.org

The case is Carlene M. Craig, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage,
Lawrence Liable, and Kent Whistler, Appellants v. FedEx Ground
Package System, Incorporated, Appellee, Case No. 108,526, in the
Supreme Court of the State of Kansas.


GALAXY BOOKS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Laborer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heladio Duran-Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Galaxy Books and Video, Inc. and
Joseph F. Annecca, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07838 (N.D.
Ill., October 7, 2014) seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law for their failure to pay the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees at least the Illinois
mandated minimum wages for all hours worked in a workweek and
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from September 1994 to
present as general laborer doing maintenance for the Defendants.

Galaxy Video & Books, Inc. is an entity doing business within the
Court's judicial district.  Joseph F. Annecca is the owner of
Galaxy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


GARLOCK SEALING: Wants to Unseal Asbestos Plaintiffs' Files
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and two other
related defendants are opposing motions to keep sealed the names
of asbestos plaintiffs and the amounts of settlements they have
reached with those plaintiffs.

The judge presiding over the Garlock's bankruptcy proceedings has
set up a process to unseal evidence that led him to make findings
of alleged misrepresentation by plaintiffs.

Garlock also wants to unseal questionnaires submitted by claimants
in its bankruptcy case and submissions made by claimants to trusts
formed out of other companies' asbestos-related bankruptcies.
"A large portion of the asbestos claimants whose names appear in
the estimation record have open claims and are therefore the
putative creditors (and parties in interest) in this case,"
Garlock said.  "The [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit]
has held that parties should be allowed to litigate anonymously
only in 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying a 'rare
dispensation.'"

Claimants' names are routinely disclosed in asbestos tort
litigation and in marketing materials disseminated by the law
firms representing them, Garlock said.

In a separate motion , the official committee of asbestos personal
injury claimants objected to Garlock's request to seal some of the
bankruptcy filings, including the major expense authorizations
that memorialize the reasons Garlock settled mesothelioma cases
for the amounts it did and trial evaluation forms completed by
Garlock's outside counsel about cases going to trial.

"Until now, the debtors have been enthusiastic advocates of
disclosure, casting themselves as crusaders on the public's
behalf," the committee said.  "Now, without any sense of irony,
the debtors maintain that their own documents -- critical pieces
of the 'full story' -- should remain sealed and shielded from
public scrutiny."

Those documents cannot be shielded by attorney-client or work-
product privilege because Garlock had its attorneys testify during
the proceeding held to estimate its liability to asbestos
plaintiffs about why they settled cases, the committee said.

According to the committee, those "contemporaneous documents" are
at odds with why Garlock says it settled its cases.

Last winter, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western
District of North Carolina estimated that Garlock likely owes $125
million to asbestos plaintiffs.  He rejected the plaintiffs'
argument that Garlock's liability is around $1 billion to $1.3
billion after finding evidence of misrepresentation by plaintiffs'
lawyers in several cases that Garlock settled in the past or in
which Garlock lost jury verdicts.

According to both sides, the parties agree that there should be
redactions of most plaintiffs' Social Security numbers, birth
dates, the identities of minors, account numbers and medical
information except that related to asbestos exposure.


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Got Prelim. OK of $5.25MM Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge tentatively approved a $5.25 million class action settlement
that claims Ghirardelli's white chocolate chips do not contain any
white chocolate.

Lead plaintiff Scott Miller bought a package of Ghirardelli white
chocolate chips in June 2012, and discovered the next day that
they did not taste like white chocolate.

"He reviewed the ingredients list on the packaging and noticed
that the white chips contained no white chocolate, cocoa, or cocoa
butter," according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler's
summary of the complaint.

The class accused Ghirardelli of misrepresenting the white
chocolate content in its chocolate chips, wafers, white chocolate
flavor, mocha mix and frappes.  It alleged violations of U.S. Food
and Drug Administration regulations, and state-law infractions
including false advertising, unfair competition and fraud.

Miller, of Auburndale, Fla., sued in San Francisco, where
Ghirardelli is based.  The confectioner removed the case to
Federal Court and sought dismissal, arguing that Miller lacks
standing to sue over white chocolate products he did not buy.

In April 2013, Beeler tossed all the allegations that did not
pertain to white chocolate chips.

The parties entered into mediation, and earlier this year told the
court they had settled the case.  Ghirardelli agreed to pay $5.25
million into a common fund to be distributed among the class and
the plaintiffs' attorneys.  Class members who make a claim will
receive $1.50 for each purchase of the disputed white chocolate
chips and 75 cents for each purchase of Ghirardelli products
labeled "all natural."

Judge Beeler appointed the law firm Gutride Safier for settlement
purposes, and granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

Evaluating the plaintiffs' case, Beeler noted that "there is a
risk of continued, expensive litigation" and that the plaintiffs
might find it difficult to obtain monetary relief from the
confectioner because Ghirardelli claims that the disputed labels
did not affect prices or sales volume.

A $5,000 incentive award for the lead plaintiffs is also "within a
range of reasonableness" for their work on the case, Beeler wrote.

In total, the settlement proposed by the parties is "fair,
adequate, and reasonable," and Beeler granted preliminary approval
to it.

Notice of the settlement will be published in a half-page
advertisement in People Magazine, as well as in the Oakland
Tribune, on Facebook, and on cooking and baking Web sites.

A fairness hearing on the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 19,
2015 in Beeler's courtroom.

The case is Scott Miller and Steve Leyton, individually and on
behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly
situated v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Case No. 3:12-cv-04936-
LB, in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco Division.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Can Transfer Paxil Birth-Defects Case to Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that GlaxoSmithKline has succeeded in getting a case filed against
it in federal court in Philadelphia moved to the Southern District
of Ohio.

Kathryn Kiker -- who brought the suit on behalf of her son who was
born with birth defects that she attributes to GSK's
antidepressant drug Paxil, which she took while pregnant -- lives
in Columbus, Ohio, with her son and she took the medication while
she was pregnant in Hilliard, Ohio.

U.S. District Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania held that the weight of the factors that determine
the suitability of transfer laid out by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit in its 1995 opinion in Jumara v. State Farm
Insurance tips toward the Ohio venue.  One of the most heavily
weighted factors considers where the underlying circumstances that
led to the claim arose.

"In a products liability action involving a prescription drug --
such as the instant case -- the state with 'the most significant
contacts and relationship to the liability issue is [the
plaintiff's] home state,' where the drug was prescribed, ingested,
and allegedly caused injuries," Judge Slomsky said, quoting from a
2007 opinion issued by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
Blain v. SmithKline Beecham.

GSK had argued that the whole of the case originated in Ohio,
since that is where Ms. Kiker was prescribed Paxil and took Paxil.
"The court does not adopt defendant's position that all of the
operative facts of this case occurred in Ohio, because it is very
likely that at least some decisions regarding Paxil took place at
defendant's headquarters in Philadelphia," Judge Slomsky said.

GSK is a Delaware corporation, but houses most of its operations
in Pennsylvania.

In a footnote, Judge Slomsky cited several similar cases: "In a
series of opinions granting motions to transfer venue in Paxil-
related products liability cases, the Honorable Timothy Savage, a
judge of this court, held that 'even though some of the decisions
may have taken place in the Philadelphia area, "the most
significant contacts and relationship to the liability issue is
[plaintiff's] home state."'"

Also weighing heavily in favor of transfer was the location of
witnesses who would be necessary for the case.

GSK had argued that Mrs. Kiker's doctors would be critical
witnesses, but they would be beyond the reach of subpoenas from
Philadelphia.

"These witnesses are, however, within the subpoena power of the
Southern District of Ohio," Judge Slomsky said.  "As such,
defendant would be able to compel the live testimony of these
physicians at trial in the Southern District of Ohio, but not in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendant submits that the
testimony of Mrs. Kiker's prescribing physician, for instance, 'is
necessary to establish why the physician decided to prescribe
Paxil to Mrs. Kiker during her pregnancy with C.S. and what
impact, if any, a change to the Paxil warnings would have had on
that decision.'"

Mrs. Kiker argued that moving the case to Ohio would only shift
the burden of being unable to subpoena nonparty witnesses to her
since she would want to call former GSK employees who worked on
Paxil to testify.

"There may be former employees of defendant who plaintiffs could
compel to testify in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania but not
the Southern District of Ohio.  However, the reverse may also be
true," Judge Slomsky said.  "In addition, plaintiffs may not be
able to compel the testimony of these individuals in either forum.

In any case, plaintiffs have not provided any information showing
that they would be prejudiced by their inability to call certain
of defendant's former employees if venue is transferred to the
Southern District of Ohio.  As such, the court finds this argument
largely speculative."

The judge explained in a footnote that GSK contends that the
former employees who would know about the labeling and warnings
for Paxil live in various places, including the United Kingdom and
North Carolina, so they wouldn't be compelled to testify in either
forum.

GSK had also argued that a choice-of-law analysis would dictate
that Ohio law would apply to the case, so it would be preferable
to have the case in front of a judge familiar with that state's
law.

"Specifically, defendant highlights that Ohio law recognizes a
statutory cause of action in products liability cases that
Pennsylvania law does not," Judge Slomsky said.  "Defendant also
notes that Ohio law, in certain circumstances, places limitations
on the award of punitive damages against a pharmaceutical
manufacturer that are not recognized under Pennsylvania law."

Mrs. Kiker, however, called that argument a "red herring,"
Judge Slomsky said, since the court hasn't decided yet which
state's law would apply.

Judge Slomsky agreed.

"It is therefore inappropriate, at this stage of the litigation,
for the court to conclusively determine which law will apply to
this case.  Beyond that, the district court in either state is
'more than capable' of applying another state's law," the judge
said.

Altogether, of the nine Jumara factors, five weighed in favor of
transferring the case, one weighed against it, and three were
neutral, Judge Slomsky said.

Bobby Bradford of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz in
Pensacola, Fla., represented Kiker and couldn't be reached for
comment.

Joseph O'Neil -- joneil@lavin-law.com -- of Lavin O'Neil Cedrone &
DiSipio in Philadelphia represented GSK and referred a request for
comment to the company.

"GSK is pleased with Judge Slomsky's ruling on its motion to
transfer venue finding that GSK had met its burden to show that
the case should be transferred to the Southern District of Ohio,
where the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred," said
Robert Perry, spokesman for GSK, in a prepared statement.


GOLD COAST CAR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Hernandez-Jurado, Mario Perez-Tierrablanca, Ricardo
Gutierrez, Carlos Martinez, Carlos Laguna, and Ramiro Feliciano,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons,
known and unknown v. Gold Coast Car Services, Inc., and Bobby
Sedghi, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07844 (N.D. Ill.,
October 7, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law in
connection with their failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as detailers and washers.

Gold Coast Car Services, Inc. is an Illinois corporation.  Bobby
Sedghi is the president of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Valentin Narvaez, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


HITACHI-LG DATA: Court Won't Certify Classes in ODD Antitrust MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge denied class certification for two groups of
plaintiffs accusing major tech companies of fixing the prices of
CD and DVD drives.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg ruled on Oct. 3 that
plaintiffs did not have sufficient expert analysis to make the
case for class certification.

In the multidistrict lawsuit, two groups of plaintiffs -- one
seeking to represent direct purchasers and another seeking to
represent indirect purchasers -- argued that major companies,
including Sony, LG Electronics and Toshiba, conspired to keep
prices of optical disc drives from falling.  They claimed that
from 2004 to 2009, the tech companies colluded to create
"alliances" and "supply arrangements."

But Seeborg found that the plaintiff's experts did not present a
viable methodology for establishing class-wide antitrust injury
and damages.

Seeborg also said the plaintiffs "have not proffered evidence or
allegations that there were one or more instances in which the
defendants' executive decision-makers entered into express
agreements to fix prices across the board on an ongoing basis."

However, Seeborg denied the defendants' motion to strike testimony
from the plaintiff's experts.

"Finding that plaintiffs fail to show the expert reports answer
the critical questions is not equivalent to concluding the
opinions are without reliable methods and principles, or are
otherwise inadmissible," Seeborg wrote.

"Within 20 days of the date of this order, the parties shall
submit jointly a report as to their respective positions on how
the litigation should proceed from this juncture."

The case was transferred to San Francisco in 2010.

The case is known as In Re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:10-md-2143 RS, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division.


HOME DEPOT: Removes "Rogers" Suit to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brian Rogers, et al. v. Home
Depot, et al., Case No. CIVDS1410290, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-
02069-JGB-SP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daren Lipinsky, Esq.
          BROWN AND LIPINSKY LLP
          5811 Pine Avenue, Suite A
          Chino Hills, CA 91709
          Telephone: (909) 597-2445
          Facsimile: (909) 597-6199
          E-mail: dlipinsky@aol.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
          Liz Kathryn Bertko, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER AND FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
          E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
                  lbertko@akingump.com


IEC ELECTRONICS: New York Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York has dismissed in its entirety, without right to replead, the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit originally filed June
28, 2013 against IEC Electronics Corp., its Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company has received
no indication as to whether the plaintiffs will appeal the
decision.

IEC Electronics Corporation is a premier provider of electronic
manufacturing services ("EMS") to advanced technology companies
primarily in the aerospace and defense, medical, industrial and
communications sectors.


IFG MEDICAL: Sued for Violating Communications Act in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marcus, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IFG Medical, Case No. 3:14-cv-06230-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.,
October 7, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Communications Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-6667
          Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
          E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


INTEGRATED TECH: Fails to Pay Back Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier A. Negron v. Integrated Tech Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
23687-CMA (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2014) seeks to recover back wages
that the Defendant allegedly failed to pay in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Integrated Tech Group is a Tennessee for-profit corporation that
conducts its satellite-installation business throughout this
District, with places of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
The Company provides service, support, maintenance,
troubleshooting, and installation of audio-visual, Internet, and
phone services, products, and materials for Comcast (a multi-
system operator).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


INTRALINKS: Dist. Court Certifies Class in "Wallace" Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an Opinion entered on Sept. 30, 2014, available at
http://is.gd/QqYE8Afrom Leagle.com, District Judge Thomas P.
Griesa certified the class and subclass in the case WILLIAM D.
WALLACE ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. INTRALINKS ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 11-CIV. 8861 (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund sought to
certify a class of all who purchased defendant IntraLinks' stock
between February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011.  Plaintiff also
sought a subclass of those who purchased IntraLinks stock in the
company's April 6, 2011 secondary offering.

IntraLinks is a publicly traded provider of "virtual data rooms"
("VDRs"), which are software platforms that facilitate the secure
exchange of information between organizations and departments.

Defendant Pacific Crest Securities LLC is represented by Jonathan
D Polkes, Esq. -- jonathan.polkes@weil.com-- and Eric Cullen
Hawkins, Esq., eric.cullen@weil.com -- of Weil, Gotshal & Manges
LLP.


IXIA: Individuals Seek to Dismiss Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Individual defendants in a purported securities class action
against Ixia are seeking to dismiss the case pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the company's Sept. 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On November 14, 2013, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul
Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was filed against
the company and certain of the company's current and former
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during
the period from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's recognition of revenues related to its warranty and
software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and
employment history of the Company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer, Vic Alston. The complaint also alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to
make certain disclosures, regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, including regarding the financial
statements and internal financial controls that were the subject
of the Company's April 2013 restatement of certain of its prior
period financial statements. The complaint alleges that the
Company lacked adequate internal financial controls and issued
materially false and misleading financial statements for the
fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal
quarters ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011,
March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2012. The
complaint, which purports to assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, seeks, on behalf of the purported class,
an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

On January 14, 2014, four sets of plaintiffs filed motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff. On March 24, 2014, the court issued
a minute order appointing Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System
(the "Oklahoma Group") as lead Plaintiffs.

On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed an amended complaint,
asserting claims against the same defendants under the same legal
theories as were set forth in the initial complaint. The amended
complaint also contains allegations that certain of the individual
defendants increased their trading in the Company's stock during
February, March, April and May of 2011 and during February and
March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to inflate the
Company's reported deferred revenues during the period of February
4, 2011 through April 3, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities.

On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss count I of
the amended complaint, which purports to assert a claim against
all named defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and its implementing regulation, Rule 10b-5.
Additionally, the individual defendants separately filed motions
to dismiss count II of the amended complaint, which purports to
assert a claim for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against only the individual defendants, as well as advancing
certain additional arguments in support of dismissing count I
against the individual defendants. The Oklahoma Group's omnibus
opposition to the July 18, 2014 motions to dismiss was filed on
August 18, 2014, while the defendants' replies were filed on
September 8, 2014. A hearing on the motions to dismiss was
scheduled for October 6, 2014.


JACKSONVILLE, FL: "Monaco" Case May Not Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 2,000 employees of the City of Jacksonville filed a class
action captioned SCOTT MONACO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:09-CV-1169-J-32PDB, (M.D.
Fla.), alleging that the City violated the Americans With
Disabilities Act by excluding them from the City's Retirement
System because of "pre existing medical conditions." At first, the
City fell on its sword, agreeing to allow the case to proceed as a
class action and enrolling all class members into the retirement
system. Then, the City altered course and decided to contest the
case, resulting in a protracted litigation. Following the City's
change of heart, the case came before the Court on the parties'
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and related filings. In a
September 11, 2012 Order, the Court identified several significant
and complex legal issues that required further argument.  The
Court directed the parties to participate in mediation, believing
that they should reach a settlement. The parties mediated on
December 4, 2012, and continued their settlement discussions for
10 months. However, on October 2, 2013, the mediator informed the
Court that the parties were at an impasse.  Accordingly, the Court
reopened the case and directed the parties to rebrief the matter
in light of the issues identified in the Court's prior Order and
the current state of the law.  The matter is now before the Court
on the parties' renewed cross-motions for summary judgment.

In an order entered September 30, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/10OtPbIfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Timothy J. Corrigan concluded that, while the City's process which
resulted in excluding so many employees based on "pre-existing
conditions" was, at best, haphazard, it did not violate the ADA on
a class-wide basis. Thus, while some of these employees may seek
to prosecute individual ADA actions against the City, the case may
not proceed as a class action, ruled Judge Corrigan.  Because the
ADA is the only basis upon which the class has brought suit, the
Court has no occasion to determine whether the City's actions
violated some other local, state or federal law. However, nothing
in the Order prevents the City from voluntarily offering a remedy
to the employees who may have been unnecessarily excluded from the
City's Retirement System, Judge Corrigan added.

Lynette Clinch, Movant, represented by D. Marcus Braswell, Jr. --
mbraswell@sugarmansusskind.com -- Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Mark
David Bogen -- mark@condolaw.com -- Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis -- mwillis@srkw-law.com -- Spector, Roseman, Kodroff &
Willis, PC, Robert A. Sugarman -- sugarman@sugarniansusskind.com
-- Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL.


LA-Z-BOY INC: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Facsimiles in N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Bunch Associates, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability
company, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. La-Z-Boy Incorporated, La-Z-Boy
Global Limited, Michigan corporations, and Hydropool Inc., 2217044
Ontario Inc., Canadian corporations, Case No. 1:14-cv-00850-TDS-
JLW (M.D.N.C., October 7, 2014) challenges the Defendants' alleged
practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

La-Z-Boy Incorporated and La-Z-Boy Global Limited are Michigan
corporations headquartered in Monroe, Michigan.  Hydropool Inc.
and 2217044 Ontario Inc., are Canadian corporations with their
principal place of business in Mississauga, in Ontario, Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Bloss, Esq.
          HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
          101 W. Friendly Ave., Suite 500
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 273-1600
          Facsimile: (336) 274-4650
          E-mail: JBloss@greensborolaw.com

               - and -

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


LORDEX INC: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Fax Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., a California corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. Lordex, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No.
2:14-cv-07771-RSWL-MAN (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2014) challenges the
Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Lordex, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
business in Brookshire, Texas.  The identities of the Doe
Defendants are not presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
          Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS
          Historic Engine Co. No. 28
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 625-1600
          E-mail: mark@geragos.com
                  meiselas@geragos.com

               - and -

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


LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS: Attorneys Get $287K in Fees in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge awarded $287,000 in fees to attorneys for a
class who settled with Los Angeles Clippers over text message
solicitations.

Lead plaintiff Ari Friedman attended a Clippers basketball game on
Sept, 11, 2012.  During the game, he sent a text message to a
number that was broadcast by the home sports announcer, so he
could have his personal message displayed on the scoreboard.

In the following days, Friedman received text messages on his cell
phone from an automated dialing system, though he never gave
consent for such messages.

Friedman filed a class action on behalf of 130,000 people who
attended Clippers basketball games, claiming that the LAC
Basketball Club, which owns and operates the NBA team, violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending the messages.

The parties reached a settlement under which LAC Basketball Club
agreed to compensate class members with either two vouchers to
Clippers' basketball games or one voucher to a Clippers' game and
one $20 coupon to purchase merchandise at the Clippers' store.

Based on each ticket having a face value of $15 to $20, the total
benefit for each class member was valued at approximately $40. A
total of 751 people made valid claims, making the total redeemed
value for class members $30,040.

Class counsel is entitled to 25 percent of this redemption value
as an attorney fee, or $7,510.

Additionally, LAC Basketball Club agreed not to send any "non-
confirmatory" autodialed text messages to fans' cell phones for 24
months.  Class counsel is entitled to fees for obtaining this
injunctive relief.

Counsel submitted billing records for 438.7 hours spent on the
case, which U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall found
reasonable.  Based on the hourly rates of the attorneys and
paralegals, the lodestar amount for the injunctive relief is
$185,841.

Although class counsel requested a multiplier of 3.228 for a total
fee of more than $599,900, Marshall determined that a more modest
multiplier was appropriate, finding that the injunctive relief was
not an "exceptional" benefit to the class to justify that sort of
enhancement.

A 1.5 multiplier to represent the risk counsel took in taking on
the case is more appropriate, Marshall said, resulting in a total
lodestar of $278,761.

Adding in the coupon relief award, class counsel is entitled to
$287,486 in fees.

Friedman is also entitled to a $1,000 incentive fee for serving as
the class representative.

The case is Ari Friedman v. LAC Basketball Club, Inc., Case No. CV
13-00818 CBM (RZx), in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.


MARICOPA, AZ: Court Tosses Bid to Terminate 3rd Amended Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Graves, Isaac Popoca, on their own behalf and on behalf of a
class of all pretrial detainees in the Maricopa County Jails,
Plaintiffs, v. Joseph Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County; Andrew
Kunasek, Mary Rose Wilcox, Denny Barney, Steve Chucri, and Clint
L. Hickman, Maricopa County Supervisors, Defendants, NO. CV-77-
00479-PHX-NVW, (D. Ariz.) is class action that was brought in 1977
against the Maricopa County Sheriff and the Maricopa County Board
of Supervisors alleging that the civil rights of pretrial
detainees held in the Maricopa County, Arizona, jail system had
been violated. It applies only to pretrial detainees, not to
convicted inmates.

On March 27, 1981, the parties entered into a consent decree that
addressed and regulated aspects of the County jail operations as
they applied to pretrial detainees. On January 10, 1995, the 1981
consent decree was superseded by an Amended Judgment entered by
stipulation of the parties. On October 22, 2008, other provisions
were modified or vacated, and the provisions remaining in effect,
as originally written or as modified, were restated in the Second
Amended Judgment. On April 24, 2012, Defendants moved to terminate
certain provisions of the Second Amended Judgment. Those
provisions of the Second Amended Judgment that remained in effect
were restated in the Third Amended Judgment.

Defendants Fulton Brock, Don Stapley, Andrew Kunasek, Max Wilson
and Mary Rose Wilcox have filed a Motion to Terminate Third
Amended Judgment on Behalf of Correctional Health Services.

District Judge Neil V. Wake denied the Motion on September 30,
2014.  A copy of Judge Wake's findings of fact and conclusions of
law and order is available at http://bit.ly/1uAhZwPfrom
Leagle.com.

Todd Wilcox, Dr, Movant, represented by:

   Stephen C Clark, Esq.
   JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH
   170 S. Main Street, Suite 1500
   Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1644
   Telephone: 801-534-7437


MED-1 SOLUTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Michimani and Alejandra Urquiza, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MED-1 Solutions, LLC,
and MED-1 Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01641-TWP-DML (S.D.
Ind., October 7, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abraham Murphy, Esq.
          22 E. Washington Street, Suite 610
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 248-5570
          Facsimile: (317) 248-5571
          E-mail: murphy@abrahammurphy.com


MEDICAL ACTION: Shareholders Seek Prelim. Injunction v. Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re Medical Action Industries Inc. Shareholders
Litigation seek preliminary injunction against a merger by Medical
Action, according to the company's Sept. 15, 2014, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")  by
Medical Action on August 25, 2014 (the "definitive proxy
statement"), two putative stockholder class action lawsuits
challenging the proposed merger have been filed, both in Suffolk
County Supreme Court in New York (the "court"): (i) Hilary Coyne
v. Medical Action Industries Inc., et al. (Case No. 064930/2014);
and (ii) Isaac Koll, et al. v. Medical Action Industries Inc., et
al. (Case No. 065061/2014). Both of these cases name the Company,
certain of the Company's current directors and officers, Owens &
Minor, and Merger Sub as defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been
brought by a purported stockholder of the Company, both
individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of
public stockholders of the Company. The lawsuits generally allege,
among other things, that certain of the directors and officers of
the Company breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders of the
Company by agreeing to a transaction with inadequate consideration
and unfair terms pursuant to an inadequate process. The Hilary
Coyne lawsuit alleges further that Owens & Minor and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the directors and officers of the Company in the
alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The Isaac Koll lawsuit
alleges further that the Company, Owens & Minor and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the directors and officers of the Company in the
alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek, in
general, and among other things, (i) injunctive relief enjoining
the transactions, (ii) in the event the proposed merger is
consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory damages, (iii)
an award of plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees, (iv) an accounting by the defendants to plaintiffs
for all damages caused by the defendants and (v) such further
relief as the court deems just and proper. On July 14, 2014, the
court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Hilary
Coyne lawsuit and the Isaac Koll lawsuit under the caption, In re
Medical Action Industries Inc. Shareholders Litigation (the
"Consolidated Action"). The court appointed Hilary Coyne and Isaac
Koll as lead plaintiffs, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead
counsel, and Gardy & Notis, LLP as liaison counsel. A Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on July 21, 2014. On
August 14, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order on consent
providing for expedited discovery and a hearing date of September
16, 2014 for plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The
Consolidated Action generally includes the allegations from the
Hilary Coyne and Isaac Koll lawsuits and alleges that Medical
Action's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
entering into the Merger Agreement by agreeing to allegedly
inadequate consideration for Medical Action's stockholders, and by
failing to disclose allegedly material information in Medical
Action's preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on July
16, 2014. The lawsuit also alleges that Owens & Minor aided and
abetted the directors in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

On September 2, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction and opening brief in support thereof. On
September 9, 2014, the defendants filed their papers in opposition
to plaintiffs' motion.

On September 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their reply papers in
further support of their motion for preliminary injunction.  In
support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs
argue, among other things, that the Company should be ordered to
waive certain standstill provisions in the non-disclosure
agreements entered into with Company A and Company B,
notwithstanding that neither Company A nor Company B has requested
such a waiver. The Company and the other defendants believe that
plaintiffs' position is without merit.

The court has scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for
September 16, 2014. The Company intends to continue to defend the
Consolidated Action vigorously.


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Greene" Suit to Tennessee District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Greene v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT-
004237-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.   The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02783-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was injured by her physician's off-
label use of Medtronic and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.'s
Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device.  Infuse is
a Class III medical device whose design, manufacturing method, and
labeling were specifically approved by the Food and Drug
Administration pursuant to the agency's Premarket Approval
process.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          Facsimile: (502) 753-1601
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  lcronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Laura Yaeger, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4796
          E-mail: LYaeger@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Rozoff" Suit to Tennessee District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Rozoff, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case
No. CT-004236-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby
County, Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02782-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were injured by the off-label use
of Plaintiff Robert Rozoff's physician of Medtronic's Infuse(R)
Bone Graft device.

Infuse is a Class III medical device whose design, manufacturing
method, and labeling were specifically approved by the Food and
Drug Administration pursuant to the agency's Premarket Approval
process.

Medtronic, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation, with its principal
place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Medtronic Sofamor
Danek USA, Inc., is a Tennessee corporation headquartered in
Memphis, Tennessee.  MSD is a wholly owned subsidiary of Medtronic
Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          Facsimile: (502) 753-1601
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  lcronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Turner W. Branch, Esq.
          Margaret M. Branch, Esq.
          Adam T. Funk, Esq.
          BRANCH LAW FIRM
          2025 Rio Grande Boulevard NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 243-3500
          Facsimile: (505) 243-3534
          E-mail: tbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  mbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  afunk@branchlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stuart L. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Marlene J. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERGLAW, PLLC
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-4662
          Facsimile: (612) 367-8107
          E-mail: slgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com
                  mjgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MOFFETT'S CHICKEN: Sued in Cal. Over Disabilities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Davis v. Ralph Burton, dba Moffett's Chicken Pie Shoppe,
Rosewood Investment of Arcadia, a California Limited Partnership,
and Does One to Ten, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-07721-JAK-MRW
(C.D. Cal., October 6, 2014) is brought under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is a "physically handicapped person," "physically
disabled person," and a "person with a disability," as these terms
are defined in the Disabilities Act.  She alleges that the women's
restroom stall at Moffett's Chicken is too small for a wheelchair,
the clearance inside is insufficient for wheelchair
maneuverability, and the door is inaccessible to wheelchair
patrons.

Moffett's Chicken Pie Shoppe is located in Arcadia, California.
The restaurant is owned and operated by Defendants Ralph Burton,
Rosewood Investment of Arcadia, and Does One to Ten.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason K. Singleton, Esq.
          SINGLETON LAW GROUP
          611 L Street, Suite A
          Eureka, CA 95501
          Telephone: (707) 441-1177
          Facsimile: (707) 441-1533
          E-mail: jason@singletonlawgroup.com


OMNIAMERICAN BANCORP: Inks MoU to Settle "McDougal" Suit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omniamerican Bancorp, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") agreeing in principle to settle the
Litigation McDougal v. OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case
No. 24-C-14-003920, according to the company's Sept. 16, 2014,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As previously described in the joint proxy statement/prospectus
under the heading "Litigation Relating to the Merger," a putative
class action lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of
OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., a Maryland corporation
("OmniAmerican"), against OmniAmerican, members of OmniAmerican's
board of directors, Southside Bancshares, Inc., a Texas
corporation ("Southside") and Omega Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland
corporation ("Merger Sub") and wholly owned subsidiary of
Southside.  The lawsuit, captioned McDougal v. OmniAmerican
Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003920 (the "Litigation"),
was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the
"Court"), and alleges that OmniAmerican's directors breached their
fiduciary duties and that OmniAmerican, Southside and Merger Sub
aided and abetted those alleged breaches by, among other things,
(a) failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value for
OmniAmerican public stockholders; (b) failing to properly value
OmniAmerican; (c) failing to protect against conflicts of
interest; (d) failing to disclose material information necessary
for OmniAmerican stockholders to make an informed vote on the
first merger; and (e) agreeing to deal protection devices that
preclude a fair sales process. Among other relief, the plaintiff
sought to enjoin the mergers.

After filing the Litigation and engaging in certain limited
discovery, plaintiff's counsel indicated to defendants' counsel
that they believed additional disclosures should be made available
to the stockholders of OmniAmerican.

On September 12, 2014, the defendants and the plaintiff in the
Litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
agreeing in principle to settle the Litigation in exchange for
defendants' agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures.
The MOU contemplates that the parties will prepare a definitive
stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to Court
approval. If approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the
settlement will result in a release of the defendants from any and
all claims that were or could have been asserted challenging any
aspect of or otherwise relating to the mergers, the merger
agreement or the disclosures made in connection therewith, and
that the Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, OmniAmerican has agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures regarding the mergers in a
supplement to the joint proxy statement/prospectus.  The
supplemental disclosures are contained in a proxy supplement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
September 16, 2014 (the "Supplement"), which should be read in its
entirety. In return, the plaintiff has agreed to the dismissal of
the Litigation with prejudice and to withdraw and/or refrain from
filing any and all motions seeking to enjoin the mergers. In
addition, the MOU contemplates that the parties will negotiate in
good faith to attempt to agree upon an amount of attorneys' fees
and expenses and that plaintiff's counsel may petition the Court
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, which if granted by
the Court, would be paid by OmniAmerican or its insurers or
successors. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement on
attorneys' fees and expenses, the defendants may oppose the
petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately reach agreement
on a definitive stipulation of settlement or that the Court will
approve the proposed settlement, even if the parties were to enter
into such stipulation of settlement. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
stockholders of OmniAmerican in connection with the proposed first
merger or the timing of the special meeting of stockholders of
OmniAmerican scheduled for Tuesday, October 14, 2014, at 10:00
a.m. local time, at OmniAmerican's headquarters located at 1320
South University Drive, Fort Worth, Texas to consider and vote
upon the OmniAmerican merger proposal, among other things.


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Rand-Heart Securities Suit in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Netsol Technologies, Inc. is facing a securities lawsuit in the US
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the company's Sept. 16, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On July 25, 2014, a Federal Securities class action lawsuit
entitled Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies,
Inc., Najeeb Ghauri, Naeem Ghauri, and Salim Ghauri was filed in
Central District of California.  The action generally alleges the
Company violated certain federal securities laws by allegedly
issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
product and business prospect of that product.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges the next generation product did not exist as of
November 8, 2011 and there was no reasonable basis for stating
that there was a growing interest or serious interest in the
product; the product had been gaining momentum or that it had been
well received. The plaintiff has alleged the class period to be
between November 12, 2009 and November 8, 2013. The complaint
initially alleges damages of $1,000,000.  The Company has engaged
counsel and believes the lawsuit to be meritless and intends to
vigorously defend the action including but not limited to motions
to dismiss. As of the date of this report, a class had not yet
been established.


PDC ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Suit Over 2010 & 2011 Acquisitions
---------------------------------------------------------------
PDC Energy, Inc. announced on September 19, 2014 it has reached an
agreement in principle to settle the class action pending against
the Company and its wholly-owned merger subsidiary relating to the
Company's acquisition of certain partnerships in 2010 and 2011
(the "Class Action"), according to the company's Sept. 19, 2014,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Class Action will be
dismissed with prejudice and all claims will be released. The
Company's settlement obligation consists of two components: first,
an up-front cash payment by PDC of approximately $11.5 million and
second, a transfer of interests, primarily net profit interests,
in certain Wattenberg wells to be drilled in 2015 and 2016.
Beginning in 2027, plaintiffs would have the right to require that
PDC repurchase such interests. The proposed settlement remains
subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including but
not limited to the following: negotiation and execution of the
necessary agreements, including a formal settlement agreement
relating to the net profit interests; funding to plaintiffs by the
Company's insurance carriers of $6 million in addition to the
above Company payment; preliminary approval by the court; and
final court approval following notice to members of the class.


PHIBRO ANIMAL: Still Faces Injury Lawsuit by Israeli Residents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phibro Animal Health Corporation continues to face a lawsuit over
alleged injury arising from industrial plants and sewage treatment
facilities run by Israel's Industrial Local Council, according to
the company's Sept. 18, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2014.

The company is currently a defendant in a mass tort lawsuit
commenced in 2007 by a class of approximately 100 citizens who
live in the area of the Naot Hovav (formerly Ramat Hovav)
Industrial Local Council in Israel, against the Industrial Council
and the State of Israel, and including as additional defendants 18
manufacturers in the Industrial Council including the company's
Koffolk subsidiary, based on alleged injury (including lung
diseases, symptoms of cancer and miscarriages, from the Industrial
Council's plants and the sewage treatment facilities run by the
Industrial Council). In January 2013, the Be'er Sheva District
Court rejected the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have
appealed the judgment and the hearing is scheduled for September
2014. The plaintiffs initially requested damages against all
defendants totaling NIS 184 million (or approximately US$54
million based on currency conversion rates as of June 30, 2014)
when the lawsuit was commenced in 2007.


RIEXINGER & ASSOCIATES: Sued in M.D. Florida for Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Adams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Riexinger & Associates, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company; and Bureaus Investment Group No. 15, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, Case No. 8:14-cv-02538-CEH-TGW
(M.D. Fla., October 7, 2014) is brought for alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Swift, Esq.
          Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, NASH, DAUVAL & BOYLE, PA
          3900 First St. N, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
          E-mail: aswift@leavenlaw.com
                  ileavengood@leavenlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: ameyer@forthepeople.com


ROYAL DENTAL: Faces Suit Alleging Communications Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marcus, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Royal Dental Supply, Case No. 3:14-cv-06229-PGS-LHG
(D.N.J., October 7, 2014) seeks relief under the Communications
Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-6667
          Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
          E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


SAC ACQUISITION: Accused of Discriminating Against Ex-Design Lead
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joann Bateman v. SAC Acquisition LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08013
(S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2014) is an action for employment
discrimination based on age and disability, in violation of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the New York State Executive Law, and for
unpaid wages and overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees.

The Plaintiff currently resides in Hawthorne, New York.  She was
62 years old as of August 2013.  For more than the last three
decades, she has suffered from acute arthritis in various parts of
her body, including her hands and arms.  She was employed by the
Defendant from May 2012 to October 2013 as a Design Lead.

SAC Acquisition LLC is a Delaware business corporation
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.  SAC owns and operates
Lovesac retail furniture stores located throughout the continental
United States, including a Lovesac retail store in White Plains,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Levy, Esq.
          Amos B. Blackman, Esq.
          BANTLE & LEVY LLP
          817 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9666
          E-mail: Levy@civilrightsfirm.com
                  Blackman@civilrightsfirm.com


SAMSUNG SDI: Court Refuses to Dismiss Battery Price-Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An antitrust suit accusing Japanese and Korean companies of
conspiring to fix prices of rechargeable lithium-ion cells, the
core components of batteries used in many consumer goods, may
proceed, reports Arvin Temkar, citing a federal court ruling.

The multidistrict lawsuit, transferred to San Francisco in 2013,
accuses Samsung, Panasonic, Sanyo, Sony, Hitachi, Maxwell and
other major electronics companies of price-fixing.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Rogers on Oct. 2 partially upheld the
second consolidated amended complaint of a class seeking to
represent municipal and regional governments.  Rogers dismissed
several proposed damages classes, including one for the state of
Montana, but allowed California's governmental class to move
forward.

Rogers upheld the second consolidated amendment complaint of
another class, which seeks to represent people who bought the
batteries and battery products.

Rogers, however, excepted City Circuit's purchases of Hitachi
batteries and camcorders containing those batteries.

Rogers also ruled that motions by GS Yuasa and Toshiba Corp raise
issues that may warrant early summary judgment motions, after
"limited, tailored discovery."

The multidistrict litigation is known as In Re: Lithium Ion
Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-2420 YGR, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

A copy of the Court's Oct. 2 Omnibus Order is availble at
http://tinyurl.com/q9dyo4dfrom Leagle.com.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Class Suit Over Initial Public Offering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. subsidiary of Spanish banking giant Banco Santander failed
to disclose in its initial public offering improper practices in
its subprime car lending business that caused a drop in its stock
price, shareholders claim in a class action, reports David Lee at
Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Karan Kumar sued Santander Consumer USA Holdings,
its officers and directors and several investment banks that
participated in the company's January IPO, including Citigroup
Global Markets, J.P. Morgan Securities, Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley, on October 6 in Dallas County Court.

Kumar claims the offering documents were "materially deficient."

"The true facts, which were known by the defendants but were not
disclosed to the investing public, were that: (i) Santander
engaged in improper practices related to the company's subprime
auto lending business; (ii) Santander misrepresented the quality
of loans the company had underwritten; (iii) Santander
misrepresented the company's underwriting standards; and (iv)
Santander lacked a reasonable basis for its statements about its
lucrative prospects in the subprime lending market," the 23-page
complaint states.

Kumar claims the public learned the truth when Santander disclosed
on Aug. 7 that it received a civil subpoena from the U.S.
Department of Justice.

Federal prosecutors sought documents about underwriting and
securitization of subprime car loans since 2007, according to the
lawsuit.

Shares dropped $17.95 the next day, a decline of more than 25
percent from the IPO price of $24.

Based in Dallas, Santander is a consumer finance company that
engages in unsecured consumer lending, including credit cards,
personal loans and private student loans.  It is also focuses on
vehicle finance, with more than 14,000 franchised car dealers,
according to the lawsuit.

Santander spokeswoman Laurie W. Kight declined to comment on the
lawsuit on October 7, 2014.

Kumar seeks class certification and damages for violations of the
Texas Securities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP
          3232 McKinney, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B St., Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (800) 350-6003
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com


SAXON MORTGAGE: "Giordano" Class Suit Survives Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action GIORDANO v. SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
INC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-7937 (MAS) (LHG) (D.N.J.), is one of the
many cases across the country dealing with the loan modifications
provided under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).
Plaintiffs Stacey and Francesco Giordano allege Defendant Saxon
Mortgage Services, Inc. failed to permanently modify their loan in
breach of its Trial Period Plan (TPP) with the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs brought the action, on behalf of themselves and a
Class consisting of: All New Jersey residential mortgage borrowers
whose loans have been serviced by Saxon and who: (i) entered into
a Trial Plan Contract with Saxon that is substantially similar to
that of Plaintiffs' Trial Plan Contract and that Saxon counter-
signed and returned to borrowers; (ii) made all monthly payments
as required under their respective Trial Plan Contracts; and (iii)
did not receive a permanent modification by the Modification
Effective Date set forth in their respective Trial Plan Contracts.

In a Memorandum Opinion dated Sept. 29, 2014 available at
http://is.gd/V20aSifrom Leagle.com, District Judge Michael A.
Shipp denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit.

Defendant SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC. is represented by RICHARD
A. O'HALLORAN, Esq. -- richard.ohalloran@dinsmore.com -- of
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.


SPIRIT REALTY: Md. Court Approves Settlement in Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland approved a
stipulation of settlement reached in the suit Kendrick, et al. v.
Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., et al., according to the company's
Sept. 16, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In connection with the acquisition of Cole Credit Property Trust
II, Inc. ("Cole II") through a transaction in which the Company's
prior legal entity ("pre-Merger Spirit") merged into the Cole II
legal entity (the "Merger") on July 17, 2013 and the surviving
entity was renamed Spirit Realty Capital, Inc. (the "Merger")
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of January
22, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement") between the Company, the
Operating Partnership, Cole II and Cole Operating Partnership II,
LP ("Cole Operating Partnership"), a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland against and purportedly on behalf of the Company
captioned Kendrick, et al. v. Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., et al.
The complaint named as defendants the Company, the members of the
board of directors of the Company, the Operating Partnership, Cole
II and the Cole Operating, and alleged that the directors of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair
process leading to the Merger Agreement, failing to disclose
sufficient material information for pre-merger Spirit stockholders
to make an informed decision regarding whether or not to approve
the Merger, agreeing to a Merger Agreement at an opportunistic and
unfair price, allowing draconian and preclusive deal protection
devices in the Merger Agreement, and engaging in self-interested
and otherwise conflicted actions. The complaint alleged that the
Operating Partnership, Cole II and the Cole Operating Partnership
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
sought a declaration that defendants had breached their fiduciary
duties or aided and abetted such breaches and that the Merger
Agreement was unenforceable, an order enjoining a vote on the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rescission of
the transactions in the event they were consummated, imposition of
a constructive trust, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and other relief.

On June 4, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the named defendants in the
merger litigation signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU")
regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted therein.
The MOU provided, among other things, that the parties would seek
to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the
release and dismissal of all asserted claims (the "Stipulation of
Settlement"). The Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the
court on January 22, 2014 for approval. On September 5, 2014, the
court approved the Stipulation of Settlement, and all asserted
claims were thereupon released and dismissed with prejudice.


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Class Suits for Ruining Corn Sales to China
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Wheeler and Lacey Louwagie, writing for Courthouse News
Service, reports that seed giant Syngenta faces billion-dollar
class actions in three states, claiming China is rejecting U.S.
corn shipments because Syngenta released a genetically altered
variety before the crop was approved for export to China.

Syngenta "destroyed the export of U.S. corn to China and caused
depressed prices for all domestic corn," Omaha-based Volnek Farms
claims as lead plaintiff in a $1 billion claim in Omaha Federal
Court.

In Sioux City, Iowa, lead plaintiffs Cronin Inc. and Jim Ruba Jr.
claim that they do not even use GM corn, but they have been hurt
because of "(1) Syngenta's release of Viptera corn into the U.S.
corn and corn seed supply, which has destroyed the export of U.S.
corn to China and caused depressed prices for all domestic corn;
(2) Syngenta's materially misleading statements relating to the
approval status of MIR162 in China and the impact the lack of
approval would have on the market; and (3) Syngenta's widespread
contamination of the U.S. corn and corn seed supply with MIR162,
which will continue to foreclose the U.S. export market to China
in future years and will continue to lead to lower corn prices per
bushel in the U.S. market, as a result."

A third, similar class action was filed on October 3 in
Springfield, Ill. Federal Court.

Syngenta's MIR162 genetically modified corn also is known as
Agrisure Viptera.

All three class actions were filed October 3.

Agrisure Viptera was released and distributed for planting in
2009, with a second generation version known as Agrisure Duracade
distributed this year.  MIR162 is engineered to protect against
insects such as the corn borer and corn rootworm.

It was approved for production for U.S. markets, but regulators in
China have not yet approved it.

Chinese regulators continue to reject shipments that contain
traces of Syngenta's genetically altered varieties, Volnek Farms
says in the Omaha complaint.

Volnek cites a USDA report that estimated that 5 million tons of
U.S. corn were sold to China in 2012-2013, and that "significant
demand" and growth is expected in the Chinese market.

But China "stopped importing U.S. corn when it detects traces of
MIR162 in U.S. corn shipments" and has given no indication when or
if approval will be given, Volnek says.

While this specific variety of corn was planted on only about 3
percent of U.S. acres, there is no way of ensuring "that any
shipments of U.S. corn will not be contaminated with trace amounts
of MIR162," according to the Omaha class action.

According to the Iowa class action, the release of Syngenta's GM
seed led to an 85 percent drop in Chinese imports of U.S. corn.

The National Grain and Feed Association estimates that Chinese
rejection of U.S. corn has reduced corn prices by 11 cents per
bushel, and it has asked Syngenta to stop selling the genetically
modified corn varieties, according to the Iowa lawsuit.

Syngenta's Web site downplays the importance of selling to China.
In its "Plant with Confidence" fact sheet on Agrisure Viptera,
checked October 6, 2014, Syngenta assures farmers that "the vast
majority of corn produced in the U.S. is used domestically," and
that in the past five years only 13 percent of U.S.-produced corn
has been sold abroad, with China importing little more than 0.5
percent of it.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, however, on its Web site
claims the United States exports 20 percent of its corn crop.

The Iowa plaintiffs therefore accuse Syngenta of
misrepresentation.

The USDA acknowledges on its Web site that the United States'
export relationship with China is "difficult to predict," due to
China's fluctuating domestic corn production, which is tied to
export subsidies and Chinese tax rebates.

The United States is the world leader in corn production.
According to the Omaha complaint, the corn is "harvested,
gathered, commingled, consolidated, and otherwise shipped from
thousands of farms" to distribution centers where it can be sold.

"Syngenta's decision to bring Viptera to the market crippled the
2013-14 corn export market to China," according to the Omaha
complaint.  It claims that continuing cultivation of the variety
would increase the damage already inflicted on farmers as a result
of Syngenta's "reckless disregard" for the commodity market.

Both lawsuits seek monetary damages and want Syngenta enjoined
from cultivating and marketing the offending varieties of corn.

This is not Syngenta's first such legal battle. In 2011, Syngenta
sued Bunge North America, a grain elevator firm, for posting signs
announcing it would not accept Viptera corn.  Syngenta's request
that Bunge remove the signs was denied in Federal Court.

Other major grain handlers, such as Archer Daniels Midland and
Cargill, also refuse to accept Viptera because "preventing
commingling is essentially impossible," according to the Iowa
complaint.

Lead counsel for both plaintiffs is:

          Paul D. Lundberg, Esq.
          LUNDBERG LAW FIRM, P.L.C.
          600 Fourth St., Suite 906
          Sioux City, IA 51101
          Telephone: (712) 234-3030
          E-mail: paul@lundberglawfirm.com

Hadden Farms is represented by:

          Adam Levitt, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          30 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com


TELEXFREE LLC: "Ferrari" Suit Moved to Massachusetts District Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Putative Class Representative Paulo Eduardo Ferrari on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and Rafaela Serrano as
Trustee of the TelexFree Settlement Trust, sought and obtained an
order from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granting their motion to withdraw reference to an
adversary proceeding captioned Paulo Eduardo Ferrari, et al. v.
TelexFree, Inc., f/k/a Common Cents Communications, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 14-04080, and transfer the action to the District Court.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-40144-NMG to
the proceeding.

The case was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Massachusetts in the bankruptcy case known as In re Telexfree,
LLC, Case No. Case No. 14-40987.

Orestes Brown, Esq., at Metaxas Brown Pidgeon LLP, in Beverly,
Massachusetts -- obrown@metaxasbrown.com -- informs the District
Court that the action is one of seven substantively similar
complaints: three adversary proceedings have been filed in the
District Court and four actions have been filed in these various
federal district courts:

   -- Ferguson et al. v. TelexElectric, LLLP et al., Civil Action
      No. 5:14-cv-00316-D (Eastern District of North Carolina);

   -- Cook, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
      v. TelexElectric, LLLP, et al., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-
      00134 (Northern District of Georgia);

   -- Reverend Jeremiah Githere, et al. v. TelexElectric,LLP, et
      al., Civil action No. 14-12825 (D. Mass.); and

   -- Guevara v. Merrill, et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-22405
     (Southern District of Florida).

The complaints were filed by various plaintiffs seeking damages
arising out of an alleged Ponzi pyramid scheme perpetrated by
TelexFree, LLC, TelexFree, Inc., and TelexFree Financial, Inc. and
related entities.  All of the actions assert causes of action for,
among others, fraud, intentional misrepresentation, federal and
state securities violations, and violations of the Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Mr. Brown contends that all of the causes of action asserted in
the lawsuit are non-core proceedings, and hence, the Bankruptcy
Court is not empowered to finally adjudicate the action.
Therefore, if this action remains in the Bankruptcy Court, he
asserts, the District Court will be required to review and approve
any findings or conclusions from the Bankruptcy Court prior to the
entry of final judgment, which is not an efficient use of the
Courts' nor the parties' resources.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel S. Dullea, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & DULLEA
          5 Briscoe Street
          Beverly, MA 01915
          Telephone: (978) 922-4025
          E-mail: scott@goldberganddullea.com

               - and -

          Orestes G. Brown, Esq.
          METAXAS BROWN PIDGEON LLP
          900 Cummings Center, Suite 207T
          Beverly, MA 01915
          Telephone: (978) 927-8000
          Facsimile: (978) 922-6464
          E-mail: obrown@metaxasbrown.com

Defendant Global Payroll Gateway, Inc., is represented by:

          Monica P. Snyder, Esq.
          Thomas S. Vangel, Esq.
          MURTHA CULLINA LLP
          99 High Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 457-4000
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3868
          E-mail: msnyder@murthalaw.com
                  tvangel@murthalaw.com


TEMPLETON RYE: Faces Third Class Action Over Whiskey Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Rodgers, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that a
third class-action lawsuit has been filed against Templeton Rye,
this one in Polk County District Court.

The Carroll County-based whiskey company is already facing two
other lawsuits filed by Chicago law firms in Illinois.  Each of
the lawsuits allege Templeton Rye's marketing deceived customers,
including not disclosing on bottles that the spirit is made using
a stock whiskey bought from an Indiana distillery.

The company's owners, however, argued on Oct. 6 in a meeting with
The Des Moines Register's editorial board that they can still
claim locally made status, as they add their own ingredients at
their Templeton facility.  Those ingredients, recommended by a
Kentucky flavor engineering company, help replicate the taste of
the prohibition-era whiskey made by Alphonse Kerkhoff, the
grandfather of co-founder Keith Kerkhoff.

"Templeton Rye is very unique," Mr. Kerkhoff said on Oct. 6.  "To
say it's a stock whiskey made in Indiana that goes directly into
the bottle is totally false.  It couldn't be further from the
truth."

In an August interview with the Register, co-founder Scott Bush
and the company's chairman disclosed that the base ingredient in
Templeton Rye is a rye whiskey produced by Indiana-based MGP
Ingredients.  That admission led to the lawsuits, claiming
violations of Iowa and Illinois consumer protection laws.

In the most recent lawsuit, filed in Polk County, attorneys argue
the company deceived customers with claims that the whiskey is
distilled using a "prohibition-era recipe."  The company's
marketing materials highlight the whiskey's ties during
prohibition to Chicago bootlegger Al Capone.

Currently, the cap on each bottle is topped with a seal that reads
"prohibition-era recipe."  But, the original recipe handed down by
Mr. Kerkhoff's grandfather could not legally have been called a
"rye whiskey" due to its rye content being too low, Mr. Kerkhoff
said.

The decision to brand and market the whiskey was intended to
capitalize on the national popularity of the illegally distilled
rye whiskey made in Templeton during prohibition.

"(Templeton Rye) was known in New York City, it was known in San
Francisco," Mr. Kerkhoff said.  "It had a real rich history.  We
wanted to stay with the name Templeton Rye . . . that's why we had
to do what we did."

Before the company rolled out its first bottles on store shelves
in 2006, Messrs. Kerkhoff and Bush provided Louisville, Ky.-based
Clarendon Flavor Engineering two samples: One of the stock MGP rye
whiskey and another of the prohibition-recipe.   The Kentucky
company recommended a set of ingredients to achieve the
prohibition-era flavor, though Mr. Kerkhoff would not disclose the
ingredients in the Oct. 6 meeting.

In labeling the bottle and producing the whiskey, the company also
relied on approvals from the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Mr. Kerkhoff said.  The bureau approved Templeton
Rye's labels and twice completed audits of the company and its
facilities without mentioning any concerns about consumer fraud,
he said.

The company is also taking steps to disclose more information
about the whiskey's origins, Mr. Bush said.  Though the words
"prohibition era recipe" currently remain on the cap of each
bottle, labels will now include that distillation is done in
Indiana, he said.

"We've come together and said, 'Fine, let's be the most
transparent company in the whole industry then.' "


TEXAS HEALTH: May Face Suits Over Ebola Exposure Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that potential suits
against the Dallas, Texas hospital that sent home a patient later
diagnosed with Ebola face long odds in the face of state medical
malpractice laws.

Texas tort-reform measures have made it one of the hardest places
in the United States to sue over medical errors, especially those
that occurred in the emergency room, according to plaintiffs'
lawyers and legal experts.

"It's one of the highest legal burdens of any state in the
country," said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of New York Law
School's Center for Justice and Democracy, who studies U.S. tort
law.

Although it appears no lawsuits have been filed in connection with
the case, possible legal claims could be brought by Ebola patient
Thomas Eric Duncan or his family, anyone he may have exposed to
the disease, or hospital workers put at risk.

Mr. Duncan, now in critical condition, first visited Texas Health
Presbyterian Hospital's emergency room late at night on Sept. 25.
Mr. Duncan told a nurse he had just returned from Liberia, where
the disease is raging, but he was sent home with antibiotics.  On
Sunday, Sept. 28, he was admitted after his symptoms became worse,
becoming the first patient to be diagnosed with Ebola in the
United States.

Texas Governor Rick Perry on Oct. 6 said that there had been
"mistakes" handling the Ebola diagnosis, the latest in a series of
officials and health experts questioning the initial response.

The hospital on Oct. 3 said Mr. Duncan's travel history was
"documented and available to the full care team," correcting its
earlier statement that staff were not made aware of his recent
travel to West Africa.

A spokeswoman for the hospital, Candace White, did not immediately
return a request for comment.

Failure to properly diagnose a disease is a common basis for
malpractice lawsuits, but each state has its own standards.

To bring a civil claim in Texas over an emergency-room error,
including malpractice, plaintiffs have to show staff acted in a
way that was "willfully and wantonly negligent," meaning that the
staff had to have consciously put Mr. Duncan or others at extreme
risk by releasing him, rather just having made a mistake.

Still, alarm bells about Ebola had been ringing in the media and
among public health officials for several weeks before Mr.
Duncan's diagnosis.  In August, the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention issued guidelines for healthcare
practitioners to identify signs of Ebola and warned them to be
particularly vigilant about anyone who had traveled recently to
West Africa.  And it is possible that a communications breakdown
at the hospital may have delayed the diagnosis, putting more
members of the public at risk and creating a plausible claim for
negligence, said Dallas plaintiffs' attorney Les Weisbrod.

"In my opinion, it would be willful, or wanton, or conscious
disregard to let somebody go like this," Mr. Weisbrod said.

Most states use a more lenient negligence standard for emergency-
room malpractice, according to lawyers and legal experts.  Charles
Silver, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, co-
authored a study in 2012 that showed the claim rate for
malpractice in Texas had fallen an estimated 60 percent since
2003, when the tort reform began.

Texas also caps non-economic damages -- which compensate for
subjective injuries like pain and suffering and emotional
distress, rather than past and future medical costs -- at
$750,000.  As a result of those and other tort-reform measures,
medical malpractice lawsuits in Texas have "dried up to the point
of disappearing," Mr. Silver said.

U.S. health officials have identified 10 people who had definite
contact with the patient, including family members and health
workers, and are monitoring 38 additional people who may have been
exposed.  Should any of those individuals develop Ebola, the same
"willful and wanton" standard would likely apply to a lawsuit they
could bring against the hospital, lawyers and legal experts said.
They would also face the additional hurdle of showing the hospital
had a legal duty to them despite not being treated there.


THIRD FEDERAL: Faces "Berry" Class Suit Alleging RICO Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Berry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of
Cleveland and WNC Insurance Services, Inc., dba WNC First
Insurance Services, Case No. 2:14-cv-14390-RLR (S.D. Fla., October
6, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
          ARONOVITZ LAW
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2630
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-2772
          Facsimile: (305) 397-1886
          E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com


THOMAS JUDE HENRY: Sued by Paralegals Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Garza and Roberta Riley, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated v. Thomas Jude Henry, P.C. d/b/a Thomas
J. Henry Injury Attorneys and Thomas Jude Henry, Case No. 5:14-cv-
00877 (W.D. Tex., October 7, 2014) is filed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to correct the Defendants' alleged unlawful
employment practices and to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as paralegals.

Thomas Jude Henry, P.C., doing business as Thomas J. Henry Injury
Attorneys, is a Domestic Professional Corporation in Texas.  The
Company is a law firm in the business of providing professional
legal services that an attorney and counselor at law, duly
licensed under that state of Texas, is authorized to render.
Thomas Jude Henry is an owner and officer of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          KENNARD BLANKENSHIP ROBINSON P.C.
          5433 Westheimer Road, Suite 825
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com

               - and -

          Arnoldo J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          KENNARD BLANKENSHIP ROBINSON P.C.
          85 N.E. Loop 410, Ste. 603
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: aj.rodriguez@kennardlaw.com


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Being Sold for Too Little to Balboa, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Tibco
Software too cheaply through an unfair process to Balboa Merger
Sub, for $24 a share or $4 billion, shareholders claim in Delaware
Chancery Court.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Investor Seek to Stop Going-Private Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike O'Connell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Tibco Software Inc., Vivek Ranadive, Nanci Caldwell,
Eric Dunn, Manuel A. Fernandez, Phil Fernandez, Peter Job, David
J. West, Philip Wood, Balboa Intermediate Holdings, LLC, and
Balboa Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 1-14-CV-271601 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty., October 7, 2014) is a shareholder class action
brought on behalf of holders of the common stock of TIBCO to
enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of TIBCO
common stock in a going-private transaction by private equity firm
Vista Equity Partners through its affiliate, Balboa.

TIBCO is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Palo Alto,
California.  TIBCO is a global leader in infrastructure and
business intelligence software.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Balboa is a Delaware limited liability company and an affiliate of
Vista.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Balboa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


TOYS R US: Removes "Rojas" Suit to Southern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rojas v. TOYS R US-Delaware, Inc.,
Case No. CACE-14-018142 Div:05, was removed from the 17th Judicial
Circuit in Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-62310-PCH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Matthew Gobeo, II, Esq.
          Jenna Rinehart Rassif, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7641
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
          E-mail: david.gobeo@jacksonlewis.com
                  jenna.rassif@jacksonlewis.com


US BUREAU OF PRISONS: Faces "Cooper" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony L. Cooper, Head of Class Plaintiff's & Similarly situated
all others inmates class members v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Washington, D.C. and Director, Case No. 3:14-cv-01210-TJC-MCR
(M.D. Fla., October 6, 2014) asserts claims under the Prisoner
Civil Rights.

The Plaintiff, an inmate at the Coleman Medium Federal
Correctional Institution, in Coleman, Florida, is not represented
by any law firm.


WELLS FARGO: Removes "Eggers" Suit to Southern District of Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Eggers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Case No. LACL130539, was removed from the Iowa District Court in
and for Polk County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa (Central).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 4:14-cv-00394-CRW-RAW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Andrew Newkirk, Esq.
          Leonard E. Bates, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C.
          515 East Locust, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 883-2000
          Facsimile: (515) 883-2004
          E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com
                  lbates@newkirklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Giudicessi, Esq.
          Britt L. Teply, Esq.
          Emily Hildebrand Pontius, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP
          801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor
          Des Moines, IA 50309-8011
          Telephone: (515) 248-9000
          Facsimile: (515) 248-9010
          E-mail: michael.giudicessi@faegrebd.com
                  britt.teply@faegrebd.com
                  emily.pontius@faegrebd.com


YAMAHA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in "Pitre" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
JERRY PITRE, v. YAMAHA MOTOR CO., LTD., et al., Section: "G"(1),
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5327, (E.D. La.) is a putative consumer class
action in which Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Yamaha Motor
Co., Ltd. (YM) and Yamaha Motor Corp., USA's (YMUSA) used a
defective engine coating in outboard motors, causing corrosion and
pitting in the exhaust systems of those motors.  Pending before
the Court are Yamaha Motor Corporation USA's "Motion Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint" and "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First
Amending Class Action Complaint."

In an Order and Reasons dated September 30, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1rWc96Ffrom Leagle.com, District
Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown denied denied-in-part and granted-
in-part YMUSA's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended
class action complaint.  The Motion was denied as to Plaintiffs'
claims in redhibition and under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
and granted as to Plaintiffs' negligence, unfair trade practices,
fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, breach of
contract, or unjust enrichment claims. The Motion was also denied
as to Plaintiffs' class allegations in redhibition and under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and granted as to Plaintiffs' class
allegations under theories of negligence, unfair trade practices,
fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, breach of
contract, or unjust enrichment.

The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint was denied as moot.

Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA, Defendant, represented by:

   Andrew D. Weinstock, Esq.
   Joseph G. Glass, Esq.
   Philip G. Watson, Esq.
   DUPLASS, ZWAIN, BOURGEOIS, PFISTER & WEINSTOCK
   3838 North Causeway Blvd.
   Three Lakeway Center Ste. 2900
   Metairie, LA 70002
   Telephone: 504-832-3700
   Facsimile: 504-837-3119


YURI SHEARER: Dist. Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss GGNSC Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in GGNSC HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YURI
SHEARER, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ALMA M.
SHEARER, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00003-KGB, (E.D. Ark.) filed
the lawsuit to compel Mr. Shearer, special administrator of the
estate of Ms. Alma M. Shearer, to arbitrate claims brought by Mr.
Shearer in the Circuit Court of Ouachita County, Arkansas.  The
Plaintiffs are unincorporated limited liability companies that
collectively operate a nursing home in Arkansas. Mr. Shearer has
filed suit in state court against GGNSC and others in a pending
putative class action.  Although the state court action commenced
on June 3, 2011, Mr. Shearer did not appear in the state court
action until September 9, 2013, when he and 44 other putative
class representatives filed amended pleadings in the state court
proceedings.  GGNSC claims that Mr. Shearer, on behalf of the
Estate of Alma Shearer, breached an arbitration agreement between
GGNSC and Alma Shearer by filing suit against GGNSC in state
court. GGNSC brings this diversity action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a)(1) and asks the Court to enforce its arbitration
agreement with Ms. Shearer under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9
U.S.C. Section 4.

Before the Court is the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint to compel arbitration.  The Defendant moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint to compel arbitration pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, the defendant
requested that the Court abstain from hearing the plaintiffs'
action to compel arbitration, relying on Colorado River Water
Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).

District Judge Kristine G. Baker, in an opinion and order entered
September 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/ZdjKDKfrom Leagle.com, denied Mr. Shearer's motion
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).  Furthermore, the Court
denied Mr. Shearer's motion pursuant to Colorado River abstention
insofar as it requests the Court to dismiss this case.  On its own
motion, the Court will stay this action according to Colorado
River abstention until resolution of the pending appeal of the
state court decision in GGNSC Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Kathryn S.
Chappel et al., CA 14-138, says Judge Baker.

Yuri Shearer, Defendant, represented by Howard Gregory Campbell,
Nichols & Campbell, P.A., Brian David Reddick, Reddick Moss PLLC,
Deborah Truby Riordan -- deb@arklawoffice.com -- Riordan Law Firm
& Gene A. Ludwig, Ludwig Law Firm, PLC.


* "Proposition 46" to Lift Medical Malpractice Damages Ceiling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Blood, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
voters could make California the first state to require many
doctors to submit to random drug and alcohol tests, a safeguard
that has long been in place for pilots, police officers and others
who must stay clear-eyed on the job.

While supporters are promoting that aspect of Proposition 46, it
is not the initiative's most contentious provision.  If approved
by voters, it also would lift the ceiling on damages for pain and
suffering caused by medical negligence, something that has been
sought for decades by trial lawyers.

Because of that, the campaign has become the most expensive in
California this year.  It matches the trial lawyers -- who are
pushing for the cap on damages to be boosted to $1.1 million, from
$250,000 -- against insurance companies, hospitals and physician
groups that warn consumer costs will soar and doctors could flee
to other states.

"The economic stakes of the policy in question are so massive that
almost any amount of political spending is worth it," said
Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University
of California, San Diego.

A third provision of the initiative would require doctors to check
a statewide database before prescribing painkillers and other
powerful drugs in an attempt to curb pill shopping and other
abuses.

The proposal has become a marquee battle in a year when
Californians will choose a governor and also vote on proposals
ranging from funding water projects amid a record drought to how
the state regulates insurance rates.

Proposition 46 supporters include Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer,
who says, "Make sure impaired doctors don't treat someone you
love."  The long list of opponents ranges from the California
Medical Association to the state Chamber of Commerce.

Proponents say the proposition is about safety and point to cases
in which addled doctors have harmed patients or overprescribed
drugs.

"I've treated thousands of patients, risked their lives, while
high on prescription drugs. I was an addict," Dr. Stephen Loyd,
who is now recovered, says in one video supporting the
proposition.

Insurance companies and doctors depict the proposition as a sugar-
coated pill that's really about fattening attorneys' wallets.
They say the provisions on mandatory testing were included in the
proposal because it was the most popular question with test groups
used by supporters to judge political appeal.

In one ad, a narrator warns darkly that trial lawyers will make
millions of dollars from larger jury awards with the bill paid by
"the rest of us."

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office has concluded that
raising the cap on medical malpractice damages will increase
government health care costs "from the tens of millions of dollars
to several hundred million dollars annually."  The higher costs
could be offset to some extent by uncertain, but potentially
significant, savings from prescription drug monitoring and doctor
testing, the office found.

Fundraising already has topped a cumulative $60 million.

No one denies that doctors are vulnerable to the same addictions
as the people they treat, and state records show dozens of
physicians have been disciplined in recent years for abusing
alcohol or drugs.  Research has indicated the rates of drug and
alcohol abuse for health care professionals are similar to the
wider public, if not higher because of access to prescription
narcotics.

At issue is what should be done to identify addicts and abusers
and steer them into treatment.

Doctors "will never police themselves because they won't even
acknowledge there is a problem," said Jamie Court, president of
Consumer Watchdog, a group pushing the proposal with trial
lawyers.

Mandatory, random testing for doctors has been discussed for
years. According to the proposal, doctors with hospital privileges
would be tested randomly or when a physician is suspected of
abusing alcohol or drugs or when a mistake occurs in treatment,
such as surgery.

Paul Phinney, a pediatrician and former president of the
California Medical Association, said testing is a legitimate
issue, but the proposal before voters is not the answer.
Mr. Phinney and other opponents have pointed to the disclosure
that the testing provision was included as a political sweetener,
with the intent of making Proposition 46 more appealing.

He said the initiative was designed to trick voters into
supporting "something the consumer attorney lobby has wanted to do
for a long time," lifting a ceiling on damages for clients that
has been in place since the 1970s.  The lawyers "stand to benefit,
personally and financially," he added.

Court, of Consumer Watchdog, said supporters recognized they would
face tens of millions of dollars in ads from opponents "and need
to go with what's popular" to win in November.

"It was a no-brainer," he said, referring to the decision to pair
the popular testing plan with the proposition.  "It doesn't mean
we are trying to hide something."

Campaign finance records show insurance companies, doctors and
pharmacists have contributed more than $57 million to the
campaign, while supporters have raised a fraction of that, about
$7 million through the end of September.


* Three Orange County Schools Closed Over Asbestos Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that three Orange County elementary
schools are being closed because asbestos was found on campus.

Huntington Beach school officials announced on Oct. 8 that Hope
View, Oak View and Lake View schools will be closed at least
through Friday for cleaning and re-testing.

Asbestos was found last summer at Oak View and Lake View during a
renovation project and some parents are furious that their
children were allowed to attend classes while it was being
removed.

Asbestos fibers were recently found again at Hope View and Lake
View and they've been closed all week.

Authorities say the schools had asbestos fire retardant that was
installed in the 1960s and it may be deteriorating.

Eight other campuses remain open but will be tested for asbestos.


                              *********

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  * * *