CAR_Public/141021.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 21, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 209

                             Headlines

ACN INC: Faces "Adesina" Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Sales Model
AL CORRECTIONS DEP'T: Prisoners Sue Over Violence at St. Clair
ALLIANCE ONE: "Riccio" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Vacates Motion to Dismiss Cal. Labor Suit

ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
BARCLAYS PLC: Settles Libor Class Action for $19.98 Million
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued in Fla. Over Sale of Flintstones Product
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Denial of Bid to Compel Doc. Production Upheld
CANACCORD GENUITY: Sued in N.H. Over Misleading Financial Reports

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in OT Suit
CARPACCIO INC: Removes "Amodei" Suit to Florida District Court
CINTAS CORP: Discrimination Claims Remanded to District Court
CLS TRANSPORTATION: Calif. Appeals Court Revives Class Action
COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE: Court Tosses Bid to Amend "Botero" Suit

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Former Installers File Wage Class Action
DR HORTON: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Bawtinhimer" Case Upheld
DRAFTKINGS INC: Has Send Unsolicited Text Message, Action Claims
ESPN INC: Accused of Disability Discrimination and Retaliation
EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Class Action

FEDEX GROUND: EEOC Sues Over Discrimination Against Deaf Workers
FLASHDANCERS: Settles Strippers' Wage Class Action for $4.3 Mil.
FLORIDA: Jury Awards $20.7MM to Homeowners in Citrus Class Action
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Removes "Clark" Class Suit to C.D. California
GFI GROUP: Being Sold for Too Little to CME Group, Suit Claims

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Third Circuit Sends Paxil Cases to State Court
GOVT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE: Ruling in "Harper" Case Vacated
GREENWAY HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
GT ADVANCED: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
H & F ATHLETICS: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HARBOR BELT: District Judge Tosses Reconsideration Motion
HIGHER ONE: Settles Debit Card Class Action for $15 Million
HOME DEPOT: Removes "Burris" Breach-Related Suit to E.D. Kentucky
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Bid to Junk "Silsby v. Icahn" Remains Pending
INDEED INC: Court Amends Order Approving "Rosh" Suit Settlement

INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in "Wallace" Suit
KEY PROGRAM: $430,500 Settlement in Isiaho Case Get Final Okay
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Lawsuit in New York Court
LA BAGUETTE: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Hernandez" Suit Says
LONDON SILVER: "Nalven" Class Suit Consolidated in Antitrust MDL

LONDON SILVER: Two Antitrust Suits Consolidated in S.D. New York
MADNI MART: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: 10 Ex-Players File Class Action Over Image Use
NAVISTAR INT'L: Sued in Illinois Over Defective MaxxForce Engines
O'BRIEN AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Wage Theft, Discrimination

OEY TRADING: Recalls Monica Snack Products
OLSON MEAT: Recalls 160 Lbs. of Pork Blood Product
PAB TWO: Recalls Bed Bug Heat Treatment Systems
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Removes "Perez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
POLYCEL STRUCTURAL: Removes MPG Suit to Alabama District Court

PPL CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Class Suit Says
PRICELINE GROUP: Sued Over Illegally Collection of Resort Fees
PULLIN LAW: Faces "Moskowitz" Injury Class Suit in New York
PURE FOODS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Owed Under FLSA
REAL FOODS: Recalls 96 Units of "Mexican Cheddar Dip" Product

REJUVENATION INC: Recalls Hanging Lamps Due to Risk of Injury
RENOWN REGIONAL: Nev. Sup. Court Rules on Appeal in "Wiley" Suit
SAM KANE: Recalls 2,633 Lbs. of Ground Beef Chub Product
SAM KANE: Recalls 90,987 Lbs. of Ground Beef Products
SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims

SUNBURST FOODS: Recalls Fresh Bites and Private Labeled Products
SYNTHES (CANADA): Recalls Radiolucent Bone Lever with Double Tip
TARGET CORP: Minnesota Judge Blocks Class Action Settlement
TOTAL SCREEN: Faces "Galvan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TOYS R US: Recalls Toy Toaster Sets Due to Choking Hazard

UNITED STATES: Court Limits "Mandatory" Immigration Detention
UNIV. OF TEXAS MEDICAL: Motion to Centralize 7 Actions Junked
VIGIL BEEF: Recalls 48 Lbs. of Beef Jerky Products
WHOLE FOODS: Bid for Appointment of Co-Lead Class Counsel Denied
ZIMMER DENTAL: Recalls Tapered Screw-Vent Implant

* Companies With More Independent Contractors Face More Risks


                            *********


ACN INC: Faces "Adesina" Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Sales Model
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oladipupo Adesina v. ACN, INC. and Xoom Energy, LLC, Case No.
3:14-cv-00562 (W.D.N.C, October 10, 2014), arises from the
Defendants' fraudulent and deceptive bait-and-switch sales model
with their variable rate Simpleflex customers. The Defendants
represent to potential customers that, if they switch to XOOM from
their local utilities or other energy suppliers, they will receive
a low introductory rate on their energy bill, followed by
competitive market-based rates and savings on their energy bills.
However, after the low introductory rate, the Defendants' energy
rates increase dramatically, causing XOOM customers' electricity
bills to rise.

ACN, INC. is a multi-level marketing company that provides, energy
through XOOM Energy using a network of independent sales agents.

Xoom Energy, LLC is a retail electricity and natural gas provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
      Email: gmason@wbmllp.com
             enafisi@wbmllp.com
        - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Beatrice Yakubu, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      Email: charles@cuneolaw.com
             byakubu@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

      Richard Greenfield, Esq.
      GREENFIELD AND GOODMAN LLC
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (917) 495-4446
      Email: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net


AL CORRECTIONS DEP'T: Prisoners Sue Over Violence at St. Clair
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Cheatham; Mark Duke; James Edwards; Dale Gilley; Franky
Johnson; Michael Mays; Derrick White; Allan Williams and Robert
Woods, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Commissioner Kim Thomas; Associate Commissioner James Deloach;
Associate Commissioner Terrance McDonnell; Deputy Commissioner
Greg Lovelace; Institutional Coordinator Grant Culliver; Warden
Carter Davenport; Assistant Warden Eric Evans; Assistant Warden
Karen Carter; Captain Carl Sanders; Captain Gary Malone, in their
official capacities, Case No. Case No. 4:14-cv-01952-VEH (N.D.
Ala., October 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendants have failed
to reasonably and adequately respond to the extremely high rate of
prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and homicides and the dangerous
conditions that facilitate the incidents and culture of violence
at St. Clair Correctional Facility, in Springville, Alabama.

The Plaintiffs are men presently confined in the custody of the
Alabama Department of Corrections at St. Clair, where allegedly
mismanagement, poor leadership, overcrowding, inadequate security,
and unsafe conditions, including broken and nonfunctioning locks
on the majority of cell doors, have lead to an extraordinarily
high homicide rate, weekly stabbings and assaults, and a culture
where violence is tolerated, creating conditions of confinement
that violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.

Because of poor management, drugs and other contraband -- in many
cases contraband that is brought into the Facility and sold to
prisoners by officers or DOC staff -- are prevalent, according to
the complaint.  The complaint adds that correctional staff fails
to follow policies and procedures and sometimes ignore urgent
pleas for assistance that, then, results in serious violence.

Kim Thomas is the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of
Corrections.  James Deloach is the Associate Commissioner for
Operations for the Alabama Department of Corrections.  Terrance G.
McDonnell is the Associate Commissioner for Plans and Programs for
the Alabama Department of Corrections.  Greg Lovelace is the
Deputy Commissioner for Maintenance for the Alabama Department of
Corrections.  Grant Culliver is the Institutional Coordinator for
the Northern Region of the Alabama Department of Corrections.

Carter Davenport is the Warden of St. Clair Correctional Facility
in Springville, Alabama.  Karen Carter is an Assistant Warden of
St. Clair.  Eric Evans is an Assistant Warden of St. Clair.  Carl
Sanders is a Captain at St. Clair.  Gary Malone is a Captain at
St. Clair.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan A. Stevenson, Esq.
          Charlotte R. Morrison, Esq.
          Jennae R. Swiergula, Esq.
          Carla C. Crowder, Esq.
          Ryan C. Becker, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE OF ALABAMA
          122 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-1803
          Facsimile: (334) 269-1806
          E-mail: bstevenson@eji.org
                  cmorrison@eji.org
                  jswiergula@eji.org
                  ccrowder@eji.org
                  rbecker@eji.org


ALLIANCE ONE: "Riccio" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Peter G. Sheridan dismissed in its entirety with
prejudice the case captioned MAUREEN RICCIO on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE ONE
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-4445
(PGS), (D. N.J.).

The Complaint sought to certify a class of all New Jersey
residents who have been subject to violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Act by Defendant Alliance One.  Alliance One sought
dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

A copy of Judge Sheridan's October 9, 2014 memorandum and order is
available at http://is.gd/qCOG3ofrom Leagle.com.

ALLIANCE ONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, represented
by SCOTT B. TENENBAUM -- Tenenbaum.S@wssllp.com -- WINGET,
SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG LLP.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith D. Madonna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 0:14-cv-04258-
PAM-TNL (D. Minn., October 14, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Vacates Motion to Dismiss Cal. Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation vacated its Motion to Dismiss a
lawsuit filed by former fixture installation crew members for
special projects, according to the company's Oct. 10, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Aug. 29, 2014.

On June 4, 2014, Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade, former fixture
installation crew members for special projects, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against
American Greetings Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation (1) failed to pay overtime
wages and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders ("California Law"); (2) failed to make
payments within the required time in violation of California Law;
(3) failed to provide properly itemized wage statements in
violation of the California law; and (4) engaged in unfair
competition in violation of California's Business and Professions
Code. Plaintiffs claim to represent a class of all persons who, at
any time since June 4, 2010, were employed by the Corporation in
California as non-exempt employees and certify subclasses therein
with respect to the California Law violations detailed above. In
addition, plaintiffs claim to assert a nationwide collective
action under the FLSA. For themselves and the proposed classes,
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of general and special
damages, including but not limited to minimum wages, agreed upon
wages and overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, statutory
penalties (including penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), unpaid benefits,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest. In addition,
plaintiffs request disgorgement of all funds the Corporation
acquired by means of any act or practice that constitutes unfair
competition and restoration of such funds to the plaintiffs and
the proposed classes.

The Corporation was served with the Complaint on July 16, 2014 and
on July 31, 2014, the Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss. On
August 3, 2014, prior to the Court ruling on the defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint.
The Corporation vacated its Motion to Dismiss and filed its answer
to the First Amended Complaint on August 21, 2014.


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Zhongmin Wang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Arrowhead Research Corporation, Christopher R.
Anzalone, and Bruce D. Given, Case No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal.,
October 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements about the Company's financial
condition.

Arrowhead Research Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company
whose main business is developing RNA Interference therapeutics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


BARCLAYS PLC: Settles Libor Class Action for $19.98 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Barclays Plc has
agreed to pay nearly $20 million to resolve a U.S. class action
lawsuit accusing the British bank of manipulating the Libor
benchmark interest rate, according to court papers filed on
Oct. 8.

The proposed deal, disclosed in court papers filed in federal
court in New York, is the first such settlement of private
litigation in the United States against various banks accused of
manipulating the London interbank offered rate.  The deal, which
must be approved by a federal judge, follows earlier agreements by
Barclays in 2012 to pay $453 million to settle investigations by
U.S. and British authorities related to Libor.

As part of the $19.98 million settlement, on behalf of futures
contract traders, Barclays has agreed to cooperate with the
plaintiffs, who hope documents and information the bank provides
will aid in resolving claims against other banks.

Christopher Lovell, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the deal "is
a good ice breaker settlement for the class and will provide
helpful cooperation in continuing to prosecute the claims against
the remaining defendants."

Kerrie Cohen, spokeswoman for Barclays, said in a statement that
the bank was "pleased to have reached an agreement to settle in
this matter -- it is a step forward in resolving another legacy
issue."

Libor, which is calculated based on submissions from a panel of
banks, underpins hundreds of trillions of dollars of transactions
and is used to set interest rates on credit cards, student loans
and mortgages.

U.S. and British authorities have charged several individuals and
extracted billions of dollars in fines from banks stemming from
alleged manipulation of Libor and in related rates.

Barclays class-action settlement covers anyone who transacted in
Libor-based Eurodollar futures contracts or options on exchanges
such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange between Jan. 1, 2005, and
May 31, 2010.

It stems from a series of lawsuits filed beginning in 2011 and
consolidated before U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.
Other banks that have faced private lawsuits before Judge Buchwald
over Libor include Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co,
Citigroup Inc and Credit Suisse Group AG, among others.  Judge
Buchwald gave the banks a significant win in March 2013 when she
dismissed a "substantial portion" of claims facing them.

Judge Buchwald at that time denied a motion to dismiss commodity
manipulation claims on Eurodollar futures and options during two
periods, though in June 2014 she tossed claims arising one of
those periods, from May 2008 to April 2009.

The cases are In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, No. 11-md-2262.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued in Fla. Over Sale of Flintstones Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kaplan, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
23789-RNS (S.D. Fla., October 14, 2014) is brought on behalf of a
Florida class defined as all consumers in Florida, who purchased
Flintstones Healthy Brain Support.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in the unfair
and deceptive practices relating to the marketing and sale of the
Flintstones Healthy Brain Support, which offend public policies
and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous and substantially
injurious to consumers.

Bayer Healthcare, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Whippany, New Jersey.  The
Defendant manufactured, distributed, marketed and sold the Product
and created the deceptive brain function representations, which it
caused to be disseminated to consumers throughout the United
States, including Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Sarah Clasby Engel, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
          E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com
                  sengel@harkeclasby.com
                  hbushman@harkeclasby.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Lindsey Gomez-Gray, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, #300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com
                  Lgomez-gray@bffb.com


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Denial of Bid to Compel Doc. Production Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in RUSSEL DOVER, JONATHAN STONE, CODY RANK, and SUZETTE
PERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BRITISH AIRWAYS, PLC (UK), Defendant, NO. 12 CV
5567 (RJD) (MDG), (E.D. N.Y.) allege that fuel surcharges assessed
by British Airways on rewards flights were not actually based on
the cost of fuel, and therefore violated the terms and conditions
of its frequent flyers program. Plaintiffs supported their claim
with a statistical study -- referred to as an "r-squared analysis"
-- which they alleged shows that the fuel surcharges bore little
relationship to changes in the price of fuel.

On December 20, 2013, British Airways served a request for all
documents relating to the r-squared analysis.  Plaintiffs have
indicated that they do not "intend to use the r-squared analysis
moving forward" or "at all" as plaintiffs will base their case on
their testifying experts' analyses of British Airways' data.
British Airways moved to compel these documents on June 25, 2014.
On August 15, 2014, Magistrate Judge Go denied British Airways'
motion, and British Airways appealed.

In a Memorandum and Order entered October 9, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/mNbUybfrom Leagle.com, District
Judge Raymond J. Dearie affirmed Magistrate Judge Go's decision.

British Airways, PLC (UK), Defendant, represented by Richard
Francis Hans -- richard.hans@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP,
Colleen Michelle Carey -- colleen.carey@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP, David Victor Sack -- david.sack@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP, Edwin R. Cortes -- edwin.cortes@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP, Keara M. Gordon -- keara.gordon@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper &
Timothy H. Birnbaum -- timothy.birnbaum@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP.


CANACCORD GENUITY: Sued in N.H. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Cornwell, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Thomas Gutierrez, Richard J. Gaynor, Raja Bal, J. Michael Conaway,
Kathleen A. Cote, Ernest L. Godshalk, Matthew E. Massengill, Mary
Petrovich, Robert E. Switz, Noel G. Watson, Thomas Wroe, Jr.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and  Canaccord
Genuity Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00448 (D.N.H., October 10, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements in its Debt Offering and Equity Offering.

Canaccord Genuity Inc. is a leading manufacturer of materials for
consumer electronics.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Canaccord
Genuity Inc.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Goldman, Sachs & Co. are underwriters
of the Offerings made by the Canaccord Genuity Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Biron L. Bedard, Esq.
      RANSMEIER & SPELLMAN
      One Capitol St, PO Box 600
      Concord, NH 03302-0600
      Telephone: (603) 228-0477
      E-mail: bbedard@ranspell.com

         - and -

      Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BERBARD M. GROSS, PC
      The Wanamaker Building, Suite 450, 100 Penn Square East
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 561-3600
      E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in OT Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that when job
descriptions of a proposed class action overtime case are
variable, they don't have common issues, confirms the Court of
Appeal for Ontario.

In Brown v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce the Court of Appeal
denied certifying yet another "misclassification" class action
claiming overtime pay.

But that doesn't mean the Court of Appeal has closed the door on
these kinds of overtime class actions, says Laura Fric --
lfric@osler.com -- a litigation partner with Osler Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP.

"What matters is the facts of each case," says Ms. Fric.  "The
Court was clear that 'misclassification' overtime claims are not
all doomed to fail as a class action, just as 'off-the-clock'
overtime class actions are not guaranteed to be certified."

Jonathan Ptak -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- partner with the class action
group at Koskie Minsky LLP represented the plaintiffs.  He says
his clients are still considering seeking leave to the Supreme
Court.

"Certainly I'm disappointed by the Court's decision and the
analysis for this case.  We believe it is a case that ought to be
certified," says Mr. Ptak, noting the judge's decision "certainly
leaves the door open for other cases under the right
circumstances."

Mr. Ptak notes there is another class action involving
misclassified investment advisors that has been certified -- Rosen
v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.

At the certification motion, the plaintiffs in Brown had proposed
a class definition consisting of employees who had worked for CIBC
after 1996 and held the job titles of analyst, investment advisor,
or associate investment advisor.

The motion judge concluded that eligibility for overtime pay under
the applicable statutory regime or CIBC's overtime policy could
not be determined on a common basis for all members of the
proposed class.  He further held that, absent a common issue on
the question of eligibility for overtime pay, the claim should not
be certified under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O.
1992, c. 6.

The Divisional Court also refused to certify the action.

The definition of the proposed class changed over the course of
the proceedings.  The description of the proposed class, first put
forward in the Divisional Court and relied on in the Appeal Court
was as follows:

All Ontario current and former CIBC and CIBC World Market
employees, since 1996, who were classified by CIBC or CIBCWM as
level 6 or higher, who held the title "investment advisor"
(otherwise known as financial advisor) or "associate investment
advisor," exclusive of any time period for which they:

(a) held the position of branch manager; or

(b) held the position of assistant branch manager; or,

(c) had deductions taken from earned commissions which were
attributed to an associate investment advisor who was assigned to
him/her.

The Divisional Court held that despite the considerable narrowing
of the proposed class, the determination of eligibility for
overtime pay remained an employee-specific inquiry that was not
amenable to resolution as a common issue.  The court placed
considerable reliance on the analysis in McCracken v. Canadian
National Railway Company.  The Divisional Court also agreed with
the motion judge that none of the other proposed common issues
rendered the claims suitable for certification.

In the Court of Appeal, the plaintiffs argued, first, that the
courts below erred in holding that eligibility for overtime pay
was not a common issue.  They submitted that both the motion judge
and the Divisional Court "fundamentally misapprehended the
relevant evidence and failed to apply the legal principles
governing the common issue assessment required by s. 5(1)(c) of
the CPA."  Second, the appellants submitted that even if
eligibility for overtime pay was not a common issue, there were
other common issues that warranted certification of the action.

Justice David Doherty in his decision said: "Like the courts
below, I think the outcome of the certification motion turned on
s. 5(1)(c) of the CPA and, specifically, whether eligibility for
overtime pay could be certified as a common issue."

"The Court cares about whether there is a common question it can
efficiently and fairly decide," says Mr. Fric.  "If there is not
one, then no one is done any favors by having the claim go
forward."

Mr. Fric also points out that CIBC's own written overtime policy,
which referred to job titles, was a guideline; ultimate
eligibility for overtime pay was determined based on the
individual investment advisor's duties and responsibilities.  It
often matters what the employees do, she adds, not what they are
called.

"While an employer might organize their employees by job title
and/or level for some purposes, the Court's analysis won't stop
with looking at superficially similar job titles or levels.  The
Court will look at what the responsibilities and duties the
employees actually perform."

For employers, Mr. Fric says one takeaway from the decision would
be to address individual circumstances when determining whether
people are eligible for overtime pay or not.


CARPACCIO INC: Removes "Amodei" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Amodei v. Carpaccio Inc., et al.,
Case No. 14-21897 CA 01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Florida,
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
23767-JLK to the proceeding.

The action is brought to recover from the employer a claim for
unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation, as well as an
additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
          1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephanie Pidermann, Esq.
          Katie Gudaitis, Esq.
          LYDECKER DIAZ
          1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 416-3180
          Facsimile: (305) 416-3190
          E-mail: sp@lydeckerdiaz.com
                  kg@lydeckerdiaz.com


CINTAS CORP: Discrimination Claims Remanded to District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling against Cintas
Corporation that effectively remanded hiring discrimination claims
against it back to the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, according to the
company's Oct. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2014.

Cintas is party to additional litigation not considered in the
ordinary course of business, including the litigation discussed
below. Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit,
Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on
May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Serrano
plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in
hiring into various service sales representative positions across
all divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano
lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies. On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in
the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor
of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the Serrano
lawsuit to female applicants for service sales representative
positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan.
Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants for service
sales representative positions outside of the state of Michigan
were dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on
behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of the
state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit. In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all
private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13
individuals it claimed to represent. The EEOC appealed the
District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other
rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. On November 9, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded the claims back
to the District Court. On April 16, 2013, Cintas filed with the
United States Supreme Court a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
seeking to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 7, 2013, the Court
denied Cintas' Petition, thus remanding the claims back to the
District Court consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court's November
9, 2012 decision.


CLS TRANSPORTATION: Calif. Appeals Court Revives Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, Erin Coe and Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports
that a California appellate court has reversed course on its
decision to force an apartment complex manager's Private Attorney
General Act class action claims against her employer into
arbitration, saying the state high court's ruling in Iskanian v.
CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC meant the claims could stay in
court.

Citing the California Supreme Court's conclusions in Iskanian, the
appeals court said on Oct. 7 that it was bound to find that a PAGA
waiver in Apartment Investment and Management Co.'s arbitration
agreement is unenforceable by law, according to the decision.  The
ruling is a turnaround from an earlier reversal of a trial court's
refusal to compel arbitration, according to court records.

The plaintiff, Reyne Marie Ybarra, was seeking a claim under the
PAGA, which covers a wide array of labor issues involving time,
pay and working conditions, according to court records.  But she
wasn't bringing the claims on an individual basis, prompting the
appeals court to cleave to the Iskanian exception for PAGA claims,
according to the decision.

"The dispute here involves the legal question of whether the
parties' arbitration agreement -- specifically, its prohibition of
representative claims -- is enforceable," the panel wrote in the
Oct. 7 ruling.  "Iskanian has now answered this question, and the
answer is no."

Ybarra worked for Aimco from January to December in 2011.  She'd
signed an agreement to take any disputes with her employer to
arbitration, according to court records.

In March 2012, she filed a complaint in state court against Aimco,
alleging a class claim for failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages, a PAGA claim, and a claim under the businesses and
professions code, according to filings.

Aimco tried twice to have the suit removed to federal court, and
Ybarra voluntarily dismissed all but the PAGA claim, according to
the appeals court.

Aimco then filed a motion to compel arbitration, but the trial
court denied it, finding that Ms. Ybarra had demonstrated some
procedural unconscionability because the arbitration agreement was
presented as a condition of employment, and substantive
unconscionability because the PAGA representative action waiver
was unenforceable, court records show.

The appellate court initially reversed that decision, but, in
light of Iskanian, now affirms, the panel wrote on Oct. 7.

The June Iskanian ruling strengthened the enforceability of class
waivers in arbitration agreements in the wake of the U.S. Supreme
Court's ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, but carved out
an exception for PAGA claims.

Limo driver Arshavir Iskanian filed a putative class action
against CLS Transportation in August 2006.  But because Iskanian
had signed an arbitration agreement containing a class waiver, the
trial court sent his individual claims to arbitration, and
California's Second Appellate District affirmed the decision in
2012.

The intermediate appeals court found Concepcion essentially
overruled the California high court's Gentry decision, which had
regularly led to the invalidation of class waivers.  The court
applied Concepcion broadly, also ruling that the right to bring
representative actions under the state's PAGA can be waived.

The case was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which went
on to remand the matter for proceedings.  In an opinion written by
Justice Goodwin Liu, the majority said that an employment
agreement that compelled the waiver of representative PAGA claims
was counter to public policy and unenforceable.

On Sept. 22, CLS urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
California high court's landmark Iskanian ruling, saying the state
high court's decision failed to fully implement the precedent set
by Concepcion.

Ms. Ybarra is represented by Jill Parker and Edwin Aiwazian of
Lawyers for Justice PC, Kevin Isaac Shenkman --
kshenkman@shenkmanhughes.com -- of Shenkman & Hughes, and Petros
Gezoukian.

Aimco is represented by John M. Husband and Christina Gomez of
Holland & Hart LLP and Julie Rae Trotter --
jtrotter@calljensen.com -- of Call & Jensen.

The case is Reyna Marie Ybarra v. Apartment and Investment
Management Co., case number B245901, in the Court of Appeal of the
State of California, Second Appellate District.


COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE: Court Tosses Bid to Amend "Botero" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton denied a motion to amend the
complaint captioned JAIME BOTERO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE
SERVICE INC. and DAWSON A. RUTTER, JR., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12-10428-NMG, (D. Mass.).

This is a putative class action brought by a former chauffeur,
Jaime Botero, who claims that defendant Commonwealth Limousine
Service and its president, Dawson A. Rutter violated the
Massachusetts Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act through
their failure to compensate chauffeurs properly.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to implead as
plaintiffs 14 individuals who filed "opt-in" notices under the
FLSA.

"[P]laintiff will not be permitted to amend their complaint to add
the Section 216(b) "opt-in" individuals as named plaintiffs. To
the extent those individuals wish to raise their claims against
Commonwealth, they must file separate complaints," ruled Judge
Gorton in his October 8, 2014 memorandum & order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/R59tskfrom Leagle.com.

Jaime Botero, Counter Defendant, represented by Kristen M. Hurley
-- khurley@gordonllp.com -- Gordon Law Group & Philip J. Gordon --
pgordon@gordonllp.com -- Gordon Law Group.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Former Installers File Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Blanchette, writing for abc6, reports that five former local
service installers are suing Cox Communications and M & M
Communications for failure to pay wages an unfair labor practices.
Surrounded by members of local workers unions attorney,
Richard Sinapi announced the suit at the Rhode Island State House.

Mr. Sinapi says the workers were told to work extra hours without
recording overtime and were paid as independent contractors while
being taxed as regular employees.

"If you had a choice between feeding your family and not what
would you choose?" Mr. Sinapi said, "You would choose to feed your
family, suck up the exploitation because at least you are making a
paycheck."

A similar suit was brought against Cox and M & M in Connecticut in
2008 and was settled out of court.  The plaintiffs are asking for
back pay, damages and attorney fees.

"You could call this lawsuit 'The Middle Class Fights Back'
because it seeks to strike a blow against unlawful employment
practices that have been diminishing the wages of workers for
years, and have become widespread since the Great Recession."
"Employers who cheat workers of their hard earned wages not only
harm the workers and their families, but also deprive the state of
payroll and income taxes as well as sales tax revenues due to the
diminished purchasing power of middle class families," said
Mr. Sinapi.


DR HORTON: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Bawtinhimer" Case Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bawtinhimer and Geoffrey Fortunato appealed a trial court
order denying class certification of their eight-claim action
against D.R. Horton, Inc. and DHI Mortgage Co., Ltd. The trial
court's order denied class certification on all eight claims in a
single-page analysis, which explained that Appellants' demand for
rescission of all contracts between Appellees and putative class
members rendered the action inappropriate for class litigation.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District affirmed
the ruling in an opinion dated October 10, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/xstuLjfrom Leagle.com.

The case is JONATHAN BAWTINHIMER and GEOFFREY FORTUNATO,
Appellants, v. D.R. HORTON, INC., and DHI MORTGAGE CO., LTD, etc.
Appellees, CASE NO. 5D13-2580.

Abigail Lewis-Fishkin of Silver & Garvett, P.A., Miami, for third-
party Appellee, John A. Siegel.


DRAFTKINGS INC: Has Send Unsolicited Text Message, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Izsak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Draftkings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-07952 (N.D. Ill., October 11, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for sending unsolicited text messages to the
wireless telephones of the Plaintiff and each of the members of
the Class without prior express written consent1 in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Draftkings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


ESPN INC: Accused of Disability Discrimination and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Haylee Ross v. ESPN, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01505-RNC (D. Conn.,
October 14, 2014) alleges disability discrimination, retaliation
and wrongful termination of employment in violation of the laws of
the state of Connecticut.

ESPN, Inc., is a Connecticut corporation with a principle place of
business in Bristol, Connecticut.  ESPN is a U.S. based global
provider of comprehensive sports coverage through cable, satellite
television and Internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed on October 7, 2014, a
class action complaint against EveryWare Global, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The complaint
was filed on behalf of those persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired EveryWare securities between June 18, 2013 and
May 16, 2014 and seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Investors who purchased EveryWare securities during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class action
must move the Court no later than December 8, 2014.  Members of
the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain absent class members in the lawsuit.

The securities class action charges that, throughout the Class
Period, EveryWare made false and/or misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about EveryWare's
business, operations, and prospects.  The complaint alleges that
when this adverse information became known, the Company's share
prices declined significantly.

If you wish to view the complaint, discuss the EveryWare
litigation, or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact Michael Burnett of Scott+Scott at
mburnett@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, or (860) 537-5537, or
visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


FEDEX GROUND: EEOC Sues Over Discrimination Against Deaf Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Trottman and Laura Stevens, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
filed a lawsuit against FedEx Ground Package System Inc., accusing
the shipping company of discriminating against a large class of
deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers and job applicants for
years.

The agency, which filed the lawsuit Sept. 30 but disclosed it on
Oct. 10, alleges that the company, which is part of FedEx Corp. of
Memphis, Tenn., marginalized the workers and hindered their job
performance by failing to provide them with needed accommodations
such as sign language interpretation and equipment.

The EEOC said the company has long been aware that it gets
applications from, and has employed, a significant number of hard-
of-hearing and deaf people.  The EEOC alleges the company violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to
provide disabled applicants and employees with reasonable
accommodations unless the employer can show that to do so would be
an undue hardship.

The lawsuit stems from 19 charges the EEOC received about the
company throughout the country, which the agency consolidated and
investigated.  The EEOC said it filed the suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland after trying to reach
a pre-litigation settlement, but FedEx Ground said the EEOC was
unwilling to try to resolve the charges through discussions.

FedEx Ground denies it violated the law and said it works with
deaf and hard-of-hearing employees "to provide individualized and
reasonable accommodations."

"We are confident that we have complied with the law and intend to
vigorously contest the EEOC's unfounded allegations," the company
said in a statement.

The EEOC alleges that during orientation for new hires and during
mandatory initial tours of its facilities, FedEx Ground didn't
provide American Sign Language interpretation and closed-captioned
training videos.  That failure extended to staff and safety
meetings, the agency said.  The company also "refused" to provide
equipment substitutions and modifications, such as scanners that
vibrate instead of beep, the EEOC says.

One of the EEOC's top priorities under the current administration
is to eliminate barriers in recruitment and hiring, including for
disabled workers.  But the agency has drawn some criticism.
Republican lawmakers said earlier this year that the EEOC has
overreached in its enforcement and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
said it has prioritized punishing and suing employers over
educating and cooperating with them.

The suit against FedEx is the latest in a string of legal setbacks
dogging the company in recent months.  In July, it was indicted on
a charge of transporting illegal prescription drugs. The company
has pleaded not guilty.


FLASHDANCERS: Settles Strippers' Wage Class Action for $4.3 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
the owners of three Manhattan strip clubs have agreed to pay a
whopping $4.3 million settlement to former strippers who brought a
class-action lawsuit saying they were denied fair wages.

Flashdancers, Private Eyes and New York Dolls all signed off on
the agreement submitted to Manhattan Federal Judge Ronald Ellis on
Oct. 6 that attorneys estimate will affect 267 strippers who
worked between 2007 and this year.

The suit, brought by former dancers Melody Flynn and Martina
Antoinette de Truff, charged that the dancers were improperly
classified as independent contractors -- though their behavior was
micromanaged through strict rules like not chewing gum and buying
club-approved "uniforms" from the joints.

Dancers were required "to share their tips with workers who do not
provide customer service, such as 'house moms,' DJs and private
room hostesses," court papers said.

An attorney for the owners of the jiggle joints did not respond to
a request for comment.  Attempts to reach the dancers who brought
the suit were unsuccessful.


FLORIDA: Jury Awards $20.7MM to Homeowners in Citrus Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that a jury
has awarded homeowners in Orange County $20.7 million in a class
action lawsuit over destruction of healthy citrus trees under the
state's citrus canker eradication program.

The Florida Department of Agriculture destroyed more than 60,000
citrus trees at 18,280 Orange County homes between July 2002 and
January 2006.  Later, a court finding held the state liable for
the program and ordered it to pay full compensation.

Late on Oct. 6, a 12-person jury decided the average value of the
local trees was $344.16.  The state had argued that the trees were
worth significantly less.  The jury also decided that the
Department of Agriculture is not entitled to a credit for WalMart
gift cards that were issued and used by some of the affected
Orange County homeowners.

Orange County Circuit Judge Patricia Doherty presided over the
compensation case. Lead counsel representing homeowners was Robert
C. Gilbert.

Mr. Gilbert said the state acknowledged that the state destroyed
the trees "in an effort to protect Florida's commercial citrus
industry."  But he said the state tried to deny thousands of
Florida homeowners full compensation for their private property.

The Orange County case was only one of many cases decided
throughout the state.  The state has appealed some of the
judgments.


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Removes "Clark" Class Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Clark v. Gander Mountain Company,
Case No. BC556421, was removed from the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Western Division.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-07945 to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff Brenda Clark alleges that in March 2014, while in
California and using a "wireless" telephone, she placed a call to
Gander Mountain.  She contends that Gander Mountain violated the
California Penal Code by recording the alleged call without
advising her that it would be recorded.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  dreid@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Helen B. Kim, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282-2500
          Facsimile: (310) 282-2501
          E-mail: hkim@thompsoncoburn.com


GFI GROUP: Being Sold for Too Little to CME Group, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Szarek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GFI Group Inc., Colin Heffron, Michael Gooch, Marisa
Cassoni, Frank Fanzilli, Jr., Richard Magee, CME Group Inc.,
Commodore Acquisition Corp., and Commodore Acquisition LLC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08228 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014) is brought on
behalf of the public stockholders of GFI Group against its Board
of Directors for their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of their attempt to merge the Company with CME Group
for an unfair price, and as a result of an unfair process.

GFI Group is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
The Company provides brokerage and trade execution services,
clearing services, market data and trading platform and other
software products to institutional customers in markets for a
range of fixed income, financial, equity and commodity
instruments.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

CME Group is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.  CME Group, through its futures exchanges and clearing
houses, serves the risk management and investment needs of
customers around the globe.  Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 are
Delaware corporations, wholly owned by CME Group that were created
for the purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          Donald J. Enright
          1101 30th St., NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Third Circuit Sends Paxil Cases to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that cases alleging that GlaxoSmithKline's antidepressant drug
Paxil caused birth defects that have been in limbo between state
and federal court are to be heard in state court, the Third
Circuit has ruled.

Last year, the appeals court settled a split among district courts
when it ruled that GSK is a corporate citizen of Delaware, not
Pennsylvania, which effectively preserved GSK's ability to remove
to federal court cases filed against it in Pennsylvania state
courts based on diversity jurisdiction.

That ruling left a narrow swath of cases -- those that had fallen
on the Pennsylvania side of the original split and had been
removed from the state court in which they were initially filed to
federal court, then remanded back to state court when the district
judge held that GSK was a Pennsylvania company -- in limbo between
the two venues when GSK sought to have them removed a second time
to federal court in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit's ruling that GSK is, indeed, a Delaware company
last year in Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham.

Following that decision, issued in June 2013, district court
judges began splitting on the question of whether a second removal
based on Johnson was permissible.

In December, two district court judges certified for interlocutory
appeal the question of whether a defendant can remove a case based
on diversity jurisdiction for a second time after more than a year
has passed since the original filing.

The Third Circuit took up the appeal the following month, heard
arguments Sept. 10, and issued its opinion just short of a month
later.

"If a party in a pending case could re-remove each time it
received a favorable ruling in another case, re-removal could be a
means to disrupt the proceedings in the pending case," Judge Patty
Shwartz wrote in her opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge
panel.

She was joined by Judge D. Brooks Smith and Senior Judge Jane
Richards Roth.

The rule governing removal, Section 1446(b) of Title 28 of the
U.S. Code, has two paragraphs: the first sets a 30-day deadline to
file for removal after the defendant has been served and the
second allows for removal for up to a year after the initial
filing if there is an intervening order that makes the case
removable when it hadn't been initially.

GSK had argued the first paragraph wouldn't bar its second attempt
at removal because it doesn't include a time limit on successive
removals.

"Although paragraph one does not expressly forbid successive
removals, it does expressly forbid untimely removals," Judge
Shwartz said.  "Here, the relevant notice of removal was untimely:
It was filed over a year-and-a-half after GSK was served with the
initial pleading, namely the state court complaint," she said,
referring to the original filing in the fall of 2011 and the
second removal filed after Johnson in the middle of 2013.

"Because GSK's second removal occurred more than 30 days after its
receipt of the initial pleading, it did not comply with the first
paragraph and GSK cannot remove on that basis," Judge Shwartz
said.

Regarding the second paragraph, the appeals court held that its
decision in Johnson doesn't qualify as an intervening order.
As GSK pointed out, Judge Shwartz said, "Our court has recognized
a narrow exception to the general rule that orders issued in other
cases do not qualify as a Section 1446(b) 'order,'" referring to
the Third Circuit's decision in Doe v. American Red Cross, where
"the Red Cross removed a case on the ground that its congressional
charter conferred federal question jurisdiction.  The district
court disagreed and remanded the case.  Next, the Supreme Court
decided S.G. v. American National Red Cross, which held that the
Red Cross's charter conferred federal question jurisdiction and
gave the 'specific and unequivocal direction that the Red Cross
[was] "thereby authorized to removal from state to federal court
of any state-law action it is defending."'"

The Red Cross then re-removed its case within 30 days of the
issuance of S.G., the plaintiffs moved for remand arguing that
S.G. wouldn't qualify as an order, and the court held that it
would count as an order.

"But it included an important qualification," Judge Shwartz said.
"To qualify as an 'order' under Section 1446(b), a court decision
in another case 'must be sufficiently related to a pending case.'"
A given decision must meet several criteria in order to be
considered "sufficiently related," according to the opinion.

"Johnson is no S.G.," Judge Shwartz said.  "Johnson rejected the
reasoning that led to the remand of this case, as it held that GSK
is a Delaware citizen, but it did not include the explicit
authorization to remove other pending cases."

There are nine cases, including this one, that have been in limbo
between state and federal courts.

The Third Circuit's opinion "tracked our briefing, pretty much, to
a T," said Adam Peavy -- apeavy@bpblaw.com -- of Bailey Peavy
Bailey in Houston.
Mr. Peavy is representing the plaintiffs in their trial court
actions.  "We think they got it right," he said.
Howard Bashman, who handled the appeal for the plaintiffs, also
said he was "pleased" with the opinion, especially since the court
ruled so promptly.

"GSK is disappointed in the court's decision but this decision
potentially impacts only a very small number of cases.  GSK will
continue to vigorously defend these cases in whichever court they
are litigated," said Robert Perry, spokesman for GSK, in a
prepared statement.

Asked if the company planned any further appeals, Perry said, "GSK
is still analyzing the opinion, and we will weigh our legal
options accordingly."

Lisa Blatt -- Lisa.Blatt@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter in
Washington, D.C., argued on behalf of GSK and couldn't be
reached for comment.


GOVT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE: Ruling in "Harper" Case Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case CANDACE HARPER, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and LISA
HOYT, MARK ANTHONY TURNER, ALLISON M. AKERS, Plaintiffs, v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, AKA GEICO, Defendant-
Appellee, NO. 13-4479-CV, Ms. Harper appealed an award of summary
judgment in favor of the Government Employees Insurance Company
(GEICO), holding as a matter of law that appellants fall within
the administrative exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 213(a).

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in an opinion
entered October 10, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/6w65Pqfrom Leagle.com, vacated the judgment of the
district court granting summary judgment, and remanded the case
for further proceedings consistent with its order.

ERIC HEMMENDINGER -- eh@shawe.com -- Shawe & Rosenthal LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland (Teresa D. Teare -- teare@shawe.com -- Shawe &
Rosenthal LLP, Barry I. Levy -- barry.levy@rivkin.com -- Kenneth
A. Novikoff -- ken.novikoff@rivkin.com -- Scott Green --
scott.green@rivkin.com -- Rivkin Radler, LLP, on the brief), for
Appellees.


GREENWAY HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. Greenway Health, LLC f/k/a Sage Software Healthcare a/k/a
Vitera Healthcare Solutions and John Does 1-10, Case No. 8:14-cv-
02593-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., October 14, 2014) challenges the
Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc., is an Ohio corporation.

Greenway Health, LLC, is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Tampa, Florida, and was formerly known as
Sage Software Healthcare, and is also currently known as Vitera
Healthcare Solutions.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
not presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 436-0598
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


GT ADVANCED: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Elizabeth Holland, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Richard J. Gaynor, and
Kanwardev Raja Singh Bal, Case No. 1:14-cv-00447 (D.N.H., October
10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, and internal controls over
financial reporting.

GT Advanced Technologies Inc. produces materials and equipment for
the solar, light emitting diode, and electronics industries,
including sapphire materials which were the subject of the Apple
Contract.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of GT
Advanced Technologies Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Mallory, Esq.
      MALLORY & FRIEDMAN, PLLC
      3 North Spring Street
      Concord, NH 03301
      Telephone: (603) 228-2277
      E-mail: mark@mallloryandfriedman.com

         - and -

      Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
      Adam M. Apton, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 337-1567
      E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
              aapton@zlk.com


H & F ATHLETICS: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Otilio Rivera and Tomasa Rivera, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. H & F Athletics, Inc. d/b/a Carefree
Racquet Club, and George Haber, and Alan Fischl, both in their
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-05953
(E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants owns and operates an indoor tennis facility in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:'

      Jeffrey Douglas, Esq.
      Borrelli & Associates PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: jd@employmentlawyernewyork.com


HARBOR BELT: District Judge Tosses Reconsideration Motion
---------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Philip P. Simon denied Indiana Harbor Belt
Railroad Company's Motion for Reconsideration in the case
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES DIVISION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Plaintiff, v. INDIANA
HARBOR BELT RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:13 CV 18-PPS-
APR (N.D. Ind.), in an Oct. 7, 2014 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/h38SEXfrom Leagle.com.

Harbor Belt asked Judge Simon to reconsider his ruling partially
denying its motion to dismiss.  In that ruling, the judge held
that Plaintiff Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters had
associational standing to pursue injunctive remedies on its claims
of racial discrimination and harassment in the workplace against
the railroad.

Lamont Williams, Movant, is represented:

     Deidre L. Monroe
     201 E 5th Ave, Ste A
     Gary, IN 46402-1300
     Lake County
     Tel No: (219) 881-9484


HIGHER ONE: Settles Debit Card Class Action for $15 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
final $15 million settlement has been reached in a consolidated
class action alleging Higher One engaged in predatory practices in
issuing debit cards to college students, often without their
permission, and charging exorbitant fees.

The financial services company, which is a major player in the
college and university market, has also agreed to change business
practices that drew criticism from Congress.

According to a motion for final settlement approval, filed Oct. 6
in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Higher One
will establish a $15 million fund from which a class estimated at
3.7 million Higher One account holders can request relief. The
agreement also earmarks about $4.5 million for plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses.

In Re: Higher One OneAccount Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, which consolidated several proposed class actions in
five states, Higher One was alleged to have engaged in deals with
colleges and universities through which student financial aid
payments were disbursed into debit-card accounts set up by Higher
One.

The plaintiffs alleged Higher One automatically established the
accounts, without obtaining their consent, and deceptively
discouraged students from later opting out.  The company also
allegedly imposed fees substantially higher than banks for such
things as using ATMs.  Complaints about the company's policies led
to a congressional inquiry and an $11 million settlement with the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for unlawfully charging fees
for overdrafts.

As part of the settlement, Higher One has agreed to modify its
practices, primarily by eliminating fees for such things as
delinquent accounts, lack of documentation, insufficient funds and
overdraft fees.  The company states the termination of the fees
will cost the company $66 million in revenue.

Higher One also agreed to require students to consent to the fee
schedule when opening an account, the settlement memorandum
states.

Higher One's counsel include attorneys from the firms Butler,
Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada; Wiggin and Dana; Stites &
Harbison; and Beers Anderson Jackson Patty & Fawal.

Plaintiffs' attorneys include those from The Simon Law Firm; Tycko
& Zavareei; Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah; and The Simon Law
Firm.


HOME DEPOT: Removes "Burris" Breach-Related Suit to E.D. Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Burris v. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Case No. 14-CI-03409, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Fayette County, Commonwealth of Kentucky to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Lexington).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00396-KKC to the
proceeding.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff Todd Burris purports to seek damages
on behalf of an alleged class including "all residents in the
State of Kentucky whose credit or debit card information and/or
whose personal information was compromised as a result of the Home
Depot data breach first announced on September 8, 2014."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Austin Mehr, Esq.
          Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          Bartley K. Hagerman, Esq.
          MEHR FAIRBANKS TRIAL LAWYERS
          201 West Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, Kentucky 40507
          Telephone: (859) 225-3731
          Facsimile: (859) 225-3830
          E-mail: amehr@austinmehr.com
                  pgf@austinmehr.com
                  edp@austinmehr.com
                  bkh@austinmehr.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel E. Danford, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          250 West Main Street, Suite 2300
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 226-2300
          Facsimile: (859) 253-9144
          E-mail: ddanford@stites.com


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Bid to Junk "Silsby v. Icahn" Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the securities case Silsby v. Icahn et al.
remains pending, according to Icahn Enterprises L.P.'s's Oct. 10,
2014, Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

On March 28, 2012, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, entitled Silsby v. Icahn et al.
Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc.
("Dynegy") and certain of its directors. As initially filed, the
action purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of
Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between September
2011 and March 2012.  The Complaint alleges violations of the
federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making false and
misleading statements in securities filings which statements
artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The individual
defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy.
Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount. Subsequent
to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for bankruptcy, and a
U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of Reorganization.
Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has filed an amended
complaint that purports to be a class action on behalf of Dynegy
shareholders who acquired their securities between July 10, 2011
and March 9, 2012.  The company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the claims and filed a motion to dismiss on July 19,
2013. At present, the motion to dismiss the case is pending.


INDEED INC: Court Amends Order Approving "Rosh" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte issued an amended order granting
approval of a settlement in the action captioned ADAM ROSH,
individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on
behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. INDEED, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 5:13-CV-03751-RMW, (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Whyte's October 9, 2014 order, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/REESzafrom Leagle.com, provides that the putative
California class claims, specifically the Second, Third, Fourth,
and Fifth Claims for Relief and the associated portions of the
requests in the Class and Collective Action Complaint, are
dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal does not affect the
remainder of the Complaint, which will be resolved and dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to the settlement nor does it affect the
scope of the definition of Released Claims.

Indeed has agreed to pay Class Counsel their reasonable attorney
fees, subject to these modifications of the terms of the
Stipulation, to which the Settling Parties have stipulated: (a)
the Maximum Amount for Payments to Participating Claimants will be
$651,750, instead of $644,000, and (b) the Maximum Amount for
Attorney Fee Payments will be 25% of the Maximum Settlement Amount
after subtracting allocated litigation and claims administration
costs and the incentive award, i.e., the Maximum Amount for
Attorney Fee Payments will be $217,250. Per the terms of the
Stipulation, the "Actual Amount for Attorney Fee Payments" will
mean the Maximum Amount for Attorney Fee Payments multiplied by
the percentage of the Maximum Amount for Payments to Participating
Claimants that is actually claimed and therefore must be paid to
the Settlement Class Members, i.e., the claims rate or claims
percentage. Indeed has also agreed to pay Class Counsel allowable
litigation costs and associated litigation expenses in the matter
up to the maximum gross amount of $10,000, and Indeed has agreed
to pay an enhancement award in the total maximum gross amount of
$1,000 to the Plaintiff to reimburse him for his unique services
and execution of a general release.

KATHERINE M. FORSTER -- Katherine.Forster@mto.com -- MUNGER,
TOLLES & OLSON LLP, Los Angeles, CA. Attorneys for Defendant
INDEED, INC.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in "Wallace" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntraLinks Holdings, Inc., et al., seek permission from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to take an
interlocutory appeal from the September 30, 2014 order entered by
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York certifying a class in the lawsuit commenced by William D.
Wallace.

The issues presented are:

   (1) Whether the Appeals Court should grant interlocutory
       review of the District Court's erroneous holding that,
       although "only those who can trace their shares to [an]
       allegedly misleading registration statement have standing
       [to bring] a Section 11 claim" under the Securities Act of
       1933, even if such tracing must be proven on a plaintiff-
       by-plaintiff basis, tracing is exclusively "a merits issue
       that the court need not consider at the class
       certification stage"; and

   (2) Whether the Appeals Court should grant interlocutory
       review of the District Court's erroneous holding that,
       when a plaintiff seeks to invoke the "fraud-on-the-market"
       theory of reliance, "arguments concerning the proper class
       period belong more properly to the discussion of damages,
       not class certification."

The underlying lawsuit is a putative securities class action
brought against the IntraLinks Defendants, certain current and
former independent directors of IntraLinks, and the underwriters
of IntraLinks' April 6, 2011 Secondary Offering.  The Plaintiff
brings claims under the Exchange Act, for alleged fraud, and for
alleged misrepresentations in the registration statement and
prospectus for IntraLinks' Secondary Offering.

The other Defendants-Appellants are Andrew Damico, Anthony
Plesner, and Patrick J. Wack, Jr., Brian J. Conway, Peter Gyenes,
Thomas Hale, Habib Kairouz, Robert C. McBride and Harry D. Taylor,
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Jefferies & Company, Inc.,
Lazard Capital Markets LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and Pacific Crest Securities LLC.

Petitioners Intralinks Holdings, Incorporated, Andrew Damico,
Anthony Plesner and Patrick J. Wack, Jr., are represented by:

          Mark Holland, Esq.
          Abigail K. Hemani, Esq.
          Mary K. Dulka, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          The New York Times Building
          620 8th Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 813-8800
          Facsimile: (212) 355-3333
          E-mail: markholland@goodwinprocter.com
                  ahemani@goodwinprocter.com
                  mdulka@goodwinprocter.com

Petitioners Brian J. Conway, Peter Gyenes, Thomas Hale, Habib
Kairouz, Robert C. McBride and Harry D. Taylor are represented by:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          James R. Carroll, Esq.
          David S. Clancy, Esq.
          Christopher G. Clark, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-2628
          Facsimile: (917) 777-2628
          E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com
                  james.carroll@skadden.com
                  david.clancy@skadden.com
                  anthony.clark@skadden.com

Petitioners Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Jefferies &
Company, Incorporated, Lazard Capital Markets LLC, Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Incorporated and
Pacific Crest Securities LLC are represented by:

          Jonathan Polkes, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: jonathan.polkes@weil.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension
Fund and William D. Wallace are represented by:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          190 South LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 357-0370
          Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
          E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

The appellate case is captioned Wallace v. Intralinks Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-03836, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The class action lawsuit is
Wallace v. Intralinks Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-CV-
08861, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


KEY PROGRAM: $430,500 Settlement in Isiaho Case Get Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman granted final approval of a
class and collective action settlement in REDEMPTER ISIAHO AND
TERESSA WILLIAMS on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
who are similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KEY PROGRAM, INC.,
WILLIAM LYTTLE, WESLEY J. COTTER, and MICHAEL KAN, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-30137-KPN, (D. Mass.).

The court found that a $430,500.00 settlement amount established
pursuant to the Settlement is reasonable and adequate.

The court approved an enhancement award in the amount of $9,000 to
each of the Named Plaintiffs/Class Representatives.

Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses
for class administration in the amount of $129,150 was granted.

"This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice, with each party to
bear his or her own costs, except as set forth herein, and with
this court retaining exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the
Settlement, including disbursement of the Settlement Amount,"
wrote Judge Neiman in his October 9, 2014 order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/2vgvo6from Leagle.com.

Michael Kan, Defendant, represented by James A. Musgrave --
jmusgrave@rcfp.com -- Roberts, Carroll, Feldstein & Peirce.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Lawsuit in New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2014, Zubair Patel, Alan Nguyen and Carmen Valentino
filed separate, putative class action complaints in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and certain of its
officers, according to the company's Oct. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 27, 2014.

Each complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the
Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses.


LA BAGUETTE: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Hernandez" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Hernandez on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. La Baguette North, Inc.,
Guillermina Uribe, individually, and Alejandro Lopez,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07942 (N.D. Ill., October 10,
2014), is brought against the Defendants failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of producing and
distributing baked goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL, LTD.
      Two Prudential Plaza, 180 N Stetson, Suite 3150
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 540-1230
      E-mail: amartin@cslaw.com
              acaffarelli@cslaw.com


LONDON SILVER: "Nalven" Class Suit Consolidated in Antitrust MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Nalven v. The London Silver
Market Fixing, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-04591, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square).  The Southern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-08189-VEC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the proceeding captioned In re:
London Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-
02573-VEC.

The actions in the multidistrict litigation share factual issues
arising from largely similar allegations that the Defendant Banks
conspired to manipulate the prices of silver and silver
derivatives through their membership on The London Silver Fixing,
Ltd., a panel that meets privately on a daily basis to determine
the market price of silver.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Anthony Barile, III, Esq.
          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: pbarile@gelaw.com
                  lnussbaum@gelaw.com

Defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A., is represented by:

          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          Leah Friedman, Esq.
          Matthew James Galvin, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 277-4001
          E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com
                  leah.friedman@freshfields.com
                  matthew.galvin@freshfields.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Coleman, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER LLP
          700 13th Street NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 777-4500
          Facsimile: (202) 777-4555
          E-mail: tim.coleman@freshfields.com


LONDON SILVER: Two Antitrust Suits Consolidated in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized two similar lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Foley Square):

   (1) Nalven v. The London Silver Market Fixing, Ltd., et al.,
       Case No. 1:14-04591, filed in the U.S. District Court for
       the Eastern District of New York; and

   (2) Nicholson v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al.,
       Case No. 1:14-05682, filed in the U.S. District Court for
       the Southern District of New York.

The proceeding is captioned In re: London Silver Fixing, Ltd.,
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02573-VEC.

The actions share factual issues arising from largely similar
allegations that the Defendant Banks conspired to manipulate the
prices of silver and silver derivatives through their membership
on The London Silver Fixing, Ltd., a panel that meets privately on
a daily basis to determine the market price of silver.

The case is assigned to the Honorable Valerie E. Caproni, who is
already presiding over a somewhat related MDL -- MDL No. 2548, In
re: Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading
Litigation -- which involves allegations that the Defendant Banks
conspired to manipulate the prices of gold and gold derivatives.

HSBC, Deutsche Bank, and Scotiabank are also defendants in MDL No.
2548, and, indeed, previously argued to the judge presiding over
the Nicholson action that the action was related to the MDL No.
2548 cases before Judge Caproni, and ought to be referred to her.
In addition, the moving Nalven plaintiff, the Nicholson plaintiff,
and plaintiff in the Eastern District of New York potential tag-
along action all have cases in MDL No. 2548, and are represented
by the same counsel as here.

Plaintiff J. Scott Nicholson is represented by:

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Esq.
          Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
          Raymond Peter Girnys, Esq.
          Scott Vincent Papp, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          White Plains Plaza
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  ghorn@lowey.com
                  pstphillip@lowey.com
                  rgirnys@lowey.com
                  spapp@lowey.com
                  vbriganti@lowey.com

Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by:

          Amy Wilkie Ray, Esq.
          Charles F. Rule, Esq.
          Joseph J. Bial, Esq.
          CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT, LLP
          700 6th Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 862-2358
          Facsimile: (202) 862-2400
          E-mail: amy.ray@cwt.com
                  rick.rule@cwt.com
                  joseph.bial@cwt.com

               - and -

          Peter Joseph Isajiw, Esq.
          CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
          One World Financial Center
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 504-6579
          Facsimile: (212) 504-6666
          E-mail: peter.isajiw@cwt.com

Defendants HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank U.S.A. N.A., HSBC Holdings plc
and John Doe Nos. 1-50 are represented by:

          Leah Friedman, Esq.
          Matthew James Galvin, Esq.
          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRIEDFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 277-4001
          E-mail: leah.friedman@freshfields.com
                  matthew.galvin@freshfields.com
                  michael.lacovara@freshfields.com

               - and -

          Timothy Joseph Coleman, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NM
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 777-4560
          Facsimile: (202) 777-4555
          E-mail: tim.coleman@freshfields.com

Defendant The Bank of Nova Scotia is represented by:

          Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-3269
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
          E-mail: ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com


MADNI MART: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Flores, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Madni Mart U.S.A., Inc., Lasani
International, Inc., Ali Akbar, individually, Nawaz A. Khan,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07951 (N.D. Ill., October 11,
2014), is brought against the Defendants failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a convenience store in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: 10 Ex-Players File Class Action Over Image Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Gang, writing for Daily News Journal, reports that ten
former college football and basketball players -- including former
Smyrna football standout Rod Wilks -- have filed a federal class-
action lawsuit arguing that their images were improperly used
without their permission.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court on Oct. 3 in Nashville,
targets ESPN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and eight NCAA athletic
conferences, including the SEC. The former players also are suing
licensing companies and television networks with ties to the
athletic conferences.

The players argue that the television networks, athletic
conferences and licensing agencies conspired with one another to
exploit rules forbidding student athletes from "competing in the
marketplace for the value of their rights of publicity," according
to the suit.

In particular, the players say the form they signed giving the
NCAA permission to use their name or picture to "generally
promote" sporting events has been exploited.  They argue the term
isn't defined and therefore does not give the NCAA or any third
party the authority to sell or license their names or images,
according to the court filing.

The group is not suing the schools where they played, including
Vanderbilt University, Tennessee State and the University of
Tennessee.

Those filing the lawsuit:

   * Javon Marshall, of Nashville, played on Vanderbilt
University's football team from 2010 to 2013.

   * Eric Samuels, of Eustis, Fla., played on Vanderbilt's
football team from 2009 to 2012. Samuels also was a defensive
back.

   * Sean Parker, of Los Angeles, was a member of the University
of Washington football team from 2010 to 2013.

   * Patrick Miller, of Chicago, played basketball for Tennessee
State University from 2010 to 2013.

   * Steven Clarke, of Nashville, played football at Vanderbilt
from 2010 to 2013.

   * Rod Wilks, of Knoxville, was a member of the University of
Tennessee football team from 2009 to 2012.

   * Byron Moore, also of Knoxville, played for the Vols from 2011
to 2013.

   * Chaz Moore, of Chattanooga, played football at the University
of Tennessee at Chattanooga from 2010 to 2013.

   * Marlon Walls, of Memphis, played for the Vols from 2009 to
2013.

   * Chris Conner, of Nashville, was a member of the University of
Maryland Eastern Shore basketball team from 2008 to 2009.

The case is similar to one filed by former UCLA basketball player
Ed O'Bannon.  In August, a federal judge in California ruled that
NCAA limits on what Bowl Subdivision football and Division I
basketball players can receive for playing sports violates
antitrust laws.

That case is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Separately, the NCAA and Electronic Arts received preliminary
approval for a $60 million settlement to resolve claims that
student athletes' images were used in video games without their
permission.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Sued in Illinois Over Defective MaxxForce Engines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gettysburg Auto Transport, LLC, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Navistar International Corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08006 (N.D. Ill., October 14, 2014) concerns the
emission system designed into Navistar MaxxForce Advanced EGR
diesel engines sold in Navistar commercial trucks.

The Plaintiff contends that the MaxxForce Engines at issue are all
manufactured or distributed by Navistar and suffer from
undisclosed design and manufacturing defects that cause them to
repeatedly malfunction and fail diesel engine exhaust emissions
standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Gettysburg Auto Transport, LLC, is a limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Orrtanna, Pennsylvania.

Navistar International Corporation, is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Lisle, Illinois.  Navistar designed,
manufactured, delivered, supplied, marketed, leased and sold for
profit the MaxxForce Engines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          Erik E. Sardina, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
                  esardina@litedepalma.com


O'BRIEN AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Wage Theft, Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hana Kim, writing for Q13 Fox News, reports that a former car
salesman says his employer shortchanged his commission and used
racial slurs in the workplace. Now a class-action lawsuit is
looming and it could affect dozens of others if the plaintiff
wins.

The lawsuit is against O'Brien Auto Group, an auto empire, which
has dealerships all over Western Washington, including Tacoma,
Kirkland and Seattle.

It was business as usual outside Toyota of Kirkland on Oct. 7
despite a giant lawsuit claiming wage theft and discrimination.

"I told them to stop it, but they didn't," plaintiff Ruhul Kayshel
said.

Mr. Kayshel, a former salesmen, says the dealership stole up to
30% of his commissions on every car sale.

"There are hundreds of employees being cheated hundreds of dollar
per car sale," attorney Stephen Teller said.

Mr. Kayshel says the wage theft is also happening to his co-
workers and has now filed a class-action lawsuit against Toyota of
Kirkland and its owner, Michael O'Brien.

O'Brien is a former Seahawks player who owns a number of car
dealerships across Western Washington.

Mr. Kayshel has also filed a separate lawsuit claiming racial
discrimination; he alleges a manager routinely used racial slurs.
When he complained to upper management Mr. Kayshel claims he got
no response.  Instead he received a text message terminating his
employment.

"I was so upset and depressed," Mr. Kayshel said.

"It's pretty blatant retaliation," Teller said.

No one inside the dealership could talk about the lawsuit. Q13 Fox
News also reached out to O'Brien but his attorney said they also
had no comment since they saw the lawsuit for the first time on
Oct. 7.

"If I don't take the initiative this is going to keep on going,"
Mr. Kayshel said.

Mr. Kayshel is the only representative of the class-action lawsuit
as of Oct. 7.  He is not disclosing exactly how much he is seeking
in damages.

The O'Brien Auto Group has 20 days to respond to the suit.


OEY TRADING: Recalls Monica Snack Products
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           OEY Trading Co.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9302

Affected products:

   -- 410 g. Monica Superior Quality Layer Snack Special Original
      flavor with all codes where milk is not declared on the
      label;

   -- 410 g. Monica Superior Quality Layer Snack Chocolate Flavour
      with all codes where milk is not declared on the label


OLSON MEAT: Recalls 160 Lbs. of Pork Blood Product
--------------------------------------------------
Olson Meat, an Orland, Calif. establishment, is recalling
approximately 160 pounds of pork blood product that was produced
without the benefit of federal inspection and outside regular
inspection hours, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The product subject to recall:

1 gallon jugs of "Olson Meat Company, Inc., Pork Blood With
Vinegar"

Jugs and cases contain a generic label with safe handling
instructions (keep refrigerated or frozen) affixed to the handle
of the jug and bear the establishment number "EST. 21799" inside
the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were produced Sept.9
and were shipped frozen on Sept. 10 to a single retailer in
Hawaii.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during routine in-plant
verification activities.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Grant
Wyler at (530) 865-4641.  Media with questions about the recall
should contact Grant Wyler or James Olson at (530) 865-4641.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


PAB TWO: Recalls Bed Bug Heat Treatment Systems
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
JAB Distributors dba PAB Two LLC, of Wheeling, Ill., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,700 bed bug heat treatment system.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The flexible, electrical conducting strip at the top of the
heating element can break at the corners after multiple setups,
posing an electrical fire hazard.

PAB Two has received four reports of the flexible, electrical
conducting strip breaking, including one report of a fire in a
unit and three reports of units sparking.  No injuries or
significant property damage were reported.

The recall involves the ThermalStrike Expedition bed bug heat
treatment system.  Consumers place items inside the system to kill
bed bugs that may be in the items.  The system is made of white,
corrugated plastic and has four pieces: a base, a folding four-
panel wall, a lid and a temperature sensor.  The base and the
walls are held together by hook and loop fasteners.  When
assembled, the unit is a box 31 inches long by 18 inches wide by
24 inches tall.  The rear of the base has a power cord and the
female connector of a power cable attached.  The insides of the
wall panels have a heating element composed of black heating film
connected to a white, flexible electrical conducting strip.  The
male connector of the power cable is attached to the conducting
strip and protrudes from the rear wall panel.  The system is
energized when the power cables are joined and the power cord is
plugged into an electrical outlet.  The words "ThermalStrike" and
"Bed Bug Heat Treatment" are on the front of the unit.
ThermalStrike is also printed on the heating element on the
interior of the unit.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/H14qm1

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Bedbug
Central, Bedbug Supply, Protect-a-bed, Univar, pest control
companies and pest control product distributors nationwide and
online at Amazon from December 2011 through May 2014 for between
$189 and $199.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the Expedition
and register their unit online to receive an ASC Diagnostic Unit
free of charge.  The diagnostic unit will immediately turn off the
system when it detects a break in the conducting strip.


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Removes "Perez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Perez v. Payless Shoesource, Inc.,
Case No. 14-20975 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court in Miami Dade County to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23766-CMA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Todd Sidney Aidman, Esq.
          Lavern J. Wilson, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON
          101 E Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 261-7840
          Facsimile: (813) 261-7899
          E-mail: taidman@fordharrison.com
                  lwilson@fordharrison.com


POLYCEL STRUCTURAL: Removes MPG Suit to Alabama District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled MPG Tent Rentals v. Polycel
Structural Foam Inc., Case No. CV-2014-903857, was removed from
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01969-RDP to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel Mark Hill, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SAM HILL, LLC
          265 Riverchase Parkway East Suite 202
          Hoover, AL 35244
          Telephone: (205) 985-5099
          Facsimile: (205) 985-5093
          E-mail: sam@samhilllaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kimberly R. Ward, Esq.
          Tammy L. Baker, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 870
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 332-3122
          Facsimile: (205) 332-3131
          E-mail: kimberly.ward@jacksonlewis.com
                  BakerT@jacksonlewis.com


PPL CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Galdo, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. PPL corporation and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Case
No. 5:14-cv-05831-JS (E.D. Pa., October 14, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
the Plaintiff and proposed class members overtime premium for
hours worked over 40 per week.

PPL Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporate entity.  PPL Electric
Utilities Corporation is wholly-owned subsidiary of PPL
Corporation and is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania
(Lehigh County).  Both companies are headquartered in Allentown,
Pennsylvania (Lehigh County).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


PRICELINE GROUP: Sued Over Illegally Collection of Resort Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Soule, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Priceline Group Inc., Marriott International,
Inc., and Doe Defendants 1-50, Case No. 1:14-cv-00462 (D. Haw.,
October 10, 2014), arises from the Defendants' unfair and
unconscionable assessment and collection of resort fees.

Marriott International, Inc. owns and operates 3,900 hotels around
the world.

The Priceline Group Inc. acts as a broker or agent for hotels,
airlines, and other direct travel services providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Francis Perkin, Esq.
      Brandee J.K. Faria, Esq.
      PERKIN & FARIA LLLC
      700 Bishop Street, Suite 1111
      Honolulu, HI 96813
      Telephone: (808) 523-2300
      E-mail: perkin@perkinlaw.com
              bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com

         - and -

      James J. Bickerton, Esq.
      BICKERTON DANG LLP
      745 Fort Street, Suite 801
      Honolulu, HI 96813
      Telephone: (808) 599-3811
      E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com

         - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900


PULLIN LAW: Faces "Moskowitz" Injury Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Craig Moskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pullin Law Firm, P.C., Case No. 2:14-cv-
06010 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014) asserts personal injury claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Jacob Fogelman, Esq.
          FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN LLC
          305 Madison Ave., Suite 936
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (617) 559-1530
          Facsimile: (617) 505-1540
          E-mail: mjf@fogelmanlawfirm.com


PURE FOODS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Owed Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Mendez, Byron Herman, and Jess Gonzalez, individually and on
behalf of similarly situated persons v. Pure Foods Management
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01515-SRU (D. Conn., October
14, 2014) is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid wages owed to the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated hourly employees of the Defendants at their
Popeye's stores.

Pure Foods Management Group, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation
headquartered in Bayonne, New Jersey.  The Defendants own and
operate approximately 36 Popeye's franchise stores in Connecticut,
New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Virginia.
The Defendants' restaurants prepare fried chicken and other food
items for dine-in or take-out from their restaurants.

The Defendants are Pure Foods Management Group, Inc., Shahid
Hashmi, Fazal Panezai, Albany Avenue Favorite Chicken, LLC,
Charter Oak's Favorite Chicken, LLC, New London Favorite Chicken,
LLC, North Haven's Favorite Chicken, LLC, North Heaven's Favorite
Chicken, LLC, Trumbull's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Wallingford's
Favorite Chicken, LLC, Carousel Center's Favorite Chicken, LLC,
Palisades Favorite Chicken, LLC, South Shore's Favorite Chicken,
LLC, Chicopee's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Holyoke's Favorite Chicken,
LLC, Mass. Favorite Chicken I, LLC, Springfield Favorite Chicken,
LLC, Rhode Island Favorite Chicken I, Inc., Rhode Island Favorite
Chicken II, Inc., Rhode Island Favorite Chicken III, LLC,
Harrison's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Hudson Mall's Favorite Chicken,
LLC, Jersey City's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Journal Square's
Favorite Chicken, LLC, Meadowland's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Newport
Plaza's Favorite Chicken, LLC, West New York's Favorite Chicken,
Inc., and Dulles Town Center Favorite Chicken, LLC.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Krayeske, Esq.
          KENNETH J. KRAYESKE LAW OFFICES
          1 Linden Place, Unit 107
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 995-5842
          Facsimile: (860) 760-6590
          E-mail: attorney@kenkrayeske.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Paul, Esq.
          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          PAUL MCINNES LLP
          2000 Baltimore, Suite 100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
          E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
                  mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com


REAL FOODS: Recalls 96 Units of "Mexican Cheddar Dip" Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
Real Foods of Seattle, LLC, (WA) is initiating a voluntary recall
of 96 units of "Mexican Cheddar Dip" product due to an undeclared
allergen.  This product contains egg, an allergen, which is not
declared on the bottom label. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The product subject to the recall:

10-oz Quality Food Centers Mexican Cheddar Dip with UPC no. of
0 30223 00952 8

The above product was manufactured between 10/04/14 and 10/06/14
and shipped between 10/05/14 and 10/07/14 to a limited number of
Quality Food Center stores in Washington State only.  The newly
launched product may bear one of the two UPC numbers listed in the
table.

This product was distributed and sold in a limited number of
Quality Food Center stores in the following cities: Everett, (WA);
Mill Creek, (WA); Sequim, (WA); Bothell, (WA); Port Townsend,
(WA); Belfair, (WA); Lacy, (WA); Kirkland, (WA); Bellevue, (WA);
Redmond, (WA); Stanwood, (WA) and Port Hadlock, (WA).

No other products or code dates are affected by this recall.

There have been no adverse reactions or illnesses attributed to
the recalled item.

Customers who have purchased this product and are sensitive to egg
products or have egg allergies should not consume the above-
mentioned product.  This product may be returned to the store
where purchased for a full refund.

Consumers may call Patrick Quatsoe at 206-354-1921 for any further
information Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8am-5pm (PST).


REJUVENATION INC: Recalls Hanging Lamps Due to Risk of Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rejuvenation Inc., of Portland, Ore., a division of Williams-
Somona, announced a voluntary recall of about 85 hanging lamps.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The cord system can fail to support the weight of the pendant
causing it to fall, posing the risk of injury.

Rejuvenation has received one report of the pendant detaching and
falling.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Rejuvenation Haleigh Wire Dome Pendant hanging
lamps sold in three different finishes:  Lacquered polished brass,
oil rubbed bronze and polished nickel.  The lamp is a parabolic-
shaped dome made of solid brass with an external wire structure
and a ceiling plate.  The lamp cord can vary in length from 14
inches to 200 inches.  The lamps are illuminated by one 150-watt
bulb.  The lamp's canopy measures 5 ¬ inches wide and 12 inches
long for item # A5908 or 8 inches long for item # A5909.  The item
number can be found on a white label inside the ceiling plate.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/0aKpaS


The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
exclusively at Rejuvenation stores nationwide, Rejuvenation's
catalog and Rejuvenation.com from July 2014 through Sept. 2014 for
between $250 and $325.

Consumers should immediately clear the area under the lamps and
contact Rejuvenation for instructions on the free repair or
replacement of recalled lamps, including shipping and charges
incurred in inspecting, removing and replacing the lamps by using
a licensed electrician.


RENOWN REGIONAL: Nev. Sup. Court Rules on Appeal in "Wiley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wiley brought a putative class action against Renown
Regional Medical Center regarding its lien practices.  Mr. Wiley
was injured in a motorcycle accident and was treated for injuries
at Renown.  Renown did not bill Wiley's health insurance plan
administrator, Cigna, for the treatment, but recorded a hospital
lien against Wiley's potential tort recovery.

Renown filed a summary judgment motion arguing that Wiley's Cigna
policy did not cover Wiley's treatments, that Wiley could not
assert breach of the provider agreement because he was not a
third-party beneficiary to the agreement, and that Renown did not
violate Nevada's hospital lien statutes NSR 108.590 and NRS
449.757.  Wiley also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing
that Renown violated NRS 108.590 and NRS 449.757.

The district court held a hearing on the summary judgment motions
and subsequently denied Renown's motion and granted Wiley's
motion. The court found, among other things, that Renown's lien
practices violated NRS 108.590 and NRS 449.757, that Wiley was a
third-party beneficiary to the provider agreement, and that Renown
was not permitted to decide whether Wiley's injuries were covered
by his Cigna policy. Notably, the court also found in favor of
Wiley on his breach of contract and intentional interference with
contract claims, even though the full merits of these claims were
not specifically argued in the cross-motions for summary judgment
or at the hearing.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada, sitting en banc, concludes
that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on
those two causes of action and grant, in part, this petition for a
writ of mandamus.  The Nevada Supreme Court decline to consider
the other issues and arguments raised by the parties and therefore
deny the remainder of the petition.

The case is RENOWN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, A NEVADA CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE BRENT
T. ADAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and MICHAEL WILEY, AN
INDIVIDUAL, Real Party in Interest, Case No. 62666.  The Nevada
Supreme Court's Oct. 2, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/kw2h2Tfrom Leagle.com.


SAM KANE: Recalls 2,633 Lbs. of Ground Beef Chub Product
--------------------------------------------------------
Sam Kane Beef Processors, LLC, a Corpus Christi, Texas
establishment, is recalling approximately 2,633 pounds of ground
beef chub product that may be contaminated with foreign materials,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The product subject to USDA recall:

10 lb. chubs of "HEB Ground Beef 73% Fine 6/10"

The ground beef chubs were produced and packaged on Sept. 11,
2014.  The product bears the establishment number "EST 337" on the
package box.  The product was sent to retail establishments in
Texas for further processing.

The problem was discovered by the retail company.  A store clerk
noticed pieces of small blue plastic inside the packages and
alerted the company to the problem.  The company stated the likely
source of the plastic is a rubber glove.  FSIS and the company
have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption
of these products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction should
contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Alfred Bausch, General Manager, at (361) 241-5000.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.


SAM KANE: Recalls 90,987 Lbs. of Ground Beef Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Sam Kane Beef Processors, a Corpus Christi, Texas establishment,
is recalling approximately 90,987 pounds of ground beef products
that may be contaminated with extraneous materials, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's FSIS announced.

These products are subject to recall:

   -- 3 lb. packages of "HEB Ground Chuck", bearing the
      establishment number "337", a production date of "09/12/14"
      and a use by date of "10/02/14".

   -- 5 lb. packages of "HEB Ground Beef", "73% LEAN 27% FAT",
      bearing the establishment number "337", a production date of
      "09/15/14" and a use by date of "10/05/14".

   -- 10 lb. packages of "HEB Ground Beef", "73% LEAN 27% FAT",
      bearing the establishment number "337", a production date of
      "09/18/14" and a use by date of "10/08/14".

   -- 10 lb. clear film packages of formed patties made from Sam
      Kane Beef Processors "Ground Chuck", bearing the
      establishment number "337", a production date of "9/09/14"
      and a use by date of "9/29/14".

The products were produced on the above dates (between Sept. 9,
2014 and Sept. 18, 2014, with a sell by dates between Sept. 29,
2014 and Oct. 8, 2014) and bear the establishment number "337"
inside the USDA Mark of Inspection.  The products were shipped to
retail outlets in Texas.

The problem was discovered after a retail location received
consumer complaints involving ground beef and pieces of metal,
approximately 3 mm in size.  Four separate consumer complaints
were received with one consumer reporting a chipped tooth.  Anyone
concerned about an injury or illness from consumption of these
products should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Herb
Meischen, Sr. V.P. Sales & Marketing at (361) 241-5000 Ext. 250.
Media with questions about the recall should contact Alfred
Bausch, General Manager at (361) 241-5000 Ext. 213.


SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aileen Luciano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Springleaf Finance Corporation and Springleaf
Financial Services of Wisconsin, Inc., collectively d/b/a
Springleaf Financial Services, Case No. 2:14-cv-01261 (E.D. Wis.,
October 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for contacting
the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular telephones via
an automatic telephone dialing system without their prior express
consent.

The Defendants offer short term loans at high interest rates,
primarily to consumers whose credit or other circumstances make
them unable to obtain credit from other sources such as banks or
credit unions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Telephone: (414) 482-8000
      Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
              jblythin@ademilaw.com
              meldridge@ademilaw.com


SUNBURST FOODS: Recalls Fresh Bites and Private Labeled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunBurst Foods, Goldsboro NC is voluntarily recalling all of its
SunBurst, Fresh Bites and Private labeled products which are
currently in the market because these products have the potential
to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.  Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

All codes, all sell-by dates and sizes of these brands are being
recalled:

   -- SunBurst
   -- Fresh Bites

Private label products are identifed by these brand names: River
Edge Farms, CFW, Southern Zest, CJ's Vending, Binford Street Deli,
Middle Georgia Vendors, Roanoke Foods, Select Foods, and Jesse
Jones (Double Chili Dogs)

The products being recalled were sold in North Carolina, South
Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia.

The recall was initiated as a result of sampling and testing
performed by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture &
Consumer Services.

To date, SunBurst is unaware of any illnesses related to these
products.

Products not manufactured but distributed by SunBurst such as
cakes, burritos, and chips are not part of this recall.

Consumers who have purchased the affected products are urged to
destroy them or return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company between
8AM and 5PM EST at 1-919-778-2151.


SYNTHES (CANADA): Recalls Radiolucent Bone Lever with Double Tip
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 6, 2014
Posting date:             October 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41781

Recalled Products: Radiolucent Bone Lever with Double Tip

The subject devices were delivered with particle residue from
adhesive tape which was used to bind the device during transport.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Synthes (Canada) Ltd.
                    2566 Meadowpine Blvd.
                    Mississauga L5N 6P9
                    Ontario
                    Canada


TARGET CORP: Minnesota Judge Blocks Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
proposed $183,000 class action settlement between Target Corp. and
hundreds of pharmacies over alleged robo-texts has been blocked by
a Minnesota federal judge who said the deal could result in much
of the award reverting to the company.

U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle of the U.S. District of Minnesota
refused Oct. 8 to give preliminary approval to the settlement in
Small v. Target because it would allow any unclaimed funds to go
back into Target's pocket.

Judge Kyle noted that the deal is a "claims made" settlement,
which is dependent on each class member filing a claim, and
typically produces very low response, or take, rates.  It is
common for no more than 15 percent of those eligible to even
bother filing claims, particularly when the likely award is
relatively small, according to class-action settlement research.

That means, Judge Kyle wrote, "(S)ince the parties' agreement
provides that any unclaimed funds will revert to Target, a low
take rate creates the very real possibility that much, if not
most, of the settlement fund will return to Target's hands."

Lead plaintiff and Ohio pharmacist Jonathan Small and Jotmar,
Inc., his pharmacy, allege Target in 2012 violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax
Protection Act, by sending automatically generated faxes
advertising Target's services to his and at least 488 other
pharmacies around the country without express permission or an
opt-out notice.

According to court documents, the proposed deal between the
parties would create a $183,375 settlement fund, about 30 percent
of which -- $61,125 -- would be allocated to plaintiffs' attorneys
fees.  Although the federal statutes authorize $500 in damages for
each unlawfully sent fax, individual class-member pharmacies would
receive just $375 if a valid claim is submitted.  "Any portion of
the Settlement Fund that is not exhausted shall be retained by
Target," the documents show.

Judge Kyle's order said the judge expressed his concern about that
reversion clause, and raised the possibility of denying the deal,
when he heard arguments on Sept. 12.  Target later filed a
supplemental brief noting that several courts had approved deals
with such clauses and urged Kyle to do so, as well.

But about one week later, in a response to Target's arguments, the
plaintiffs said they now agreed with the judge's view of the
clause and asked him to deny their own motion for settlement
approval, Judge Kyle recounted.  As a result, he wrote, "(T)here
is no there is no longer a live Motion upon which to rule."

Target is represented by three attorneys with the firm Faegre
Baker Daniels, LLP.  Plaintiffs' counsel include attorneys with
Anderson + Wanca; Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield; and Montgomery,
Rennie & Jonson.


TOTAL SCREEN: Faces "Galvan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Galvan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Total Screen Solutions, Inc., Nick Mills, and Gary Mills, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00421 (S.D. Tex., October 10, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants are engaged in the solids control business for the
oil industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


TOYS R US: Recalls Toy Toaster Sets Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Toys R Us, of Wayne, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about
30,000 in the U.S. and about 6,000 in Canada Just Like Home Toy
Toaster Sets.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The plastic toast, under pressure, can crack and break into small
pieces creating sharp edges and posing a choking hazard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes the Just Like Home brand toy toaster sets.
The teal blue plastic toy toaster has silver trim around the slice
opening on top, with an orange slider handle on the side and
orange 3-dimensional adjustment knob outlined with orange dots in
a half moon shape on  the face of the toaster in the left bottom
corner.  "Just like home" is printed in white on the front right
bottom corner of the toaster.  The toaster measures about 4 inches
in height by 5-1/2 inches in length by 2 inches in width.  The
toaster set was sold with two plastic toast slices and two plastic
half bagel slice accessories.  Model number 5F60589 is printed on
a white label on the bottom of the toaster and above the UPC bar
code in the lower right hand corner of the product packaging.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/VnlFpl

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Toys R Us stores nationwide and online at toysrus
from July 2013 through August 2014 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately take this product away from children
and return it to any Toys R Us to receive a full refund.


UNITED STATES: Court Limits "Mandatory" Immigration Detention
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a ruling that could enable more than 100 Massachusetts
detainees per year to argue for their freedom, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit has rejected the federal
government's application of a "mandatory" immigration detention
provision that prevents certain noncitizens from requesting
release on bond during their immigration proceedings.  The ruling
came on Oct. 6 in a pair of cases -- including one brought by the
ACLU of Massachusetts, the national ACLU's Immigrants' Rights
Project, the Political Asylum / Immigration Representation
Project, and Lutheran Social Services -- in which noncitizens
argued that they were being improperly detained without even the
opportunity to request their release.

The decision is part of an ACLU class action lawsuit filed in
August 2013.  Following the district court's ruling in that class
action in May, at least 27 people have obtained their release from
detention after demonstrating to an immigration judge that they
did not pose a flight risk or danger warranting continued
detention.  Many of them are long-time lawful permanent residents
whom immigration authorities were detaining on the basis of old
criminal convictions.

On Oct. 6 First Circuit ruling decides the core issue in that
class action: "mandatory" immigration detention cannot apply to
noncitizens who have been placed into deportation proceedings
because of offenses for which they were released from custody long
ago.

"This ruling ensures that many noncitizens in Massachusetts will
be allowed their day in court to argue for their freedom," said
Adriana Lafaille, an Equal Justice Works legal fellow at the ACLU
of Massachusetts, whose fellowship is sponsored by Greenberg
Traurig, LLP.  "Rather than automatic, costly detentions of
noncitizens like Mr. Gordon, who are plucked from their
communities based on old offenses, the decision means that only
those who need to be detained will be detained, while those who
can safely return to their families while their cases are pending
may be allowed to do so."

ACLU client Clayton Gordon is a named plaintiff in the class
action and one of the two noncitizens whose case was decided by
the Oct. 6 ruling.  Mr. Gordon came to the United States at age
six, has been a lawful permanent resident for more than 30 years,
and served in the U.S. Army.  In June, 2013, immigration
authorities detained Gordon and held him without the possibility
of bond because of a 2008 drug offense, even though he spent less
than a day in jail for that offense and had completed his
probationary term.

After his arrest for that offense in 2008, Mr. Gordon and his
fiancee had settled down, had a son, and bought a home.  In 2013,
Gordon was running his own contracting business and working on a
project to open a halfway house in the Hartford area for women
coming out of incarceration.  But, as he drove to work on June 20,
2013, Gordon was surrounded by armed immigration agents, seized,
and placed into mandatory detention.

In October 2013, as a result of the ACLU's lawsuit, U.S. District
Judge Michael A. Ponsor ordered that Gordon was entitled to an
individual bond hearing. An immigration judge granted him bond,
and Gordon was reunited with his family in November 2013.  The
Oct. 6 ruling upholds the federal district judge's decision and
ensures that Gordon can remain with his family while he awaits a
ruling in his pending immigration case.

Leiticia Castaneda, whose case was paired with Gordon's, was also
unlawfully subjected to mandatory detention. She too had been held
without the possibility of release on the basis of a 2008 drug
offense.  Following the decision of the District Court requiring a
bond hearing in her case, the government released her on her own
recognizance, reuniting her with her family during the pendency of
her immigration proceedings.  Ms. Castaneda was represented by
immigration attorney Gregory Romanovsky.  The ACLU filed an amicus
brief in her case.

"The Court rejected a policy that undermines both our
constitutional values and common sense," said Eunice Lee, an
attorney at the Immigrants' Rights Project of the national ACLU.
"Our laws don't allow the government to put immigrants in
mandatory lock-up simply because they had run-ins with criminal
justice system many years ago.  The Court's decision prevents the
irrational, unjust detention of these individuals without basic
due process of law."

For a copy of the First Circuit's opinion, go to:
http://is.gd/nmt7fd

For more information about "mandatory" immigration detention, go
to: http://aclum.org/mandatory_detention


UNIV. OF TEXAS MEDICAL: Motion to Centralize 7 Actions Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: TEXAS PRISON CONDITIONS-OF-CONFINEMENT LITIGATION, MDL
NO. 2569, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and 26
related individual defendants, who are TDCJ officials or
employees, moved to centralize this litigation in the Southern
District of Texas. The litigation consists of seven actions.
These seven actions (six individual wrongful death actions and one
class action) involve allegations that inmates in various Texas
state prison facilities -- in particular, prisoners with
disabilities -- have suffered injury or death as a result of
conditions in inmate living quarters alleged often to be brutally
hot during the summer months. In each of the seven actions,
plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants are liable under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violating the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights of plaintiffs or their decedents to protection
against cruel and unusual punishment, and that defendants TDCJ and
University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) failed to provide
reasonable accommodation for the disabilities of plaintiffs or
their decedents in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Undoubtedly, the actions share
certain factual issues regarding, inter alia, defendants' policies
and practices with respect to inmate housing conditions during
periods of high heat.

The moving TDCJ defendants represented that defendant UTMB and
related defendants do not oppose the motion to centralize.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Chairman John G. Heyburn, II, ordered on October 9, 2014, that the
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, for centralization of
these actions is denied.  A copy of the Order is available at
http://is.gd/6845uSfrom Leagle.com.


VIGIL BEEF: Recalls 48 Lbs. of Beef Jerky Products
--------------------------------------------------
Vigil Beef Jerky Co., an Albuquerque, N.M. establishment, is
recalling approximately 48 pounds of beef jerky products because
they were shipped with the mark of inspection when they were
produced under a retail exemption, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 1-oz. bags of "Vigil's Beef Jerky Co. Original Beef Jerky"
      with package code "8121421210" and packaging date of
      "8/12/14"

   -- 3-oz. bags of "Vigil's Beef Jerky Co. Teriyaki Beef Jerky"
      with package code "8271427410" and packing date "8/27/14"

   -- 1-oz., 3-oz., and 6-oz. bags of "Vigil's Beef Jerky Co.
      Jalapeno Beef Jerky" with package code "09021425110" and
      packaging date "9/2/14"

   -- 1-oz., 3-oz., and 6-oz. of "Vigil's Beef Jerky Co. Original
      Beef Jerky" with package code "09031411110" and packaging
      code "9/3/14"

Any Vigil Beef Jerky Co. product with the mark of inspection
produced from Aug. 5 - Sept. 2, 2014, with lot codes ending in
"10" plus the one lot on Sept. 3, 2014 identified above

All products bear the establishment number "EST. 34272" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.  The products were sold in retail
establishments in New Mexico.

The problem was discovered as a result of an ongoing
investigation.  FSIS believes the company produced product under a
retail exemption but made use of the Federal mark of inspection,
which is a violation of Federal regulations.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact
a health care provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website.

Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the
recall can contact the Jeremy Peck or at (505) 328-4490.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.


WHOLE FOODS: Bid for Appointment of Co-Lead Class Counsel Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Melinda Harmon denied Plaintiffs Uri Gedalia and
Kira Lewis' motion for appointment of the Golan Firm and Reese
Richman LLP as interim co-lead class counsel in the action they
commenced against Whole Foods Market Services, Inc., et al. (CIVIL
ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-03517, S.D. Texas).

A copy of the District Court's Opinion and Order dated Sept. 29,
2014 is available at http://is.gd/R7BS8hfrom Leagle.com.

WFM Private Label Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Misty Ann Cabaniss Blair, Giovanna A. Ferrari, Esq. --
gferrari@seyfarth.com -- Jay William Connolly, Esq. --
jconnolly@sefarth.com -- Joseph J Orzano, Esq. --
jorzano@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


ZIMMER DENTAL: Recalls Tapered Screw-Vent Implant
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 9, 2014
Posting date:             October 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41793

Recalled Products: Tapered Screw-Vent Implant

Zimmer Dental is conducting a recall of a single lot of the
tapered screw-vent implant, catalog TSV4B11, because the inner
vial could be potentially mislabelled as "04.1 x 10mml" instead of
"04.1 x 11.5mml".  The main label on the outside of the package,
the outer vial label, the cap label, and the patient chart label
contain the correct information regarding the implant within the
package.

Companies:

   Manufacturer Zimmer     Dental Inc.
                           1900 Aston Avenue
                           Carlsbad, 92008
                           California
                           United States


* Companies With More Independent Contractors Face More Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that a new survey from ICon Professional Services found companies
with a workforce chock-full of independent contractors are facing
more financial risks with respect to misclassifying workers than
they anticipate.

"I was surprised by the extent to which senior executives have
such a blind spot to their total risk exposure, and don't realize
the significant costs associated with misclassification," said
ICon chief executive officer Patricia Griffin in a statement.  She
went on to note that it is difficult for the C-suite to properly
understand these issues since many cases are settled and thus are
not in the public domain.

However, a whopping 84 percent of respondents said they planned to
maintain or increase their use of independent contractors next
year.  Not only that, but companies also don't understand the
severity of the penalties associated with worker
misclassification.  According to the survey, 77 percent of
respondents believed their total risk to be below $100,000, when
the reality is that for 100 independent contractors paid on
average $100,000 annually, a company's financial risk could exceed
$4.5 million.

"Properly classifying your workforce is no longer a choice," says
Dana Shaw, chief operating officer at ICon.  "With the contingent
labor market on the rise, business leaders can't afford to ignore
the importance of properly classifying their employees."


                              *********

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 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *