CAR_Public/141022.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 22, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 210

                             Headlines

200 MALCOLM: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
A-1 EXTERMINATING: Supreme Court Lifts Gag Order in Customer Suit
ACTIVE POWER: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Litigation
ALABAMA, USA: Won't Publish Names of Undocumented Immigrants
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Rockwood Faces Class Actions Over Merger

AZ CORRECTIONS DEP'T: Has Agreed to Fix Health System in Prisons
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Falsely Markets Brain Supplements, Suit Claims
BP PLC: Wins Dismissal of Some Claims in NYCERS Securities Suit
BP PLC: Negligent Misstatement Claims Dismissed in Mondrian Case
BP PLC: Rainey Dismissed From NYCERS Securities Litigation

CANACCORD GENUITY: Faces "Opperman" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
CATERPILLAR INC: Faces Class Action Over ACERT Engine Defects
CERTIFIED RECOVERY: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Karam" Suit Remanded After Reaching Deal
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Court Grants Motion to Decertify

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: 541 Opt-In Notices Returned in "ChHab" Case
DENIHAN HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
DIAMOND FOODS: Labeling Case Plaintiffs to File Settlement Papers
DIAMOND FOODS: Recorded $38.1MM Loss in Fiscal 2014 Over Accord
DIGICON CORPORATION: Edwards Kirby Files Suit Over Unpaid OT

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Second Anti-Poaching Class Action
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Judge Koh to Preside Over Anti-Poaching Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Faces Robocall Class Action in California
ECOTALITY INC: Amended Securities Complaint to be Filed by Thurs
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Bid for Limited Discovery Granted

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Bid to Stay "Bushansky" Case
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Case Filed Over Clinical Psychology Program
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Facing "Robb" Class Action
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Alfred Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
FASCATI PIZZERIA: "Hurtado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

FOREST OIL: Facing 6 Class Actions in New York Over Sabine Merger
FOREST OIL: Facing Colorado Action Over Sabine Merger
FOREST OIL: No Date Yet for Oral Arguments in "Augenbaum" Case
GMAC INC: Class Action Claim in Vehicle Foreclosure Case Tossed
GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action

GT ADVANCED: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Manning" Suit Says
HINDS COUNTY, MS: Nears Overtime Class Action Settlement
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
JL BARNES: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, "Blake" Suit Says

LA ESTRELLA: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LENOVO GROUP: Settles Class Suit Over Defective IdeaPad Wifi
MERCK: Female Sales Reps to Proceed With Gender Bias Class Action
MODEL N: Faces Class Action Over $108MM Initial Public Offering
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: MDL Stayed as to Insiders et al

NISSAN: Recalls 2013 Altima Mid-Sized Cars Over Hood Defect
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Florida
OPTUM INC: "Manchester" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ORACLE CORPORATION: Sued in N.D. Cal. for Fixing Employees Wages
PENNSYLVANIA: Settles Malpractice Fund Suit for $200 Million

PETROTECH INC: Faces "Donovan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PORTLAND GENERAL: Evaluating Position With Respect to Class Suits
PRITCHETT INC: "Cade" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PURE FOODS: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
RED BULL: Settles False Advertising Class Action in U.S.

RISTORANTE PUGLIA: Faces "Elkallaf" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RITE AID: Second Circuit Denied Petition for Interlocutory Appeal
RITE AID: Named as Defendant in Wage & Hour Cases in California
RITE AID: Documenting Settlement in "Chase" and "Kyle" Suits
RITE AID: Court Stayed Proceedings in "Hall" Case

ROSENTHAL MORGAN: Sued in S.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
S&S SPORTS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Lemus" Suit Claims
SPOKANE COUNTY, WA: Settles Jail Inmates' Class Action
TALCO SECURITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
US SPACE: Files Motion to Dismiss Former Employees' Class Action

WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Dismissal of Great Value Juice Class Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hearing on Contempt Motion Moved to Oct. 30
WHITE'S TACKLE: Faces "Barger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
XIXON CORPORATION: "Creech" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

* Medical Malpractice Insurance Payouts Rising in Pennsylvania


                            *********


200 MALCOLM: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Irene Reyes, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. 200 Malcolm X Meat Corp. d/b/a Key Food, 8772
Meat Corp. d/b/a Key Food, Wally Abuwall and Sam Obeid, Case No.
1:14-cv-06021 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate Key Food Supermarket in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


A-1 EXTERMINATING: Supreme Court Lifts Gag Order in Customer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2014, in response to a Public Citizen petition, the
Alabama Supreme Court lifted a gag order that prevented more than
100 plaintiffs and their attorneys from explaining why consumers
should be cautious about employing an exterminating company.

The decision represents a victory for the free speech rights of
consumers, ensuring that they will have access to the best
information in deciding what companies should get their hard-
earned money.

The unusual gag order, issued Jan. 7, restricted attorney
Thomas F. Campbell, anyone from his firm -- Campbell Law PC -- and
any of the more than 100 customers whom the firm is representing
in a suit against A-1 Exterminating from speaking publicly or
privately about the company.  On behalf of unhappy customers,
Campbell is suing A-1 Exterminating for promising, but not
providing, effective termite treatment.

Public Citizen filed a petition on Feb. 19 to the state Supreme
Court asking it to rescind the gag order because it was
impermissible under the First Amendment.  In addition, it violated
the First Amendment because it was issued without giving Campbell
an opportunity to be heard and without evidence of a need for such
an injunction.

"The gag order was grossly overbroad," said Paul Alan Levy,
attorney at Public Citizen.  "We are pleased the court recognized
that the order violated the First Amendment and reversed the
decision."

The court made clear that the exterminating company may ask for a
narrower order, but that it will have to prove its vague claims
that the attorneys made false statements about it, and that any
restrictions on particular statements are needed to protect its
right to a fair trial and reach no further than needed to protect
that right.  The court said, the "law demands a nuanced approach
[that protects] the rights of parties to freely air their views
and opinions in the 'market square' now taking the form of the
electronic square known as the Internet."


ACTIVE POWER: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Active Power (NASDAQ: ACPW), a global leader in flywheel energy
and power technology for mission critical applications, announced
on Oct. 2 it has entered memorandums of understanding to settle
the following previously disclosed lawsuits:

   * the class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas captioned Don Lee v. Active
Power, Inc., et. al. (Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-797-SS); and

   * the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuit pending in
the District Court of Travis County, Texas, filed by two separate
shareholders and captioned Okumura v. Almgren, et al. (Cause No.
D-1-GN-13-003230) and Shaev v. Milner, et. al. (Cause No. D-1-GN-
13-003557).

The proposed settlements would resolve for all defendants all of
the issues that are pending in the class action and in the
consolidated derivative action relating to Active Power's previous
disclosures regarding Digital China Information Services Company
Limited ("Digital China") and Qiyuan Network Systems Limited
("Qiyuan"). Active Power determined to settle these matters to
eliminate the burden, distraction and expense of further
litigation.

If completed, the class action settlement would result in a
payment of $1.5 million to the settlement class, inclusive of fees
and expenses. The proposed consolidated derivative settlement
includes, among other things, certain governance improvements.
Active Power anticipates the total settlement amounts and related
expenses would be paid from insurance proceeds.

"We believe we are one step closer to resolving these suits with
these memorandums of understanding in place and are hopeful the
courts will give final approval to the settlements," said Mark A.
Ascolese, president and CEO, for Active Power.

The settlements described in this press release are not yet
consummated and are subject to a number of conditions. The terms
outlined in the memorandums of understanding Active Power has
entered into are subject to the parties concluding definitive
settlement agreements. The proposed settlements are also subject
to final approval by Active Power's insurance carrier and by the
courts following completion of a fairness hearing. Hearing dates
have not yet been set on final approval of the proposed
settlements.

The previously disclosed investigation by the SEC Division of
Enforcement regarding Active Power, including matters relating to
its prior public statements regarding Digital China and its
distribution relationships in China, is ongoing.

Founded in 1992, Active Power (NASDAQ: ACPW) is a global leader in
flywheel energy and power technology for mission critical
applications. The company's products and solutions are unique
because of its patented flywheel and power electronics technology
that delivers critical power to leading innovators across multiple
industries. The combined benefits of its products' power density,
reliability, and total cost of ownership are unmatched in the
market. The company's products and solutions are built with pride
in Austin, Texas, at a state-of-the-art, ISO 9001:2008 registered
manufacturing and test facility. Global customers are served via
Austin and three regional operations centers located in the United
Kingdom, Germany, and China, that support the deployment of
systems in more than 50 countries. For more information, visit
www.activepower.com.

Active Power and CleanSource are registered trademarks of Active
Power, Inc. PowerHouse and the Active Power logo are trademarks of
Active Power, Inc. All other trademarks are the properties of
their respective companies.


ALABAMA, USA: Won't Publish Names of Undocumented Immigrants
------------------------------------------------------------
John Brackin at Courthouse News reports that Alabama won't be
publishing the names of undocumented immigrants who have been
arrested after all, thanks to a proposed settlement agreement
announced by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The agreement, which was filed in the federal court in Montgomery,
could bring closure to a class action that was filed last year in
the wake of the adoption of Alabama's controversial immigration
law, HB 56.

The February 2013 lawsuit challenged a provision of the law that
was authorized the state to post online a list of undocumented
immigrants who had been arrested.  The complaint said the new law
required "the Administrative Office of the Courts to compile, and
the Alabama Department of Homeland Security to post on its public
website, the names and other identifying information of
'unlawfully present alien[s]' who are detained for any violation
of state law and who then appear in a state court."

The plaintiffs in the case had been arrested in November 2012 for
fishing without a license.  All four of the plaintiffs were born
in Mexico and were subject to the law's new provision.

The suit further claimed that the law didn't provide a mechanism
for people to challenge the "stigmatizing label, even if they are
present with the permission of the federal government or even if
they are U.S. citizens."

Under the settlement agreement, the Administrative Office of
Courts will adopt a new policy that will treat the relevant
immigration information as confidential.  The agreement further
states that the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency won't publish the
information "in a manner available to the public."

The lawsuit was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the
American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law
Center on behalf of the four plaintiffs and others similarly
situated.  The defendants in the case were Rich Hobson, as the
administrative director of courts, and Spencer Collier, as
director of the Alabama Department of Homeland Security.

Since it was enacted in 2011, Alabama's far-reaching immigration
law has faced an ongoing series of legal challenges.

"This is yet another victory for Alabama's immigrant community,"
said Sam Brooke, an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center.
"Blocking this final vestige of HB 56 is another nail in the
coffin for Alabama's misguided attempt to bully and intimidate
immigrants."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel Brooke, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          4100 Washington Ave.
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8200
          E-mail: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Kristi L. Graunke, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          233 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2150
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 521-6700
          kristi.graunkesplcenter.org

               - and -

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0775
          E-mail: cwang@aclu.org

               - and -

          Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2660
          E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org

               - and -

          Justin B. Cox, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          230 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 1440
          Atlanta, GA 30303-2721
          Telephone: (404) 523-2721
          E-mail: jcox@aclu.org

               - and -

          Linton Joaquin, Esq.
          Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
          Nora Preciado, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 674-2909
          E-mail: joaquin@nilc.org
                  tumlin@nilc.org
                  preciado@nilc.org

               - and -

          Freddy Rubio, Esq.
          COOPERATING ATTORNEY, ACLU OF ALABAMA FOUNDATION
          Rubio Law Firm, P.C.
          438 Carr Avenue, Suite 1
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 443-7858
          E-mail: frubio@rubiofirm.com

The case is Jane Doe #1, et al. v. Rich Hobson, et al., Case No.
2:13-cv-00079-WKW-CSC, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.


ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Rockwood Faces Class Actions Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwood Holdings, Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that on July 22, 2014 and August 1, 2014,
purported class actions were filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey Chancery Division, in Mercer County and in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, respectively, relating to
Rockwood's pending merger with a subsidiary of Albemarle
Corporation ("Albemarle").  The lawsuits, Thwaites v. Rockwood
Holdings Inc. and Rudman Partners, L.P. v. Rockwood Holdings Inc.,
respectively, name Rockwood, its directors and Albemarle as
defendants. The Rudman Partners case also names the merger
subsidiary as a defendant.

The Rockwood disclosure was made as part of Albemarle
Corporation's Form 8-K Filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 1, 2014.

The lawsuits, which contain substantially similar allegations,
include allegations that the directors of Rockwood breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by failing to
ensure that Rockwood's shareholders will receive the maximum value
for their shares, failing to conduct an appropriate sale process
and putting their own interests ahead of Rockwood's shareholders.
Rockwood and Albemarle are alleged to have aided and abetted the
alleged fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits seek a variety of
equitable and injunctive relief, including enjoining Rockwood's
directors from proceeding with the proposed merger unless and
until they have acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to
maximize shareholder value and rescission of the merger to the
extent implemented, and, in the Rudman Partners case, any damages
arising from the defendant's alleged breaches, and attorneys' fees
and costs. Rockwood intends to vigorously defend the lawsuits.
Rockwood is unable to estimate the loss, or possible range of
loss, for these matters.


AZ CORRECTIONS DEP'T: Has Agreed to Fix Health System in Prisons
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona must reform its prison health care system and pay more
than $5 million in attorneys' fees under a class action settlement
announced on October 14, 2014, reports Tim Hull at Courthouse
News.

The stipulation of settlement filed in Federal Court in Phoenix
cancels a trial that was set to start this month in a class action
against the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) by inmates at
10 state prisons.

The plaintiffs in Parsons v. Ryan claimed in 2012 that critically
inadequate medical, dental and mental health care in the state's
prisons had exposed them to "preventable injury, amputation,
disfigurement, and death," in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The inmates and the Arizona Center for Disability Law were
represented by the ACLU and the Prison Law Office.  They alleged
that emergency treatment and other medical care in ADC prisons was
often delayed or denied, and that it was difficult to secure
medications and medical devices.  They also claimed that dental
care in the prisons was substandard and focused largely on
extracting diseased teeth.  In addition they complained that some
prisoners were kept in isolation units with constant illumination
and given inadequate exercise and nutrition.

The settlement requires the Corrections Department to request more
funding from the Arizona Legislature to increase staffing of
medical and mental health positions, which has been a ongoing
problem for the ADC.

However, an ACLU spokesman told Courthouse News on October 14 the
department cannot not use a lack of funding by the legislature as
an excuse for noncompliance.

Arizona currently spends nearly $3,800 per inmate in health care
costs, according to the department.

Under the settlement, the ADC must increase the amount of time it
allows inmates out of their cells, and change the criteria for the
use of pepper spray by guards.  A "cool down" period is now
required in tense, potentially violent situations involving
inmates with mental health issues, which "shall include clinical
intervention . . . by a mental health clinician," the agreement
says.

The settlement also requires prison officials to provide "a
qualified health care practitioner who is proficient in the
prisoner's language, or by a language line interpretation
service," for inmates who don't speak English.

The state agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys $4.9 million in
fees and costs, plus up to $250,000 per year for a minimum of four
years to ensure compliance.

"The Arizona Department of Corrections has agreed to changes that
will save lives," said Don Specter, Director of the Prison Law
Office, in a statement.  "This settlement will bring more humane
treatment for prisoners with serious health care needs, and the
potential for their conditions to improve rather than worsen."

In September, the ALCU released several previously sealed expert
reports on conditions at the prisons at issue in the settlement.

In one, Dr. Pablo Stewart, a prison mental health care specialist,
"uncovered numerous preventable suicides by prisoners, lengthy and
serious delays in care, insufficient and unlicensed staff and
inadequate medication protocols," the ACLU said.  "One prisoner
hanged himself after ADC neglected to give him his prescribed mood
stabilizing drugs for more than three weeks."

Admitting no wrongdoing, ADC Director Charles Ryan called the
settlement "positive news" in a statement on October 14.

"On the eve of trial, the plaintiffs in this case have essentially
agreed that the department's current policies and practices, along
with recent enhancements to programming opportunities, adequately
addresses the plaintiffs' concerns relating to constitutional
healthcare and conditions of confinement for maximum custody and
mentally ill inmates," Ryan said.

He stressed that the department has "always followed nationally-
accredited standards for housing single-cell inmates that include
requirements for natural daylight and contact with others, and
out-of-cell time," and said that the state's inmate mortality
rates are "within the national average for corrections
departments."

"By avoiding a costly trial, the department saves significant
resources that can be further directed towards continuing to
provide constitutional healthcare and structured programming to
support successful community reintegration," Ryan said.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel C. Barr, Esq.
          Amelia M. Gerlicher, Esq.
          Kirstin T. Eidenbach, Esq.
          John H. Gray, Esq.
          Matthew B. du Mee, Esq.
          Jerica L. Peters, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 351-8000
          E-mail: dbarr@perkinscoie.com
                  agerlicher@perkinscoie.com
                  keidenbach@perkinscoie.com
                  jhgray@perkinscoie.com
                  mdumee@perkinscoie.com
                  jpeters@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Daniel Pochoda, Esq.
          James Duff Lyall, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
          3707 North 7th Street, Suite 235
          Phoenix, AZ 85013
          Telephone: (602) 650-1854
          E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org
                  jlyall@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Caroline Mitchell, Esq.
          Amir Q. Amiri, Esq.
          Dara Levinson, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-5712
          E-mail: cnmitchell@jonesday.com
                  aamiri@jonesday.com
                  daralevinson@jonesday.com

               - and -

          John Laurens Wilkes, Esq.
          Taylor Freeman, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          717 Texas Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 239-3939
          E-mail: jlwilkes@jonesday.com
                  tfreeman@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Kamilla Mamedova, Esq.
          Jennifer K. Messina, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          222 East 41 Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 326-3498
          E-mail: kmamedova@jonesday.com
                  jkmessina@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Kevin Brantley, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          E-mail: kcbrantley@jonesday.com


Plaintiff Arizona Center for Disability Law is represented by:

          Sarah Kader, Esq.
          Asim Varma, Esq.
          Brenna Durkin, Esq.
          ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW
          5025 East Washington Street, Suite 202
          Phoenix, AZ 85034
          Telephone: (602) 274-6287
          E-mail: skader@azdisabilitylaw.org
                  avarma@azdisabilitylaw.org
                  bdurkin@azdisabilitylaw.org

               - and -

          J.J. Rico, Esq.
          Jessica Jansepar Ross, Esq.
          ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW
          100 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 305
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 327-9547
          E-mail: jrico@azdisabilitylaw.org
                  jross@azdisabilitylaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Donald Specter, Esq.
          Alison Hardy, Esq.
          Sara Norman, Esq.
          Corene Kendrick, Esq.
          Warren E. George, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com
                  ahardy@prisonlaw.com
                  snorman@prisonlaw.com
                  ckendrick@prisonlaw.com
                  wgeorge@prisonlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Fathi, Esq.
          Amy Fettig, Esq.
          Ajmel Quereshi, Esq.
          ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT
          915 15th Street N.W., 7th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 548-6603
          E-mail: dfathi@npp-aclu.org
                  afettig@npp-aclu.org
                  aquereshi@npp-aclu.org

               - and -

          Daniel P. Struck, Esq.
          Kathleen L. Wieneke, Esq.
          Rachel Love, Esq.
          Timothy J. Bojanowski, Esq.
          Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq.
          Ashlee B. Fletcher, Esq.
          Anne M. Orcutt, Esq.
          Jacob B. Lee, Esq.
          STRUCK, WIENEKE, & LOVE, P.L.C.
          3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          Telephone: (480) 420-1600
          E-mail: dstruck@swlfirm.com
                  kwieneke@swlfirm.com
                  rlove@swlfirm.com
                  tbojanowski@swlfirm.com
                  nacedo@swlfirm.com
                  afletcher@swlfirm.com
                  aorcutt@swlfirm.com
                  jlee@swlfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Horne, Esq., Arizona Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Michael E. Gottfried, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
          Lucy M. Rand, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
          1275 W. Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926
          Telephone: (602) 542-4951
          E-mail: Michael.Gottfried@azag.gov
                  Lucy.Rand@azag.gov

The case is Victor Parsons v. Charles Ryan, Case No. CV 12-00601-
PHX-DJH, in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Falsely Markets Brain Supplements, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Porter, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-08005 (N.D. Ill., October 14, 2014),
arises out of the Defendant's false, misleading and deceptive
representations its Flintstones Healthy Brain Support, a gummy-
chewable Omega-3 DHA dietary supplement made with Life's DHA.

Bayer Healthcare, LLC is one of the world's leading, innovative
companies in the healthcare and medical products industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
      STEWART M. WELTMAN, LLC
      53 W. Jackson, Suite 364
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 588-5033
      Facsimile: (312) 427-1850
      E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com


BP PLC: Wins Dismissal of Some Claims in NYCERS Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pending before the Court in IN RE: BP p.l.c. SECURITIES LITIGATION
NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al. v. BP P.L.C. et
al., MDL NO. 10-MD-2185, CIV. ACT. NO. 4:13-CV-1393, (S.D. Tex.),
was the defendants' amended second tranche consolidated motion to
dismiss.

Defendants raised two arguments for dismissal. First, Defendants
argued that the Exchange Act Plaintiffs' federal claims are time-
barred. Second, the Defendants argued that these same plaintiffs
have failed to state viable Section 20(a) claims against David
Rainey, BP America's Vice President of Exploration for the Gulf
of Mexico, and Andrew Inglis, CEO of BP E&P and an executive
director of the Company from February 2007 until October 2010.

District Judge Keith P. Ellison found that the Defendants' Amended
Motion must be granted in part and denied in part. The Court
incorporated, as relevant, its reasoning articulated in the
Memoranda and Orders issued in two related cases -- Avalon
Holdings, Inc. et al. v. B.P. p.l.c. et al. [12-cv-3715] (the
Avalon Holdings Opinion) and Mondrian Global Equity Fund, L.P. et
al. v. BP p.l.c. et al. [12-cv-3621] (the Mondrian Opinion).

The Court also separately addressed arguments raised in
Defendants' Motion which were not implicated by the allegations
and claims in Avalon Holdings or Mondrian.

Pursuant to the reasoning articulated in the Avalon Holdings
Opinion and Mondrian Opinion, the Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss as to the following claims:

* All claims based on Mr. Inglis statements' in the 2008 Strategy
  Presentation on February 27, 2008.

* All claims based on statements made in the May 20, 2010 press
  release and Form 6-K.

* All claims based on statements made in the May 24, 2010 press
  release and Form 6-K.

* All Section 20(a) claims asserted against Mr. Inglis and Mr.
  Rainey.

"There being no remaining claims against Mr. Rainey, he is
dismissed," ruled Judge Ellison.  "In all other respects, the
motion is denied."

A copy of Judge Ellison's September 30, 2014 memorandum and order
is available at http://is.gd/SoFCHdfrom Leagle.com.

Robert W. Dudley, Defendant, represented by Daryl A Libow --
libowd@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.


BP PLC: Negligent Misstatement Claims Dismissed in Mondrian Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Keith P. Ellison granted in part and denied in part
an amended second tranche consolidated motion to dismiss filed by
defendants in IN RE: BP p.l.c. SECURITIES LITIGATION MONDRIAN
GLOBAL EQUITY FUND, L.P. et al. v. BP P.L.C. et al., MDL NO. 10-
MD-2185, CIV. ACT. NO. 4:12-CV-3621, (S.D. Tex.).

The Court's memorandum and order entered September 30, 2014, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/5n1Fklfrom Leagle.com,
incorporated, as relevant, its reasoning articulated in the
Memorandum and Order issued in a related case -- Avalon Holdings,
Inc. et al. v. B.P. p.l.c. et al. [12-cv-3715]. The Court also
separately addressed arguments raised in the Defendants' Amended
Motion which were not implicated by the allegations and claims in
Avalon Holdings.

Among other things, the Court held that pursuant to the reasoning
articulated in the Avalon Holdings Opinion, the Motion to Dismiss
is granted as to these claims:

* All negligent misstatement claims.

* All claims based on statements made by Andrew Inglis -- CEO of
  BP E&P and an executive director of the Company from February
  2007 until October 2010 -- in the 2008 Strategy Presentation on
  February 27, 2008.

* All claims based on statements made in the May 20, 2010 press
  release and Form 6-K.

* All claims based on statements made in the May 24, 2010 press
  release and Form 6-K.

In all other respects, the Motion was denied.

David Rainey, Defendant, represented by Thomas W Taylor --
ttaylor@andrewskurth.com -- Andrews and Kurth, Brian M Heberlig --
bheberlig@steptoe.com -- Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Patrick Francis
Linehan -- plinehan@steptoe.com -- Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Reid H
Weingarten -- rweingarten@steptoe.com -- Steptoe Johnson LLP &
Savannah E. Marion -- smarion@steptoe.com -- Steptoe Johnson LLP.


BP PLC: Rainey Dismissed From NYCERS Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum and order entered September 30, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/LTDnAefrom Leagle.com,
District Judge Keith P. Ellison granted in part and denied in part
defendants' amended second tranche consolidated motion to dismiss
IN RE: BP p.l.c. SECURITIES LITIGATION NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al. v. BP P.L.C. et al, MDL NO. 10-MD-2185,
CIV. ACT. NO. 4:13-CV-1393, (S.D. Tex.).

The Court incorporated, as relevant, its reasoning articulated in
the Memoranda and Orders issued in two related cases -- Avalon
Holdings, Inc. et al. v. B.P. p.l.c. et al. [12-cv-3715] (the
Avalon Holdings Opinion) and Mondrian Global Equity Fund, L.P. et
al. v. BP p.l.c. et al. [12-cv-3621] (the Mondrian Opinion).
The Court also separately addressed arguments raised in the
Defendants' Motion which were not implicated by the allegations
and claims in Avalon Holdings or Mondrian.

Pursuant to the reasoning articulated in the Avalon Holdings
Opinion and Mondrian Opinion, the Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss as to these claims:

* All claims based on statements made by Andrew Inglis -- CEO of
  BP E&P and an executive director of the Company from February
  2007 until October 2010 -- in the 2008 Strategy Presentation on
  February 27, 2008.

* All claims based on statements made in the May 20, 2010 press
  release and Form 6-K.

* All claims based on statements made in the May 24, 2010 press
  release and Form 6-K.

* All Section 20(a) claims asserted against Mr. Inglis and David
  Rainey, BP America's Vice President of Exploration for the Gulf
  of Mexico.

There being no remaining claims against Mr. Rainey, he is
dismissed, added Judge Ellison.

In all other respects, the Motion was denied.

Christopher Wirth, Movant, Pro Se.


CANACCORD GENUITY: Faces "Opperman" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vance K. Opperman on behalf of himself and 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 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:

      Jason R. Crance, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON R. CRANCE
      35 South Main Street
      Hanover, NH 03755-2047
      Telephone: (603) 643-8801
      Facsimile: (603) 643-5297
      E-mail: Jason@crancelaw.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
      Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com
              cnnauen@locklaw.com
              khriebel@locklaw.com
              kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com


CATERPILLAR INC: Faces Class Action Over ACERT Engine Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Truckinginfo reports that another lawsuit has been brought against
Caterpillar for alleged problems with its 2007-09 C13 and C15
diesels.  This suit, a class action complaint filed by Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, represents 22 trucking and
transportation firms and individuals in 18 states that had
purchased or leased vehicles powered by the Cat engines.

This is at least the 16th suit filed against Caterpillar over
problems with the engines. Motor carriers, bus lines and at least
one boat operator are represented in previously filed lawsuits in
various jurisdictions.  A Caterpillar spokesperson declined to
comment because the suit is pending.

Cat called the affected diesels ACERT, for Advanced Combustion
Emissions Reduction Technology.  The aftertreatment equipment was
unique in that its exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR) system piped
cleansed gas back to the inlet system to keep intake air clean.
EGR cools combustion temperatures to reduce production of nitrogen
oxide, a smog causer.  But the system, and its series-
turbochargers and other devices, proved troublesome, fleet
managers have complained over the years.

Plaintiffs in the latest suit charge that defects in the exhaust
emission system resulted in power losses and shutdowns that
prevented or impeded their vehicles from transporting goods or
passengers, a Cohen Milstein press release said on Oct. 9.

Theodore Leopold, a law firm co-counsel in the suit, said the
plaintiffs suffered "significant damages" from operational losses,
diminished vehicle value, and costs incurred in replacing the Cat
engines with other EPA 2007 emission-legal diesels.

"Many of these trucking and transportation operations are small
businesses and family-owned shops that can't afford to have trucks
break down due to defects," said Mr. Leopold.  "Having their
trucks out of commission created a financial hardship for these
operators that Caterpillar has a responsibility to resolve,
including the significant loss in value of the trucks due to the
defects."

The consolidated complaint against Cat, filed under seal on Oct. 6
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, detailed a number of known product problems, including
that the engine system was not designed, built and equipped to
conform with exhaust emission regulation standards without causing
repeated engine failures or shut down commands that caused the
vehicles to lose power and/or stop running.

The lawsuit alleges that while the design was marketed as a
reliable, durable and fuel-efficient system, the engines are
defective and have been marketed and distributed under false
pretenses.

"Each time their vehicle had problems, these plaintiffs repeatedly
were told that an emissions warranty repair would correct the
defect, when Cat knew, or should have known, that the exhaust
emission system defect could not be corrected," said Leopold.

The same issues are also being litigated on behalf of defective
Caterpillar C13 bus engines that involve the same defective ACERT
systems, the law firm said.  The bus litigation is pending in the
same New Jersey federal court.

The 22 truck engine plaintiffs represent purchasers and lessees of
vehicles with the EPA 2007 Cat engines in California, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.

In addition to Cohen Milstein, co-lead plaintiffs' counsel are
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, and Quantum Legal LLC.


CERTIFIED RECOVERY: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Certified Recovery Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08178 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Certified Recovery Systems, Inc. collects and attempts to collect
debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal,
family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the
United States Postal Services, telephone and Internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646)459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
              bwolf@legaljones.com


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Karam" Suit Remanded After Reaching Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News, reports that the 9th
Circuit remanded a securities fraud class action against
Corinthian Colleges after the for-profit school reached an
agreement with the U.S. Department of Education's to close its
campuses by the end of the year.

More than four years ago, investor Jimmy Elias Karam sued
Corinthian in a federal class action in Los Angeles.

The parties had been scheduled to argue the case last week before
a three-judge panel, but the 9th Circuit's Sept. 15 order vacated
that hearing.

Karam had claimed for the class that the school inflated tuition
costs and encouraged students to falsify federal financial aid
forms.

Corinthian was little more than an "enrollment mill," Karam said
in a brief to the appeals court: admitting as many students as
possible "regardless of their qualifications," in violation of
federal law.

The school's deceptive practices allowed its stock price to soar,
Karam said.  But when the truth came out, shares plummeted by
almost 80 percent, leading to hundreds of millions of dollars in
investor losses, Karam said in his February 2013 brief to the
court.

Karam said 90 percent of Corinthian revenue came from federal
funding.  Seventy-two thousand students were enrolled at
Corinthian schools, and received $1.4 billion in federal financial
aid each year, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

In 2012, U.S. District Judge George King ruled in favor of
Corinthian.

King said that Karam and its investors Netherlands-based Stichting
Pensioenfonds Metaal En Techniek pension fund, and Wyoming
Retirement System failed to make clear that Corinthian had
intentionally misled investors, or tied Corinthian's alleged
misrepresentations to an actual loss.

The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit.

While the case was pending at the court of appeals this July, the
U.S. Department of Education reached an agreement with Corinthian
Colleges to sell or close its campuses before the end of the year.

That agreement came after "stunning new revelations" of
"widespread misconduct" Karam said in a court filing at the 9th
Circuit. The agreement prompted Karam to ask Judge King to
reconsider the claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"Plaintiffs argued in the ex parte application that these new
developments, together with the previously pled allegations, would
have satisfied the district court's concern whether Corinthian's
misconduct was isolated or widespread and thereby provided the
requisite inferences of falsity and scienter that the district
court previously found lacking in dismissing the complaint," the
Aug. 14 motion to remand stated.

Judge King will hear the case early next year.

Based in Santa Ana, Corinthian runs 24 Everest, Heald and WyoTech
campuses in California, 111 North American campuses and three
online programs.

In September, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau accused the
for-profit school of preying on society's poor and vulnerable to
boost its admissions, and making false claims about job
placements.

Corinthian urged students to take out expensive student loans to
cover their tuition and then bullied them to repay the loans while
they were still in school, the CFPB alleged in a complaint that
sought $500 million in damages for predatory lending.

Former Corinthian student Francisco Lopez wrote on the CFPB
website that Corinthian Colleges had used "horrible tactics" to
place a "financial burden" on students.  Lopez said Corinthian had
persuaded him to take a medical insurance billing and coding
program in 2011.

"All I wanted was to continue my education in order to get a job
that would lead me to a joyous and prosperous career, the epitome
of the American dream," Lopez wrote in comments.  "Instead, I was
deceived at a time when I was most vulnerable and I foolishly
embarked on an eight month long program that was not worth the
$20,000 plus price tag that came along with it, much less the
level of education that you receive."

Corinthian ads target single parents close to the federal poverty
level of $19,530 for a three-person household, the California
Attorney General said in a state court filing against the school
last year.  The college and its subsidiaries, however, often
charge more than $40,000 for tuition, fees and books, the
prosecutor said.

In August, Corinthian reported to financial regulators that
prosecutors had served the school with a federal grand jury
subpoena, signaling potential criminal charges.

Corinthian has been sued in the nation's courts hundreds of times,
according to the Courthouse News Service database.

Representatives for Karam and Corinthian did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

The appellate case is Jimmy Elias Karam, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellants v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 12-56723, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The district court case is Jimmy
Elias Karam, et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:10-cv-06523-GHK-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Court Grants Motion to Decertify
----------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court granted Darden Restaurants, Inc.'s motion to
decertify the class in the case Alequin v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc., which resulted in the dismissal of all opt-ins, Darden
Restaurants said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 3, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended August 24, 2014.

In September 2012, a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Alequin v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc., in which named plaintiffs claim that the Company required or
allowed certain employees at Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn
Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze and Seasons 52  to work off the clock
and required them to perform tasks unrelated to their tipped
duties while taking a tip credit against their hourly rate of pay.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.

In July 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida conditionally certified a nationwide class of
servers and bartenders who worked in the aforementioned
restaurants at any point from September 6, 2009 through September
6, 2012.  Unlike a class action, a collective action requires
potential class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out"
following the issuance of a notice.  Out of the approximately
217,000 opt-in notices distributed, 20,225 were returned.

In June 2014, the Company filed a motion seeking to have the class
de-certified. In September 2014, the court granted the Company's
motion to decertify the class which resulted in the dismissal of
all opt-ins.  Unless the Plaintiffs' appeal the Court's decision,
only the claims of the original named plaintiffs remain.

"We believe that our wage and hour policies comply with the law
and that we have meritorious defenses to the substantive claims in
this matter. An estimate of the possible loss, if any, or the
range of loss cannot be made at this stage of the proceeding, the
Company said.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates full-service dining
restaurants in the United States and Canada under the trade names
Olive Garden(R), LongHorn Steakhouse(R), The Capital Grille(R),
Yard House(R), Bahama Breeze(R), Seasons 52(R), Eddie V's Prime
Seafood(R) and Wildfish Seafood Grille(R).


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: 541 Opt-In Notices Returned in "ChHab" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the approximately 3,200 opt-in notices distributed, 541
were returned in the ChHab v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. class
action, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 3, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 24, 2014.

In November 2011, a lawsuit entitled ChHab v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action under the
applicable New York state wage and hour statutes. The named
plaintiffs claim that the Company required or allowed certain
employees at The Capital Grille to work off the clock, share tips
with individuals who polished silverware to assist the plaintiffs,
and required the plaintiffs to perform tasks unrelated to their
tipped duties while taking a tip credit against their hourly rate
of pay. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back
wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.

In September 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York conditionally certified a nationwide
class for the Fair Labor Standards Act claims only of tipped
employees who worked in the aforementioned restaurants at any
point from November 17, 2008 through September 19, 2013. Potential
class members are required to "opt in" rather than "opt out"
following the issuance of a notice. Out of the approximately 3,200
opt-in notices distributed, 541 were returned.

As with the Alequin matter, the Company will have an opportunity
to seek to have the class de-certified and/or seek to have the
case dismissed on its merits.

"We believe that our wage and hour policies comply with the law
and that we have meritorious defenses to the substantive claims in
this matter. An estimate of the possible loss, if any, or the
range of loss cannot be made at this stage of the proceeding," the
Company said.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates full-service dining
restaurants in the United States and Canada under the trade names
Olive Garden(R), LongHorn Steakhouse(R), The Capital Grille(R),
Yard House(R), Bahama Breeze(R), Seasons 52(R), Eddie V's Prime
Seafood(R) and Wildfish Seafood Grille(R).


DENIHAN HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvrose Lodescar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-
situated v. Denihan Hospitality Group, Benjamin Patrick Denihan, &
Brooke Denihan Barrett, Case No. 1:14-cv-08218 (S.D.N.Y., October
14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime
compensation, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and manage at least 8 hotels primarily in
New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anneba Rehman, Esq.
      PERVEZ & REHMAN, P.C.
      68 South Service Road, Suite 100
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631)427-0700
      Facsimile: (631)824-9020


DIAMOND FOODS: Labeling Case Plaintiffs to File Settlement Papers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in labeling class action against Diamond Foods Inc.,
intend to file preliminary settlement approval papers, Diamond
Foods said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 3, 2014, for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2014.

On January 3, 2014, Deena Klacko first filed a putative class
action against Diamond in the Southern District of Florida,
alleging that certain ingredients contained in our TIAS tortilla
chip product were not natural and seeking damages and injunctive
relief. The lawsuit alleged five causes of actions alleging
violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty for
particular purpose, breach of express warranty and the Magnuson-
Warranty Act. The complaint seeks to certify a class of Florida
consumers who purchased TIAS tortilla chips since January 3, 2010.

On January 9, 2014, Dominika Surzyn brought a similar class action
against Diamond relating to our TIAS tortilla chips in federal
court for the Northern District of California. Surzyn purports to
represent a class of California consumers who purchased said
Kettle TIAS products since January 9, 2010.

On April 2, 2014, Richard Hall filed a putative class action
against the Company in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging that
certain ingredients contained in our Kettle Brand chips and TIAS
Tortilla Chips are not natural and seeking damages and injunctive
relief. Plaintiff purports to bring this action on his own behalf,
as well as on behalf of all consumers in the United States, or
alternatively, California, within four years of the filing of the
complaint who purchased certain of Diamond's Kettle Brand Chips or
Kettle Brand TIAS tortilla chips.

The Company denies all allegations in these cases. Following
mediation and settlement discussions among plaintiffs' counsel in
Klacko, Surzyn and Hall, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, and it is expected to resolve all claims on a
nationwide basis and include: Diamond to take certain injunctive
relief measures to confirm labeling compliance matters;
establishment of a $3.0 million common fund for claims made
available to the class and for the payment of class administration
and attorneys' fees; and any funds unclaimed by the class to be
provided cy pres to a charity as a food donation. The settlement
is subject to court approval and the plaintiffs intend to file
preliminary approval papers. The Company has recognized the
related settlement charges within the consolidated financial
statements for fiscal 2014.

"We cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of these
lawsuits, and an unfavorable outcome in excess of amounts
recognized as of July 31, 2014, with respect to one or more of
these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations for the periods in which a loss is
recognized," the Company said.

Diamond Foods is an innovative packaged food company focused on
building and energizing brands.


DIAMOND FOODS: Recorded $38.1MM Loss in Fiscal 2014 Over Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Foods Inc. on August 21, 2013, reached a proposed
agreement, preliminary approval of which was granted on September
26, 2013, subject to final court approval, to settle the private
securities class action pending against the Company and two of its
former officers. A final approval hearing was held on January 9,
2014.

"Under the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement, we paid
a total of $11.0 million in cash and issued 4.45 million shares of
common stock to a settlement fund to resolve all claims asserted
on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Diamond
stock between October 5, 2010 and February 8, 2012, inclusive. We
recognized an aggregate settlement liability of $96.1 million in
the fourth fiscal quarter of 2013 which included a cash settlement
of $11.0 million and a stock settlement valued at $85.1 million at
the close of the stock market on August 20, 2013 based on our
closing market price on the day before the preliminary approval
motion. The value of the 4.45 million shares of common stock at
July 31, 2013 was $90.7 million. The court issued an order
granting final approval of the stock settlement on January 21,
2014, and the appeal period expired on February 20, 2014, at which
time the stock settlement became effective," Diamond Foods said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 3, 2014, for the fiscal year ended July 31,
2014.

"In fiscal 2014, we recorded a loss of $38.1 million as a result
of the change in the fair value of the stock settlement,
derecognized the liability and insurance receivable associated
with the Securities Settlement, and on February 21, 2014, issued
the 4.45 million shares to a settlement fund," Diamond Foods said.

Diamond Foods is an innovative packaged food company focused on
building and energizing brands.


DIGICON CORPORATION: Edwards Kirby Files Suit Over Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Cate Edwards and Sharon Eubanks, attorneys with Edwards Kirby -- a
national law practice led by some of the best known and most
highly acclaimed litigators in America, former U.S. Senator, John
Edwards and David Kirby, filed a collective and class action
complaint against Digicon for failure to pay overtime wages.
Digicon is a government contractor that provides IT services for
local, state and federal governments, as well as commercial
companies across the U.S.  The case was filed in late September on
behalf of the numerous individuals nationwide whom Digicon
employed as information technology service staff, but failed to
pay overtime wages as required by law.  Anyone else who may have
been subject to the unlawful withholding of overtime wages should
contact Edwards Kirby at http://edwardskirby.com/contact-us/

The plaintiffs assert that Digicon unlawfully withheld overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
state laws throughout the U.S. complaint alleges these employees
were deliberately misclassified as exempt from overtime laws by
Digicon.  As a result, Digicon improperly withheld overtime wages
despite the fact that the workers did not meet the criteria for
any exempt classification recognized under the law.  The
collective and class action includes individuals employed as
information technology services staff, including technicians,
analysts, support analysts, customer support analysts and desktop
technicians, across the company's numerous worksites.

"Edwards Kirby was founded to give everyday people a voice when
faced with injustice and ensure that high-quality legal
representation is available to everyone," said Cate Edwards.  "The
D.C. office of Edwards Kirby focuses on pursuing cases of
discrimination, civil rights and social inequality, including the
lawful treatment of workers.  Under federal and state law, many
workers have a right to be paid for every hour you work, and to be
paid more for overtime hours.  We are advocating for these
individuals because they worked hard and put in a lot of hours on
behalf of Digicon, and they deserve to be appropriately, and
lawfully, paid for that work."

The Thompson v. Digicon Corporation case is pending in U.S.
District Court in D.C., and Edwards Kirby is expecting to identify
more improperly classified Digicon employees in the course of
litigation. Edwards Kirby represents clients nationwide.  For more
information or to contact Edwards Kirby, visit
http://edwardskirby.com/contact-us/or call 1 (866) 409-2250.

                    About Edwards Kirby

Edwards Kirby -- http://www.edwardskirby.com-- is a national law
firm, led by former U.S. Senator and trial attorney John Edwards
and David Kirby, with offices in Raleigh, N.C. and Washington,
D.C.  The firm offers leading representation for plaintiffs in
matters of personal injury, public and product safety, consumer
protection, health care and medical liability, or civil rights and
discrimination.  Together, John and David obtained the largest
personal injury verdict in North Carolina history.  The team at
Edwards Kirby believes there is no more dedicated team of lawyers
and stands dedicated in its efforts to deliver justice for all.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Second Anti-Poaching Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that the legal
floodgates have opened on DreamWorks Animation, Disney, Pixar and
Sony as yet another class action has been filed against the 'toon
companies over alleged anti-poaching and wage fixing deals.

"Visual effects and animation studios, including Lucasfilm,
(including its division Industrial Light & Magic), Pixar,
DreamWorks, The Walt Disney Company (and its division Walt Disney
Animation Studios), Sony, ImageMovers, Digital Domain, and others
have engaged in a long-running conspiracy to suppress the wages of
their highly skilled workers and employees," claims a complaint
from David Wentworth.  A former Associate Computer Graphics
Supervisor at Robert Zemeckis' ImageMovers, Wentworth's October 2
filing in federal court is very similar to two previous class
action suits put before the courts in the past five weeks.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Judge Koh to Preside Over Anti-Poaching Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubtful that DreamWorks Animation, Disney, Sony Picture
Imageworks, Lucasfilm and others would call it a case of the more
the merrier but the potential class actions against them are now
connected -- or at least at the same bench.  In a move that could
see the actions move ahead faster, Judge Lucy Koh has agreed to
preside over the second lawsuit against the studios over
allegations of an illegal anti-poaching and wage suppression deal
they had going for years.

It can't make the animation studios happy that the judge who
rejected Apple and other tech companies' $325 million settlement
attempt to end a similar case against them is now overseeing their
fate in these two cases.

Last month, Judge Koh agreed to the request from former DWA
effects artist Robert Nitsch Jr. that the Northern District of
California federal judge be reassigned his class action.
Mr. Nitsch's basic argument was that his September 8 filed
antitrust class action complaint was "related" to the High-Tech
Employee Antitrust Litigation case that Judge Koh had been
presiding over that for the past several years.

Obviously the Judge agreed.

Judge Koh also issued an order assigning herself the punitive
class action filed late last month by digital artist Georgia Cano.
"As the judge assigned to the earliest filed case below that bears
my initials, I find that the more recently filed case(s) . . .
are related to the case assigned to me, and such case(s) shall be
reassigned to me," said Judge Koh's October 7 order.  That puts
all the cases under the same tent as the tech case -- from which
the 'toon dealing was first revealed in depositions.  Lucasfilm
and Pixar paid out $9 million earlier this year to get out of the
tech case though they are in deep in the two animation specific
class actions

A lighting artist on the likes of Polar Express and a former
Rhythm & Hues employee, Ms. Cano filed her complaint on September
17 against a number of the same studios as Mr. Nitsch and a few
others such as Blue Sky Studios.  "While protecting and enhancing
their massive profits, defendants through their anti-poaching
agreements and wage-fixing agreements deprived class members of
hundreds of millions of dollars worth of compensation for which
plaintiff and the class now seek relief," said the filing in
federal court.

Like Mr. Nitsch, Mr. Cano also noted this specific situation had
been spawned over 25 years ago out of a not so gentlemanly
agreement between Steve Jobs, then Pixar Prez Ed Catmull and
George Lucas. Other animation makers like Jeffrey Katzenberg were
supposedly brought into the arrangement.  Jobs also later spread
the same way of doing things to some of Silicon Valley
heavyhitters, hence the Justice Department investigation and
subsequent lawsuit from 64,000 high tech employees.

The tech companies are appealing Judge Koh's rejection of their
settlement for being too low.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Faces Robocall Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that a small business
owner slapped Dun & Bradstreet Inc. with a proposed class action
in California federal court on Oct. 9 alleging the business
information seller violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by repeatedly using an automated dialer to call her cellphone.

Holly Freyja alleges that the Dun & Bradstreet called her cell
phone and left prerecorded voicemails at least four times in
July 2014.  Ms. Freya said she never gave her phone number or
consent to be called to Dun & Bradstreet, which provides credit
reports, marketing lists and data services to businesses.  The
complaint says the repeated calls invaded her privacy.

It alleges that Dun & Bradstreet willfully violated the TCPA by
using the automated dialer to make the unsolicited calls.

"The repetitive calls were unwanted, disruptive, and
disconcerting," the suit says.

On July 17, Ms. Freya's complaint says, she received a call on her
cellphone from a number assigned to Dun & Bradstreet.  The company
left a voice message saying that Dun & Bradstreet wanted to speak
with her about her business.

Concerned by the message, Ms. Freya immediately returned the call
and was answered by a recorded greeting, the suit says.  She hung
up because she didn't want to listen to a recorded message, the
complaint says.  Later that afternoon, Dun & Bradstreet left
another prerecorded voicemail on her cellphone, according to the
suit.

Ms. Freya "did not want to waste time returning the call to an
automated system; she hoped the calls would simply stop," the
complaint says.

Dun & Bradstreet called Freya at least two more times, and since
she owns a small business she became alarmed that something was
hurting her business, the suit says.

Ms. Freya looked up the company on the Internet and found out that
Dun & Bradstreet had made the same calls to many other people and
that the calls were "nothing more than a ploy" marketing their
business information services, the suit says.  The complaint says
the proposed class is believed to contain tens of thousands of
consumers.  Ms. Freya says she was not interested in Dun &
Bradstreet's offer and has never had a business relationship with
the company.

The suit seeks $500 for each violation of the TCPA, with treble
damages for knowing and willful violation, as well as an
injunction ordering Dun & Bradstreet to stop all its telemarketing
to cellphones and spam activities.

Ms. Freya is represented by W. Craft Hughes, Jarret L. Ellzey and
Brian B. Kilpatrick of Hughes Ellzey LLP and Michael R. Dufour of
Southwest Legal Group.

The case is Freyja v. Dun & Bradstreet Inc. et al., case number
2:14-cv-07831, in the U.S. District for the Central District of
California.


ECOTALITY INC: Amended Securities Complaint to be Filed by Thurs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in San Francisco, California, granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated amended
complaint in the case, IN RE ECOTALITY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 3:13-CV-03791-SC, Consolidated with Case No. 13-cv-03840,
No. 13-cv-45679 (N.D. Calif.).

That order, dated Sept. 16, 2014, dismissed certain of the
Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, dismissed the remaining claims
with leave to amend, and allowed the Plaintiffs 30 days to file an
amended complaint.  The parties have met and conferred about the
Plaintiffs' anticipated amended complaint and a briefing schedule
for the Defendants' response thereto.

The matter is a class action under the federal securities laws and
is subject to a stay of discovery under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(b)(3)(B).

In a Stipulation dated Oct. 14, the parties agree to move the Case
Management Conference currently set for Dec. 12.  The parties
agree that any case management conference would be premature and
would not benefit the Court or the parties both because discovery
is stayed and because the Defendants anticipate moving to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' forthcoming amended complaint.  The parties also
agree that the selection of an ADR process under Civil Local Rule
16-8 and ADR Local Rule 3-5 would be premature and would not
benefit the Court or the parties.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, the parties agree that:

     1. Plaintiffs must file and serve an amended complaint no
later than October 23, 2014. The date of filing will be deemed the
date of service for purposes of Defendants' response.

     2. Defendants must file and serve their response to the
amended complaint no later than December 8, 2014.

     3. If Defendants' response is a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs
must file and serve their opposition no later than January 21,
2015.

     4. Defendants must file and serve their reply no later than
February 20, 2015.

     5. Defendants' motion to dismiss, if any, will be set for
hearing on March 6, 2015.

     6. The December 12, 2014 Case Management Conference will be
taken off calendar, to be rescheduled for May 1, 2015.

     7. The deadline for the filing of the ADR Certification and
the Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone
Conference will be extended to 21 days before the continued Case
Management Conference, if any.

A copy of the Stipulation dated October 14, 2014 is available at
http://is.gd/fJcXRsfrom Leagle.com.  The Stipulation was signed
by District Judge Samuel Conti.

Joseph B. Woodring, Esq. -- jwoodring@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP,
represents Defendants H. Ravi Brar and Susie Herrmann.

                   About Ecotality Inc.

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, Ecotality, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ECTY) -- http://www.ecotality.com-- is a provider of
electric transportation and storage technologies.

Ecotality Inc. along with affiliates including lead debtor
Electric Transportation Engineering Corp. sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D. Ariz. Lead Case No. 13-16126) on Sept. 16,
2013, with plans to sell the business at an auction.

In October 2013, the bankruptcy judge cleared Ecotality to sell
most of the business to Car Charging Group Inc. for $3.3 million.
Two other buyers purchased other assets for $1 million in total.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Bid for Limited Discovery Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court granted the plaintiff's request for limited discovery
in the shareholder derivative class action captioned Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et al., Education
Management Corporation said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's disclosure was made as part of a Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the SEC on October 2, 2014.

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et
al. was filed against the directors of the Company in state court
located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Company is named as a nominal
defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders
due to the Company's violation of the U.S. Department of
Education's prohibition on paying incentive compensation to
admissions representatives, engaging in improper recruiting
tactics in violation of Title IV of the HEA and accrediting agency
standards, improper classification of job placement data for
graduates of its schools and failure to satisfy the U.S.
Department of Education's financial responsibility standards. The
Company previously received two demand letters from the plaintiff
which were investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the
EDMC Board and found to be without merit.

The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. In response, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making substantially the
same allegations as the initial complaint on September 27, 2012.
The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on October 17, 2012.

On July 16, 2013, the Court dismissed the claims that the Company
engaged in improper recruiting tactics and mismanaged the
Company's financial well-being with prejudice and found that the
Special Litigation Committee could conduct a supplemental
investigation of the plaintiff's claims related to incentive
compensation paid to admissions representatives and graduate
placement statistics. The Special Litigation Committee filed
supplemental reports on October 15, 2013, January 9, 2014 and
February 28, 2014, finding no support for the incentive
compensation and graduate placement statistic claims. The Court
held a hearing on the defendants' supplemental motion to dismiss
the case on January 29, 2014 and granted the plaintiff's request
for limited discovery on June 11, 2014.

Education Management Corporation (www.edmc.edu), with
approximately 119,500 students as of the three month period ended
March 31, 2014, is among the largest providers of post-secondary
education in North America, based on student enrollment and
revenue, with a total of 110 locations in 32 U.S. states and
Canada. The Company offers academic programs to students through
campus-based and online instruction, or through a combination of
both. The Company is committed to offering quality academic
programs and strives to improve the learning experience for its
students. Its educational institutions offer students the
opportunity to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees and certain
specialized non-degree diplomas in a broad range of disciplines,
including media arts, health sciences, design, psychology and
behavioral sciences, culinary, business, fashion, legal, education
and information technology.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Bid to Stay "Bushansky" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation said in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 2, 2014, that a
shareholder derivative class action captioned Stephen Bushansky v.
Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed on August 3, 2012, against
certain of the directors of the Company in federal district court
in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Company is named as a
nominal defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's
shareholders due to the Company's use of improper recruiting,
enrollment admission and financial aid practices and violation of
the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on the payment of
incentive compensation to admissions representatives. The Company
previously received a demand letter from the plaintiff which was
investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the EDMC Board
and found to be without merit. The Company believes that the
claims set forth in the complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. The Company and the named director
defendants filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the
resolution of the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System
shareholder derivative case or, alternatively, dismiss the case on
October 19, 2012. On August 5, 2013, the Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the case in light of the ruling on the
defendants' motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System case.

The Company's disclosure was made as part of a Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the SEC on October 2, 2014.

Education Management Corporation (www.edmc.edu), with
approximately 119,500 students as of the three month period ended
March 31, 2014, is among the largest providers of post-secondary
education in North America, based on student enrollment and
revenue, with a total of 110 locations in 32 U.S. states and
Canada. The Company offers academic programs to students through
campus-based and online instruction, or through a combination of
both. The Company is committed to offering quality academic
programs and strives to improve the learning experience for its
students. Its educational institutions offer students the
opportunity to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees and certain
specialized non-degree diplomas in a broad range of disciplines,
including media arts, health sciences, design, psychology and
behavioral sciences, culinary, business, fashion, legal, education
and information technology.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Case Filed Over Clinical Psychology Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation said in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 2, 2014, that in
August 2013, a petition was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington (King County) in the case of Winters, et al.
v. Argosy Education Group, et al. by 20 former students in the
Clinical Psychology program offered by the Seattle campus of
Argosy University. In December 2013, a similar petition was filed
in the same court in the case of McMath, et al. v. Argosy
Education Group, et al. by nine former students in the Clinical
Psychology program offered by the Seattle campus of Argosy
University.

Both cases allege negligent misrepresentation due to the failure
of the Clinical Psychology program to obtain accreditation from
the American Psychology Association ("APA"), breach of contract,
violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence and lack of
institutional control, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty, negligent failure to disclose and fraud.

The Seattle campus of Argosy University announced that it was
teaching-out (i.e., not accepting new students into the program)
the Clinical Psychology program in November 2011 due to the
inability to obtain APA accreditation.

The Company believes the claims in the lawsuits to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of these
legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on the
information presently available, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for these actions and, accordingly, has
not accrued any liability associated with these actions.

The Company's disclosure was made as part of a Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the SEC on October 2, 2014.

Education Management Corporation (www.edmc.edu), with
approximately 119,500 students as of the three month period ended
March 31, 2014, is among the largest providers of post-secondary
education in North America, based on student enrollment and
revenue, with a total of 110 locations in 32 U.S. states and
Canada. The Company offers academic programs to students through
campus-based and online instruction, or through a combination of
both. The Company is committed to offering quality academic
programs and strives to improve the learning experience for its
students. Its educational institutions offer students the
opportunity to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees and certain
specialized non-degree diplomas in a broad range of disciplines,
including media arts, health sciences, design, psychology and
behavioral sciences, culinary, business, fashion, legal, education
and information technology.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Facing "Robb" Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation said in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 2, 2014, that a
securities class action complaint captioned Robb v. Education
Management Corporation, et. al was filed on September 19, 2014,
against the Company and certain of its executive officers. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder due to allegedly materially false and misleading
statements made by the Company during the period of August 8, 2012
through September 16, 2014 in connection with the Company's
filings with the SEC, press releases and other statements and
documents. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may
arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this
point.

"Based on the information available to us at present, we cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and,
accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with
this action," the Company said.

The Company's disclosure was made as part of a Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the SEC on October 2, 2014.

Education Management Corporation (www.edmc.edu), with
approximately 119,500 students as of the three month period ended
March 31, 2014, is among the largest providers of post-secondary
education in North America, based on student enrollment and
revenue, with a total of 110 locations in 32 U.S. states and
Canada. The Company offers academic programs to students through
campus-based and online instruction, or through a combination of
both. The Company is committed to offering quality academic
programs and strives to improve the learning experience for its
students. Its educational institutions offer students the
opportunity to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees and certain
specialized non-degree diplomas in a broad range of disciplines,
including media arts, health sciences, design, psychology and
behavioral sciences, culinary, business, fashion, legal, education
and information technology.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Alfred Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC on Oct. 8 disclosed that
it has filed a shareholder class action against Education
Management Corporation and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Western District of
Pennsylvania, and docketed under 14-cv-01287, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased EDMC
securities between August 8, 2012 and September 16, 2014,
inclusive.

If you are a shareholder who purchased EDMC securities during the
Class Period, you have until November 18, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  If you are an EDMC
investor and have any questions, please contact Alfred G. Yates
Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-5164, toll free. You may also contact
him by email at yateslaw@aol.com or through the law office web
site at http://yatesclassactionlaw.com/contact_us.php
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) EDMC was overstating revenue
by not properly increasing its bad debt reserve upon student
withdrawals; (2) EDMC was overstating goodwill; (3) EDMC
manipulated federal student loan and grant programs in order to
appear to be in compliance with new federal regulations enacted in
June 2011; (4) EDMC's predatory and deceptive recruiting and
enrollment practices violated federal regulations enacted
beginning in June 2011 and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
EDMC's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.


FASCATI PIZZERIA: "Hurtado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Hurtado, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Fascati Pizzeria Corp., Jeffrey Scotto, and
Michael Scotto, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06027
(E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, and such other relief available by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a limited-service restaurant doing
business as Fascati's Pizzeria and located at 80 Henry Street,
Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


FOREST OIL: Facing 6 Class Actions in New York Over Sabine Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Oil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that since the
announcement of the Company's merger agreement with Sabine Oil &
Gas LLC, six putative shareholder class action complaints have
been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by
purported Forest common shareholders. These actions are captioned
Stourbridge Investments LLC v. Forest Oil Corp., et al., Index No.
651418/2014, filed May 7, 2014; Raul, et al. v. Carroll, et al.,
Index No. 651446/2014, filed May 9, 2014; Rothenberg v. Forest Oil
Corp., et al., Index No. 651499/2014, filed May 15, 2014;
Gawlikowski v. Forest Oil Corp., et al., Index No. 651506/2014,
filed May 16, 2014; Edwards v. Carroll, et al., Index No.
651523/2014, filed May 16, 2014; and Jabri v. Forest Oil Corp., et
al., Index No. 651551/2014, filed May 20, 2014.

On July 8, 2014, the New York Court consolidated the New York
actions and captioned the case In re Forest Oil Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 651418/2014, and on July 17,
2014, the New York plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint (the "New York Action"). The New York Action names as
defendants each of the current directors of Forest, as well as
Sabine and certain of its affiliates and investors, and seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the combination transaction or, in
the event the combination transaction is consummated, to recover
damages. The action alleges, among other things, that the members
of the Forest board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Forest shareholders by agreeing to the original transaction
announced by Forest and Sabine on May 6, 2014 for inadequate
consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process, that the
revised transaction structure announced by Forest and Sabine on
July 10, 2014 was structured to deprive Forest shareholders of
their right to vote on the combination transaction, and that the
disclosures made by Forest in the Schedule 14A proxy statement
filed on July 16, 2014 were inadequate. The New York Action also
includes allegations challenging the Company's sale of its Texas
Panhandle assets to Templar Energy, which closed on November 25,
2013. The New York Action further alleges that Sabine and certain
of its affiliates aided and abetted these alleged breaches.


FOREST OIL: Facing Colorado Action Over Sabine Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
Forest Oil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that one
putative shareholder class action complaint has been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado by two
purported Forest common shareholders (the "Colorado Action"),
captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
01409, filed May 19, 2014. The plaintiffs in the Colorado Action
filed an amended complaint on June 13, 2014.

The Colorado Action names as defendants each of the current
directors of Forest, as well as Forest, Sabine Holdings, and
certain of their respective affiliate entities. The action seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the original transaction or, in the
event the original transaction is consummated, to recover damages.
The action alleges, among other things, that the members of the
Forest board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Forest shareholders by agreeing to sell Forest transaction for
inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process,
and that certain of the entity defendants, including Sabine
Holdings and certain of its affiliates, aided and abetted these
alleged breaches. In addition, the Colorado Action further alleges
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with
Forest's disclosures in the Form S-4 registration statement filed
by Forest on May 29, 2014.


FOREST OIL: No Date Yet for Oral Arguments in "Augenbaum" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
A date for oral arguments has not yet been set in the lawsuit
styled Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Resources Inc. et al., Forest Oil
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The judge overseeing the lawsuit styled Augenbaum v. Lone Pine
Resources Inc. et al., granted on March 26, 2014, defendants'
motion to dismiss, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  The original claim was brought
on May 25, 2012, as a purported class action in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, New York County against Forest, Lone
Pine, certain of Lone Pine's current and former directors and
officers (the "Individual Defendants"), and certain underwriters
(the "Underwriter Defendants") of Lone Pine's initial public
offering (the "IPO"), which was completed on June 1, 2011. The
class action was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleged that Lone Pine's registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the IPO contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts
relating to forest fires that occurred in Northern Alberta in May
2011,  the rupture of a third-party oil sales pipeline in Northern
Alberta in April 2011, and the impact of those events on Lone
Pine, that the alleged misstatements or omissions violated Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and that
Lone Pine, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter
Defendants are liable for such violations. (The complaint was
subsequently amended to drop the allegation regarding the forest
fires.) The complaint further alleged that the Underwriter
Defendants offered and sold Lone Pine's securities in violation of
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and the putative class
members seek rescission of the securities purchased in the IPO
that they continue to own and rescissionary damages for securities
that they have sold. Finally, the complaint asserted a claim
against Forest under Section 15 of the Securities Act, alleging
that Forest was a "control person" of Lone Pine at the time of the
IPO. The complaint alleged that the putative class, which
purchased shares of Lone Pine's common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to Lone Pine's registration statement and prospectus,
was damaged when the value of the stock declined in August 2011.

Plaintiff has appealed the verdict, and appellate briefs have been
submitted.  A date for oral arguments has not yet been set.


GMAC INC: Class Action Claim in Vehicle Foreclosure Case Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Ann Crawford McClure of the Court of Appeals of
Texas, Eighth District, El Paso, affirmed a trial court judgment
entered in favor of GMAC Inc. in a lawsuit filed against it by
Robert H. Holmes.  The dispute stems from foreclosure of a
vehicle.

Among others, Judge McClure upheld the trial court's judgment
rejecting Mr. Holmes' amended counterclaim, in which he sought
class certification on claims arising out of GMAC's enforcement of
"SmartBuy" agreements in Texas.  Judge McClure said the amended
counterclaim was untimely and prejudicial on its face because it
asserted a new cause of action.

"The amended counterclaim asserted a new substantive matter that
reshaped the nature of trial. GMAC's breach of contract claim was
straightforward and the addition of a class action would have
drastically altered the nature of the case. Given that the
discovery deadline expired less than three weeks after the amended
counterclaim was filed, GMAC would have been deprived of the
opportunity to adequately develop its defense. There is no
evidence in the record that GMAC could have anticipated the class
action amendment. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by granting GMAC's motion and striking the amended
counterclaim," Judge McClure said.

The case is, ROBERT H. HOLMES, Appellant, v. GMAC, INC., Appellee,
No. 08-12-00209-CV (Tex. App.).  The Opinion dated October 15,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/jmiq3Pfrom Leagle.com.


GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Emily Field and Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, report that
Google Inc. asked a California federal judge to throw out an
amended putative class action alleging the tech giant breached
user contracts by giving consumer data from Google Wallet users to
third-party app developers, saying on Oct. 7 that there is no
significant difference from the dismissed, original complaint.

Google said that plaintiff Alice Svenson has still failed to
allege facts showing how she and other proposed class members
suffered damages from Google's alleged information breach.
Ms. Svenson merely restated the same facts alleged in her first
dismissed complaint, changing only the terminology, Google said in
a memo supporting its motion to dismiss.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed Ms. Svenson's
first complaint because she identified the wrong contracts in the
complaint and failed to show that she and other class members
suffered damages.

Google said that Ms. Svenson's amended complaint alleging breach
of contract is similarly flawed because she still hasn't shown how
she suffered damages as a result of Google's contract breach.
Ms. Svenson also failed again to allege facts showing that Google
gave more than just her basic subscription information to third-
party app developers, according to Google.

"Svenson had the opportunity to cure the defects in her complaint,
but failed to do so," Google said.

Ms. Svenson's amended complaint alleged breach of contract, breach
of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of
California's unfair competition laws. It seeks to establish a
class of all people in the U.S. who used the Google Wallet payment
service to buy apps via Google Play since September 2011.

Ms. Svenson first sued in September 2013, saying that after she
bought an app for $1.77 in May 2013, Google sent her information
-- including her "name, email address, Google account name, home
city and state, zip code, and in some instances telephone number"
-- to the app's vendor.

Google said that Ms. Svenson can't claim injury or breach of
contract by arguing that she paid Google for privacy protections,
as her only factual allegation is that she paid $1.77 for an app
using Google Wallet.

"Like the original complaint, the first amended complaint still
alleges only that [Google] received money; Svenson does not plead
facts that establish she paid money to [Google] in return for
privacy promises," Google said.

Ms. Svenson also again failed to plead facts contradicting Google
Wallet's terms of service, which state that the payment platform
is free to consumers even if they don't buy any apps, according to
the memo.

"The court previously, and correctly, concluded that the Wallet
terms of service did not obligate Svenson to pay anything for the
privacy promises [Google] allegedly breached," Google said.

Google said that Ms. Svenson can't claim breach of contract or
damages under California's unfair competition law because she
didn't pay anything to Google.

"Svenson's vague allegation that [Google] 'retained' some portion
of money contradicts the unambiguous statement in the Wallet terms
of service that the Google Wallet is free to buyers and any fee is
paid by the app seller," Google said in its memo.

Google added that Ms. Svenson cannot claim she lost the market
value of her personal information, as she does not allege facts
that she tried to or intended to sell her information.

Ms. Svenson is represented by Kathryn Diemer of Diemer Whitman &
Cardosi LLP; and Frank J. Jablonski, Elizabeth Roberson-Young and
Mark A. Bulgarelli of Progressive Law Group LLC.

Google is represented by Susan D. Fahringer --
SFahringer@perkinscoie.com -- Charles C. Sipos --
CSipos@perkinscoie.com -- and Sunita B. Bali --
SBali@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie LLP.

The case is Svenson v. Google Inc. et al., case number 5:13-cv-
04080, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


GT ADVANCED: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Oct. 9 disclosed that
it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of Adam
S. Levy against certain of the executive officers and directors of
GT Advanced Technologies Inc., as well as the underwriters of the
Company's public offering of 3.00% Convertible Senior Notes due
2020 and GT's public offering of common stock, both conducted on
or around December 4, 2013.  The action, which is captioned Levy
v. Gutierrez, 14-cv-443 (D.N.H.), asserts claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in GT
securities during the period of November 5, 2013 to 9:40am Eastern
Standard Time on October 6, 2014, inclusive.  The action also
asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of
investors that purchased securities pursuant or traceable to the
Offerings.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period and/or in the
offering materials for the Offerings, defendants misrepresented
and/or concealed GT's cash position, expected cash position and
revenues, ability to meet the milestones under a critical
agreement with Apple for the production of sapphire material, and
the progress that the Company was making developing the facility
that would produce the sapphire material.  On October 6, 2014, the
Company announced that it was experiencing a liquidity crisis and
filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Hampshire.  On this news, the price of GT stock
declined from $11.05 per share to $0.80 per share, or almost 93%.
Similarly, the price of the Company's 3.00% Convertible Senior
Notes due 2020, which had a face value of $1,000 per note,
declined from $1,083 per note to $315 per note, or almost 71%.
If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from October 9,
2014.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff is December 8, 2014.  Any member of
the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- has
built an international reputation for excellence and integrity.
Specializing in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.  Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of
the largest and most significant securities recoveries in history,
recovering billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors.


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Manning" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Manning, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Halliburton,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00213 (N.D. Tex., October 14, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. develops and provides oil and
gas exploration, development and production products, and services
to upstream oil and gas customers throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HINDS COUNTY, MS: Nears Overtime Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie E. Gates, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that a
settlement is in the works of a federal class action lawsuit that
could lead to hundreds of former and current Hinds County
Sheriff's Office employees receiving back overtime pay.

In 2012, Derius Harris and Ray Marshall filed the lawsuit against
Hinds County.  Another employee, Frederick Malone, joined in the
lawsuit after it was filed.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves allowed the lawsuit earlier
this year to have temporary class action status until a final
ruling could be made.

The Department of Labor is also investigating the sheriff office
over violations of overtime laws.

"The Board has authorized me to explore resolution of these
complaints," Board of Supervisors Attorney Pieter Teeuwissen said
on Oct. 9.  "We are hoping to resolve the lawsuit so that it will
be fair to both the county and to the plaintiffs."

Mr. Teeuwissen said everyone is working cooperative to try to
resolve the overtime pay dispute.

The overtime issue involves the administrations of current Sheriff
Tyrone Lewis, who took office in January 2012, and former Sheriff
Malcolm McMillin, who lost reelection to Lewis in 2011.

The former employees in the lawsuit are seeking to recover unpaid
overtime compensation.  They had been correctional officers
employed by the Hinds County Sheriff's office in non-supervisory
positions.  The employees said they were not paid all overtime
wages owed and the county didn't pay for all compensatory time
earned when the employees' employment ended.

Those involved in the litigation say Hinds County has proposed a
settlement.  It has yet to be finalized. The proposed settlement
would have to be approved by the Hinds County Board of Supervisors
and plaintiffs who filed the legal action.

Their attorney Nick Norris said on Oct. 9 he couldn't dismiss the
case, but acknowledged settlement talks were underway.

Hinds County Supervisor Kenneth Stokes said he expects the
county's legal department to present a proposal to supervisors in
coming weeks to try to resolve the overtime pay issue.

In addition to the class action lawsuit, at least two other
lawsuits have been filed over overtime pay by former sheriff
office employees.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan denied the county's
motion to dismiss John Markas Marbury's lawsuit.  He said he is
owed for 322 hours of overtime.  Mr. Marbury worked for the
sheriff department from October 1994 until he left January 17 of
this year.

Also, Keith Preston Roberts has a federal lawsuit, saying he was
only paid for 162.5 of the 480 hours he was owed in overtime pay
when he left the sheriff office in November 2013.

Marbury's attorney, Francis Springer of Madison, is representing
Marbury and Roberts in their lawsuit.  Mr. Springer said on Oct. 9
his clients have yet to be offered a settlement.

"We hope to resolve it without going to trial, but we are
preparing for trial," Mr. Springer said.  "We believe they
(clients) have been wronged."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against ITT
Educational Services, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, and docketed under 14-cv-01651,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased ITT securities between April 26, 2013 and September 19,
2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased ITT securities during the
Class Period, you have until December 1, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

ITT is a leading provider of postsecondary degree programs in the
United States. The Company's institutes offer associate, bachelor,
and master degree programs, as well as non-degree diploma
programs.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
ITT's financial statements contained errors related to the
accounting of its PEAKS Trust and PEAKS Program; (2) the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 21, 2014, the Company announced that it received an
inquiry to the Office of the Chief Accountant of the SEC related
to the accounting treatment for the variable interest entity
involved in the PEAKS Program.  On this news, the Company's shares
fell $2.24, or over 7%, to close at $27.71 per share on March 24,
2014.

On May 22, 2014, the Company announced that it was withdrawing its
2014 forecast and investors should no longer rely upon it due to
uncertainties related to the accounting of its PEAKS Trust and the
Company's guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Program.  On this
news, the Company's shares fell $5.30, or over 20%, to close at
$20.50 per share on May 22, 2014.

On September 19, 2014, the Company announced that it was notified
by the Division of Enforcement of the SEC that it made the
preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an
enforcement action against the Company alleging violations of
Sections 10(b), 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13 and 13a-15
under the Exchange Act. The potential enforcement action stemmed
from a previously disclosed SEC investigation concerning the
Company's two private education loan programs for its students. On
this news, the Company's shares fell $2.70, or over 35%, to close
at $4.95 per share on September 19, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


JL BARNES: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, "Blake" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Blake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J.L. Barnes Insurance Agency, Inc. an Illinois
Corporation d/b/a JLBG Health, Case No. 1:14-cv-23781 (S.D. Fla.,
October 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for sending
noncompliant facsimile advertisements promoting the Defendant's
products and services to the telephone facsimile machine that do
not contain the requisite opt-out notice.

J.L. Barnes Insurance Agency, Inc. owns and operates the American
Health Insurance Exchange, which sells insurance products and
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
      Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
      SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
      P.O. Box 70327
      Washington, DC 20024
      Telephone: (202) 709-5744
      E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
              josh@sjlawcollective.com

         - and -

      Peter Bennett, Esq.
      Richard Bennett, Esq.
      BENNETT & BENNETT
      1200 Anastasia Ave., Ofc 360
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 444-5925
      E-mail: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com
              richardbennett27@gmail.com


LA ESTRELLA: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Maria Diaz and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. La Estrella De Oro Joyeria #2 Inc., Carlos A. Corderi,
and Eduardo A. Corderi, Case No. 1:14-cv-23778 (S.D. Fla., October
14, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

La Estrella De Oro Joyeria #2 Inc. owns and operates a jewelry
store in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LENOVO GROUP: Settles Class Suit Over Defective IdeaPad Wifi
------------------------------------------------------------
Venture Capital Post reports that Lenovo will settle disputes
regarding its IdeaPad unit.  The company will be providing either
refunds or vouchers to owners of the IdeaPad units who qualify as
Settlement Class Members, says the official settlement portal set
up by Lenovo.

Refunds and Vouchers for IdeaPads with Wi-Fi Defect

PC World reports that when the IdeaPad U310 and U410 had Wi-Fi
problems when they were first shipped in 2012.  Lenovo's official
forum received many complaints about the notebooks' Wi-Fi function
either slowing down or not working at all.  According to the
report, court documents show that Lenovo knew this was a design
defect, and that they had developed a design update to fix the
wireless problem.  However, recipients of the defective units
filed the lawsuit in early 2013.

The settlement gives qualified Settlement Class Members either a
$100 refund or a $250 voucher, which can only be used on Lenovo's
website.  According to the Settlement portal, these members are
owners of the defective IdeaPad units who bought their devices in
the United States within the prescribed period through the date of
the entry of the Order of Final Approval.  These users have to
register through the portal to make their claim, with the filing
deadline being set to September 11, 2015.  PCWorld reports that
settlement agreement notices have begun being sent out in
September of the current year.

Other Settlement Options Available

Additionally, Lenovo added that users who do not want to collect
the refund or the voucher will have a third choice.  They will be
eligible for free laptop repairs for a year, as well as free
warranty extension. These users will receive an additional year of
coverage from the time their laptops are repaired.

Users who spent money to get the Wi-Fi issues of the IdeaPad U310
and U410 fixed may receive additional benefits from Lenovo.  The
company is willing to reimburse users as long as they can present
proof of the repair.


MERCK: Female Sales Reps to Proceed With Gender Bias Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler, LLP on Oct. 8 disclosed that five female Merck
sales representatives will proceed with their class action gender
discrimination lawsuit against Merck, according to a federal
judge.  The five plaintiffs, on behalf of all female sales
representatives at Merck, allege that Merck engaged in pay and
promotion discrimination against the proposed female employee
class, that comparable male sales representatives were paid more
than women, and that Merck discriminated and retaliated against
pregnant employees and those who took pregnancy leave.  The five
plaintiffs further charged that Merck was permeated with a "boys
club" atmosphere that negatively affected pay and promotion for
women.

In February 2014, before any substantial discovery had taken
place, Merck moved to dismiss or strike the class allegations of
the amended complaint.  Merck argued that under the U.S. Supreme
Court's ruling in Walmart v. Dukes, the class claims were invalid
and should be dismissed.

On October 8, 2014, Judge Pisano of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied Merck's motion to
dismiss. The Court noted that "Hardly, if any, discovery has been
completed and there has been little to no evidence put before this
Court to evaluate the merits of Plaintiffs' class claims and
whether these claims suffice for purposes of Rule 23
certification" (Case 3:13-cv-02970-JAP-LHG). Judge Pisano also
concluded that . . . Plaintiffs have certainly pled sufficient
allegations to withstand the plausibility standard set forth in
Rule 12(b)(6).  The amended complaint is 69 pages replete with
allegations surrounding Merck's alleged policies and procedures
resulting in disparate impact to female sales representatives
which, as set forth above, this Court is required to accept as
true for purposes of this motion.  Further, the amended complaint
contains 16 pages dedicated solely to factual allegations
surrounding the requirements of Rule 23 -- namely, numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequate representation -- in
addition to the requirements of Rule 23(b)."   And, ". . .
Plaintiffs' have certainly pled sufficient allegations regarding
Defendant's promotion practices and subjective decision making
such that Plaintiffs' class claims are plausible," therefore, ". .
. Defendant's motion is simply premature."

Plaintiffs' attorneys are Sanford Heisler, LLP.  Jeremy Heisler --
jheisler@sanfordheisler.com --- a managing partner of the firm,
emphasized, "Merck's motion to dismiss is part of a trend by
employment discrimination defendants to make 'Jump the Gun'
motions against class complaints.  Before any significant
discovery has occurred, defendants move to dismiss or strike the
class claims arguing the allegations are insufficient on their
face.  The Court's decision is also part of a trend denying such
motions as 'premature'."

Andrew Melzer -- amelzer@sanfordheisler.com -- a partner of
Sanford Heisler, noted, "Our firm has defeated similar motions in
Title VII and gender discrimination actions against Bayer and
KPMG.  We hope that the decision in Merck sends a signal to
defendants against making such fruitless and wasteful motions."

Deborah Marcuse -- dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com -- managing partner
of Sanford Heisler's New York office said, "We are gratified that
Judge Pisano determined that our complaint plausibly alleged
gender discrimination with the required specificity and should not
be dismissed under Walmart v. Dukes. This latest decision should
be a lesson to employers that they can't simply invoke Dukes like
Aladdin's lamp and automatically convince a court to dismiss valid
class allegations, such as those presented in our Merck
complaint."

                     About Sanford Heisler

Sanford Heisler is a public interest law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam and other civil
rights matters.  The firm has extensive experience in complex
class action litigation having successfully represented thousands
of individuals in major class action cases in the United States.
The firm also represents select individual clients with a
particular emphasis on the representation of executives and
lawyers in employment disputes and whistleblowers.  In May 2010,
the firm won the largest jury award in the U.S. in a gender
discrimination employment class action when a jury returned a
verdict of $253 million in compensatory and punitive damages
against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.  In 2012, the firm
settled a wage and hour case on behalf of sales reps employed by
Novartis Pharmaceuticals for $99 million.  Sanford Heisler has an
impressive history of success in qui tam, or whistleblower cases
brought under the False Claims Act, having represented
whistleblowers in a 124 million dollar qui tam settlement with
Omnicare, Inc., a 762 million dollar global qui tam settlement
with Amgen, Inc., and a 23.5 million dollar qui tam settlement
with Medtronic, all with the assistance of the U.S. Department of
Justice.  In addition, Sanford Heisler has filed over 20 other
whistleblower actions now pending throughout the United States,
and is currently investigating and drafting additional matters
across the United States.


MODEL N: Faces Class Action Over $108MM Initial Public Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that Model N Inc., a
revenue management software provider for pharmaceutical companies,
allegedly misled investors by failing to disclose problems with
its sales model ahead of its $108 million initial public offering,
according to a putative securities class action removed to
California federal court on Oct. 8.

Plaintiff and Model N stockholder Plymouth County Retirement
System launched the putative class action accusing the Redwood
City, California-based software company, its board of directors
and underwriters of its March 2013 IPO of failing to disclose
disruptions within its sales team -- which was affecting business
operations -- in the offering documents it filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

"At the time of the IPO, Model N was experiencing significant
sales execution issues," the complaint said.  "Given the
company's extended sales cycle for its products, the company's
sales execution issues were highly likely to impact the company's
continuing operations, as the company lost sales opportunities or
sales were delayed, and, therefore, these issues were required to
be disclosed in the registration statement, but were not."

Ultimately, investors and the general public were misled by the
lack of disclosures in Model N's prospectus about the sales
execution issues that were highly likely to impact continuing
operations, the complaint said.

Model N provides revenue management software to life sciences and
technology companies, including pharmaceutical and medical device
companies.  It was founded in 1999, backed by venture capital
firms such as Accel Partners and Accel-KKR.

The company debuted on the New York Stock Exchange on March 20,
2013, after offering 7.75 million shares at $15.50 apiece that
raised more than $108 million in proceeds for the company.

But by the time Plymouth launched the instant suit, which was
first filed in San Mateo County Superior Court on Sept. 5 before
being removed to Northern California federal court on Oct. 8, the
price of Model N stock traded closer to $9.50 per share, which is
a 38 percent drop from the IPO price.

The suit also names as defendants underwriters and joint
bookrunning managers JP Morgan Securities LLC and Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc.  Underwriters Stifel Nicolaus & Co. Inc., Pacific
Crest Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co. and Raymond James &
Associates Inc. are also named as defendants.

Plymouth is seeking to hold the defendants strictly liable under
the Securities Act of 1933 for the material misstatements in the
prospectus issued in connection with Model N's IPO.

The plaintiff is represented by Christopher J. Keller and Michael
W. Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP and
Shawn A. Williams, Samuel H. Rudman and Mary K. Blasy --
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Model N and the director defendants are represented by Susan S.
Muck, Felix Shih-Young Lee and Michael Davis-Wilson of Fenwick &
West LLP.

The case is Plymouth County Retirement System v. Model N Inc. et
al, case number 3:14-cv-04516, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: MDL Stayed as to Insiders et al
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Moore, the Chapter 11 trustee of New England Compounding
Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a New England Compounding Center, has entered
into three settlement agreements resolving potential claims
against various parties in exchange for, among other things,
substantial contributions of assets and cash to the NECC
bankruptcy estate. The Settlements have been approved in NECC's
pending Chapter 11 case by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

In accordance with the Settlements, the Trustee filed a Motion for
Entry of an Order Limiting Discovery and Staying These Proceedings
with Respect to NECC Insiders and Related Settling Parties,
seeking to stay multidistrict litigation proceedings, and limit
discovery therein, with respect to:

     (i) the parties defined in the Plan Support and Funding
Agreement dated May 2, 2014, executed by the Trustee and certain
insiders of NECC -- Insiders Settlement Agreement -- as
"Contributors" and as "Contributor and Affiliate Released
Parties".  The "Contributors" are Barry Cadden, Lisa Cadden, Carla
Conigliaro, and Gregory Conigliaro;

    (ii) NECC's affiliated landlord, GDC Properties Management,
LLC; and

   (iii) their respective insurers, Preferred Mutual Insurance
Company, Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Company, and Maxum Indemnity
Company, who have settled with the Trustee in the pending chapter
11 case.

Both the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in
NECC's Chapter 11 case and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
appointed in the MDL proceedings are in favor of the terms of the
Insiders Settlement Agreement, including the relief requested by
the Trustee in the Motion.  The Unsecured Committee and the
Steering Committee have executed an Addendum to Plan Support and
Funding Agreement dated May 2, 2014.

In an Oct. 9 Order, District Judge Rya W. Zobel granted the
Trustee's motion.  The Court held that the MDL proceedings are
stayed, effective immediately, with respect to the Settling
Parties.

A copy of Judge Zobel's Order is available at http://is.gd/ly6I9y
from Leagle.com.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum of Decision is available at
http://is.gd/0CEwrxfrom Leagle.com.

The case is, IN RE NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING PHARMACY, INC.,
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL NO. 13-02419-RWZ (D. Mass.).

             About New England Compounding Pharmacy

New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc., filed a Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. D. Mass. Case No. 12-19882) in Boston on Dec. 21, 2012,
after a meningitis outbreak linked to an injectable steroid,
methylprednisolone acetate ("MPA"), manufactured by NECC, killed
39 people and sickened 656 in 19 states, though no illnesses have
been reported in Massachusetts.  The Debtor owns and operates the
New England Compounding Center is located in Framingham, Mass.  In
October 2012, the company recalled all its products, not just
those associated with the outbreak.

Paul D. Moore, Esq., at Duane Morris LLP, in Boston, has been
appointed as Chapter 11 Trustee of NECC.  He is represented by
Jeffrey D. Sternklar, Esq., at DUANE MORRIS LLP.

An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in the case
has been represented by BROWN RUDNICK LLP's William R. Baldiga,
Esq., Rebecca L. Fordon, Esq., Jessica L. Conte, Esq., and David
J. Molton, Esq.


NISSAN: Recalls 2013 Altima Mid-Sized Cars Over Hood Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Young, writing for International Business Times, reports
that Nissan is recalling some 2013 Altima mid-sized cars in the
U.S. because debris can block a latch that could cause wind to
blow the car's hood into the windshield while the vehicle is in
motion.  Meanwhile, Mitsubishi is calling back some Lancer sedans
and Outlander crossovers to fix a problem that could cause the
drive belt to detach, stalling the car in motion.

In separate recall notices posted on the U.S. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) website on Oct. 10 the
companies say they will notify vehicle owners to bring in their
vehicles to check for repairs.

The cars affected by the latest U.S. auto recalls are:

* Nissan Altima, 2013

* Mitsubishi Lancer, 2008-2011
* Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, 2008-2011
* Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback, 2009-2011
* Mitsubishi Outlander, 2008-2011
* Mitsubishi Outlander Sport, 2011

Nissan says it is investigating whether it needs to expand the
recall beyond the 220,423 cars in the U.S. covered in the recent
notice.  Mitsubishi says it received a report from a dealership
about the stalling issue in 2010, but decided to issue the recall
now after further investigations.

The NHTSA said in a recall-acknowledgement letter to Nissan dated
Oct. 9 that, "interference between the hood inner panel and the
secondary latch lever, in combination with debris and corrosion,
may cause the secondary hood latch to bind and remain in the
unlatched position when the hood is closed."

If that happens, drivers might think the hood is secure, but if
the primary latch fails the secondary latch might not prevent wind
from blowing the hood up, blocking the driver's view and
increasing the chances of an accident.

In a similar letter to Mitsubishi, the NHTSA said pulleys can
"experience unusual wear" causing the drive belt that operates the
alternator, cooling fan and steering pump to detach cutting off
battery power and causing the engine to stall while the vehicle is
in motion.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Ocwen
Financial Corporation and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of Florida, West Palm Division, and docketed under 14-cv-81064, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Ocwen securities between May 2, 2013 and August 11,
2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ocwen securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 14, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Ocwen is a financial services holding company which, through its
subsidiaries, is engaged in the servicing and origination of
forward and reverse mortgage loans in the United States and
internationally.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material information
regarding the Company's improper business and operational
practices including, among other things, that Ocwen's mortgage
servicing practices violated applicable regulations and laws; that
the Company's executives allowed related company Altisource
Portfolio Solutions, S.A. -- a company of which Defendant William
C. Erbey, Ocwen's Chairman of the Board, owns approximately 27% of
its shares outstanding-to impose wholly unreasonable rates for
services provided to Ocwen; and that Defendant William C. Erbey,
along with other directors and officers, were directly involved in
approving Ocwen's conflicted transactions with Altisource.  In
addition, the Company's financial results were artificially
inflated during the Class Period.

On December 19, 2013, the first of several partial disclosures
regarding the Company's illicit practices in connection with its
mortgage servicing business was published.  A New York Times
article titled "Big Subprime Mortgage Loan Servicer Agrees to $2.2
billion Settlement" announced a $2.2 billion settlement entered
into by Ocwen with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in
connection with the Company's mortgage servicing business. The
article stated that the Bureau "believe[s] that Ocwen violated
federal consumer financial laws at every stage of the mortgage
servicing process[.]"

On February 26, 2014, an article by Bloomberg titled, "Lawsky
Cites Ocwen Conflicts as He Reviews Wells Fargo Deal," continued
to expose Ocwen's deficient operational practices.  The article
disclosed that the New York Department of Financial Services
issued a letter to the Company expressing concerns regarding
Ocwen's business transactions with related companies and Defendant
Erbey's and other officers' and directors' involvement in
approving transactions with said affiliates.

On August 4, 2014, the NY Department of Financial Services issued
a second letter to Ocwen stating that it was reviewing what it
called "a troubling transaction" with Altisource relating to the
provision of force-placed insurance which is "designed to funnel
as much as $65 million in fees annually from already-distressed
homeowners to Altisource for minimal work."  The article went on
to question the "the role that Ocwen's Executive Chairman William
C. Erbey played in approving this arrangement" which "appears to
be inconsistent with public statements Ocwen has made, as well as
representations in company SEC filings."

The full truth finally emerged on August 12, 2014, when the
Company disclosed yet more problems with its business and
operations when it announced that certain transactions with
another related company in which Defendant Erbey holds a
substantial stake-Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. ("HLSS") --
would lead to the Company restating its financial results for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.  As a result of the restatement, the Company
announced that it expects to report material weaknesses in its
internal controls.  As a result of this disclosure, Ocwen's stock
price declined an additional $1.18 per share, or 4.48%, on higher
than average trading volume.

Overall, in response to these disclosures, the Company's stock
price plummeted an aggregate 55%, from a closing of $56.00 on
December 18, 2013 to a closing price of $25.16 on August 12, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


OPTUM INC: "Manchester" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Manchester, on her own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Optum, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Connextions, Inc., a
Florida Corporation, and XYZ Entities 1-10, fictitious names of
unknown liable entities, Case No. 6:14-cv-01662 (M.D. Fla.,
October 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate call centers throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
      Suite 404, 1515 S Federal Hwy
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com
              pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com


ORACLE CORPORATION: Sued in N.D. Cal. for Fixing Employees Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Garrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Oracle Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
5:14-cv-04592 (N.D. Cal., October 14, 2014), alleges that the
Defendant engaged in a conspiracy with other companies to fix and
suppress the compensation of their employees by way of Restricted
Hiring Agreement.

Oracle Corporation is a U.S.-based multinational computer
technology corporation that specializes in developing and
marketing computer hardware systems and enterprise software
products particularly its own brands of database management
systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
      Tyler J. Belong, Esq.
      Bryce A. Dodds, Esq.
      HOGUE & BELONG
      430 Nutmeg Street, Second Floor
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone No: (619) 238-4720
      Facsimile No: (619) 270-9856
      E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
              tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com
              bdodds@hoguebelonglaw.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Settles Malpractice Fund Suit for $200 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that health care providers will be
getting $200 million from the state of Pennsylvania in a
settlement announced on Oct. 16 over litigation about a massive
fund set up to help doctors pay malpractice insurance premiums.

The Corbett administration said the state would pay $139 million
in refunds, starting in a year and-a-half, and to cut what
providers must pay into the Medical Care Availability and
Reduction of Error fund by $61 million through a revised formula.

Groups that represent doctors and hospitals sued in 2009 after the
state transferred $100 million from the Mcare Fund, as it is
known, to the state's general fund to help balance the budget
under then-Gov. Ed Rendell.

The groups argued they were being overcharged, allowing the state
to accumulate a large surplus in the fund.

Gov. Tom Corbett said in a news release that the settlement will
help cut malpractice insurance costs and preserve Pennsylvania's
system of doctors and hospitals.

Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania president
Andy Carter hailed the agreement.

"The health care providers will receive essential medical
liability savings, and Gov. Corbett has signaled once again that
improving the medical liability climate is a top priority," Carter
said.

The other parties were the Pennsylvania Medical Society and the
Pennsylvania Podiatric Medical Association.


PETROTECH INC: Faces "Donovan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Donovan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Petrotech, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00895 (W.D. Tex.,
October 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek.

Petrotech, Inc. is an oilfield services company providing controls
and instrumentation services to oil companies and operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, Texas 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

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


PORTLAND GENERAL: Evaluating Position With Respect to Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 3,
2014, that the Oregon Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision,
affirmed on October 2, 2014, the 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals
decision that upheld the Public Utility Commission of Oregon
(OPUC) order dated September 30, 2008 in the regulatory proceeding
concerning recovery by Portland General Electric Company (PGE) of
its investment in the Trojan nuclear plant following closure of
the plant in 1993. The OPUC order, which was reported by PGE in
its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2008, required PGE to provide refunds to customers in
the total amount of $33.1 million, including interest. The refunds
were completed in 2010.

Two separate class action proceedings filed against PGE pertaining
to this matter remain in abatement in the Marion County Circuit
Court. The class actions were abated in response to a 2006
decision by the Oregon Supreme Court, in which the Supreme Court
held that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if
any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price
reductions or refunds, in connection with the Trojan investment
recovery proceeding. The October 2, 2014 Supreme Court decision
expressly noted that the plaintiffs must address any request to
lift the abatement with the Marion County Circuit Court. PGE is
evaluating its position with respect to the class actions.


PRITCHETT INC: "Cade" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Cade, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Pritchett, Inc., d/b/a Crossroads Truck Wash and
Constance Pritchett, Case No. 3:14-cv-00239 (E.D. Ark., October
14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pritchett, Inc. owns and operates a semi-trailer truck wash.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      188 East Capitol Street, Suite 777
      Jackson, MS 39201
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com


PURE FOODS: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
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. 2:14-cv-01515 (D. Conn., October 14,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 36 Popeye's franchise
stores in Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New
Jersey and Virginia.

The Plaintiff is 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


RED BULL: Settles False Advertising Class Action in U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------
Metro News reports that Red Bull GmbH, the Austrian company that
sells Red Bull energy drink, has settled a U.S. class action
lawsuit lead by plaintiff Careathers over alleged claims of false
advertisement, according to beverage industry website Bevnet.com.

In a news release issued by law firm Morelli Alters Ratner, LLP,
individuals who purchased Red Bull in the U.S. between Jan. 1,
2002 and Oct. 3, 2014 may be entitled to a $10 cash reimbursement
or Red Bull products worth a retail value of $15.

The settlement amounts to US$13M and could include millions of Red
Bull drinking customers who did not notice an increase in physical
performance, concentration and reaction speed.  The company has
denied any wrongdoing in their advertisement.

According to the news release, Red Bull "denies any wrongdoing or
liability and while Red Bull believes that its marketing and
labeling have always been entirely truthful and accurate, it
confirms that all future claims about the functional benefits of
its products will be medically and/or scientifically supported".

To apply for a reimbursement, class action members must submit a
claim before Mar. 2, 2015.


RISTORANTE PUGLIA: Faces "Elkallaf" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vinny Ayman Elkallaf, Ramy Mikail, Francisco Herrera-Ventura, and
Sebastiano Zappula, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Ristorante Puglia Ltd., Original Puglia, Inc., Mary
Mancuso, Grace Garofalo, and Joseph Garofalo, John Doe, and Jane
Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-08212 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of preparing and
serving Italian food via patronage of and take-out delivery from
its restaurant, Puglia Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
      Thomas Hsien Chih Kung, Esq.
      XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1001 Avenue of the Americas, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 219-2275


RITE AID: Second Circuit Denied Petition for Interlocutory Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation And Subsidiaries said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 2,
2014, for the quarterly period ended August 30, 2014, that the
Company has been named in a collective and class action lawsuit,
Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed
purportedly on behalf of current and former store managers working
in the Company's stores at various locations around the country.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime to
store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New
York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief,
including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal
claims for overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice
of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.
Discovery as to certification issues has been completed.

On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability
only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion
for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims.
The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's
September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014.
The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory
appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied
in September 2014.

Once approved by the Court, notice of the Rule 23 class
certification as to liability only will be sent to approximately
1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York.

At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.


RITE AID: Named as Defendant in Wage & Hour Cases in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation and Subsidiaries said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 2,
2014, for the quarterly period ended August 30, 2014, that the
Company is currently a defendant in several putative class action
lawsuits filed in state Courts in California alleging violations
of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining
primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed meals and
rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure
to provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). These suits
purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. The
Company has aggressively challenged both the merits of the
lawsuits and the allegations that the cases should be certified as
class or representative actions.


RITE AID: Documenting Settlement in "Chase" and "Kyle" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation and Subsidiaries said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 2,
2014, for the quarterly period ended August 30, 2014, that with
respect to cases involving pharmacist meal and rest periods (Chase
and Scherwin v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County
Superior Court and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in
Sacramento County Superior Court), during the period ended March
1, 2014, the Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to
these matters. The Company and the attorneys representing the
putative class of pharmacists have agreed to a class wide
settlement of the case of $9.7 million subject to final Court
approval. The parties are in the process of documenting the
settlement and obtaining Court approval.


RITE AID: Court Stayed Proceedings in "Hall" Case
-------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation and Subsidiaries said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 2,
2014, for the quarterly period ended August 30, 2014, that in the
employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego
County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed its
motion for decertification, which motion was granted in November
2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which
appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition for
review of the appellate court's decision with the California
Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014.
Proceedings in the Hall case are stayed pending a decision by the
California Supreme Court in two similar cases. With respect to the
California Cases (other than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), the
Company, at this time, is not able to predict either the outcome
of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to said lawsuits.


ROSENTHAL MORGAN: Sued in S.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rosenthal, Morgan and Thomas, Inc., and John Does
1-25, Case No. 1:14-cv-08179 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Rosenthal, Morgan and Thomas, Inc. collects and attempts to
collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for
personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors
using the United States Postal Services, telephone and Internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646)459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
              bwolf@legaljones.com


S&S SPORTS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Lemus" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Cifuentes Lemus and Carlos Enrique Chacon, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. S&S Sports Inc., Sidana's
Inc., Amardeep Singh, Bobby Singh and Gagneet Singh and any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by S&S Sports Inc.,
Sidana's Inc., and Amardeep Singh, Bobby Singh and Gagneet Singh,
Case No. 2:14-cv-06000 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014), alleges that
the Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of requiring their
employees to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week,
without providing proper overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq.
      Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      Facsimile: (516) 747-5024
      E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
              jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
              mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


SPOKANE COUNTY, WA: Settles Jail Inmates' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Kip Hill, writing for The Spokesman-Review, reports that more than
1,000 people jailed in Spokane County in the past six years for
failing to pay court-ordered fines will benefit from a class-
action lawsuit that prompted the jail to change policy.

The settlement, valued at about $350,000, applies to all those
booked into the jail for what the courts call legal financial
obligations -- fees, fines and court-ordered restitution that
haven't been paid.

Attorneys for Betty Rucker, the debtor who sued the county on
behalf of all inmates who were jailed for delinquent payment of
fines between 2008 and 2014, heralded the outcome as a common-
sense resolution to a violation of constitutional rights.

The county agreed to the settlement without admitting guilt.
Breean Beggs, a candidate for county prosecutor who helped
represent Ms. Rucker, said policies were changed in the wake of
the lawsuit's filing in 2012.

"Essentially, what we really wanted was the county to stop putting
people in jail when it was really clear that they weren't going to
pay," Mr. Beggs said.

As a result of filing the lawsuit, he said, the number of people
jailed nightly for failing to pay court-ordered fines dropped from
30 inmates to five, freeing jail beds for other offenders and
potentially saving the county millions of dollars.

Mike Patterson, the attorney for Spokane County, said policy
changes that resulted from the lawsuit will keep the county from
future liability and ensure offenders are treated fairly.

According to her complaint, Ms. Rucker was booked into the jail
multiple times between 2006 and 2013 for failing to pay
restitution from a 2000 forgery case.

Lawyers argued that Ms. Rucker was repeatedly denied her right to
appear before a judge to plead her case and that the county
practice of having jail employees -- rather than legally licensed
professionals -- advise inmates of their rights denied her due
process.

"People were waiving these hearings, without really realizing what
it was they were waiving," said Andrew Biviano, who worked on the
case with Mr. Beggs.

Mr. Beggs has made the question of jailing offenders who owe the
courts money a campaign issue in his race for prosecutor, saying
he'd work to abolish the practice if elected. He said the change
in policy was evidence of his efforts to reform the criminal
justice system as an outsider.

"Without that lawsuit, there wouldn't have been a conversation,"
Mr. Beggs said.

His opponent, Larry Haskell, and others have questioned Mr. Beggs
on the campaign trail whether his history of suing the county and
local law enforcement might hurt his relationship with the county
employees.

An attempt to reach Mr. Haskell was unsuccessful on Oct. 8.

The settlement will cost the county the full $350,000 if the 800
or so people eligible for reimbursement agree to the deal.  Terms
of the settlement require that all money paid to the offenders
first go to repaying fines before ending up in their pockets, Mr.
Biviano said.

Mr. Patterson said the settlement includes $190,000 for
approximately 800 offenders other than Ms. Rucker.  The county
will use $25,000 of the settlement for a job training program
eligible to more than 1,000 offenders. About $135,000 will go to
Rucker and her lawyers.


TALCO SECURITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Chapman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Talco Security Incorporated, Case No. 7:14-
cv-01956 (N.D. Ala., October 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory relief, and any such other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Talco Security Incorporated provides security services to
apartment complexes, sorority houses, and other related businesses
in and around Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Camp, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building, 301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: rcamp@wigginschilds.com


US SPACE: Files Motion to Dismiss Former Employees' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Space and Rocket Center has filed a motion to dismiss in a class
action lawsuit against it for allegedly not paying for state
holidays for former and current employees.

"Plaintiffs . . . attempt to assert class claims based on their
assertion that their 'employer' allegedly failed to provide
holiday and longevity pay pursuant to certain Alabama statutory
provisions," the Sept. 23 motion to dismiss states.  "Putting
aside the plaintiffs' misguided reliance upon these statutory
provisions, plaintiffs rely upon this general concept in
attempting to assert a single federal law claim and various state
law claims against the state."

The defendants -- the U.S. Space and Rocket Center, the Space
Science Exhibit Commission, Deborah E. Barnhart, Brooke Balch and
Vickie Henderson -- claim the plaintiffs' claims fail for a
variety of reasons.

"Plaintiffs invoke this court's federal question jurisdiction
solely based upon their averment of a claim under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983 for purported violations of the Takings Clause of the
United States Constitution," the motion states.  "Courts have
uniformly held, however, that a plaintiff cannot claim an
entitlement to or property interest in funds allegedly owed to him
or her under a statute as the basis for a claim under the Takings
Clause. The court should therefore dismiss Plaintiffs' Sec. 1983
claim in its entirety."

Even if the plaintiffs could allege a property interest sufficient
to support their claim under the Takings Clause, the commission,
Barnhart, Balch and Henderson in their official capacities are
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from Sec. 1983 claims for
money damages.

"Thus, even if plaintiffs had properly alleged a Takings Clause
violation, which they have not, any relief would be limited to
prospective injunctive relief against Barnhart, Balch and
Henderson in their official capacities, and plaintiffs would not
be entitled to recover money damages," the motion states.  "As
former employees, plaintiffs do not have standing to seek
prospective injunctive relief."

Lastly, the plaintiffs may not sue Barnhart, Balch and Henderson
in their individual capacities for alleged monies due as part of
their purported employment as the plaintiffs wholly fail to allege
any "individual" obligation of Barnhart, Balch or Henderson with
respect to the plaintiffs' employment and/or their compensation,
according to the motion.

"Even if plaintiffs could somehow state a claim against Barnhart,
Balch or Henderson individually, Barnhart, Balch and Henderson
would be entitled to qualified immunity from the claim because
plaintiffs cannot allege that they violated a clearly established
constitutional right," the motion states.

The plaintiffs likewise cannot attempt to recover money damages by
virtue of the various state law claims asserted in their lawsuit.

"While plaintiffs attempt to allege a due process claim under the
Alabama Constitution, the Alabama Constitution creates no private
right of action to sue for money damages, and federal courts do
not have jurisdiction over claims seeking to require state
officials to comply with state law," the motion states.

To the extent the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief and
unjust enrichment seek money damages, they fail as well, because
the state is entitled to sovereign immunity from those claims,
according to the motion.

The defendants claim that the plaintiffs lack any basis to assert
their state law claims against Barnhart, Balch and Henderson in
their individual capacities.

"The court should therefore dismiss plaintiffs' state law claims
to the extent they seek money damages," the motion states. "The
court should also dismiss the claims for prospective injunctive
relief, which is not available to plaintiffs as former employees
of the commission."

Janice Ingalls, Milton Parker and Kamara Bowling Davis filed their
class action lawsuit on July 23 in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama, claiming they were not paid for state
holidays, as required by state law.

The plaintiffs claim until they read a report issued Jan. 17 by
the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts regarding the
defendants' practices with regard to underpaying employee
benefits, they never knew that the defendants had failed to follow
Alabama law with regard to longevity pay or state holidays.

During their employments, the plaintiffs were not paid for state
holidays or longevity pay as required by state law, according to
the suit.

The plaintiffs claim as a consequence, the defendants have
improperly retained unpaid benefits which should be rightfully in
the hands of USS&RC employees.

The defendants' plan, scheme and common course of conduct was
applicable to all current and former full-time, part-time and
seasonal employees of the USS&RC, according to the suit.

"Until recently, [the] plaintiffs and class members did not know
and could not reasonably have known that they were not paid in
accordance with Alabama law," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim although the decisions to fail to follow
Alabama law with regard to payment of state holiday and longevity
pay and to conceal these unlawful practices were made in the past,
the defendants continue to act in accordance with and in
furtherance of the unlawful practices as set forth herein.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory
damages.  They are represented by R. Brent Irby of McCallum,
Hoaglund, Cook & Irby LLP; and Eric James Artrip of Watson
McKinney & Artrip LLP.

The defendants are represented by William R. Lunsford --
blunsford@maynardcooper.com -- and Matthew W. Stiles --
mstiles@maynardcooper.com -- of Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Mark Fuller.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama case
number: 2:14-cv-00699


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Dismissal of Great Value Juice Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Wal-Mart has
filed a motion to dismiss in a class action lawsuit against it for
allegedly deceptively marketing its Great Value brand cranberry
pomegranate juice.

Wal-Mart claims the plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the
federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as modified by the Nutrition
Labeling Education Act, which expressly preempts any state law
claim that would impose food labeling requirements "not identical
to" those of the FDCA.

"Even if plaintiffs' claims were not preempted, they are precluded
by the 'safe harbor' provision of FDUTPA because the products at
issue are labeled as specifically permitted by federal law and
associated regulations," the Oct. 2 motion to dismiss states.

The plaintiffs' lack standing to assert their claims, and
similarly fail to state a claim, because they have not pleaded an
injury-in-fact, according to the motion.

Wal-Mart claims: Its juice label clearly states that it is a
"flavored juice blend," as permitted under federal regulations;
the ingredients list clearly identifies apple and grape juices,
which the plaintiffs allege are the predominant juices; and all
aspects of the label comply with federal regulations, even down to
the font size.

"Plaintiffs nevertheless assert that the juice's name and label
conceal its true composition, making the product 'misbranded' and
'illegal' under Florida law," the motion states.  "They assert
claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
and for common law breach of express warranties, breach of implied
warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code, and unjust
enrichment."

"Plaintiffs propose that the court second guess the labeling
requirements of the FDCA with new terms, to plaintiffs' liking,"
the motion adds.  "Such forays are preempted, however, where (as
here) the label complies with the FDCA's requirements."

In this case, the juice's name mentions juices that are not
predominant, according to the motion.

Wal-Mart claims FDA regulations governing the naming and labeling
of fruit juices contemplate situations exactly like this, and
explicitly provide that if a juice blend's name mentions only
juices that are "not the predominant juice, the common or usual
name for the product shall . . . indicate that the named juice is
present as a flavor or flavoring."

"The regulations further specify that, if the name of a multiple-
juice beverage does not identify all component juices on the
label, it must include a word such as 'flavored' or 'blend," the
motion states.  "Here, the label complies with the regulation
precisely: the label clearly includes the words 'flavored juice
blend.'"

Ira Reynolds and Patricia Bell, filed the lawsuit on July 17 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida,
claiming Wal-Mart markets its juice blend as "100% Juice Cranberry
Pomegranate" on its label with much more prominence than other
words on the label that show the juice to be a blend of five
juices.

"In truth, the . . . product contains very little pomegranate
juice concentrate when compared to the apple juice and white grape
juice concentrates," the complaint states.  "Far less than the
100% cranberry pomegranate juice that is predominately advertised
on the front of their label.

"As a consequence of defendant's unfair and deceptive practices,
plaintiffs and numbers of the class have purchased GV Pomegranate
Juice under the false impressions that, by drinking defendant's
product, they would enjoy the healthful and nutritional benefits
associated with a product they believe at least primarily contains
pomegranate juice."

The plaintiffs claim Wal-Mart violated the Florida Food Safety
Act, which also constitutes violations of Florida's Consumer
Protection Statutes and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practice Act.

"Even though GV Pomegranate juice contains very little pomegranate
juice, Wal-Mart made a tactical marketing and/or advertising
decision to create a deceptive and misleading label with many
elements not required by state or federal regulation," the
complaint states.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, an order for the
defendants to engage in corrective advertising of the juice, and
compensatory damages.  They are represented by Tim Howard of
Howard & Associates.

Wal-Mart is represented by John Londot --
londotj@gtlaw.com -- Barry Richard -- richardb@gtlaw.com -- and
David E. Sellinger -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Trauig
PA.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Mark E. Walker.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida case
number: 4:14-cv-00381


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hearing on Contempt Motion Moved to Oct. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh in San Jose, California, continued to
Oct. 30 at 1:30 p.m. the hearing on the motion of Plaintiffs-
Appellees Jeffrey Schulken and Jenifer Schulken for contempt
against objector Donald R. Earl.  The hearing was originally set
for Oct. 16.

The dispute stems from a class action Plaintiffs-Appellees filed
on June 18, 2009, alleging that Defendants Washington Mutual Bank
and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. had violated state and federal laws
relating to home equity lines of credit following the collapse of
the housing market in late 2008.

On April 27, 2012, the parties reached an agreement and moved for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, which the Court
granted on July 25, 2012.  On October 15, 2012, Mr. Earl filed an
objection to the settlement.  The Court held a final approval of
class action settlement hearing on November 8, 2012, which Mr.
Earl did not attend.

On November 13, 2013, the Court overruled Mr. Earl's objections,
granted final approval of the settlement, and extended the
settlement opt-out deadline to permit Mr. Earl to exclude himself
from the class and bring his individual claims separately. Instead
of opting out, Mr. Earl filed a motion to vacate the judgment
pursuant to Rule 60(b), which the Court denied on January 1, 2013.

On January 28, 2012, Mr. Earl appealed these orders of the
District Court: (1) order granting in part and denying in part
class certification; (2) order granting preliminary approval of
the settlement; (3) order granting final approval of the
settlement over Mr. Earl's objections; and (4) order denying Mr.
Earl's post-judgment Motion to Vacate. In his appeal, Mr. Earl
alleged inadequate representation by lead plaintiffs, a
"disproportionate" settlement distribution, and an inadequate opt-
out notice.

On April 2, 2013, the Districtd Court issued an order regarding
several motions related to Mr. Earl's appeal brought by both Mr.
Earl and Plaintiffs-Appellees.  Among the motions was Plaintiffs-
Appellees' motion that Mr. Earl post an appeal bond pursuant to
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 to secure payment of
Plaintiffs-Appellees' costs on appeal.  The Court found that
posting a bond would not be an undue burden to Mr. Earl, that
Plaintiffs-Appellees reasonably anticipated difficulty in
collecting costs related to the appeal, and that it was likely Mr.
Earl would not prevail on appeal.  The Court therefore granted the
Bond Motion, and ordered Mr. Earl to post a $5,000 bond.

On June 27, 2014, Plaintiffs-Appellees filed the Motion for
Contempt, arguing that the Court should find Mr. Earl in contempt
for disobeying the District Court's April 2, 2013 order by not
posting an appeal bond.  Mr. Earl filed his opposition on July 14,
2014, and Plaintiffs-Appellees filed their reply on July 16, 2014.
On September 26, 2014, the District Court issued an order
instructing Mr. Earl to post the appeal bond within seven days.

On October 6, 2014, the District Court issued a second order
instructing Mr. Earl to post the appeal bond within seven days. On
October 15, 2014, the District Court received a $5,000 personal
check from Mr. Earl.  Mr. Earl mailed the check by certified mail
on October 10, 2014.

The case is, JEFFREY SCHULKEN AND JENIFER SCHULKEN, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WASHINGTON MUITUAL BANK and JP MORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A, Defendants, Case No. 09-CV-02708-LHK (N.D.
Calif.).

A copy of Judge Koh's October 15, 2014 Order Continuing Hearing is
available at http://is.gd/HrTbn2from Leagle.com.


WHITE'S TACKLE: Faces "Barger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Barger, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
White's Tackle, LLC, a Florida corporation and Scott S. Crippen,
Case No. 2:14-cv-14403 (S.D. Fla., October 14, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for
worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week.

The Defendants own and operate bait and tackle stores in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George Walter Bush Jr., Esq.
      FOX WACKEEN DUNGEY, BEARD, BUSH, GOLDMAN,
      KILBRIDE & MCCLUSKEY, LLP
      3473 SE Willoughby Commons, PO Drawer 6
      Stuart, FL 34995-0006
      Telephone: (772) 287-4444
      Facsimile: 220-1489
      E-mail: gwbush@foxwackeen.com


XIXON CORPORATION: "Creech" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Creech, Rene Guillen, and Yolanda Fernandez, on their own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Xixon
Corporation, a Florida for-profit corporation, Xixon Cafe, LLC, a
Florida for profit corporation, and Begonia Tuya, an individual,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23773 (S.D. Fla., October 14, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage
compensation, reimbursement for tips illegally taken, liquidated
damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Xixon restaurant located in Miami,
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert William Brock II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
      17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-6800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
      E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


* Medical Malpractice Insurance Payouts Rising in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at Silvers, Langsam & Weitzman,
P.C, by looking at medical malpractice trends across the United
States, you can get a good idea of what is happening on a local
level, in Pennsylvania.  One doctor published his own bill for
medical malpractice insurance, with the intent of showing that it
is not as expensive as some people assume, and contained within
his report on the subject was one very interesting fact: The
amount of medical malpractice claims in the United States has been
on a downward trend.  As expected, the amount that has been paid
out, in total, has also fallen.  However, it has not fallen at
nearly the same rate.

For starters, he looked at the number of claims in 2003, which
came in right around 17,000.  The amount of claims in 2011 had
dipped quite far, getting under 10,000.  This factors out to a 40
percent drop.

When looking at money paid out, the amount in 2003 was close to
$4.5 billion.  Eight years later, it was down to $3.2 billion.
This means that it also fell by about 29 percent.

What this shows is that the payouts are getting larger.  If they
were the same, both the number of cases and the amount paid out
would have been directly correlated, falling by the same
percentage.  The amount paid out was 11 percent higher, though, so
bigger payouts were being made in 2011 than in 2003, on average.
For all types of medical malpractice, from birth injuries caused
by negligence to surgical errors, it is important for those who
have been injured to know exactly what rights they have to
compensation.


                              *********

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  * * *