CAR_Public/141028.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 28, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 214

                             Headlines

168 FIRST AVE: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Andrade" Suit Says
AGFEED INDUSTRIES: December 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AIRWAIR INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Protect Costumers
ALLEGIANT HOME: Faces "Marte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERICAN HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Claims

ARIZONA: Judge Weighs on Injunction Bid in Workplace Raid Suit
AVANQUEST NORTH: Fix-It Does Not Detect or Fix Threats, Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of ISDAfix Rate
BANK OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
BANYON INVESTMENTS: SEC Enters Into Prelim. Settlement With Levin

BERKOT LTD: Faces "Corbett" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BLACK BOX: Faces "Sierra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BLT FISH: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Angel" Suit Claims
BLUE SHIELD: Loses Bid to Nix Reconstructive Surgery Class Action
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

CGGVERITAS LAND: "Sharp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Judges Split on Class Arbitrability Issue
CHRYSLER GROUP: Judge Certifies Class in Jeep Liberty Suit
CLARK COUNTY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Blankenship" Suit Says
CLP RESOURCES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties

COBRA CONSTRUCTION: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
COMPETITOR GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violation
DAHILL OFFICE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act
DIAMOND FOODS: Faces "McGee" Suit Over Unlawful Use of PHVO
DIVERSEGY LLC: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

EASTERN MUSHROOM: Reconsideration Bid in Antitrust Suit Tossed
ELNA CO: Sued in Cal. Over Electrolytic Capacitors-Price Fixing
EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Faces Investor Class Action in Pennsylvania
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Sued Over Retiree Health-Care Subsidies
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Mishap Caused by Ignition Switch Defect

GENERAL MOTORS: Class Suit Lawyers Broadens Ignition Switch Case
GEORGIA: AG Mulls Appeal in Class Action Over Insurance Plan
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Rejects Thalidomide Class Action
GT ADVANCED: Faces "Favalora" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
GT ADVANCED: Sued in D.N.H. Over Misleading Financial Reports

GT ADVANCED: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
GT ADVANCED: Berger & Montague Files Securities Class Action
GUAM: Faces Class Action Over Uncompensated Land Takings
GUAM: Calvo Administration Reacts to Property Class Action
HEALTH NET: Wants Judge to Seal Information on ERISA Settlement

HOME DEPOT: Faces Anchor Bank Suit in Over Alleged Data Breach
INDIANA: BMV Denies Allegations of Being Secretive on Overcharges
ISSA NAILS: Faces "Ye" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JACKSON CIRTUS: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Sued in C.D. California Over Violation of TCPA

LONDON SILVER: Sued in S.D. New York Over Silver-Price Fixing
LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: Juvenile Victim Lawyers Want Windfall Frozen
M-I LLC: "Shaffer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
MARC JACOBS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages and OT
MARYLAND LIVE!: Faces Class Action Over Dealer Training

MERCANTIL COMMERCEBANK: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sued Over Manipulation of Workers Salary
MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Sued Over Illegal Inflation of Stock Price
MOTT'S LLP: Judge Trims "No Sugar Added" Class Action Claims
NBCUNIVERSAL INC: Enters Into Deal to Resolve Intern Class Action

NORCOLD INC: Judge Refuses to Approve Class Action Settlement
NOVA SCOTIA: Class Action Lawyers Entitled to 17% of Settlement
OCEAN CC: "Alonso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Fox" Suit Over Illegal Collection of Plan Fees
OXBOW CONSTRUCTION: Sup. Ct. Defends Ruling in Construction Suit

PEAK CAMPUS: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims
PITA HOUSE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PLY GEM: Judge Appoints Robbins Geller as Class Action Counsel
PRANA HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
REDBUMPER LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Zilberman" Suit Says

REGENCY MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
REGUS PLC: Can't Escape Class Action Over Undisclosed Fees
SESAC: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $58.5 Million
SOSH BRANDS: Sued in New York Over FLSA Violations
SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Sued Over Damages Caused by Viptera Corn

TRUMP MODEL: "Palmer" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
WELLBENDERS DIRECTIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WEST VIRGINIA: Teachers' Retirement Fund Class Action Can Proceed
WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Unlawfully Disclosed Personal Info, Suit Says
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Newark Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit

* Top Plaintiffs' Law Firms Show Higher Chances of Case Success


                             *********


168 FIRST AVE: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Andrade" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Andrade, Leobardo Rodriguez, and Luis Alberto Juarez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 168
First Ave Restaurant Ltd. (d/b/a Lanza's), Jose Alonso,
Aristizabal Edilson and John Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-08268
(S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant
located at 168 First Avenue, New York, New York 10009 under the
name Lanza's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AGFEED INDUSTRIES: December 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 16 issued a statement in regards to the
announcement of a proposed class action settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

LAWRENCE BLITZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,     No. 3:11-cv-0992
Plaintiff,
v.
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
AGFEED INDUSTRIES, INC., JOHN A. STADLER, GERARD DAIGNAULT, CLAY
MARSHALL, EDWARD PAZDRO, ARNOLD STALOFF, FREDERIC RITTEREISER,
IVAN GOTHNER, SONGYAN LI, SELINA JIN, LIANGFAN YAN, JUNHONG XIONG,
GOLDMAN KURLAND & MOHIDIN, LLP, AND MCGLADREY & PULLEN LLP

Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND
SETTLEMENT HEARING

Defendants.
EXHIBIT 2
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF CLASS ACTION, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND EXPENSES, AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
AGFEED INDUSTRIES, INC. ("AGFEED") SECURITIES (STOCK SYMBOL: FEED)
DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 16, 2009 THROUGH AND INCLUDING
SEPTEMBER 29, 2011, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all current and former
directors and officers of AgFeed during the Class Period, members
of their families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or
had a controlling interest.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, that a settlement of
the above-captioned class action has been proposed.  A hearing
will be held on December 8, 2014, at 12:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Todd J. Campbell, United States District Judge, at the
courthouse for the United States District Court, Middle District
of Tennessee, Nashville Division, Courtroom 874, 801 Broadway,
Nashville, Tennessee 37203 for the purpose of determining, among
other things: (1) whether a Settlement Class should be certified
for purposes of the Settlement and whether Class Plaintiffs and
their counsel have adequately represented the Class Members; (2)
whether the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the
Defendants for Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000) should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and
adequate; (4) whether the Court should permanently enjoin the
assertion of any claims that arise from or relate to the subject
matter of the Action; (5) whether the Action should be dismissed
with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (6) whether the
application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved; and (7) whether the Lead Plaintiffs'
application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be
granted.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired AgFeed Securities between
March 16, 2009 through and including September 29, 2011, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof.
If you have not received the detailed Notice Of Proposed
Settlement Of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees And
Expenses, And Final Approval Hearing (the "Notice") and Proof of
Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by
contacting the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Blitz v. AgFeed,
Industries, Inc., c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 3207,
Portland, OR. 97208-3207; by telephone at: 800-625-7675; or by
visiting the Settlement website www.AgFeedSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
December 31, 2014 establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice by no later
than November 23, 2014.  Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed and
served in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice
no later than November 24, 2014.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Class:

          Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
          Pomerantz LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Ste. 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: jbsilverman@pomlaw.com

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE,
THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

DATED: October 2, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, NASHVILLE DIVISION


AIRWAIR INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Protect Costumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Vasquez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Airwair International, Ltd., R. Griggs Group, Ltd. and Dr.
Martens Airwair USA LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08304 (S.D.N.Y., October
16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
protect the Plaintiff against identity theft and credit card and
debit card fraud by continuing to print the expiration date on
paper receipts that they provided to the Plaintiff at the point of
sale.

The Defendants manufacture and sell shoes and sandals for men and
women.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


ALLEGIANT HOME: Faces "Marte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saida Marte v. Allegiant Home Care, LLC, and David Jones,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06090 (E.D.N.Y., October 17, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per work week.

The Defendants own and operate a home health care facility located
at 369 East 148th Street, Lower Level, Bronx, New York, 10455.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J. Barrett Company, an Illinois corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
American Health Service Sales Corporation and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08158 (N.D. Ill., October 17, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for sending facsimile transmissions of
unsolicited advertisements to the Plaintiff and the Class.

American Health Service Sales Corporation is engaged in wholesale
distribution of surgical and other medical instruments, apparatus,
and equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARIZONA: Judge Weighs on Injunction Bid in Workplace Raid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
D.S. Woodfill and Megan Cassidy, writing for The Republic, report
that a U.S. District Court judge is weighing a request for
injunction that would prevent Sheriff Joe Arpaio from conducting
his workplace raids and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office from
prosecuting them.

Judge David G. Campbell said he would issue a ruling as quickly as
possible following arguments on Oct. 16.

Attorneys representing immigrant-rights group Puente, the American
Civil Liberties Union and several other plaintiffs filed the
motion for a preliminary injunction shortly after filing a class-
action lawsuit in June, which seeks to eliminate the last legal
footing Sheriff Arpaio has to conduct his own brand of immigration
enforcement using workplace raids.

The motion sought to preclude the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
and County Attorney's Office from enforcing two state provisions
in identity-theft laws that critics say are intended to target
undocumented immigrants, at least until a judge decides whether to
strike down those laws for good.

Immigration advocates said the state statutes, passed in 2007 and
2008, were written in such a way to make life so difficult on
undocumented immigrants that they decide to "self-deport."  They
also allege that the state statutes cracking down on identity
theft are preempted by federal law.

Attorneys representing the offices of Sheriff Arpaio and County
Attorney Bill Montgomery have argued that the class-action suit
should be dismissed, in part because those who filed the case lack
legal standing.  They additionally opposed the motion for a
preliminary injunction, saying that the plaintiffs were not likely
to succeed on the merits of their claims and haven't shown
sufficient, irreparable injury to the plaintiffs.

Arizona lawmakers added new language to identity-theft laws that
criminalized the use of the information of "another person,
including real or fictitious person, with the intent to obtain
employment."

Workplace raids soon became one of Sheriff Arpaio's trademark
operations, and scenes of deputies swarming Valley establishments
became a fixture on local news stations.

Absent court intervention, the plaintiffs' attorneys said their
clients faced "imminent arrest and prosecution under the
challenged provisions, and ongoing fear and distress."

Annie Lai, a lawyer from the University of California-Irvine
School of Law's Immigrant Rights Clinic, said the ulterior motive
of the legislators was to target undocumented immigrants.  She
cited a comment by former state Sen. Tom O'Halleran, R-Sedona,
stating his intent was to make sure those committing fraud would
be charged with a crime that was so serious, it would keep them
locked up while the case was pending and until they were deported.

Lawyers for the defendants -- Sheriff Arpaio, Montgomery and
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne -- challenged the motion on
several fronts, arguing that nowhere in the legislation does it
mention anything about immigrants or immigration enforcement.

The law is simply to crack down on any worker who steals another
person's identity to obtain employment.

Both sides were optimistic and upbeat about their chances
following last week's hearing.

"I thought we did great," said ACLU attorney Dan Pochoda.  "I
thought that we were very well-prepared.  I thought that the judge
showed great interest.  He showed that he had read the papers,
understood the issues.  I'm optimistic."

Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre of the Sheriff's Office also expressed
confidence and said the state would prevail.

"This is clearly a statute that is enacted that goes across the
board," Mr. MacIntyre said.  "It is not pre-empted by federal
immigration law because it's a state criminal statute that applies
to everyone."


AVANQUEST NORTH: Fix-It Does Not Detect or Fix Threats, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Joseph, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Avanquest North America, Inc., and Avanquest Software,
S.A., Case No. 2014-CH-16729 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Oct. 15,
2014) arises from the Defendants' sale of Fix-It Utilities.

The Defendants are computer software companies that develop and
distribute the software known as "Fix-It Utilities."  Fix-It is
intended to protect users' computers from security risks, remove
harmful software errors, and improve computer performance and
speed.

However, the Plaintiff contends, Fix-It does not actually detect
nor fix any real security threats.  Instead, it identifies
commonly occurring and benign lines of computer code and
erroneously marks them as harmful.

Avanquest North America is a California corporation headquartered
in Calabasas, California.  Avanquest Software S.A. is a French
company with its principal place of business located in La Garenne
Colombes, France.  Avanquest does business in the state of
Illinois, Cook County, and nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
          Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
          Frank J. Stretz, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington St., Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of ISDAfix Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnolia Regional Health Center, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08342 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2014), arises out of
the Defendant's multi-year conspiracy to manipulate ISDAfix, a
scheme that caused billions of dollars damages to the Plaintiff
and other members of the proposed Class.

ISDAfix is a published interest rate that was intended to serve as
a transparent and reliable benchmark for the marketplace -- a
snapshot of average fixed interest rates for swaps of various
terms.

Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina, and with
branch locations in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
      TRIEF & OLK
      150 East 58th Street
      34th Floor
      New York, NY 10155
      Telephone: (212)486-6060
      Facsimile: (212)317-2946
      E-mail: sfriedland@triefandolk.com

         - and -

      Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215)875-3000
      Facsimile: (215)875-4604
      E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net

         - and -


      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      McCULLEY McCLUER PLLC
      2113 Middle Street, Suite 208
      Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
      Telephone: (205)238-6757
      Facsimile: (662)368-5806
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com

         - and -

      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662)550-4511
      Facsimile: (662)368-5806
      E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

         - and -

      Matthew Duncan, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C
      1 South Broad St., 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215)567-6565
      Facsimile: (215)568-5872
      E-mail: md@finekaplan.com


BANK OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul DeBenedetto, writing for Law360, reports that the Third
Circuit on Oct. 15 affirmed the dismissal of a class action
against Bank of America NA alleging the company made millions off
of illegal referrals from private insurance companies, affirming a
lower court's opinion that the claims brought under the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act were time-barred.

The Third Circuit opinion held that the two putative class
plaintiffs who appealed the decision, Thomas Riddle and Marilyn
Fischer, did not exercise sufficient diligence in investigating
potential claims that BofA took a hefty cut of homeowners'
insurance premiums while taking on little risk.

Although the plaintiffs argued that they had no reason to suspect
wrongdoing between closing on their homes in 2005 and being
contacted by attorneys in 2012, the Third Circuit held that they
had a responsibility to take action in determining whether
reinsurance arrangements with BofA were legal.

"They simply accepted the defendants' representation that the
arrangement was legal, and went about their lives for the next
seven years, conducting no investigation at all during that time,"
the opinion said.  "Taking the defendants' representations at face
value without asking a single question for seven years is
insufficient diligence to toll the statute of limitations in these
circumstances."

The opinion comes two years after the original complaint, which
alleged that BofA participated in a pay-to-play scheme in which
the lending giant referred the plaintiffs to insurers in return
for a portion of their reinsurance premium payments, taking on
little risk in the process.

According to the complaint, BofA received a $285 million cut of
the premiums while paying out just $39 million.  A separate but
nearly identical class action brought one day later by the same
attorneys against Fifth Third Bank NA alleged that the bank made
$54 million while paying less than $5 million.

By placing only a small amount of capital into the trusts backing
the reinsurance contracts, the insurers took on essentially all of
the risk, according to the suits.  The actions of both banks
violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, reduced
competition and boosted premiums, according to the suits.

"Amounts paid to lenders as unlawful kickbacks have become a part
of the cost of doing business for private mortgage insurers," the
suits said.  "As a result, private mortgage insurance premiums
incorporate the payment of such kickbacks -- to the detriment of
consumers and in contravention of the stated purpose of RESPA."

In April 2013, BofA tried to escape the suit by arguing that the
2012 complaint missed the RSPA's one-year statute of limitations
because its claims were from between 2005 and 2007.  But U.S.
District Judge Berle M. Schiller said the statute could be tolled
if the plaintiffs could prove that the bank engaged in fraudulent
concealment that the plaintiffs unknowingly relied on.

After discovery in November, Judge Schiller found that the
plaintiffs offered up no such evidence, and dismissed the case
against BofA and insurance companies United Guaranty Residential
Insurance Co. and Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp.

"The clock has run on plaintiffs' RESPA claims and despite ample
opportunity, they are unable to create a triable fact that they
are entitled to equitable tolling," Judge Schiller wrote.

The plaintiffs are represented by Terence S. Ziegler -- Edward W.
tziegler@ktmc.com -- Ciolko  Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com
-- and Michael K. Yarnoff of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP by
Alan R. Plutzik -- aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com -- of Bramson
Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP and Andre L. Berke of Berke Berke
& Berke.

Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp. is represented by Nicholas M.
Centrella -- ncentrella@conradobrien.com -- and Aya M. Salem --
asalem@conradobrien.com -- of Conrad O'Brien PC and Reid L.
Ashinoff and Benito Delfin Jr. of Dentons.

United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co. is represented by David
E. Edwards -- edwardsd@whiteandwilliams.com -- of White and
Williams LLP.

BofA defendants are represented by David L. Permut --
dpermut@goodwinprocter.com -- and Matthew S. Sheldon --
msheldon@goodwinprocter.com -- of Goodwin Procter LLP and by
Martin C. Bryce Jr. -- bryce@ballardspahr.com -- and Daniel J.T.
McKenna -- mckennad@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr Andrews &
Ingersoll LLP.

The case is Thomas J. Riddle et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et
al., case number 2:12-cv-01740, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


BANYON INVESTMENTS: SEC Enters Into Prelim. Settlement With Levin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Pacenti, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that the
Securities and Exchange Commission announced on Oct. 21 that it
has reached a preliminary settlement with George Levin, who ran
the main feeder fund for Scott Rothstein's $1.2 billion Ponzi
scheme.

SEC attorney Amie Berlin told U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro in
Miami that an agreement had been reached but must be approved by
SEC officials.  Judge Ungaro issued a stay in the trial scheduled
to start Oct. 22 for the leader of Banyon Investments LLC.  It
would only have been the third jury trial associated with a Ponzi
scheme that has seen convictions against 26 lawyers, professionals
and others for crimes directly or indirectly associated with Mr.
Rothstein's criminal activities.

Mr. Rothstein is serving a 50-year prison sentence. The Ponzi
scheme run from the Fort Lauderdale law firm of Rothstein
Rosenfeldt Adler peddled a scheme where investors supposedly
bought confidential lawsuit settlements at a discount, but the
settlements didn't exist.

The SEC's announcement in court came after the parties met on Oct.
18 for a final mediation at the urging of Ungaro.  The deal
follows a settlement by Frank Preve, Banyon's chief executive
officer who was also named in the SEC complaint.  He agreed to
testify against Mr. Levin at trial.  Banyon allegedly lost $775
million in Mr. Rothstein's fraud.

Mr. Preve also pleaded guilty to criminal charges that he swindled
Rothstein investors out of $20 million and is awaiting sentencing.

The sticking point for negotiations with Levin was the agency's
demand for a $157 million disgorgement plus a civil fine.  After
the Ponzi imploded five years ago, Mr. Levin and Banyon filed for
bankruptcy protection.

Mr. Levin's attorney, Daniel L. Rashbaum, a partner at Marcus
Neiman & Rashbaum in Miami, said he could not comment about the
details of any settlement between the SEC and his client.


BERKOT LTD: Faces "Corbett" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joni L. Corbett, Individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individual employees of Berkot, Ltd. d/b/a Berkot's Super
Foods v. Berkot, Ltd. d/b/a Berkot's Super Foods, an Illinois
Limited Liability Company and Does I through XX, inclusive, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08071 (N.D. Ill., October 16, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery retail store in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betty Tsamis, Esq.
      TSAMIS LAW FIRM, P.c.
      1509 W. Berwyn, Suite 201e
      Chicago, IL 60640
      Telephone: (866) 703-5509
      E-mail: btsamis@tsamislaw.com


BLACK BOX: Faces "Sierra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Sierra, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Black Box Corporation of Pennsylvania d/b/a Black Box
Network Services, Black Box Network Services, Inc. - Government
Solutions, and Black Box Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-23776 (S.D.
Fla., October 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation.

That Defendants are engaged in the business of providing
communications lifecycle services, unified communications,
structured cabling, video/AV services, in-building wireless and
data center services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell Lloyd Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
      501 North Reo Street
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


BLT FISH: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Angel" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel Angel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
BLT Fish, LLC d/b/a BLT Fish and BLT Fish Shack, Eduard Petrescu,
and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-08318 (S.D.N.Y., October 17,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay proper
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full service restaurant and event
space accommodating corporate meetings, luncheons, bridal parties,
and large and small private events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


BLUE SHIELD: Loses Bid to Nix Reconstructive Surgery Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that a
California judge on Oct. 15 said evidence was needed to determine
if state law required Blue Shield of California to have a
reconstructive surgeon review any denial of a request for
reconstructive surgeries, rebuffing the insurer's bid for a quick
win in a putative class action over coverage denials.

Blue Shield had moved to strike the plaintiff's claim that the
insurer was violating A.B. 1621, a state law requiring health
insurance providers to cover reconstructive surgery where the
procedure would resolve a functional problem or create a normal
appearance, by not having reconstructive surgeons review any
denial of a request for a reconstructive surgery.

During the Oct. 15 hearing, Gregory Pimstone --
gpimstone@manatt.com -- of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP,
representing Blue Shield, urged Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Jane L. Johnson to change her tentative ruling partially denying
the motion to strike, arguing that the statute does not actually
require that a reconstructive surgeon review denials and that such
a requirement would run counter to the state's standards for
insurance review.

"It has never been the case in the industry, the [state] regulator
has never required . . . a health plan to look at every request
that comes in, and if it's in a particular specialty, have the
request decided in the first instance by a specialist in that
specialty," he said.  "That would be creating a separate and
different rule just for reconstructive surgery that is not applied
anywhere else in the industry."

Judge Johnson, however, said that until evidence could be
submitted on the prior interpretation of the statute and other
aspects, it was too early to rule on the matter.

Named plaintiffs Sabra Akmal and Deborah Portillo filed suit in
March, alleging Blue Shield violated California's Unfair
Competition Law by failing to comply with A.B. 1621.  The statute
requires that decisions regarding normal appearance be made by a
reconstructive surgeon, according to the complaint.

Both Ms. Akmal and Ms. Portillo developed "disfiguring" excess
skin due to significant weight loss, according to the complaint.
Both sought coverage from Blue Shield for reconstructive surgery
to correct their conditions but were denied on the grounds that
the procedures were not "medically necessary," the suit said.

Blue Shield didn't consider in either case whether the proposed
surgery would return the patient to a normal appearance, as
required by law, and the decisions to deny coverage were not made
with the input of a reconstructive surgeon, according to the
complaint.

When Ms. Portillo appealed the denial of coverage, Blue Shield
upheld the decision on the grounds that her condition didn't meet
the "medically necessary" criteria under its policy because her
medical records didn't show that she had filled prescriptions to
treat her persistent skin infections, according to the suit.

Blue Shield has deemed that certain forms of reconstructive
surgery, such as brachioplasty and blepharoplasty, are never to be
eligible for coverage, regardless of whether abnormal skin
conditions are causing a functional problem or can be returned to
a normal appearance, the suit says.  According to the plaintiffs,
even when Blue Shield has surgeons weigh in on requests for
reconstructive surgery, it fails to provide them with the
appropriate standard for determining whether a procedure falls
under the law.

Ms. Akmal and Ms. Portillo are seeking to represent a class of all
California residents who have had requests for reconstructive
surgery denied under Blue Shield health plans within the
applicable four-year statute of limitations.  The class excludes
individuals covered under Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
Federal Employees Health Benefits Act and Medi-Cal plans.

On Oct. 15, Judge Johnson did dismiss the plaintiffs' claim that
Blue Shield is liable when a medical center, not the insurer,
denies a Blue Cross insured's request for reconstructive surgery,
but she granted leave to amend so the plaintiffs could try to show
that Blue Cross' policy was directly responsible for those
rejections.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert S. Gianelli and Adrian
Barro of Gianelli & Morris and Ronald A. Marron.

Blue Shield is represented by Gregory Pimstone of Manatt Phelps &
Phillips LLP.

The case is Sabra Akmal et al. v. California Physicians' Service
d/b/a Blue Shield of California, case number BC540033, in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wiley Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C.E.C. Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese's,
and Apollo Global Management, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06110
(E.D.N.Y., October 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation.

The Defendants own and operate Chuck E. Cheese's restaurant
throughout New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel M. Bien, Esq.
      Juno Turner, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com
              jturner@outtengolden.com


CGGVERITAS LAND: "Sharp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
R. Dane Sharp, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Cggveritas Land (U.S.) Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00614
(N.D. Okla., October 14, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cggveritas Land (U.S.) Inc. gathers and provides seismic data for
exploration sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jess Vince Hightower, Esq.
      J. VINCE HIGHTOWER LAW OFFICE
      410 W 7th St Ste 1125
      Tulsa, OK 74119
      Telephone: (918) 232-3573
      E-mail: jvh255@aol.com


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Judges Split on Class Arbitrability Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in the wake of a Third Circuit ruling as to whether the court or
the arbitrator determines if a case is suitable for class
arbitration, two district judges in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania split on how to apply the ruling to separate putative
class cases involving the same energy company.

Chesapeake Appalachia sought declaratory judgment in two cases --
one against proposed class representatives Russell and Gayle
Burkett and another against proposed lead plaintiff Scout
Petroleum -- that the court and not an arbitration panel can
determine whether the underlying cases can proceed as class
arbitrations under the parties' oil and gas lease agreements.
Within a day of one another, Chesapeake received two different
rulings, both interpreting a July opinion from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in Opalinski v. Robert Half
International.

According to the two district court rulings from U.S. District
Judges Matthew W. Brann and Malachy E. Mannion, Opalinski was a
game-changer on the "who decides" issue and held that the court
decides the issue of class arbitrability unless the parties'
contract includes a clear agreement that the arbitrator will
decide the issue.  The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the
"who decides" issue, the district judges noted.

In both Burkett v. Chesapeake Appalachia and Scout Petroleum v.
Chesapeake Appalachia, the arbitration panels determined they had
the authority to decide whether the cases should be arbitrated as
a class and, subsequently, both decided the cases could be
arbitrated as a class.  Chesapeake filed declaratory judgment
actions in the district court both for a determination that the
court decides whether class arbitration is appropriate and that,
in these two cases, class arbitration was not appropriate.

On Oct. 16, Judge Brann said he was ready to rule in Scout
Petroleum back in July when Opalinski was decided and caused him
to have to revise his memorandum opinion on the "who decides"
issue.

"During this time, however, the parties, without either contacting
the court or waiting for the court to act, proceeded before the
arbitration panel on the questions of both who decides and the
question of arbitrability," Judge Brann said, noting the
arbitration panel ruled it had the authority to decide and would
accept the case as a class.

Judge Brann said he thought that ruling was in contradiction to
Opalinski.

"The court had every expectation of crafting a detailed opinion as
to why Opalinski was clearly controlling precedent that it would
follow in rendering its decision on this matter," Judge Brann said
in a four-page memorandum.  "However, given the parties' extreme
sense of urgency in resolving the underlying issue, the
calculation of royalty payments pursuant to the terms of certain
gas leases, together with the fact parties seem unwilling to
permit the court time to fully detail and explain its decision,
the instant order shall be entered without further commentary."

Judge Brann went on to say the court would decide whether class
arbitration was permissible pursuant to the terms of the leases.
He vacated the arbitration panel's finding on the issue.

One day later, on Oct. 17, Judge Mannion rejected Chesapeake's
argument in Burkett that the arbitration agreement with the
Burketts is silent with respect to class arbitration.  Judge
Mannion ruled the parties' failure to put into exact words that
they intend to have an arbitrator decide the issue of class
arbitrability does not preclude the court from finding there is
unmistakable evidence that such was their intent.

The Burketts argued their lease provision incorporated the rules
of the American Arbitration Association, which, when the lease was
signed in 2008, included by reference the AAA's adoption of
supplementary rules for class arbitration.

"Indeed, virtually every circuit court to have considered the
issue has found that incorporation of the AAA rules into an
agreement constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the
parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability," Judge
Mannion said.

Judge Mannion said the AAA rules give the arbitrator the authority
to decide his or her own jurisdiction, and therefore gives the
arbitrator the ability to decide questions of arbitrability.
Judge Mannion noted that the parties in Opalinski signed their
agreement before the supplemental rules for class arbitration went
into effect, allowing the Opalinski court to determine the parties
did not expressly note that they wanted an arbitrator to decide
the question of arbitrability.

"The court finds that incorporation of the AAA rules into the
lease at issue, which grants the arbitrators the power to decide
their own jurisdiction, vested the arbitrators with the authority
in this case to decide issues of arbitrability, including the
issue of 'who decides' class arbitrability," Judge Mannion said in
denying Chesapeake's motion for summary judgment on the "who
decides" issue.

In a separate memorandum issued the same day, Judge Mannion
addressed Chesapeake's motion to vacate the arbitration panel's
determination that Burkett could proceed as a class arbitration.
Judge Mannion said the arbitration panel did not exceed its
authority in determining the parties' lease allowed for class
arbitration.  He said that panel's ruling must be given
considerable deference.

Daniel T. Brier -- dbrier@mbklaw.com -- of Myers Brier & Kelly in
Scranton, and Daniel T. Donovan -- daniel.donovan@kirkland.com --
and Ragan Naresh of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., are
representing Chesapeake in both cases.

Francis P. Karam in New York, along with Rachel Schulman of Great
Neck, N.Y., Douglas A. Clark of Peckville, Pa., and Gerard M.
Karam of Mazzoni, Karam, Petorak & Valvano in Scranton, are
representing the Burketts. Francis Karam declined to comment on
the rulings.

Scout Petroleum is represented by a number of lawyers at Cohen,
Placitella & Roth.  Alessandra C. Phillips of Cohen Placitella
declined to comment on pending litigation.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Judge Certifies Class in Jeep Liberty Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
because a lead plaintiff sold her vehicle before joining a
putative class action against Chrysler Group LLC, a California
federal judge sanctioned the woman for effectively destroying
evidence and refused to certify a class of Maryland Jeep Liberty
owners she had intended to represent.

U.S. District Judge James Selna of the Central District of
California on Oct. 9 agreed with Chrysler's counsel that plaintiff
Robin Allen was not a proper class representative in the proposed
action.  The suit alleges replacement window regulators in 2002 to
2007 Jeep Liberties are defective, rendering the windows prone to
crashing to the bottom of the doors or freezing in place.

At the same time, Judge Selna certified a California class of
plaintiffs in the same action, Doyle v. Chrysler, who allege the
company violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and its
Unfair Competition Law.  Some Liberty owners allege they have
spent hundreds of dollars attempting to fix the problem, only to
find that replacement regulators were defective.  The problem was
identified as stemming from weak plastic window brackets,
according to the complaint, filed in April 2013.

The defense alleged that plaintiff Ms. Allen, of Baltimore, Md.,
engaged in spoliation of evidence when she traded in her 2006
Liberty on Oct. 11, 2013.  Ms. Allen had contended that she did so
before conversing with an attorney or even considering seeking
legal advice regarding joining the proposed class action.
But Chrysler and the judge challenged that account.  The judge, in
his order on class certification, gave this timeline: In July
2013, Ms. Allen, who said she had replaced window regulators four
times, submitted her contact information on a website related to
an investigation of defective Jeep window regulators.  An attorney
responded with a short introductory email on Sept. 24, 2013.
Ms. Allen traded in her Liberty on Oct. 11, 2013.  Nine days
later, she was contacted by counsel, and retained the attorney
that day.  Judge Selna granted Chrysler's request that, at trial,
the judge may instruct the jury that it can draw an adverse
inference about

Ms. Allen's claim because of the destruction of evidence.  Along
with approving evidentiary sanctions, Judge Selna also deemed
Allen no longer representative of a Maryland class.

"When one is contemplating making a claim that a vehicle is
defective, it takes no special training or particular
sophistication to recognize the potential relevance of that
vehicle as evidence of one's claim," Judge Selna wrote.

Chrysler is represented by Thompson Coburn, LLP, and Sedgwick,
LLP.  The plaintiffs are represented by Goldenberg Schneider;
Arias Ozzello and Gignac; and Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis.


CLARK COUNTY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Blankenship" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Blankenship, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Clark County Collection Service, LLC, Case
No. 5:14-cv-02147 (C.D. Cal., October 17, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's unlawfully and abusively collection of debt allegedly
owed by the Plaintiff.

Clark County Collection Service, LLC is a debt collection agency
in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fisher Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


CLP RESOURCES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Christensen, Cole Berman, Leonard Puga, and Rob Vincent
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLP
Resources, Inc., First Solar, Inc., Trueblue, Inc. and Does 1 to
20, Case No. 2:14-cv-08073 (C.D. Cal., October 17, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, overtime, damages, penalties, and attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a skilled trades-staffing company
providing skilled trades-people to a broad range of customers in
commercial, industrial, energy, government, and residential
sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Harris, Esq.
      Priya Mohan, Esq.
      Rebecca Lee, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      4771 Cromwell Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90027
      Telephone: (323) 962-3777
      Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
      E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
              pmhan@harrisandruble.com
              rlee@harrisandruble.com


COBRA CONSTRUCTION: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Lopez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Ronald
M. Spada, individually and Cobra Construction, Inc., a Florida
Profit Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-62388 (S.D. Fla., October 17,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


COMPETITOR GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deadspin.com's Fittish reports that Competitor Group, Inc., which
owns the nationwide Rock 'n' Roll Marathon and Half Marathon
series, has had a class-action suit brought against it for an
alleged violation of federal and state labor practices.  The
plaintiff claims she and others across the country volunteered
because they thought CGI was a hearts-and-rainbows non-profit
instead of the Walmart of distance running.

The suit, filed September 23, tells the story of Yvette Joy
Liebesman, cyclist and associate professor at the Saint Louis
University School of Law.  Ms. Liebesman got up really early on
the morning of October 21, 2012, and rode her bike at the front of
the St. Louis Rock 'n' Roll Half Marathon as an official escort
for the lead runners.  She was required to provide her own
cellphone and a hands-free device, she says.  It was a position
for which she volunteered.

In the suit, Ms. Liebesman's attorneys argue that CGI, a for-
profit company, recruits volunteers like Ms. Liebesman by
obscuring its status in its marketing and communication. It does
this by selling "Official Charity" sponsorships, the suit alleges,
paid for in the form of a minimum 10 runners at $165 each.  The
charity names are then further used to help recruit volunteers,
who believe they are part of Something Bigger Than Themselves
instead of unpaid labor used to drive profits up.

Profits are up.  Estimated to have drawn $125 million in revenue
in 2012, CGI was sold to Calera Capital for $250 million later
that year.  While Rock 'n' Roll races are only one of the
company's products, the series has grown into 27 cities across the
U.S. and abroad, with an estimated 420,000 participants this year
alone.

Ms. Liebesman, a lawyer and college professor, is claiming
ignorance:

"Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, were ignorant of the
fact that Defendant's races had no charitable purpose and that
instead, all volunteers and charitable organizations were
providing Defendant with free labor for which it should have to
pay, increased participation, and hence increased revenue.  More
simply, Plaintiff and those similarly situated did not, and had no
way of knowing, that their role was to increase Defendant's profit
margins in a way not allowed under federal and state law."

Because of this "veneer of charitable or not-for-profit purpose,"
Ms. Liebesman is seeking unpaid minimum wages for her and everyone
else that's volunteered at races since 2012.  The suit openly
admits that its lawyers have no idea how many people this is --
one more benefit of not paying for employees.

Competitor Group, Inc., released the following statement:

"A lawsuit was recently filed against Competitor Group.  We
believe the allegations are completely baseless and we are
confident that once the facts are analyzed it will be resolved
quickly.  It will not impact this weekend's event in St. Louis,
which will continue just as planned.  While we cannot comment any
further on the pending litigation, we are proud of the Rock 'n'
Roll Marathon's four year history in St. Louis and we will
continue to build upon our strong relationships with our community
partners."

Wolf Popper LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Officers of GT
Advanced Technologies, Inc.


DAHILL OFFICE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Kalana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dahill Office Technology Corporation, Case No. 5:14-
cv-00916 (W.D. Tex., October 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Dahill Office Technology Corporation provides printing equipment
and software to businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
      Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
      Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
      CADDELL & CHAPMAN
      1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
      Houston, TX 77010-3027
      Telephone: (713) 751-0400
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
      E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
              cbc@caddellchapman.com
              ccm@caddellchapman.com


DIAMOND FOODS: Faces "McGee" Suit Over Unlawful Use of PHVO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacquelyn McGee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02446 (S.D.
Cal., October 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
manufacturing and selling a variety of popcorn products containing
partially hydrogenated vegetable oil ("PHVO"), despite the fact
that it is banned in many parts of the world because it is the
only dietary source of artificial trans fat, a toxic carcinogen.

Diamond Foods, Inc., owns, manufactures, and sells the Trans Fat
Popcorns under the brand name Pop Secret.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      Melanie Persinger, Esq.
      Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 798-2006
      Facsimile: (480) 247-4553
      E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
              mel@westonfirm.com
              paul@westonfirm.com


DIVERSEGY LLC: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Anderson, Tara Bell, and Brekiscus Jackson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diversegy, LLC
and Alex Rodriguez, Case No. 3:14-cv-03734 (N.D. Tex., October 17,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate a retail energy brokerage company,
which provides brokerage and advisory services in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel Benjamin Flowers III, Esq.
      THE FLOWERS LAW FIRM
      1776 Yorktown, Ste. 600
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (832) 301-4945
      Facsimile: (866) 620-4378
      E-mail: attyjbf@gmail.com


EASTERN MUSHROOM: Reconsideration Bid in Antitrust Suit Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Capper-Volstead Act provides certain agricultural cooperatives
with a limited exemption from antitrust laws. In their
consolidated amended class action complaint, plaintiffs in IN RE
MUSHROOM DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION. MASTER FILE NO.
06-0620, NO. 06-0638., 06-0657, 06-0677, 06-0861, 06-0932, 06-
1464, 06-1854, (E.D. Penn.) allege that: (1) certain defendants
were members of defendant EMMC but were not engaged in
agricultural production; (2) defendants entered into multiple
agreements with persons or entities not engaged in agricultural
production; and (3) defendants engaged in anticompetitive and
predatory practices that fall outside of the legitimate objects of
an agricultural cooperative.  Any of these allegations, if proved,
would place defendants outside the Capper-Volstead exemption.

On March 26, 2009, District Judge Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., denied
certain defendants' motions for summary judgment and plaintiffs'
cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of Capper-Volstead
immunity. Judge O'Neill found that the inclusion of a non-grower
distributor, M. Cutone, in the EMMC's membership was sufficient to
destroy defendants' Capper-Volstead immunity. He also found that,
even if all EMMC members had satisfied the requirements to qualify
the cooperative for Capper-Volstead immunity, the Act's exemption
did not extend to protect cooperatives that conspire with entities
not engaged in agricultural production as such was the case with
Kaolin/South Mill and its distribution entities and LRP-
M/Manfredini Enterprises.  Judge O'Neill's two separate findings
constituted independent grounds for denial of the Capper-Volstead
Act's exemption to defendants.

Judge O'Neill further denied defendants' request pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) to certify his Order for appeal. Defendants
then filed an interlocutory appeal that the Court of Appeals
dismissed on August 23, 2011. The Court of Appeals held that a
prejudgment order denying the protections of the Capper-Volstead
Act was not a collateral order subject to interlocutory appeal.

Moving Defendants -- individual members and affiliates of the
former EMMC -- now argue that the Supreme Court's decision in
American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League et al., 560 U.S.
183 (2010) and the Court of Appeals' decision in Deutscher Tennis
Bund v. ATP Tour, Inc., 610 F.3d 820 (3d Cir. 2010), have created
an intervening change in the law relating to the single entity
enterprise defense, warranting reconsideration of Judge O'Neill's
March 26, 2009 decision with respect to the South Mill mushroom
distributors, Manfredini Enterprises and M. Cutone on the
availability of the Capper-Volstead exemption. The Defendants also
contend that reconsideration of Judge O'Neill's prior decision is
warranted on the basis of an issue that his prior opinion did not
specifically address: whether individual members of the EMMC
should lose their Capper-Volstead antitrust exemption when they
acted under a good faith belief that the EMMC was properly
constituted.

In a memoranda dated October 14, 2014, copies of which are
available at http://is.gd/RnEl2tand http://is.gd/mK4Cd2from
Leagle.com, Judge O'Neill denied the Moving Defendants' request
for reconsideration.  He also certified his Order for appeal.

BASCIANI FOODS, INC., Movant, represented by BRIAN DEAN BOREMAN --
bboreman@utbf.com -- UNRUH, TURNER, BURKE & FREES, P.C. & STEPHEN
P. LAGOY -- slagoy@utbf.com -- UNRUH TURNER BURKE & FREES, PC.

BASCIANI FOODS, INC., Movant, represented by LISANNE L. MIKULA --
lmikula@dioriosereni.com -- DIORIO SERENI, MARK A. SERENI --
mas@dioriosereni.com -- DIORIO & SERENI, LLP & THOMAS K.
SCHINDLER, SCHINDLER LAW GROUP LLC.

                           *     *     *

Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the unsettled question of whether an agricultural
collective's accidental inclusion of a non-agricultural member
would cut through the collective's shield from certain antitrust
laws has been certified to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

U.S. District Judge Thomas N. O'Neill Jr. of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania certified his order in an antitrust class action
that was brought by direct purchasers against the members of the
former Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative.

The judge had ruled in 2009 that the cooperative, sometimes called
EMMC for short, wouldn't be covered by the exemptions from some
antitrust laws made available to agricultural collectives through
the Capper-Volstead Act because M. Cutone, a distributor of
mushrooms, was a member of EMMC.

"I also found that, even if all EMMC members had satisfied the
requirements to qualify the cooperative for Capper-Volstead
immunity, the act's exemption did not extend to protect
cooperatives that conspire with entities not engaged in
agricultural production as such was the case with Kaolin/South
Mill and its distribution entities and LRP-M/Manfredini
Enterprises," O'Neill said.

The defendants asked the judge earlier this year for
reconsideration of that 2009 opinion, citing two opinions -- the
U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 opinion in American Needle v. National
Football League and the Third Circuit's opinion in Deutscher
Tennis Bund v. ATP Tour, which was also issued in 2010 -- and
arguing that they are intervening case law.

Although those opinions were issued three-and-a-half years ago,
the motion is timely because Judge O'Neill had entered an order
requiring the parties to hold their substantive motions until all
fact and expert discovery was finished, the defendants had argued.

The suit, originally filed in 2006, alleged that "(1) certain
defendants were members of defendant EMMC but were not engaged in
agricultural production; (2) defendants entered into multiple
agreements with persons or entities not engaged in agricultural
production; and (3) defendants engaged in anti-competitive and
predatory practices that fall outside of the legitimate objects of
an agricultural cooperative," Judge O'Neill summarized in his
opinion.  "Any of these allegations, if proved, would place
defendants outside the Capper-Volstead exemption," he said.

In 2009, he found that Capper-Volstead immunity wouldn't apply to
EMMC.

The defendants now argue that the two intervening decisions have
changed the single-entity enterprise defense and the earlier
opinion should be reconsidered, according to the opinion.

"Defendants previously argued that there cannot be an unlawful
conspiracy between EMMC grower members and their affiliated
distributors because the members and distributors constitute a
single economic unit under Copperweld v. Independence Tube and
Sunkist Growers v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products," Judge
O'Neill said, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's opinions from
1984 and 1962.  "Therefore, defendants argue, EMMC price-fixing is
permissible at the distribution level because the plurality of
actors required for a conspiracy is absent.  Defendants now make
the same argument relying on American Needle and Deutscher Tennis
Bund which I do not find persuasive."

Although the judge wasn't convinced to revisit his earlier
decision, he did send the order to the Third Circuit for review.

"I previously declined to grant certification of an appeal from my
order of March 26, 2009, which denied defendants the protections
of the Capper-Volstead immunity," Judge O'Neill said, referring to
the defendants' previous effort to appeal his decision.  "I found
that the defendants who requested certification had not shown
'that this is an "exceptional case" where it would be appropriate
to permit a piecemeal appeal,'" he said, quoting from his denial
of their first motion for reconsideration.

"Defendants nevertheless took an appeal from my order.  The court
of appeals then dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction
and did 'not opine on the validity of [my] holding that [the] EMMC
was not properly formed under the Capper-Volstead Act because one
of its members [M. Cutone] was not a grower of agricultural
produce.'  In doing so, however, the court of appeals explained
that 'there is no dispute that the question, whether the arguably
inadvertent inclusion of an ineligible member strips an
agricultural cooperative of Capper-Volstead protection, is both
serious and unsettled,'" Judge O'Neill said.

He decided now to certify the question for appeal.

Because there is a controlling question of law and, at this point,
a decision from the appellate court could hasten the end of the
case, the judge certified his order to the Third Circuit.

"A determination by the court of appeals with respect to the
applicability of the Capper-Volstead immunity may either expedite
the resolution of certain of the plaintiffs' claims or facilitate
a settlement, saving the parties the needless expenditure of time
and money in litigating issues that the court of appeals may
vacate or reverse upon ultimate appeal," Judge O'Neill said.


ELNA CO: Sued in Cal. Over Electrolytic Capacitors-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toy-Knowlogy Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Elna Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04657 (N.D.
Cal., October 17, 2014), alleges that the Defendants and other co-
conspirators agreed, combined and conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize prices, and to allocate market shares for
aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors.

Elna Co. manufactured, marketed, and sold aluminum and tantalum
electrolytic capacitors in and into the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
              swilliams@cpmlegal.com
              etran@cpmlegal.com

         - and -

      Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
      Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
      Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
      Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
      Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
              efastiff@lchb.com
              bglackin@lchb.com
              dharvey@lchb.com
              lchan@lchb.com


EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Faces Investor Class Action in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Knox, writing for Columbus Business First, reports that Anchor
Hocking's parent company is being targeted in a class-action
lawsuit that claims executives were mum about the company's
flailing operations.

The suit seeks to recover losses for investors after EveryWare
Global Inc. temporarily idled its plants in Lancaster and
Pennsylvania.  The suit comes on the heels of EveryWare reporting
it lost $38.3 million on revenue of nearly $93.3 million during
its first quarter.

Scott & Scott, a New York law firm that files similar suits to
recover investment losses, sued last week in federal court in
Columbus.  Investors who held EveryWare shares between June 18,
2013 and May 16 are eligible to join the suit.

EveryWare said in a regulatory filing that it planned to
"vigorously defend these claims," and declined to comment further.

The suit says the reported loss and accompanying plant shutdown
"surprised the market," resulting in a 90 percent drop in
EveryWare's stock price from a high of $13.24.  The share price
was trading around $1.50 in a turbulent market on Oct. 15.

Former executives made misleading comments about EveryWare's
financial health, the lawsuit alleges.  Former CEO John Sheppard,
who left in February, said in a conference call that "we are off
to a very solid start in 2013 and expect the second half of the
year to be even stronger," the suit said citing an example,
EveryWare makes kitchen and housewares products.  Its plant in
Lancaster is one of the city's biggest employers and has been
party to an operational roller coaster since May.  EveryWare
Global obtained a $20 million investment in July to keep its
businesses, which include the Oneida brand, running.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Sued Over Retiree Health-Care Subsidies
---------------------------------------------------------
Betty Lin-Fisher, writing for Beacon Journal, reports that a
FirstEnergy Corp. retiree has filed a federal class-action lawsuit
that seeks to prevent the company from ending its subsidies for
retiree health benefits at the end of this year.

Elbert White, of East Liverpool, filed in U.S. District Court in
Youngstown on Sept. 29, asking for class-action status for what
are believed to be 140 retired workers of the Bruce Mansfield coal
plant in Shippingport, Pa.

Mr. White was a member of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Local 272 when he worked from 1977 to Feb. 1,
2005.  Beginning in 2009, FirstEnergy began notifying its
employees that it would be ending subsidies of health care for
retirees as of Dec. 31 of this year.  Local 272 has been arguing
with FirstEnergy about eliminating its retirees' health care and
has action pending with the National Labor Relations Board, union
President Herman Marshman Jr. said on Oct. 14.

The union believes that eliminating retiree health care is unfair
for all, he said.

The intent of Mr. White's lawsuit is to help the retirees from the
plant, said Mr. Marshman, but that doesn't mean other unions or
retirees couldn't ask to join the suit.

"All retirees, that includes management and union, should band
together and take action against this company," said Mr. Marshman,
adding that the company had promised its employees over the years
that they always would be provided health care.

FirstEnergy spokeswoman Stephanie Walton said the company believes
its decision to cease health-care subsidies for all retirees "is
consistent with contracts we've negotiated with our unions.  It's
important to note we understand the concerns caused by this
announcement and we're committed to providing health-care
consultants to help retirees examine their options."

Ms. Walton said the company has been communicating with its
employees and retirees since announcing the decision in 2009.

"This is a difficult challenge that's facing companies nationwide,
and it's a decision we don't take lightly, but something that had
to be done," she said.

Ms. Walton said 8,500 FirstEnergy retirees receive some sort of
subsidy for health care.  Those retirees could stay on the
FirstEnergy plan without a subsidy, qualify for Medicare or find a
new plan using the federal marketplace, she said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Mishap Caused by Ignition Switch Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis R. Ward v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08317
(S.D.N.Y. Oct 17, 2014), arises out of a motor vehicle accident
due to the design defect in the General Motor vehicle's ignition
switch.

General Motors LLC designs, manufactures, markets and distributes
vehicles and vehicle parts and sells financial services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
      James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5000
      Facsimile: (646) 293-7937
      E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
              jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Suit Lawyers Broadens Ignition Switch Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Stout, writing for The New York Times, reports that lawyers
in sweeping class-action litigation against General Motors have
significantly broadened their case against the embattled
automaker, claiming that the company disregarded and concealed
safety issues far beyond the defective ignition switch that is now
linked to 27 deaths.

In a strongly worded complaint, filed late on Oct. 14 in Federal
District Court in Manhattan, the lawyers contend that the "new
G.M." that emerged from bankruptcy in 2009 so valued cost-cutting
that it "produced an inordinate number of vehicles with serious
safety defects," which it has sought to remedy only this year with
the recall of about 27 million vehicles in the United States.

The 700-page filing serves as a "master complaint" for a
consolidation of 68 cases seeking class-action status that have
been brought around the country on behalf of owners of newer-model
G.M. cars seeking compensation for the lost value of their
vehicles in light of the safety issues.  It is the latest volley
in a complex game of legal maneuvering, centering on the ignition
switch defect, that could continue for years.

While the complaint offered little new evidence of a vast cover-
up, it heightened an already bitter confrontation -- even
suggesting that the company's chief executive, Mary T. Barra, knew
about one of the safety problems in a previous job.

"The array of concealed defects is astounding," the plaintiffs'
lawyers wrote in the complaint.  They added: "The defects affected
virtually every safety system in G.M.-branded vehicles, including
but by no means limited to the air bags, seatbelts, brakes, brake
lights, electronic stability control, windshield wipers, sensing
and diagnostic modules, and warning chimes."

In an emailed statement, G.M. said that it "intends to vigorously
defend against plaintiff's claims that G.M. vehicles have reduced
resale value."

The complaint was made as part of so-called multidistrict
litigation that is being overseen by Judge Jesse M. Furman, and
was submitted by the three lawyers whom Judge Furman has appointed
to serve as the lead lawyers for all plaintiffs -- Steve W.
Berman, Elizabeth J. Cabraser and Robert C. Hilliard.

It drew much of its damaging material from the report prepared by
the former United States attorney Anton R. Valukas for G.M.'s
board and senior management. That report was sharply critical of
G.M.'s culture and described instances in which the company's
engineers, product developers and legal department overlooked or
failed to act on safety concerns.

Based on documents and communications with the federal safety
regulators, the complaint cited a number of cases in which it
contended that recalls for a documented safety problem were
limited or late, or warranty claims were ignored -- as with
recalls for axle shafts that could break and a defect in a shift
cable that could cause cars to roll out of park and crash.

The complaint used a previously disclosed email to Ms. Barra to
suggest the company's knowledge of safety problems stretched to
the highest levels.  "New G.M.'s claims that the defects were
known only to lower-level engineers is false.  For example,
current C.E.O. Mary Barra, while head of product development, was
informed in 2011 of a safety defect in the electronic power
steering of several models.  Despite 4,800 consumer complaints and
more than 30,000 warranty repairs, G.M. waited until 2014 to
disclose this defect," the complaint read.

That passage apparently referred to a 2011 email that was made
public during a congressional investigation of the ignition switch
issue, informing Ms. Barra of power steering problems in Saturn
Ions similar to a defect in other cars that had been recalled in
2010.

The complaint also displayed many examples of advertisements in
which the company emphasized its attention to safety and suggested
that it had misled consumers in doing so.

Citing a filing the company made to the Securities and Exchange
Commission in 2010, the complaint said that "New G.M. admitted
that 'Product recalls can harm our reputation and cause us to lose
customers, particularly if those recalls cause consumers to
question the safety or reliability of our products.  Any costs
incurred or lost sales caused by future product recalls could
materially adversely affect our business.' "

The complaint covers only economic loss cases that involve cars
bought or leased after July 10, 2009, the day G.M. emerged from
bankruptcy.  The bankruptcy distinction is significant because the
company's restructuring agreement protects it from liability
claims that stem from incidents before that date.

G.M. has asked Judge Robert E. Gerber, who presided over the
bankruptcy proceedings, to uphold that provision and order the
pre-bankruptcy cases dismissed.

Judge Gerber has not yet ruled, partly because he is reviewing
whether G.M. committed fraud during the bankruptcy proceedings by
not disclosing potential liabilities from the ignition defect.
The company has acknowledged that some of its engineers were aware
of the problem for more than a decade before the recalls began.
The defect can cause unexpected stalling in moving cars and the
sudden loss of power can disable the air bags and other safety
systems like power steering and power brakes.

While Judge Gerber deliberates, lawyers are pushing ahead with the
pre-bankruptcy class actions for economic loss, and they submitted
a master complaint for those cases to Judge Furman on Oct. 14 as
well.  That complaint focused only on the faulty ignition switch.

At the same time, lawyers are pressing ahead with another type of
litigation, also before Judge Furman, as part of the multidistrict
consolidation effort -- cases involving personal injury and
wrongful deaths.  Against objections from G.M.'s lawyers, Judge
Furman recently approved the beginning of discovery in post-
bankruptcy cases and to date, G.M. has turned over more than four
million pages of documents, lawyers said.

"We continue to push G.M. to provide substantive discovery that
will allow us to figure out entirely who is responsible and how
long they covered the problem up," Mr. Hilliard, one of the three
lead lawyers, said in an interview.

In its statement, G.M. noted that the cases had yet to receive
official class-action status.

"The court has not determined whether it is appropriate to treat
these matters as class actions and G.M. intends to vigorously
defend against plaintiff's claims that G.M. vehicles have reduced
resale value," it said.


GEORGIA: AG Mulls Appeal in Class Action Over Insurance Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Baydala Joyner, writing for Daily Report, reports that
the state attorney general's office is deciding whether to appeal
a judge's decision to allow a potential class action to move
forward against the Georgia Department of Community Health in
which a government employee alleges she was duped into buying a
more expensive health insurance plan.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Cynthia Wright on Oct. 9
rejected the state's main argument to dismiss, which was that the
lawsuit is barred by sovereign immunity.  In her order Wright
cited statutory and constitutional waivers of sovereign immunity
in contract disputes involving state agencies or departments.
Law Department officials declined to comment on Oct. 15 on the
ruling but pointed to its July motion to dismiss, which argued
that the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a written
contract needed to waive sovereign immunity.  The state's motion
said that neither health plan materials provided to government
employees by the community health department nor the online
enrollment process constituted a written contract.

Judge Wright also disagreed with the state on this issue.

"Although DCH contends that no valid contract ever existed between
DCH and plaintiff (and other members of the putative class), the
court finds no merit in this argument," the judge wrote in her
order.

The plaintiff, Trecia Neal, who works for the DeKalb County school
system, filed her potential class action in May seeking
reimbursement of premiums and other damages.  In it, she alleges
the state's health benefit plan, which is administered by the
Department of Community Health, failed to provide the enhanced
benefits it promised her and others who enrolled and paid for
higher-priced health care packages.

One of Ms. Neal's lawyers, A. Lee Parks of Parks, Chesin &
Walbert, said the state used "bait-and-switch tactics to lure over
200,000 members into buying high-priced health care packages."
Parks said employees were presented with three coverage options --
gold, silver and bronze -- that each carried different premiums,
deductibles and percentages of coinsurance.  Ms. Neal chose the
gold option, which was the most expensive but carried the lowest
deductible and highest percentage of coinsurance.  The open
enrollment period ended in early November 2013 and took effect on
Jan. 1.

On Jan. 27, the department eliminated the three-tier system
without giving employees prior notice and applied the changes
retroactively to Jan. 1, Mr. Parks said.  The department also did
not change what it was charging employees who chose the more
expensive plans, he said, adding that the department prohibited
employees from switching to the lowest-cost option.  That meant
top tier policy holders, including his client, continued to pay
higher premiums -- in some instances up to twice as much -- for
benefits they were no longer receiving, Mr. Parks argued.

A representative with the Department of Community Health did not
respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Parks said that, during a Sept. 29 hearing on the motion to
dismiss, the attorney general's office essentially argued "that
people who buy their health insurance do so at their own peril and
there is no recourse for that."

Mr. Parks also said he has been notified by the attorney general's
office that it plans to appeal.

"This just puts off the case and increases the liability of the
plan," Mr. Parks said.  "You have to remember that somebody has
got to pay this back, and every month that goes by they are
collecting significant amounts of money they won't be able to
keep."

But a representative with the Law Department said on Oct. 15 it is
still weighing its options.

Ms. Neal also is being represented by M. Travis Foust of Parks,
Chesin & Walbert, solo practitioner Jeffrey Berhold and Andrew
Lampros -- alampros@hallandlampros.com -- of Hall & Lampros.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Robin Leigh is the lead counsel
for the Department of Community Health.  Other lawyers on the case
are Senior Assistant AG Julie Adams Jacobs and Assistant AG
Stephanie Burnham.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Rejects Thalidomide Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the time for Edmund Andre to bring a suit against the maker
of thalidomide has long since passed, a federal judge in
Philadelphia has ruled, rejecting Mr. Andre's expert and the
argument that the company's initial cover-up of the drug's effect
on babies born to women who took it would extend the statute of
limitations.

Andre, who was born in 1957 with severe birth defects, was among
about 50 plaintiffs who brought claims against GlaxoSmithKline in
recent years.  They are all represented by the Seattle class-
action law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, according to the
opinion from U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

"After some three years of litigation, it is plain that critical
allegations made by Edmund Andre -- allegations that I was
compelled to accept as true at the Rule 12 stage -- have no
evidentiary support," Judge Diamond said.  The "plaintiff offers
no valid basis to conclude that the two-year limitations clock was
tolled after February 1957, when plaintiff was born with horrific
injuries.  I am now compelled to conclude that the clock expired
decades ago and that this 2011 personal injury action is time-
barred."

The suit, like the others similar to it, had originally been filed
in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and removed to federal
court by GSK, which claimed diversity jurisdiction since, it said,
it is a Delaware corporation.

District court judges split on whether the pharmaceutical giant is
a citizen of Pennsylvania, where it has its offices and 1,800
employees, or Delaware, where it is incorporated and rents an
office.

In 2012, Judge Diamond agreed with GSK that its corporate "nerve
center," a term taken from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 opinion
in Hertz v. Friend, is located in Delaware.  But he noted the
split among district court judges, some of whom ruled in opposite
ways when presented with nearly identical facts, and urged the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to settle what he
called an "extremely troubling" uncertainty in the law.

In a highly anticipated ruling with far-reaching effects, the
appeals court last year upheld his ruling that GSK's "nerve
center" is in Delaware and diversity jurisdiction would apply.
The thalidomide cases were then consolidated in Judge Diamond's
court, according to his opinion issued on Oct. 16 in Johnson v.
SmithKline Beecham.

Earlier this year, Judge Diamond said, GSK had "asked me to order
plaintiffs to comply with discovery requests respecting
plaintiffs' thalidomide-related online and social media
communications and research."  He granted the motion.  But, "on
June 12, defendants presented compelling evidence that, contrary
to my orders (and plaintiffs' discovery obligations), several
plaintiffs had failed to produce highly probative, relevant
evidence, including online and social media posts revealing that
some plaintiffs have known for decades that thalidomide caused
their birth defects."

The plaintiffs responded that they didn't remember making the
posts and suffered short-term memory loss, among other things. GSK
argued that the suits should be dismissed.

Instead of dismissing, Diamond appointed William T. Hangley to
serve as special master for discovery.

As to the issue of the statute of limitations, Judge Diamond
applied Pennsylvania law, which has a two-year limit from the
infliction of harm.  The clock would have started running in 1957
for Mr. Andre, the judge said.

"The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that defendants'
fraudulent concealment of both thalidomide's extensive
distribution in the United States and the drug's dangerousness
tolled the running of the two-year limitations clock," Judge
Diamond said, but the plaintiff failed to prove that claim.

Mr. Andre knew as early as 1969 that his mother had taken
thalidomide while she was pregnant with him and he made no
significant effort until recently to investigate and bring a case,
Judge Diamond said.

"In arguing that the two-year limitations clock was stopped for
some 50 years, plaintiff offers the expert affidavit of Trent
Stephens," Judge Diamond said.

Dr. Stephens had said "that before Oct. 25, 2009, (exactly two
years before the instant complaint was filed) medical science
mistakenly understood that thalidomide caused only 'bilateral'
limb defects, not the 'unilateral' defects from which plaintiff
suffers," according to the opinion.

That view is based on a study from 1964, though, Judge Diamond
said.  "Dr. Stephens also avers that data from a 1969 study shows
thalidomide resulted in 'significant unilateral defects,'"
Judge Diamond said, quoting from Stephens' declaration.  "It thus
appears that Dr. Stephens himself acknowledges that any 'sea
change' in medical thought on thalidomide occurred some 45 years
before the date Dr. Stephens came to 'appreciate' its
significance."

The judge wasn't convinced that the statute of limitations should
be tolled to allow for Mr. Andre's case.

Ari Brown -- ari@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman represented
Mr. Andre, and Michael Scott -- mscott@reedsmith.com -- of Reed
Smith in Philadelphia represented GSK.  Neither could be reached
for comment.


GT ADVANCED: Faces "Favalora" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
John J. Favalora, Jr. individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Richard J. Gaynor, Raja
Bal, J. Michael Conaway, Kathleen A. Cote, Ernest L. Godshalk,
Matthew E. Massengill, Mary Petrovich, Robert E. Switz, Noel G.
Watson, Thomas Wroe, Jr., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs
& Co., and Canaccord Genuity Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00460 (D.N.H.,
October 17, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements with respect to GTAT's
relationship with Apple, as well as GTAT's capital position.

GT Advanced Technologies Inc. is a diversified technology company
producing advanced materials and innovative crystal growth
equipment for the global consumer electronics, power electronics,
solar and LED industries.

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

The Corporate defendants are underwriters of the Initial Public
Offering Statements of GT Advanced Technologies Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie N. Hage, Esq.
      Kathleen A. Davidson, Esq.
      HAGE HODES, PA
      1855 Elm Street
      Manchester, NH 03104
      Telephone: (603) 668-2222 ext. 111
      Facsimile: (603) 641-6333
      E-mail: jhage@hagehodes.com
              kdavidson@hagehodes.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@me-law.com


GT ADVANCED: Sued in D.N.H. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frank S. Impagliazzo and Tami Fitzkoff, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Richard J.
Gaynor, and Raja Bal, Case No. 1:14-cv-00458 (D.N.H., October 16,
2014), made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to GTAT's relationship with Apple, as well as GTAT's
capital position.

GT Advanced Technologies Inc. is a diversified technology company
producing advanced materials and innovative crystal growth
equipment for the global consumer electronics, power electronics,
solar and LED industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Mallory, Esq.
      MALLORY & FRIEDMAN, PLLC
      3 North Spring Street
      Concord, NH 03301
      Telephone: (603) 228-2277
      Facsimile: (603) 228-2275
      E-mail: mark@malloryandfriedman.com

         - and -

      Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
      Michael T. Fantini, Esq.
      Glen Abramson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-5715
      E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
              mfantini@bm.net
              gabramson@bm.net


GT ADVANCED: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on Oct. 16 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against officers of GT Advanced Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: GTAT), in the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire, on behalf of all persons who purchased
GTAT's publicly traded securities between November 5, 2013 and
October 6, 2014, and were damaged thereby.  The class action is
also brought on behalf of all persons who purchased GTAT's public
offering of 3.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2020 and GTAT's
public offering of common stock, both conducted on or around
December 4, 2013.  This action alleges claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than December 8, 2014 to be appointed a lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Investors who
purchased GTAT during the Class Period and suffered losses are
urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their rights.

The Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements with respect to GTAT's relationship with
Apple, and that GTAT was in a "good capital position."

However, Defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that
GTAT: (i) would not be able to meet the requirements of its multi-
year agreement with Apple to supply sapphire materials; (ii) was
facing a liquidity crisis given its failure to meet the
requirements of its supply agreement with Apple; (ii) revenue
guidance for 2014 was inflated because Apple would not be using
its sapphire materials in the new iPhone; and (iv) would not be
ending the year with $400 to $450 million in cash.

On October 6, 2014, GTAT announced that it was experiencing a
liquidity crisis and filed for bankruptcy.  On this news, the
price of GTAT shares plummeted $10.25 per share, or nearly 93%, to
close at $0.80 per share.

Wolf Popper -- http://www.wolfpopper.com-- has successfully
recovered billions of dollars for defrauded investors.  The firm's
reputation and expertise have been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed the firm to major positions in
securities litigation. See www.wolfpopper.com

For more information, please contact:

Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Tel.: 877.370.7703
Fax: 877.370.7704
E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


GT ADVANCED: Berger & Montague Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. on Oct. 16 disclosed that it has filed a
securities class action lawsuit against certain of the executive
officers of GT Advanced Technologies Inc.  The action, which is
captioned Impagliazzo, et al. v. Gutierrez, 1:14-cv-00458
(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 9:40 am Eastern Standard Time on October 6,
2014, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants made
statements which misrepresented and/or concealed GT's cash
position, expected cash position and revenues, ability to meet
certain milestones under a critical agreement with Apple for the
production of sapphire material, and the Company's development of
a facility that would produce the sapphire material.  These false
and misleading statements were made to the market in public
statements and in the offering materials for GT's offerings of
3.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2020 and public offering of
common stock, both conducted on or around December 4, 2013.  On
October 6, 2014, the Company suddenly reversed course and
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 December 8, 2014.  This
class action case involves all persons who:

purchased GT's publicly traded securities between November 5, 2013
and 9:40 am Eastern Standard Time on October 6, 2014;

purchased securities in or traceable to the Company's public
offering of $214 million in principal amount of 3.00% Convertible
Senior Notes due 2020 conducted on or around December 4, 2013;

purchased securities in or traceable to GT's public offering of
9,942,196 shares of its common stock conducted on or around
December 4, 2013.
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.

Based in Philadelphia, PA, Berger & Montague, P.C. --
http://www.bergermontague.com-- represents plaintiffs in complex
and class action litigation and is consistently ranked as one of
the top plaintiffs' law firms in the United States by many
publications.  Berger & Montague, P.C. has extensive experience
representing investors, homeowners, consumers and borrowers in
class action litigation, and the firm has played lead roles in
major cases for over 40 years resulting in recoveries of many
billions of dollars for their clients and the classes they
represent.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests,


GUAM: Faces Class Action Over Uncompensated Land Takings
--------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Paco, writing for KUAM News, reports that the Calvo
Administration could face a major bump in GovGuam's road to
financial recovery, as a multimillion dollar class action law suit
has been filed with the Superior Court of Guam dealing with
private property taken for public easements and utilities.

"This law has never been rescinded and it shouldn't be rescinded
because the government has wronged these real property owners.  So
we, on behalf of the estate of Rita Aquino Salas and there may be
some others added as named plaintiffs, are suing the government,"
asserted Attorney Curtis Van De Veld In reference to Public Law
22-73.

The bill was originally vetoed by then-governor Joseph Ada but
overridden by the 22nd Guam Legislature.

The public law required the Governor of Guam within 120 days of
its passage to develop a list of landowners whose lands had been
taken or used for public access and public utilities in Guam
without being compensated.  It further mandated that rev and tax
refrain to remove those properties from real estate tax rolls and
refrain from collecting real property taxes on public utilities
and access easements.

According to Mr. Van De Veld, the law was a result of report out
of the Department of the Interior back in 1992.  In the audit, DOI
addressed that GovGuam must remedy uncompensated land takings.  He
said, "The Office of the Inspector General determined that the
Government of Guam had taken people's property for roadways and
other easements and had not compensated them for that money that
they should be paid when their property is taken by the government
and also that they continued to tax people on the real property
for the segments of the real property that were taken."

But what's the damage? According to Van De Veld, in excess $73
million is owed to such property owners.

The class action lawsuit Van De Veld filed on Oct. 16 seeks to
have the court issue a writ of mandamus to the Government of Guam
to compel GovGuam to perform what it's obligated to do.

"In that public law it requires that the Government of Guam, the
Executive Branch will determine which people they taxed improperly
and how much they improperly taxed them for the real property and
will also determine all persons whose property has been taken and
used by the public and place a value on it which they believed
should be restored to," he stated.

When Ada vetoed the bill in 1994 he wrote, "Although this measure
proposes to compensate landowners whose lands were taken and
others who agreed to let the government take or use their land, it
is in fact nothing more than a raid on the treasury and a recipe
for bankruptcy for the Government of Guam, the Public Utility
Agency of Guam, the Guam Power Authority, the Guam Telephone
Authority and the Territorial Highway Fund."

The Governor's Office had not yet seen the lawsuit and declined to
comment at this time.


GUAM: Calvo Administration Reacts to Property Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Paco, writing for KUAM, reports that the Calvo
Administration reacted to a class action lawsuit filed at the
superior court.

Attorney Curtis Van De Veld represents the estate of Rita Aquino
Salas who alleges GovGuam failed to comply with Public Law 22-73.
The legislation requires GovGuam compensate real property owners
for land that was taken for public roadways and easements.

On Oct. 17, Governor Eddie Calvo tells KUAM its too soon to
predict ramifications of the lawsuit.  "This lawsuit has just been
put out in the past 24 hours.  I've instructed our staff at the
administration and our lawyers let's review the complaint and
we'll move from there.  Of course there will be discussions with
the Attorney General's Office as well."

In a 1992 report out of the Department of the Interior it's
estimated in excess of $73 million is owed to such property
owners.

Although the law was originally vetoed by then-governor Joseph
Ada, it was overridden by the 22nd Guam Legislature.

The public law requires that the governor of Guam within 120 days
of its passage to develop a list of landowners whose lands had
been taken or used for public access and public utilities on Guam
without being compensated.  It further mandated that rev and tax
remove those properties from real estate tax rolls and refrain
from collecting real property taxes.


HEALTH NET: Wants Judge to Seal Information on ERISA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that Health Net Inc., which provides and administers medical
benefits to millions of people around the United States, is asking
a federal judge in Newark to seal information related to a $215
million class-action settlement of claims that it under-reimbursed
out-of-network health-care providers.

The company's motion, filed Oct. 7 in Wachtel v. Health Net, seeks
to prevent disclosure of portions of a special master's report and
some of the exhibits to its own liability insurers, who it is
battling in California state court over coverage for the Wachtel
litigation.

The 241-page report, submitted to the court for approval Sept. 12,
was aimed at determining why it was taking so long to get the
settlement funds to class members and who, if anyone, was to blame
for the delay.

Special master Paul Zoubek found some fault for the delay on the
part of Health Net, class counsel and the claims administrator but
saw no bad faith, according to the report.  Mr. Zoubek also found
no justification for sanctions or discipline or for removing class
counsel or taking back their $70 million fee.

The Wachtel caption refers to three consolidated class actions
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against
the Los Angeles-based Health Net dating back to 2001.  The other
cases are McCoy v. Health Net and Scharfman v. Health Net.

In July 2008, U.S. District Judge Faith Hochberg of the District
of New Jersey approved a settlement that covered all of them,
resolving claims on behalf of more than 2.5 million Health Net
insureds.  In Judge Hochberg's words, it was "among the largest
ERISA health insurance settlements on record."

The $215 million settlement had three components.  A $40 million
"prove up" fund was for class members who could show they were
balance-billed on the underpayments.

Unclaimed amounts would revert to Health Net, while those whose
claims were rejected could seek payment from a $160 million "cash
settlement" fund, which was to be distributed pro rata.  That fund
was also tapped for about $69.7 million in legal fees, more than
$1.725 million in expenses and $60,000 in incentive awards for the
named plaintiffs.

Another $15 million went to the New Jersey Department of Banking
and Insurance to reimburse small employer plan members.
Health Net also agreed to change its practices, most significantly
by no longer using the Ingenix database with the problematic
reimbursement rates.

In 2012, class counsel got Health Net to kick in an additional
$6.25 million for the class.

The parties were waiting for Judge Hochberg's approval of that new
portion when the judge issued an ultimatum instead.

In March 2013, with $90 million not yet distributed, she gave
class counsel -- Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge, N.J.,
and Pomerantz LLP of New York -- two days to certify what monies
had been paid out, what fees they had collected and any other
disbursements they had made.  They responded that $132,396 had
been paid to balance-billed class members, about $72.4 million for
their legal fees and expenses and $600,000 for taxes and banking-
related costs.  They also informed Judge Hochberg that the $94
million that would be left after the claims administrator was paid
could be distributed quickly once she approved the $6.25 million.
Dealing with the $40 million fund had "proved to be much more
difficult and time-consuming than anticipated," they wrote.

Judge Hochberg then issued an order to show cause why she should
not appoint a special master and on June 3, 2013, ordered that at
least half the monies be distributed "forthwith."

The parties reported June 19, 2013, that by the end of the
following week, more than 95,000 checks comprising 56 percent of
the settlement account would be mailed, in sums averaging $530.75,
with one check over $207,000.  They did not oppose a special
master and jointly suggested Mr. Zoubek, a former first assistant
attorney general for New Jersey who is now with Montgomery
McCracken Walker & Rhoads in Cherry Hill, N.J.

Judge Hochberg appointed Mr. Zoubek, whose fees were to be split
evenly between Health Net and class counsel and were not to come
out of class funds.

Mr. Zoubek was tasked with examining how the settlement has been
administered and whether Health Net's rejection of claims was
legitimate and in good faith, in part by conducting a statistical
sampling of claims that were denied.

Judge Hochberg further directed Mr. Zoubek to recommend whether
class counsel should be replaced or ordered to repay all or part
of the nearly $70 million in fees they were paid and to consider
whether there should be sanctions or disciplinary action against
either Health Net or class counsel.

The class, Health Net and Berdon Claims Administration have all
asked Judge Hochberg to adopt or affirm Mr. Zoubek's report.

Health Net's Oct. 7 motion asked the court to seal portions of the
report and exhibits regarding the mediation process that led to
the $215 million settlement, before Eric Green of Resolutions LLC
in Boston, as well as the subsequent mediation in 2012 before
retired U.S. Magistrate Judge John Hughes that resulted in the
extra $6.25 million.

The company contends the materials are privileged under the law of
California, where it is litigating with its liability carriers
over coverage for Wachtel, McCoy and Scharfman in Health Net v.
American International Specialty Lines Insurance in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County.

Kevin Roddy of Wilentz Goldman said, "We don't have any position"
on the motion, as did Berdon's lawyer, Thomas Quinn --
thomas.quinn@wilsonelser.com -- of the Florham Park, N.J., office
of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker.  Gretchen Carner --
gcarner@wcb-law.com -- of Waxler Carner Brodsky in El Segundo,
Calif., who represents American International Specialty Lines
Insurance, said the carriers' position was that the unpaid
benefits in the underlying class actions were contractual damages
not covered by the professional liability policies.

Health Net's lawyer, Jay Calvert -- jcalvert@morganlewis.com -- of
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia, declined comment, as did
Michael Davisson of Sedgwick's Los Angeles office, who represents
RLI Insurance Co. Counsel for Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
Paul K. Schrieffer -- pks@pksllp.com -- of P.K. Schrieffer in West
Covina, Calif., did not return calls seeking comment.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Anchor Bank Suit in Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor Bank, N.A., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03333
(N.D. Ga., October 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to secure and safeguard its customers' personal financial
data, personal identifying information and private information.

The Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement
specialty retailer and fourth largest retailer in the United
States, with stores in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, 10 Canadian provinces and
Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth S. Canfield
      Everette L. Doffermyre
      DOFFERMYRE, SHIELDS, CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC
      1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 881-8900
      Facsimile: (404) 881-3017
      E-mail: kcanfield@dsckd.com
              edoffermyre@dsckd.com

         - and -

      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      David R. Woodward, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 338-4605
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
      E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
              dwoodward@heinsmills.com

         - and -

      Brian M. Sund, Esq.
      Jackson D. Bigham, Esq.
      MORRISON SUND PLLC
      5125 County Road 101, #200
      Minnetonka, MN 55345
      Telephone: (952) 975-0050
      Facsimile: (952) 975-0058
      E-mail: bsund@morrisonsund.com
              jbigham@morrisonsund.com


INDIANA: BMV Denies Allegations of Being Secretive on Overcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Cook, writing for IndyStar, reports that the Indiana Bureau
of Motor Vehicles is denying allegations that it's being secretive
about its release of videos and other documents related to a
lawsuit over the agency's overcharges.

Two issues were central to the dispute at a contentious hearing on
Oct. 15 in Marion Superior Court: whether video depositions about
the motorist overcharges should be withheld from the public and
whether the BMV should be held in contempt for missing a deadline
for producing documents related to the case.

Wayne Turner, an attorney representing the BMV, said the video
depositions should not be released because the media only
publishes clips in their reports, which he said provides a
distorted view of the information.

"This is not a request for a gag order," he said, but rather a
"matter of protecting" current and former BMV employees.

The agency took its stance in September, several months after The
Indianapolis Star and other media published a recorded deposition
of former BMV Deputy Director Matthew Foley.

In the video, Mr. Foley testifies under oath that top agency
officials knew they were improperly charging Hoosiers for years,
but secretly continued the practice to avoid budget troubles.

However, Attorney Irwin Levin, who is representing motorists in
the lawsuit, asked Judge John Hanley at the Oct. 15 hearing not to
involve the court in telling the press how to cover a story,
adding that the BMV's "entire argument is that the BMV doesn't
like the way the story is being told."

The BMV's efforts to keep the videos secret is just the latest
wrinkle in the lawsuit, which seeks to recoup $30 million to $40
million that the BMV overcharged Indiana motorists for
personalized license plates, vehicle registrations and dozens of
other services.

The overcharges may date back to at least the early 2000s and have
been estimated to be as much as $60 million to $80 million.

The BMV admitted last June that it had overcharged drivers for
operator licenses.  Then in November, it agreed to refund $30
million to motorists in a separate class action lawsuit involving
those excessive charges.

The agency also said earlier this month that it has begun sending
out claim forms to 180,000 Hoosiers who were overcharged an
estimated $29 million in vehicle excise taxes, the agency said on
Oct. 15.  The overcharges date back to 2004 and are just the
latest multimillion dollar mistake at the troubled agency.

BMV attorneys at the hearing say written transcripts would still
be available, just not video.  They argued that the video
depositions should be secret because of "the magnitude of the mis-
disclosure."

The agency's attorneys also argued that they needed more time to
produce written records because they said there were more than
260,000 pages to collect.  The documents that were sought by the
plaintiffs included meeting minutes, emails, and spreadsheets.
The agency said it did turn those records over on Oct. 14, but it
missed last month's deadline set by the court.

The plaintiffs believe those documents will show BMV knew about
overcharges years ago, but did nothing to correct them.  Mr. Levin
said at the meeting that the agency's failure to release the
records in a timely manner "is beyond understanding."

Mr. Levin held up a small stack of documents, before saying to the
judge: "Why are we here so often? Because this is what they've
produced in a year."

Carl Hayes, an attorney for BMV, countered that he had nine
attorneys, three paralegals and one law clerk working on producing
the requested documentation.  But Hayes also said that the lead
plaintiff in the case never paid "at least 28 of 29 fees" at issue
in the lawsuit. It is for that reason, he said, that they've asked
that the case be dismissed and also have filed a motion to allow
them to stop releasing documents to the plaintiff. A hearing on
those issues is scheduled for December.

At the end of the hearing, Mr. Levin accused BMV attorneys of a
"commitment to delay and obfuscation."  BMV attorney Hayes
responded: "That's simply not the case."

The judge did not rule on Oct. 15, instead taking the BMV issues
under advisement.  But he also admonished the attorneys on both
sides, saying that the courts aren't "particularly eager to
involve themselves in discovery disputes."

The BMV announced earlier this month that it has hired accounting
and advisory firm BKD to review how the agency calculates and
charges taxes and fees.

The agency also has admitted overcharging for dozens of other
fees.  The overcharges acknowledged by BMV ranged from $11 on
antique vehicle registrations to 50 cents on motorcycle
endorsements for operator licenses.

Those overcharges are the target of pending class action lawsuits
filed by Mr. Levin of the Indianapolis firm Cohen & Malad LLP.


ISSA NAILS: Faces "Ye" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ming Ye, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Issa Nails Salon Inc., d/b/a Issa Nails
Salon, Lisa He, Min Ling Lee, John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08191 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a beauty salon in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


JACKSON CIRTUS: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Santos-Garcia, Simon Guzman-Romero, Tomas Hernandez-
Silverio, and Guillermo Martinez-Hernandez, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Jackson Cirtus,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00603 (M.D. Fla., October 17, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, overtime, damages, penalties, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jackson Cirtus, Inc. is an agricultural employer headquartered in
La Belle, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Scott Schell, Esq.
      Victoria Mesa, Esq.
      MIGRANT FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT
      508 Lucerne Ave
      Lake Worth, FL 33460
      Telephone: (561) 582-3921
      Facsimile: (561) 582-4884
      E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org
              victoria@floridalegal.org


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Sued in C.D. California Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Barshaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-02137
(C.D. Cal., October 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC provides traditional and unique
recovery services for consumer charged-off accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LONDON SILVER: Sued in S.D. New York Over Silver-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Modern Settings LLC (a New York limited liability company), and
Modern Settings LLC (a Florida limited liability company), on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The London
Silver Market Fixing Ltd., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Bank U.S.A.,
N.A., HSBC Holdings PLC; HSBC Bank PLC, and The Bank of Nova
Scotia, Case No. 1:14-cv-08311 (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants conspired, or agreed with one another
to restrain trade through collusively manipulating prices of
silver and silver derivatives contracts.

The Defendants are financial institutions and are member of the
Silver Price Fixing Limited.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: Juvenile Victim Lawyers Want Windfall Frozen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Kalinowski, writing for citizensvoice.com, reports that
attorneys representing thousands of juveniles victimized by
Luzerne County's infamous "Kids for Cash" scandal asked a federal
judge on Oct. 16 to freeze a multimillion-dollar windfall that is
soon due to one of the key players in the corruption scheme.  They
worry disgraced attorney Robert Powell will spend or hide his
potential $200 million pay day before he's held liable in court
for his role in the juvenile justice scandal.

"We're willing to present evidence that Mr. Powell is a mastermind
at moving around money and hiding it from those who should have
it," said attorney Sol H. Weiss -- sweiss@anapolschwartz.com --
who represents a large group of the juveniles who are part of a
class action lawsuit.

Mr. Weiss and other attorneys representing the juveniles are
asking U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo to grant an
injunction to prevent Mr. Powell from accessing the approximately
$200 million his law firm is owed for representing Avoca residents
in a national environmental contamination lawsuit that recently
settled.

Judge Caputo, who heard testimony on Oct. 16 in federal court in
Wilkes-Barre, said he'll issue a written opinion by Oct. 21.

Mr. Powell served 18 months in federal prison for paying bribes
during the kids-for-cash case, which saw two Luzerne County judges
conspire to funnel juveniles to for-profit detention centers owned
and operated by Powell and a business partner.  Mr. Powell, who
lives in Florida and didn't appear in court on Oct. 16, remains
the lone defendant who hasn't settled or defaulted in a class
action lawsuit brought by the juveniles.

"As this court is acutely aware, the underlying case involves the
most corrupt dealings of the judiciary in the history of the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania," Mr. Weiss said.  "The conduct that
was committed in Luzerne County is outrageous.  He bought the
courthouse. He bought judges."

Powell's attorney, Stephen M. Sinaiko, said the class action
lawsuit has nothing to do with Powell's work in the environmental
case.

"We think the motion is inappropriate," Mr. Sinaiko said.

The Powell Law Group represented a group of Avoca residents who
were plaintiffs in a national class action lawsuit against
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. regarding environmental contamination
from toxic waste that injured thousands. Its subsidiary, Kerr-
McGee Corp., once had a wood-treatment plant in Avoca that used
creosote, a distilled coal tar.  In April, Anadarko agreed to pay
$5.15 billion to settle the claims in the case nationwide.

For its work, the Powell Law Group is owed somewhere between $150
million and $200 million in attorneys fees, or 40 percent of the
local share of the settlement, according to a lawsuit filed
against Powell by his former business partner, Allegheny County
investment banker Gregory Zappala.  Mr. Zappala has filed a civil
racketeering lawsuit against Powell in federal court in western
Pennsylvania.  He filed a similar injunction request there as
well.

Attorneys for Mr. Zappala came to court on Oct. 16 seeking to join
the motion by the kids-for-cash attorneys to request an injunction
against Powell.

"They have the money and we have to stop them. The money is going
to be gone," Mr. Zappala's attorney Bernard M. Schneider said.
"We believe all the money was earned illegally by Mr. Powell by
his bribing of the judges."

Mr. Schneider accused Mr. Powell of using money from companies he
co-owned with Mr. Zappala to fund the litigation in the Avoca
case.  "He stole all the money from us in order to put on his
Avoca case -- to prepare and present the case in Avoca," Mr.
Schneider said.

In 2002, Mr. Powell teamed with Mr. Zappala to build their first
juvenile detention center, Pennsylvania Child Care, in Pittston
Township. They later built a second center in Butler County called
Western PA Child Care. They also formed Gladstone Partners, which
had planned to create a cargo airport in the Hazleton area.

Mr. Zappala, son of a former state Supreme Court chief justice and
brother of the Allegheny County district attorney, abruptly ended
his partnership with Powell in June 2008 after The Citizens' Voice
reported the FBI was investigating financial ties between Powell
and two Luzerne County judges.

Mr. Zappala, who appeared in court on Oct. 16, was never accused
of any wrongdoing and has maintained he was kept in the dark
regarding Mr. Powell's illegal acts.

Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, were charged
in January 2009 with taking $770,000 in kickbacks from Powell and
failing to report $2.1 million in finder's fees paid by the
developer, whose construction company built the facilities.
Ciavarella is serving 28 years in federal prison, while Judge
Conahan is jailed for 17« years.

The builder of the facility, Robert Mericle, who pleaded guilty in
September 2009 to failing to report a felony in the case, reached
a $17.75 million settlement in the class action lawsuit in 2012.
PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care settled last year for $2.5
million.

The former judges defaulted and attorneys aren't expecting to ever
recoup damages from them.

"Powell is the only one with money," said attorney Mike Cefalo,
who represents a group of the juveniles and attended the Oct. 16
hearing.  "We filed a request for an injunction so Powell doesn't
spend all his money."


M-I LLC: "Shaffer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Shaffer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. M-I, LLC d/b/a MI Swaco, Case No. 4:14-cv-02966 (S.D.
Tex., October 17, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

M-I, LLC offers drilling fluid products that address the full
gamut of specific downhole problems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND,
      BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
      1150 Bissonnet
      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 PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


MARC JACOBS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages and OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linney Warren, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by Marc Jacobs International,
LLC, or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Marc
Jacobs International LLC v. Marc Jacobs International, LLC, or any
other entities affiliated with or controlled by Marc Jacobs
International, LLC, Case No. 160107/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York
Cty., October 15, 2014) is brought pursuant to New York Labor Law
to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation owed to
the Plaintiff and the class.

Marc Jacobs International, LLC is a foreign limited liability
company organized in Delaware headquartered in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Kara S. Miller, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad St, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  kmiller@vandallp.com

               - and -

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

                           *     *     *

Michael Lipkin, Jessica Corso, Ben James and Scott Flaherty,
writing for Law360, report that a former Marc Jacobs International
LLC intern accused the high-end clothing company in New York court
of failing to pay interns in a putative class action, part of a
wave of employment suits brought by former fashion and
entertainment industry interns.

Plaintiff Linney Warren claims the company illegally classified
interns as exempt from minimum wages and overtime since October
2008 while having them do work that would otherwise require more
paid workers.  The internship didn't have any academic or
vocational training, according to the complaint.

"Marc Jacobs's unlawful conduct had been pursuant to a corporate
policy or practice of minimizing labor costs by denying the named
plaintiff and the putative class compensation," Ms. Warren said in
the complaint.

The plaintiff said she had worked from April to June 2009,
transporting raw materials between various studios, organizing
fabrics, correcting patterns, sewing and picking up coffee.  She
often worked 70-hour weeks in May, according to the suit, which
said the alleged lack of payment had violated New York Labor Law.

At least 50 former interns would be part of the putative class,
which stretches back to 2008, according to the complaint. Warren
is seeking unspecified damages.

The case is the latest in a flurry brought by unpaid interns who
allege the entertainment industries are using them for cheap
labor, including a recently dropped class action by a former "Late
Show with David Letterman" intern who said her attorneys had
pushed her into filing it.  A former "Wendy Williams Show" intern
earlier this month also sued the show's distributor, Lions Gate
Entertainment Corp., for failing to pay him wages.

Additionally, Interns at Coach Inc. sued the company in July,
while former interns with one of the world's largest talent
agencies, International Creative Management Partners LLC, are
currently battling for conditional certification in a collective
action suit.

The U.S. Department of Labor has thrown its hat in on the side of
the interns via an amicus brief filed with the Second Circuit in
July, saying that Fox Entertainment Group Inc.'s use of unpaid
interns does not fall under Fair Labor Standards Act exemptions
for trainees.

Ms. Warren is represented by Lloyd Ambinder of Virginia & Ambinder
LLP and Jeffrey K. Brown, Michael A. Tompkins and Brett R. Cohen
of Leeds Brown Law PC.

The suit is Linney Warren v. Marc Jacobs International LLC, case
number 160107/2014, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York.


MARYLAND LIVE!: Faces Class Action Over Dealer Training
-------------------------------------------------------
Don Rush, writing for Delmarva Public Radio, reports that
attorneys are pursuing a class-action lawsuit against Maryland
Live! Casino in Hanover, accusing its operators of using a dealer
school as a prop for job training to avoid paying the minimum
wage.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 14 in federal court by three people
who underwent months of training to become dealers at the casino
last year.  Attorneys say hundreds more qualify as plaintiffs in
the lawsuit and can join the litigation.

The lawsuit accuses Maryland Live! of disguising job training as a
school in partnership with Anne Arundel County Community College,
and telling potential dealers they were fortunate the training
courses were free.

Casino spokeswoman Carmen Gonzales says the lawsuit is "wholly
without merit" and that the casino will vigorously fight its
claims.


MERCANTIL COMMERCEBANK: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Betancourt, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Mercantil Commercebank Florida Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
23863 (S.D. Fla., October 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay proper overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mercantil Commercebank Florida Bancorp, Inc. own and operates 19
banking centers in Florida, New York, and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sued Over Manipulation of Workers Salary
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deserae Ryan, and Trent Rau, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Microsoft Corporation, a Washington
corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-04634 (N.D. Cal., October 16, 2014),
alleges that the Defendant and numerous other companies entered
into an Anti-Solicitation Agreements and Restricted Hiring
Agreements to fix and suppress the compensation of its employees.

Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational corporation
that develops, manufactures, licenses, supports and sells computer
software, consumer electronics and personal computers and
services, and is best known for its software products such as the
Microsoft Windows line of operating systems, Microsoft Office,
Internet Explorer web browser, Bing, its Xbox game console and the
Microsoft Surface series of tablets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David R. Markham, Esq.
      Malgorzata K. Realin, Esq.
      Peggy J. Reali, Esq.
      Janine Renee Menhennet, Esq.
      THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
      750 B Street, Ste. 1950
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 399-3995
      E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
              mrealin@markham-law.com
              preali@ck-lawfirm.com
              jmenhennet@markham-law.com


MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Sued Over Illegal Inflation of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Ostroviak, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Millennial Media, Inc., Paul J. Palmieri,
Michael B. Avon, Andrew J. Jeanneret, and Michael Barrett, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08330 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate
the price of Millennial Media's stock during the Class Period.

Millennial Media, Inc. is a digital advertising company that
provides advertising services focused on the mobile computing
segment, such as smartphones that run Apple, Inc.'s iOS operating
system, Google, Inc.'s Android operating system, or other
operating systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


MOTT'S LLP: Judge Trims "No Sugar Added" Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field and Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on Oct. 15 pared a bulk of the claims
from a proposed class action alleging Mott's LLP mislabeled its
apple juice but ruled a trial should determine whether the
plaintiff had relied on the juice's "no sugar added" label.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston granted in part Mott's motion
for summary judgment on the suit, which had survived two previous
bids for dismissal.  The decision allows plaintiff Mohammed
Rahman's proposed class action against Mott's to proceed on the
claim that the juice company violated the unlawful prong of
California's Unfair Competition Law.

In January, the company won a partial victory when the judge
dismissed Mr. Rahman's claims relating to Mott's applesauce.  The
judge allowed Mr. Rahman to amend his complaint, which then
survived Mott's second motion to dismiss completely intact in
April.

This time, Judge Illston granted Mott's motion for summary
judgment on claims that the company violated California's False
Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the fraud and
unfair prongs of the Unfair Competition Law, ruling that
Mr. Rahman had failed to show that the "no sugar added" label is
misleading to a reasonable consumer.

An expert witness for Mott's testified that a survey had showed
that consumers did not rely on the "no sugar added" claim when
purchasing its apple juice, according to the opinion.  The judge
ruled that the plaintiff's expert testimony, on the other hand,
was unpersuasive since he criticized the study but did not assert
any independent facts or data.

"[The expert] concedes that 'the appropriate methodology for
reaching valid and reliable answers to these questions is to
conduct a survey,' yet he has apparently failed to follow his own
advice," Judge Illston wrote.

The judge also granted Mott's summary judgment on Mr. Rahman's
negligent misrepresentation claims.

However, Judge Illston rejected Mott's argument that Mr. Rahman
had failed to show he relied on the "no sugar added" label on the
company's apple juice when he decided to buy the juice, saying the
plaintiff's testimony had contained enough conflicting evidence to
create a triable issue of fact.

"[Rahman] also admits that he continued to purchase Mott's even
when the 'No Sugar Added' statement was not present on the label,"
the judge wrote.  "However, Rahman also gave testimony tending to
show he did in fact rely on the 'No Sugar Added' statement. For
example, he testified that it caused him to believe there were
fewer calories than comparable apple juice products."

Judge Illston also rejected Mott's argument that Mr. Rahman did
not suffer damages from purchasing and consuming its apple juice
since his testimony on how much he spent on apple juice was
sufficient to show evidence of damages.

"He testified that he was buying two to three bottles of Mott's
100% Apple Juice every two weeks, but began purchasing three to
four bottles every two weeks upon noticing the "No Sugar Added"
statement on the label," the judge said.  "Rahman further
testified that he typically paid between three to five dollars per
bottle."

But the judge did find that Mr. Rahman had lacked standing for
injunctive relief since he testified that he would still buy the
juice in the future if the label is removed, even though the juice
would still have as much natural sugar as before.

Mr. Rahman is represented by Jordan L. Lurie --
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Mark S. Greenstone, Tarek H.
Zohdy and Cody R. Padgett --Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com -- of
Capstone Law APC.

Mott's is represented by Kevin Marshall Sadler --
kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com -- Ryan Lee Bangert --
ryan.bangert@bakerbotts.com -- and Van H. Beckwith --
van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com -- of Baker Botts LLP.

The case is Rahman v. Mott's LLP, case number 3:13-cv-03482, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


NBCUNIVERSAL INC: Enters Into Deal to Resolve Intern Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that NBCUniversal Inc. has
struck a deal to resolve a putative class and collective action
filed by former unpaid interns at MSNBC and Saturday Night Live
who claimed they should have been compensated, according to a
letter filed in New York federal court on Oct. 15.

Counsel for named plaintiff Monet Eliastam, who said she was
employed as an unpaid intern on the staff of Saturday Night Live
in 2012, wrote to U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis to ask for
more time to file a motion for preliminary approval of the pact.

"Although the parties met on Aug. 26, 2014, and resolved all
outstanding issues, defendant has not yet completed its review of
the final settlement agreement and accompanying documents.  A
brief extension is therefore necessary to enable the defendant to
complete its review and for the parties to execute the final
version of the agreement," said the letter from Outten & Golden
LLP partner Justin Swartz.

When Ms. Eliastam and Jesse Moore -- a former unpaid intern at
MSNBC who was dismissed from the suit in April -- filed suit in
July 2013, they added NBCUniversal to the list of media and
entertainment companies which had been targeted in a wave of cases
brought by interns over wages.

Their complaint pointed out that U.S. District Judge William
Pauley had granted class certification and held that two ex-
interns were employees protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law the month before.  That ruling is currently
on appeal to the Second Circuit.

Ms. Eliastam's duties on "Saturday Night Live" included obtaining
and completing paperwork for extras, filing, going on errands to
get props, food and coffee, and "locking down" sets to make sure
no one disturbed the shooting of scenes, the suit said.

From January 2012 through May 2012 she spent about two days a week
working a total of approximately 25 hours, and from September 2012
through December 2012 she spent about 3 days and 27 hours per week
on the alleged internship, she said.

"A key part of NBCUniversal's success are the hundreds of unpaid
or underpaid interns who work for it as production assistants,
researchers and delivery people, but receive no or very little
compensation for their work," the plaintiffs alleged. "Unpaid and
underpaid interns are becoming the modern-day equivalent of entry-
level employees, except that employers are not paying them or
underpaying them for the many hours they work."

The plaintiffs are represented by Justin M. Swartz and Juno Turner
of Outten & Golden LLP.

NBCUniversal is represented by Sam Shaulson --
sshaulson@morganlewis.com -- and Russell Bruch --
rbruch@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP and in-
house lawyer Hilary Lane.

The case is Moore v. NBCUniversal Inc., case number 1:13-cv-04634,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


NORCOLD INC: Judge Refuses to Approve Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel and Kat Greene, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge refused on Oct. 14 to grant preliminary
approval for a $33 million settlement in a proposed class action
against Norcold Inc., Thetford Corp. and Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corp.
involving allegedly defective refrigerators, saying more
information is needed on incentives provided to named plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Stanton denied the plaintiffs'
motion for approval of the settlement terms without prejudice,
saying the court lacks adequate information to determine the
incentive amounts for named plaintiffs, who would receive $100 per
hour for their assistance, with a suggested $5,000 minimum award.

"Because settling plaintiffs have not provided the court with any
estimates of the number of hours the proposed class
representatives have expended, the court cannot determine whether
or not the incentive awards corrupt the proposed class
representatives," Judge Stanton wrote.  "Consequently, the court
cannot conditionally certify the class."

The class action was initially filed in December 2012 by a series
of plaintiffs who claimed the refrigerators in their recreational
vehicles had a design defect in the boiler tubing of the cooling
unit.  The defect caused the tubes to prematurely corrode,
releasing flammable gas into the air, causing the refrigerators to
fail and putting the RV owners at risk of fires, according to
court records.

The defendants launched recalls to repair the refrigerators by
retrofitting them with tubing that wasn't defective, but the
repairs and retrofitting didn't fix the actual problem, the
plaintiffs alleged in their suit.

Norcold, Thetford and Dyson-Kissner-Moran agreed in September to
pay the $33 million sum, which then would be divided among the
would-be class members depending on which refrigerator they
purchased and whether they already paid for repairs or
replacements, according to the plaintiffs' motion.

Judge Stanton noted that eight of the proposed class
representatives are receiving payments in addition to their
incentive awards in the agreement for the release of their
reserved claims, for amounts ranging from $500 to $68,744.60.  She
compared that to the payments ranging from $7.02 to $175.40 other
settling plaintiffs would receive if all class members
participated in the settlement.

Judge Stanton said there is nothing inherently improper about a
class representative settling an individual claim with a
defendant, but added the agreement here provides that
consideration for the release of reserved claims will be paid only
in the event the entire settlement is approved.

"There is no compelling reason to link the two settlements, and
doing so provides those plaintiffs releasing their reserved claims
with a substantial reason to support the settlement separate and
apart from any interest they have solely as members of the
settlement class," Judge Stanton wrote.  "This conflict destroys
the adequacy of those eight plaintiffs releasing their reserved
claims."

The law firms of Ridout Lyon Ottoson LLP and Zimmerman Reed PLLP
can't be appointed lead counsel, Judge Stanton said, because they
represent both the eight plaintiffs in question and the entire
putative class, and would thus be simultaneously representing
clients with conflicting interests.

Judge Stanton also noted that some class representatives owned a
different model refrigerator than the majority of the proposed
class. Because those models allowed owners to take advantage of
more favorable settlement terms, Judge Stanton said the settlement
class could not be certified.

The plaintiffs were given 60 days to file an amended motion
addressing the deficiencies outlined in Judge Stanton's order.

Caleb Marker of Ridout Lyon Ottoson LLP, who represents the
plaintiffs, told Law360 that nothing in the court's order raised
any questions about the fundamental fairness of the actual
settlement or the proposed relief to class members, but instead
dealt with the "intricacies of class action law and practice."

"We plan on resubmitting our motion for preliminary approval in
the coming weeks," Marker said.

Robert Bodzin -- rbodzin@burnhambrown.com -- of Burnham Brown PC,
who represents Norcold, told Law360 his client supports the
efforts to obtain approval of the settlement, and that he expects
the plaintiffs will be able to correct the "technical issues which
factored into Judge Stanton's decision."

The plaintiffs are represented by Hart L. Rabinovich and Bradley
C. Buhrow -- Brad.Buhrow@zimmreed.com -- of Zimmerman Reed PLLP
and Christopher P. Ridout of Ridout Lyon & Ottoson LLP.

The defendants are represented by Robert M. Bodzin, Gregory D.
Brown -- gbrown@burnhambrown.com -- Melissa A. Horst and Brian
Robert Thompson -- bthompson@burnhambrown.com -- of Burnham Brown
PC.

The case is Jeffrey Etter et al. v. Thetford Corp. et al., case
number 8:13-cv-00081, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


NOVA SCOTIA: Class Action Lawyers Entitled to 17% of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Ruskin, writing for Global News, reports that the Nova
Scotia Supreme Court has ruled lawyers representing victims of the
Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children are entitled to 17 percent
of the overall class action settlement, not 19 percent as they had
requested.

The court ruling was released to Wagners law firm on Oct. 16, and
Global News obtained a copy of the 27-page decision.

The document stated the legal fee requested by Wagners was $6.6
million, or 19.4 per-cent of the C$34 million class action
settlement.

Justice Arthur LeBlanc cited two cases with lower proportional fee
ranges paid to lawyers for class action lawsuits and wrote: "I
conclude that a reasonable class counsel fee in this case is 17
percent of the total recovery."  That means Wagners will be paid
approximately C$5.78 million for his team's work over the past 16
years, representing the home's victims.  In July 2013, the victims
of the home were awarded a settlement valued at C$5 million.  An
additional C$29 million was awarded this year.

Premier Stephen McNeil publicly apologized on behalf of the
provincial government for the mistreatment and abuse suffered at
the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children.


OCEAN CC: "Alonso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Alonso, in his own behalf and those similarly situated v.
Ocean CC, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, Stefano
Melis, Giovanni Angiulli, and Davide Gulglielmini, individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23869 (S.D. Fla., October 17, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and other relief
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami Dade,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
      RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
      7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (954) 243-4295
      Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
      E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Fox" Suit Over Illegal Collection of Plan Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Ocwen Financial
Corporation, and Cross Country Home Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-
cv-06404 (D.N.J., October 16, 2014), arises out of the Defendants'
deceptive, unlawful, and unfair conduct of collecting unauthorized
fees associated with their home warranty and similar home service
and maintenance plans.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a financial services holding
company that is one of the largest mortgage companies in the
United States, and is the fourth largest mortgage servicer in the
United States.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Cross Country Home Services, Inc.
are wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre, 361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: Nick@chimicles.com
              BFJ@chimicles.com
              JBK@chimicles.com


OXBOW CONSTRUCTION: Sup. Ct. Defends Ruling in Construction Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled it neither
arbitrary nor capricious for a trial judge to decline to perform a
class-action analysis in a lawsuit filed by a homeowners'
association against a general contactor over alleged defects.

Justice Michael Douglas, writing for the court, said that Nevada
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not require a class-action
analysis when the homeowners association alleges construction
defects on behalf of unit owners.

"The district court was not required to conduct that analysis at
this point in the litigation because nothing in the record
indicates that the association sought to proceed as a class
action," Justice Douglas said.

The Regent at Town Centre Homeowners' Association has sued the
contractor that built its built 274 residential units, 10
commercial units and an "office and recreation building."  The
association alleges Oxbow Construction LLC caused defects in the
buildings' exterior walls, exterior stairs, exterior decks,
interior walls and ceilings and sloped roofs.

The general contractor argued that Nevada's construction defect
law -- under which plaintiffs can sue over defects in the common
areas of buildings -- does not apply because the development's
units were no longer new residences once they were rented as
apartments.

But the justices said that the association can pursue its lawsuit
for construction defects in common elements owned by multiple
units as long as one unit is a new residence.  The justices also
upheld another of the lower court's holdings.  Units occupied
before their original sale can't be classified as new and can't
independently qualify for remedies under Nevada's construction
defect law, Justice Douglas said.


PEAK CAMPUS: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Greene, individually and on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated v. Peak Campus Management, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, John Doe Nos. 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-
08167 (N.D. Ill., October 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for sending illegal unsolicited marketing text messages
on the Plaintiff's cellular telephones.

Peak Campus Management, LLC manages, leases to residents, and
operates at least 66 residential properties in at least 24 states,
including the residential rental property known as
Tailor Lofts, located at 315 S. Peoria St., Chicago, IL, 60607.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Patrick Batson
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES P. BATSON
      180 North Jefferson Street, #1010
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Telephone: (914) 523-2278
      E-mail: jamespbatsonlegal@gmail.com


PITA HOUSE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Pita House, Inc., Kamel Tbakhi, and Ashraf
Tbakhi individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08178 (N.D. Ill., October
18, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Pita House, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant within the State
of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLY GEM: Judge Appoints Robbins Geller as Class Action Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge on Oct. 14 appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as class counsel and consolidated a set of class actions
against siding and window maker Ply Gem Holdings Inc., JPMorgan
Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. and others over Ply Gem's IPO,
which the plaintiffs say excluded crucial info about a damaging
supply deal with The Home Depot.

U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken named Robbins Geller, the
counsel for three of the pension funds that were vying to be
appointed class representative under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, as class counsel.  And the judge named the
Strathclyde Pension Fund, the fund with the highest claimed
losses, as class rep.

"Appointing the lead plaintiff on the basis of financial interest,
rather than first come first serve, was intended [under the PSLRA]
to ensure that investors would control the litigation, not
lawyers," Judge Oetken said. "The court will appoint the single
entity with the largest financial stake in the litigation as lead
plaintiff. . . . Strathclyde wins."

Strathclyde's individual claimed losses are more than $500,000. It
had joined with two other funds, the Electrical Workers Pension
Trust Fund of IBEW Local Union No. 58 and the Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, in an effort to be
appointed lead plaintiff as a group.

That group of three was competing with the Macomb County
Employees' Retirement System, represented by Labaton Sucharow LLP,
for class rep status. But Judge Oetken said that the group of
three, which he called the Triumvirate, couldn't be class rep all
together, and so picked Strathclyde alone.

Ply Gem was hit with the suits -- which also name Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., Zelman Partners LLC, BB&T Capital Markets and Stephens Inc.
-- earlier this year.  They claim that the company's $381 million
IPO in May 2013 was marred by a failure to disclose a financially
damaging deal with The Home Depot that mandated inventory buybacks
and unprofitable high-volume wholesaling.

According to the complaint, the $21.00 IPO price quickly melted
down to $15.26 per share in August 2013 and $9.90 per share in
May.

Also named as defendants were Ply Gem CEO Gary Robinette, CFO
Shawn Poe, and board members Frederick Iseman, Robert Ferris,
Steven Lefkowitz, John Roach, Michael Haley, Timothy Hall and
Jeffrey Barber. The financial company defendants were all
underwriters of the IPO.

The plaintiffs are represented by David Avi Rosenfeld of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Michael Walter Stocker --
mstocker@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP.

Ply Gem and its executives and board members are represented by
Alexandra Walsh -- awalsh@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison LLP. JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs,
UBS, Deutsche Bank, Zelman, BB&T and Stephens are represented by
Peter Eric Kazanoff -- pkazanoff@stblaw.com -- Thomas Rice --
trice@stblaw.com -- Sara Ann Ricciardi, and Sarah Emily Phillips
of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

The consolidated case is In re: Ply Gem Holdings Inc. Securities
Litigation, case number 1:14-cv-03577, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.


PRANA HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Villar, Primitivo Martinez, Juan Carlos Elores, Edwin
Sanchez, Rene Peralta, Edgar Cazarez, and Lisa Brown, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated v. Prana Hospitality, Inc.
and Rajiv Sharma, Case No. 1:14-cv-08211 (S.D.N.Y., October 14,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages lost
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as all other legal
and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Pranna Restaurant in New York, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Risman, Esq.
      RISMAN & RISMAN, PC
      30 Vesey Street, 6th Floor
      New York, NY
      Telephone: (212) 223-6400
      Facsimile: (212) 233-6406
      E-mail: jrisman@risman-law.com

         - and -

      Steven Seltzer, Esq.
      YUEN ROCCANOVA SELTZER & SVERD P.C.
      11 Hanover Square, 13lh Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 608-1178
      Facsimile: (212) 608-2913
      E-mail: sseltzert@yrsslaw.com


REDBUMPER LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Zilberman" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Zilberman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Redbumper, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:14-cv-06091 (E.D.N.Y., October 17, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for making unsolicited robocalls to
consumer's telephones without prior express written consent.

Redbumper, LLC operates a website and mobile application calles
Caroffer which is a service that purports to match consumers who
are looking to sell their vehicles with interested third party
dealership.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Wurgaft, Esq.
      KARVIS & FILE, PC
      1 Meadowlands Plaza, Suite 200
      East Rutherford, New Jersey 07073
      Telephone: (973) 216-0011
      Facsimile: (973) 216-0011
      E-mail: mattwurgaft@gmail.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabania, Esq.
      Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
      John C. Ochoa, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North La Salle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabania@edelson.com
              ascharg@edelson.com
              jochoa@edelson.com


REGENCY MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Anistead and Jeff Bailey v. Regency Management Services,
LLC, Regency Furniture, Inc., and Regency Furniture of Brandywine,
Inc., and Adbu Layyad Case No. 8:14-cv-03242 (D. Md., October 16,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate, and manage numerous furniture stores
located throughout Maryland, Virginia and the District of
Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devan Michael Wae Wang, Esq.
      Richard P. Neuworth, Esq.
      LEBAU AND NEUWORTH LLC
      606 Baltimore Ave Ste 201
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 296-3030
      Facsimile: (410) 296-8660
      E-mail: dw@joblaws.net
              rn@joblaws.net


REGUS PLC: Can't Escape Class Action Over Undisclosed Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge has refused to free Regus PLC from a putative class
action that alleges the office space rental company and its
American affiliates failed to disclose certain fees, after finding
the company had significant involvement with the affiliates and a
website advertising the rental spaces.

Pointing to evidence that Regus PLC had significant involvement in
the website regus.com and with the U.S. companies, Judge Samuel
Conti on Oct. 14 rejected Regus' motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

The court noted that during the relevant periods, Regus PLC held
the copyright to the website and was named as the owner and
operator in a terms and conditions section, among other
references.

"In response, Regus plc bleats again that [Regus Management Group
LLC] handled the interactive features of the website.  The only
evidence of RMG's involvement, though, is the declaration of Tim
Regan, Regus plc's corporate secretary," the court said.  "Those
assertions directly contradict the text of the website that
existed during the relevant time period."

Furthermore, the court found prima facie evidence for an agency
relationship between Regus PLC and RMG.  "Even if RMG actually
owned and operated the website, RMG used Regus plc's name and
logo," the court said.  "The intermingling of the corporate
identities was so complete that RMG was not even mentioned in the
website's text or terms of use."

The plaintiffs, who entered into agreement to rent office space in
California and New York during 2011 and 2012, allege that the
Regus entities deceived them and others into believing all terms
and conditions for office space rentals had been disclosed, but
that they were subsequently charged numerous additional fees for
office restoration, kitchen amenities, nonuse of telephone
services and a "wear and tear" fee.

This is the second time the court has tossed Regus' motion to
dismiss over lack of personal jurisdiction.  The first came in
January 2013.

Regus, however, argued that during the motion's first rejection,
the court said the plaintiffs had failed to make a prima facie
case for direct personal jurisdiction and that that barred the
plaintiffs from reasserting those theories.  The court rejected
this view.

"Both of those holdings were determinations that plaintiffs had
failed to make a prima facie case for jurisdiction at that point.
Neither holding precludes plaintiffs from reasserting those
theories now," the court said on Oct. 14.

Last year, Judge Conti did trim the suit, tossing rackateering and
false advertising claims.  The court left alive new claims for
fraudulent practices and unfairness under the Unfair Competition
Law, as well as a violation of a California Public Utilities Code
provision that refers to telephone bills.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ali A. Aalaei -- ali@arilaw.com
-- of Ari Law PC.

Regus is represented by Daniel Thomas Rockey --
daniel.rockey@bryancave.com -- Meryl Macklin --
meryl.macklin@bryancave.com -- Christopher John Schmidt, Kenneth
Lee Marshall and Stephanie A. Blazewicz --
stephanie.blazewicz@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave LLP.

The suit is Circle Click Media LLC et al. v. Regus Management
Group LLC et al., case number 12-cv-0400-sc, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


SESAC: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $58.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Ed Christman, writing for Billboard, reports that SESAC has agreed
to pay $58.5 million to TV stations as part of a settlement with
the Television Music License Committee, which was part of a class-
action suit filed against the privately-owned performance right
organization in 2009 that alleged antitrust behavior by the PRO.

The suit was filed by Meredith Corp., E.W. Scripps Co. and Hoak
Media LLC (now part of Gray Television Group Inc.) on behalf of
local television broadcasters, with TMLC footing the legal bills.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP represented the plaintiffs in the suit.

The settlement will reimburse stations for about $42.5 million in
excess fees from 2008-2014; and reimburse the TMLC's legal fees of
$16 million.  The settlement was filed on Oct. 15 with Judge Paul
A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, who must approve the agreement.  The settlement will
be funded from an escrow account created when 75% of SESAC was
sold to Rizvi Traverse for $591 million.  That means that the
sellers -- Allen & Co.; entertainment lawyer Freddie Gershon, CEO
of Music Theatre International; Ira Smith, former CEO of Music
Theatre International and SESAC chairman/CEO Stephen Swid -- will
see their payment for selling SESAC reduced to $533 million.

"Unlike ASCAP and BMI, the two largest music performing rights
organizations, SESAC is not subject to an antitrust consent decree
with the U.S. Department of Justice," TMLC chairman Charles Sennet
said in a statement.  "We were compelled to file this suit to seek
some limits on SESAC's ability to charge whatever it wanted for
its pool of music copyrights . . . We are pleased that SESAC and
the Committee have agreed to a plan spanning more than two decades
that we hope will establish a sound business relationship between
SESAC and its television station customers."

Going forward, SESAC has agreed to negotiate industrywide
agreements with the TLMC for 20 years and, if it is unable to
agree upon rates, will submit the dispute to binding arbitration.
Moreover, the "per program" license will be restored in the 2016
agreement.

"Stations will once again be able to rely on the TMLC to provide
industrywide licenses and will also have the opportunity to
competitively purchase SESAC performance rights for local
programming directly from composers and publishers under the per
program license," TMLC executive director Will Hoyt said in a
statement.  "In addition, stations will be able to appeal to a
third party to establish reasonable rates if the TMLC and SESAC
cannot reach agreement, a benefit not currently available."

The settlement came about because Judge Engelmayer denied SESAC's
motion for summary judgment and ordered the parties to try and
negotiate a settlement.  After reviewing the evidence, the court
held that it "would comfortably sustain a finding that SESAC . . .
engaged in an overall anti-competitive course of conduct designed
to eliminate meaningful competition to its blanket license."

In agreeing to settle the case, SESAC denied any wrongdoing or
violations of antitrust law.  SESAC issued a statement on the
settlement: "We are happy to announce that SESAC has reached a
resolution with the Television Music Licensing Committee (TMLC),
allowing us to create fair and equitable agreements on behalf of
our songwriters, stakeholders and clients.  With this settlement
behind us, we look forward to achieving our strategic goals and
continuing our focus on the expansion of SESAC's technological
innovation and music licensing initiatives allowing us to enhance
monetary opportunities for our affiliated songwriters, composers
and publishers."

With the ending of the TMLC lawsuit, SESAC still has an antitrust
lawsuit against it still pending.  The Radio Music License
Committee (RMLC) filed the suit in October 2012 in U.S. Eastern
District Court of Pennsylvania.  On Dec. 23, 2013, a magistrate
greenlighted that suit for a trial to be heard by Judge C.
Darnell.


SOSH BRANDS: Sued in New York Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Rachel Wind, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Sosh Brands, Inc. d/b/a The Whales Tale and Sosh
Andriano, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-06113 (E.D.N.Y., October
18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 81 Fort
Salonga Road, Northport, New York 11768.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose G. Santiago, Esq.
      THE SANTIAGO LAW FIRM, P.C.
      201 Moreland Road, Suite 10
      Hauppauge, NY 11788
      Telephone: (631) 240-4355
      Facsimile: (631) 406-4911
      E-mail: jose@santiagolawfirm.com


SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Sued Over Damages Caused by Viptera Corn
--------------------------------------------------------------
D & C Thornton Farms, Denny Cullen Thornton, Jr., Rodney Duncan,
Brunson Bend Farms and Huett Brunson, individually and on behalf
of a Class of all others similarly situated v. Syngenta
Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01997 (N.D. Ala., October 17, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate
warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the
general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing,
harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the
time Viptera corn was sold.

The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business,
developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and
distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural
products throughout the United States, including corn seed with
certain genetically modified traits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman A. Shaul, Esq.
      Wilson Daniel Miles III, Esq.
      BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC
      PO Box 4160
      Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      E-mail: roman.shaul@beasleyallen.com
              dee.miles@beasleyallen.com


TRUMP MODEL: "Palmer" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trump Model Management, LLC, Corrine Nicolas,
individually, and Jane or John Doe, individually, Case No. 1:14-
cv-08307 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
actual, incidental, consequential, and compensatory damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a modeling agency in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Naresh M. Gehi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF N.M. GEHI, P.C.
      118-21 Queens Boulevard, Ste. 411
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-5999
      Facsimile: (718) 263-1685
      E-mail: nmgehi@gmail.com


WELLBENDERS DIRECTIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Ramirez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Wellbenders Directional Services, LLC, Case No. 4:14-
cv-02971 (S.D. Tex., October 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation.

Wellbenders Directional Services, LLC is an oilfield service
company providing Measuring While Drilling and directional
drilling services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEST VIRGINIA: Teachers' Retirement Fund Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that West Virginia's public school teachers are going to trial
over losses to their retirement plans after a judge refused to
toss out a class action filed on their behalf.

Kanawha County, W.Va., Circuit Court Judge Carrie Webster denied
summary judgment to the West Virginia Consolidated Public
Retirement Board, which administers the state's retirement plans,
and The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co., or VALIC.

The class action, filed in 2008 by a teacher in Wheeling, alleges
that VALIC misrepresented to teachers and other school employees
the financial risk of an annuity that ended up stripping them of
their retirement benefits.  The defendants moved for summary
judgment in 2011 on statute of limitation grounds.

In her ruling on Oct. 16, Judge Webster noted that the plaintiffs
were teachers and school employees, not financial experts.
"As plaintiff's counsel points out, these teachers and school
employees were accustomed to simply having a portion of their
gross income withheld from their paycheck with the promise from
the State of West Virginia that when they retired they would
receive a monthly payment consistent with a statutory formula,"
Judge Webster wrote.

A class certification hearing is set for January 2015 and a trial
later next year, said plaintiffs attorney Harry Bell, managing
partner of The Bell Law Firm in Charleston.  He estimated that
between 3,400 and 15,000 teachers could comprise the class.

"We're getting into and having a very heavy level of discovery
this November and December on the class certification and
underlying case," Mr. Bell said.

Charleston attorney Gary Pullin -- gpullin@pffwv.com -- a member
of Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe who represents the West
Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board, did not respond to
a request for comment.

VALIC, an American International Group Inc. company, is
represented by Thomas Hurney -- thurney@jacksonkelly.com -- a
member of Jackson Kelly in Charleston.  Rick Sdao, associate
general counsel of Houston-based VALIC, said the plaintiff had
purchased the investment in 1992.
"We believe the limitations period had run," he said.  "The court
has disagreed with us, and we'll have to review our options going
forward."

The case dates to the early 1990s, when the state's teachers and
school employees were offered investment options for their
retirement portfolios, including VALIC's annuity, as part of a
shift away from the state's pension fund to a defined-contribution
plan.

The class action alleges that VALIC and the state's retirement
board breached their fiduciary duties to teachers and other school
employees.  Mr. Bell called it a "smoke and mirrors scheme" that
started out when representatives aggressively showed up in school
break rooms to pitch the annuity to teachers.

"They go in there and think they're talking to somebody at the
consolidated public retirement board and, instead, it's somebody
from VALIC with all their information, all their details, telling
them the state will go under and you need to switch to this plan,"
he said.  "VALIC basically made an absolute fortune on this."

The case has jumped back and forth twice from the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of West Virginia to Kanawha County
Circuit Court.  The class seeks millions of dollars in damages,
plus punitive damages.

Meanwhile, the retirement board and the West Virginia Investment
Management Board, which invests teacher retirement savings, have
sued VALIC to get their money back.  After losing rulings on
summary judgment last year, the boards petitioned the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on
Sept. 30.


WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Unlawfully Disclosed Personal Info, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick McDonough, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WESTconsin Credit Union, Case No. 3:14-cv-00705 (W.D.
Wis., October 16, 2014), alleges that the Defendant unlawfully
disclosed the driver's license number and social security number
of the Plaintiff while filing an action against the Plaintiff for
recovery of an unpaid loan balance.

WESTconsin Credit Union is engaged in the business of lending of
money and subsequent collection of debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Lyons, Sr., Esq.
      LYONS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      367 Commerce Court
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Telephone: (651) 770-9707
      E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Eric L. Crandall, Esq.
      CRANDALL LAW OFFICES, SC
      1237 Knowles Avenue North, PO Box 27
      New Richmond, WI 54017
      Telephone: (715) 246-1010
      E-mail: consumerlaw@frontiernet.net

         - and -

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


WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Newark Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Newark has dismissed a shareholder suit
claiming hotel operator Wyndham Worldwide failed to fend off
breaches of its computer networks and then declined to litigate
against the employees responsible for allowing the breaches based
on advice from conflicted counsel.

The judge rejected the plaintiff's claim that the law firm
representing Wyndham in the shareholder suit, Kirkland & Ellis,
had a conflict of interest because it also represented the company
in a separate suit related to the hacking incidents that was filed
by the Federal Trade Commission.

The case stems from three attacks on the company's data network --
one in 2008 and two in 2009 -- in which hackers obtained personal
and financial data from 619,000 of the company's customers.

The shareholder who filed the suit, Dennis Palkon of Reading, Pa.,
claimed the company failed to establish adequate security measures
to prevent the cyber-attacks.  Before filing the suit, he sent the
company directors a letter, demanding an investigation into which
company employees are responsible for failing to safeguard
customer data.  Mr. Palkon's letter to the board, dated June 11,
2013, called upon Wyndham to file a suit for breach of fiduciary
duty, indemnification and contribution against any current or
former employee identified as being responsible for failing to
prevent the attacks.  Wyndham considered the demand and discussed
it with counsel but declined to file any such suit, according to
court documents.

The FTC sued Wyndham over the data breaches in March 2013.  In
June of this year, a federal judge denied Wyndham's motion to
dismiss the FTC suit, and the company has appealed that ruling to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Mr. Palkon filed the shareholder suit Feb. 25.  His suit asserted
that, in addition to failing to establish mechanisms to prevent
the theft of customers' data, the company failed to timely
disclose the breaches after they occurred.  He claimed the
breaches hurt the company's reputation and cost it significant
legal fees.  He also claimed the board's decision to refuse his
litigation demand was improper, in part because the firm that
advised it to do so had a conflict of interest.

Wyndham, which is based in Parsippany, N.J., and operates hotel
chains such as Days Inn and Howard Johnson, moved to dismiss
Mr. Palkon's suit, arguing that the board's refusal to carry out
his litigation demand was a good-faith exercise of business
judgment.  The company also argued that the complaint failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that the
alleged damages are unripe.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler of the District of New Jersey
said a shareholder seeking to rebut the presumption that a
company's decision was made on an informed basis and in the
company's best interests must demonstrate the company directors
acted in bad faith or without conducting a reasonable
investigation.  Mr. Palkon failed to meet that burden, Judge
Chesler said.

In an attempt to demonstrate Wyndham's directors acted in bad
faith, Mr. Palkon claimed that the company wrongly refused his
litigation demand based on advice from conflicted counsel. He
relied on Stepak v. Addison, an Eleventh Circuit case from 1994.
In that case, a company's outside counsel was found incapable of
evaluating a shareholder demand because the same firm had
represented the company in related criminal proceedings.  The
panel in Stepak found the law firm had divided loyalties to the
client because its continuing duty to preserve the confidences of
its clients in the criminal case hampered its investigation of the
subsequent shareholder allegations.

But Judge Chesler said Kirkland & Ellis did not face the same
conflict as the firm in the Stepak case because its obligations
were to act in Wyndham's best interest in both the FTC case and
the shareholder case, Judge Chesler said.

In addition, Mr. Palkon claimed that Wyndham general counsel
Scott McLester was conflicted when he advised the board on the
demand letter, because he faced personal liability in connection
with the cyber-attacks.  But Mr. Palkon did not provide any
support for his assertion that Mr. McLester was exposed to any
personal liability because of the demand letter, Judge Chesler
said.

Judge Chesler also rejected Mr. Palkon's claim that the board's
investigation of the demand letter was predetermined and
unreasonable.  Finding no prescribed procedure for boards to
follow when investigating such a letter, Judge Chesler said the
numerous steps the board took in response to the letter indicated
the plaintiff failed to make a showing of gross negligence.

Mr. Palkon's lawyers, David Wollmuth and Frederick Kessler of
Wollmuth, Maher & Deutsch in Newark, did not return calls for
comment.  James Gillespie -- james.gillespie@kirkland.com -- of
Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., who represented Wyndham,
said he and his client were pleased with the decision.

"In our view, the court was exactly on point in its legal
analysis," Mr. Gillespie said.


* Top Plaintiffs' Law Firms Show Higher Chances of Case Success
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Patterson, in an article for Vanderbilt University, reports
that top five plaintiffs' law firms achieve the best results for
shareholders in class action mergers and acquisitions litigation
because they aggressively litigate their cases, instead of
adopting more passive strategies favored by less well-known firms,
according to new research.

"We find that the presence of a top plaintiffs' law firm is
significantly and positively associated with a higher probability
of lawsuit success," said Randall S. Thomas, John S. Beasley II
Professor of Law and Business at Vanderbilt Law School and his
fellow researchers in the paper "Zealous Advocates or Self-
interested Actors? Assessing the Value of Plaintiff's Law Firms in
Merger Litigation."

"These results hold even after controlling for selection bias --
the likelihood that top law firms get to pick better cases that
have higher chances of success."

The paper, being prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed
publication, was written by Thomas along with C. N. V. Krishnan of
the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve
University and Steven Davidoff Solomon from UC Berkeley School of
Law.

The research

The researchers examined 1,739 class actions that challenged the
fairness of mergers and acquisitions transactions from 2003 to
2012.  Plaintiff law firms were categorized into top 10 and
non-top 10 firms based on various reputational measures.  They
were further pared to a top five list based on their popularity
with informed plaintiffs and ability to obtain large attorneys'
fees awards.

In 2013, 97.5 percent of larger mergers and acquisitions
transactions were targeted by a lawsuit.

Law firms that specialize in bringing shareholder class actions
that challenge the terms of mergers and acquisitions deals are
often characterized as "leeches" that have a strategy of filing
lawsuits in hopes of generating a quick settlement and avoiding
the expense of a trial.  These settlements many times are believed
to profit the law firms more than their clients.

But the top law firms in the study do not pursue that strategy,
according to the study.

"We find that top plaintiffs' law firms do engage in more vigorous
litigation and produce statistically significantly superior
results," the study says.  "Adjusting for . . . selection bias, we
still find that topmost five law firms file more documents, have
fewer cases dismissed, win more procedural motions and obtain more
substantive settlements."

Reform

The researchers suggest that their findings be "grist for pursuing
any reform effort of shareholder litigation generally, such as
judicial involvement in the appointment of lead plaintiffs'
counsel in shareholder class action litigation."

"In other words, not all plaintiffs' law firms are alike and
lawmakers, judges and regulators should act accordingly," they
say.


                             *********

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  * * *