CAR_Public/141031.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 31, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 217

                             Headlines

ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Sprouted Flax Seed Powder
AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Chippy Corn Chips
AIRCOM MANAGEMENT: Removes "Porco" Suit to Florida District Court
ALADDIN USA: Faces "Espana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERIPLAN CORP: Sales Directors May Pursue Class Action

AMICA MUTUAL: Removes "Christian" Suit to Florida District Court
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Single-Rider and 2UP ATVs Due To Crash Hazard
AU OPTRONICS: LCD Settlement Checks to Be Delivered This Week
AVNET INC: Received $3 Million From LCD Class Action Settlement
BARRETT'S UNION: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BAVARIAN LINK: Recalls Cooked Roast Beef due to Listeria
BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Coulter HMX Hematology Analyzers
BED BATH: Faces Class Suit in New Jersey Alleging Discrimination
BLUESY'S HAPPY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Garcia, Artigliere & Medby Files Class Action

BROOKS HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
CALVIN KLEIN: Sued in New York for Misclassifying Interns
CANE CREEK: Recalls Bicycle Shocks Due to Risk of Injury
CAREFIRST: 3rd Circuit to Address Catalyst Theory in ERISA Case
CASTLE GROUP: Discriminated Against Latina Worker, Suit Claims

CHEMICAL STRATEGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CINNABAR SERVICE: Oklahoma High Court Upholds Picher Ruling
COACH INC: Bid to Dismiss "Pattie" Fraud Class Action Denied
COOLTRADE INC: Faces "Ehlinger" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
CORELOGIC INC: $9.9 Million Accord Reached in RESPA Class Action

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CVS PHARMACY: Can Move Wage-and-Hour Class Action to Federal Court
DAKOTA GROWERS: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Approval
DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY: Sued in California Over Violation of ERISA
DIALYSIS CENTER: Seeks Dismissal of Product Liability Claims

DOUBLE D CONTRACTORS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Petition for Writ of Mandate Granted in Part
EASTMAN OUTDOORS: Archer Can Pursue Defective-Manufacturing Claim
EASTSIDE PIZZA: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EDF ENERGY: Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Sizewell C Project

EDGER ASSOCIATES: Suit Seeks to recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
EDWARD L. MARRA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Fritts" Suit Says
ELECTRIC-ROOTERMAN: "Hankins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ELNA CO: Faces Quathimatine Suit Over Capacitor-Price Fixing
ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: NRMA, CGU Take Policyholders Out of Class Suit

ERICK FLOWBACK: May Not Provide List of Potential Class Members
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued in D. Minnesota Over Forgery of Documents
FUJI HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GREAT LAKES HIGHER: Has Invaded Customers' Privacy, Suit Says
GREENSTAR AGRICULTURAL: Faces Securities Class Action

GULFVIEW II OWNERS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Fla.
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Reached Agreement to Settle Macondo Claims
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: December 2014 Hearing in Securities Case
HAMTRAMCK CITY, MI: Discriminates Against Workers, Class Claims
HCA INC: Jacksonville Memorial Hospital Sued Over Exorbitant Fees

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Inkjet Printer Litigation Deal Gets Final OK
HOME DEPOT: Faces Profinium Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
HOME DEPOT: Faces Hudson City Savings Bank Suit Over Data Breach
HOME NURSERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HUB GROUP: "Lubinski" Suit Transferred From Illinois to Tennessee

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Production Worker Files Overtime Class Action
I.C. SYSTEM: Court Narrows Claims in "Abramov" FDCPA Class Action
INDIGO BOOKS: Recalls Magnetics Spheres and Magnetics 4 x 4
INTEGRATED PRODUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Dull" Suit Claims
INTREPID USA: Faces "Paine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

IOD INCORPORATED: Sued Over Overcharged Medical Records Request
IRAN: Faces Suit Over 1983 U.S Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut
J R STONE: Faces "Lorenzo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
KPMG US: 200 Female Employees Join Gender Bias Class Action
LEAR CORPORATION: Settlement Remains Subject to Final Approval

LEAR CORPORATION: Dismissed From Public Entities' Class Action
LEAR CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuits in Canada
MASSEY-YARDLEY INC: Faces "Alson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MEIJER: Recalls Halloween Projector Flashlight Due to Burn Hazard
MIA HOSPITALITY: "Suarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MIDLAND FUNDING: Obtains Final Approval of "Vassalle" Suit Deal
MIDWEST POULTRY: May 6, 2015 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MISSOURI: Court Approves Deal in Suit vs. Corrections Dept
MUTUAL PHARMA: Georgia Plaintiffs Can't Sue Over Design Defects
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Lawyers Seek $50 Million in Fees

NEENAH, WI: Teachers' Retirement Benefits Class Action Reinstated
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Forced Resignation
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over ATK Merger
PAN ASIA: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products Due to Undeclared Mustard
PENFORD CORPORATION: Sued in Colo. Over Illegal Sale of Company

PHILIPS ORAL: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Coe" Class Action
PRICELINE GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Resort Fees
QUALITY OFFICE: "Infante" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RALLYE MOTORS: Faces "Siancas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RENT-A-CENTER INC: To Get $7.1MM From LCD Class Action Settlement

RJ REYNOLDS: Motions Pending for New Trial in Wilcox Tobacco Suit
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: LA Unified School District Workers File Suit
SMUCKER NATURAL: Falsely Marketed Root Beer Products, Suit Claims
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Suit Removed to C.D. California
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Removes "Peck" Suit to C.D. California

TAKEDA PHARMA: Discovery of E-mails Whitewash, Plaintiffs Say
TAKEDA PHARMA: Judge Cuts Actos Punitive Damages Verdict
TARANTINO PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Mathis" Suit Claims
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Two Plaintiffs Added in "Dunn" FLSA Case
TEMPUR SEALY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Moved to Feb. 2015

TRUASSETS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
TRUSCAPES INDUSTRIES: Failure to Pay OT Hours, "Raymer" Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Motion to File Counterclaims v. Border Agents Nixed
UNITED STATES: Aponte Case Plaintiffs May Amend Notice of Appeal
US BANCORP: Court Upholds Denial of Discovery Bid

US PARKING: Faces "Amorin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Obagi Class Action in Delaware Dismissed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Solta Class Action Settlement Approved
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Responses Due Nov. 24 in Solodyn Case
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against Afexa Class Action

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: MoistureLoc(TM) Appeal Fully Briefed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Allergan Seeks Preliminary Injunction
VALOR HOMES: Faces "Sanders" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VARIABLE ANNUITY: Class Certification Hearing Set for January
VENTAS INC: Faces 13 Putative Class Actions Over HCT Acquisition

VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves $15MM Class Action Settlement
VERIZON COMMS: 5th Cir. Upholds Judgment in "Murphy" Suit
WATERWAY PLASTICS: Recalls Spa Drain Suction Covers
WHITEHA VEN: Court Orders "Chestnut" Case Parties to Arbitrate
ZIMMER SURGICAL: Recalls Power System Handpiece (2014-10-21)

* Gov Christie Calls on President Obama to Help Enact Tort Reform


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reichhold Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Stays Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Has $1MM Fibro-related Litigation Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Has 8,100 Claimants at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 3,200 Fibro Claims at Sept. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Had $250.5MM Fibro Liability at Sept. 27

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Suits v. Travelers Companies Are Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Companies Has $2.45B Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $9-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had $352.9-Mil. Fibro Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bartel" Suit Recommended for Remand
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit Recommended for Remand to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Drumgo" Suit Junked for Failure to State Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Grants 32 Motions to Junk MARDOC Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Izell" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Superior Court Affirms "Krauss" Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand "Laurent" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leave to Appeal in "Suttnet" Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Palazzo" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Oneal" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Podedworny" Suit Denied


                             *********


ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Sprouted Flax Seed Powder
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Advantage Health Matters
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9357

Advantage Health Matters is recalling Organic Traditions brand
Sprouted Flax Seed Powder from the marketplace due to possible
Salmonella contamination.  Consumers should not consume the
recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick.  Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections.  Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea.  Long-term complications
may include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Chippy Corn Chips
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           AFOD Ltd., APO Products Ltd., Corinthian
                          Distributors Ltd., UNO Foods Ltd., Wilby
                          Commercial Limited
Distribution:             Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland
                          and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
                          Possibly National, Prince Edward Island,
                          Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9278

Industry is recalling Chippy brand and Jack 'N Jill Chippy brand
Barbecue Flavored Corn Chips from the marketplace because they
contain wheat which is not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to wheat or sensitivity to gluten should not consume the
recalled products described.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to wheat or sensitivity to gluten, do not
consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: 110 g. Chippy Barbecue Flavored Corn Chips with
all codes where wheat is not declared on the label


AIRCOM MANAGEMENT: Removes "Porco" Suit to Florida District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Porco v. Aircom Management Corp., Inc., et al.,
Case No. CACE-14-018132-02, was removed from the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-62441-BB to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gary Andrew Costales, Esq.
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1230
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375-9510
          Facsimile: (305) 375-9511
          E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com


ALADDIN USA: Faces "Espana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jhenry Gonzalez Espana, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees v. Aladdin USA Inc., and Abdul M.
Chowdhury, Case No. 1:14-cv-06161 (E.D.N.Y., October 21, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and kitchen facility
located at 24-10 34th Ave., Long Island City, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
      GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
      420 Lexington Ave, Suite 2743
      New York, NY 10170
      Telephone: (212) 300-5358
      Facsimile: (888) 265-7054
      E-mail: rgarbarini@garbarinilaw.com


AMERIPLAN CORP: Sales Directors May Pursue Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Nagele, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that three former
medical plan sales directors may pursue their putative class
action claim that AmeriPlan Corp. violated a contractual
obligation to pay them "lifetime residual income" on commissions
generated by salespeople they recruited, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit ruled Oct. 16.

Reversing in part the district court's order compelling
arbitration, the Fifth Circuit found that a mandatory arbitration
provision AmeriPlan added to its policy manual in 2010 couldn't be
harmonized with dispute resolution procedures contained in the
plaintiffs' original "sales director agreements."

The court rejected AmeriPlan's argument that the original
provisions applied to "a limited scope of claims not governed by
arbitration."  This argument is "at odds with the contracts' broad
language" that requires "any claim, controversy or dispute" to be
submitted to mediation and then, if unresolved, to be adjudicated
in court, the court said.

The Fifth Circuit found that a mandatory arbitration provision
AmeriPlan added to its policy manual in 2010 couldn't be
harmonized with dispute resolution procedures contained in the
plaintiffs' original "sales director agreements."

Because the claim involved the validity of an arbitration
provision, the court applied state contract law.  "Only at the
second step of the analysis -- determining the scope of the
arbitration agreement -- do courts apply the federal policy
favoring arbitration and resolve ambiguities in favor of
arbitration," Judge Gregg J. Costa wrote for the court.

Judges W. Eugene Davis and Jennifer W. Elrod joined the opinion.

Cessation of Payments Prompts Lawsuit

According to the court, Robert J. Sharpe, William C. Moen and Gary
Downard were "independent business owners" who sold health-care
plans through AmeriPlan's network.  Each of them reached the
"sales director level," which permitted them to collect "lifetime
residual income" through the commissions generated by salespeople
they recruited, the court said.

The sales directors claimed that when AmeriPlan terminated their
contracts in February 2011, along with approximately 800 other
sales professionals, it stopped providing commission payments.

The plaintiffs filed a breach of contract case in federal court in
California.  Relying on a venue provision in its sales director
agreements, the company successfully transferred the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

After the sales directors sought class certification, AmeriPlan
filed a motion to compel arbitration in accordance with the
arbitration clause that was added to the policy manual in 2010.

Terms of Documents Can't Be Harmonized

The plaintiffs argued that the arbitration clause was
unenforceable because it couldn't be harmonized with the
provisions in the sales director agreements they signed.  The
court agreed.

Although amended contract provisions would ordinarily supersede
any prior conflicting provisions, the court said, there are two
reasons why that rule doesn't apply here.

First, their agreements only permitted changes "by written
amendment duly executed by all parties," the court said.  Thus,
even though the policy manual that contained the arbitration
clause could be amended solely by AmeriPlan, those amendments
can't override the sales director agreements, it held.

Second, the company is estopped from arguing that the initial
provisions are no longer in effect, the court said, because it
relied on the venue clause in the sales director agreements to
transfer the case to Texas.

According to the court, the agreements contained a detailed,
two-step dispute resolution process listing categories of claims
that could be adjudicated in court immediately and additional
categories that required nonbinding mediation before going to
court.  The arbitration clause included very similar categories,
it said.

"Those expansive dispute resolution provisions cannot be
harmonized with the similarly expansive arbitration provision
without rendering the dispute resolution provisions meaningless,"
the court held.

One additional plaintiff, Cindy Guarisco, had an agreement that
included different language, the court said. Her agreement stated,
"Any action brought on matters relating to this Agreement shall be
maintained in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas."

This is not incompatible with the arbitration clause because
lawsuits often precede or follow arbitration, the Fifth Circuit
held, affirming the district court's order compelling arbitration
for Ms. Guarisco.

Christman Kelley & Clarke PC represented the sales directors.
Cowles & Thompson represented AmeriPlan.


AMICA MUTUAL: Removes "Christian" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Christian v. Amica Mutual
Insurance Company, Case No. 14-CA-002571, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for Lee
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Ft. Myers).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00620-SPC-CM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus W. Viles, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334-3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
          E-mail: marcus@vilesandbeckman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin J. Fitzsimmons, Esq.
          Stephen A. Spaid, Esq.
          MANDELBAUM, FITZSIMMONS, HEWITT & CAIN, PA
          100 S. Ashley Dr., Suite 1100
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 221-0200
          Facsimile: (813) 221-8558
          E-mail: kjf@manfitzlaw.com
                  sas@manfitzlaw.com


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Single-Rider and 2UP ATVs Due To Crash Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Arctic Cat Inc., of Thief River Falls, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 40,000 All-Terrain Vehicles.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Components in the front gear case can fail, posing a risk of loss
of control and crash hazard.

Arctic Cat has received 44 reports of components in the front gear
case failing, including 10 reports of the vehicle stopping
abruptly or the operator losing of control of the ATV.  Arctic Cat
has received four reports of injury, including one incident
involving a consumer sustaining broken ribs and injuries to a knee
and a back.

The recall involves model year 2008 and 2009 Arctic Cat single-
rider and 2 UP style ATVs.  Single-rider ATVs have one seat and
one set of footrests for the operator.  2 UP ATVs have an
elongated seat designed to hold one passenger behind the operator,
a set of hand-holds mounted to the rear frame for the passenger
and two sets of footrests.  The recalled ATVs came in a variety of
colors and have the name Arctic Cat on each side of the fuel tank
and on the front above the grill opening.

All model year 2008 Arctic Cat ATVs with 400 cubic centimeter (cc)
and larger engines are being recalled.

Model year 2009 Arctic Cat ATVs with 400 cubic centimeter (cc) and
larger engines and with production numbers within the following
ranges are being recalled: 200001 through 203861, 808001 through
808137, and X25082 through X30243.

The engine size is printed on the back of the instrument cluster
between the handle bars.

The vehicle identification number (VIN) in the format
4UF09******XXXXXX is on the frame tube near the driver's side rear
wheel and contains the model year and production number of the
vehicle.

The model year is the fourth and fifth characters of the VIN in
the YY format.  The production number is the last six characters
of the VIN.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/yi7iZd

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Arctic Cat dealers nationwide from May 2007 to Oct. 2014 for
between $5,500 and $12,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ATVs and
contact an Arctic Cat dealer to schedule a free repair.


AU OPTRONICS: LCD Settlement Checks to Be Delivered This Week
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Ewoldt, writing for Star Tribune, reports that the prolonged
class-action suit is reaching its final stage: delivering the
money.

After a two-year wait, checks will finally be in the mail this
week for claimants of the LCD class-action lawsuit.

For the past seven years, more than 100 law firms around the
country have worked to punish manufacturers of liquid crystal
displays, the most common type of flat panel for computers and
TVs, that were found to have illegally fixed prices between 1999
and 2006.  The nine makers of LCD panels were ordered to repay
$1.1 billion to consumers and small businesses, the largest
antitrust settlement of its kind.

Nationwide, more than 233,000 checks will be mailed to consumers
and businesses in 24 states.  Claimants will get $43.49 per
monitor or laptop and $86.98 per TV.

The checks add up to about $707.4 million after attorney's fees,
attorney general redress programs and costs, said Robin Niemiec,
client services director at Rust Consulting in Minneapolis, which
distributes the checks.

In Minnesota, more than 29,000 consumers and small businesses will
be splitting $17 million on more than 471,500 panels claimed.
More people from Minnesota applied for the money than from any
other state except California.

Consumers had until Dec. 6, 2013, to file their claim on the
number of LCD TVs, laptops and monitors purchased during the
seven-year period.

The LCD class action is unique for several reasons.  It is twice
as large as the next-largest settlement, according to attorney Joe
Alioto, who helped lead the case against the manufacturers in San
Francisco.  But it was also one of the most consumer-friendly
settlements.  Most class actions require consumers to produce
proof-of-purchase receipts or documents, model numbers and serial
numbers.  For their effort, they're usually rewarded with a
discount in a future purchase.

Dan Shulman -- daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com -- an attorney at the
Minneapolis law firm Gray Plant Mooty, said that this class action
had a lot going for it besides a big payoff.  "The evidence
against the manufacturers was amazing," he said.  "These guys met
monthly for six years to decide on prices and three of the
companies kept minutes on everything. They had nowhere to go."

Mr. Shulman described the seven-year battle as prolonged.  He made
nearly a dozen trips to Asia and his firm put in $3.5 million of
their time and nearly $1 million in out-of-pocket costs.  The law
firms will get about $300 million of the settlement, including
about $14 million to Gray Plant Mooty and $15 million to
Minneapolis firm Gustafson Gluek.

Companies named in the suit include Hitachi, Sharp, Toshiba,
Samsung, LG, AU Optronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, HannStar
Display Corp., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics.

Gloria Ross of Minneapolis, who sent in her claim nearly two years
ago, said she's thrilled that she's finally getting her check, but
has no idea how much she's getting.  "It's been so long I can't
remember how many panels I claimed," she said, laughing.

Minnesotans shouldn't have to wait long after Oct. 28 to get their
checks, Mr. Niemiec said.  They're being mailed from Eden Prairie.

Claimants who don't receive a check can go to www.lcdclass.com to
check on a claim.


AVNET INC: Received $3 Million From LCD Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avnet Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2014, that the Company filed a proof of
claim in the settlement of a class action proceeding that sought
damages from certain manufacturers of LCD flat panel displays. A
settlement was reached in the proceedings and in the first quarter
of fiscal 2014 the federal district judge overseeing the
proceeding issued an order approving the distribution of
settlement funds to the class claimants and the Company received
an award payment of $19.1 million. In the third quarter of fiscal
2014, the federal district judge overseeing the proceedings issued
an order approving a final distribution of funds and the Company
received a final award payment of $3.0 million.


BARRETT'S UNION: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Jose Acosta-Valle, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Barrett's Union Motor Company, Inc., Union
Motor Company, Inc., and Elwaine Barrett, Jr., Individually and
d/b/a Better Auto Co., Case No. 4:14-cv-03016 (S.D. Tex., October
22, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a used car dealership located in
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002-1637
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
              melissa@mooreandassociates.net


BAVARIAN LINK: Recalls Cooked Roast Beef due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Bavarian Link Meat Products Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9343

Affected products: 5 lb. Bavarian Link Meat Products Ltd. Cooked
Roast Beef with UPC 3814


BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Coulter HMX Hematology Analyzers
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 20, 2014
Posting date:             October 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41977

Recalled Products:

A) Coulter HMX Hematology Analyzers
B) Coulter IH 500 Series System

Customers have observed that the differential results for coulter
5c abnormal ii cell control recovered an excessive number of
incomplete computation (.....) And/or review ("R") flags on the
coulter IH 500 series and HMX analyzers.  The issue may occur more
often when laboratory temperatures fall below 70 degrees
Fahrenheit (21 degrees Celsius).

Affected products:
A) Coulter HMX Hematology Analyzers
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.

Model or catalog number: 6605523, 6605526

Companies:

Manufacturer: Beckman Coulter Inc.
              250 S. Kraemer Blvd.
              Brea 92821
              California
              United States

B) Coulter IH 500 Series System
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.

Model or catalog number: 178833

Companies:

Manufacturer: Beckman Coulter Inc.
              250 S. Kraemer Blvd.
              Brea 92821
              California
              United States


BED BATH: Faces Class Suit in New Jersey Alleging Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archana Rana and Earl Porter, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. d/b/a Bed,
Bath & Beyond, Inc., John Does 1-5 and ABC Corps. 1-5, Case No.
2:14-cv-06642-KM-MAH (D.N.J., October 24, 2014) alleges job
discrimination based on race.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan Scott Johnston, Esq.
          1 AAA Drive, Suite 205
          Robbinsville, NJ 08691
          Telephone: (609) 587-5100


BLUESY'S HAPPY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Olliges, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Bluesy's Happy Snapper, LLC, A Florida Limited liability company,
Case No. 2:14-cv-14416 (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages, and
the costs and reasonable attorney's fees of this action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bluesy's Happy Snapper, LLC purchases and resells food and
beverage products imported from other states and conducts
interstate credit card transactions for the payment of goods and
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah Lynn Sanders, Esq.
      CRARY BUCHANAN LAW OFFICES
      759 S.W. Federal Highway, Suite 106
      PO Drawer 24
      Stuart, FL 34995-0024
      Telephone: (772) 287-2600
      Facsimile: (772) 223-4358
      E-mail: dls@crarybuchanan.com


BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Garcia, Artigliere & Medby Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elder abuse law firm Garcia, Artigliere & Medby on Oct. 21 filed a
class action suit against Shlomo Rechnitz, owner of Brius
Management and Brius LLC, which owns, controls and operates 57
skilled nursing facilities throughout California.  The suit
alleges fraud, unfair business practices, and violation of
resident rights by the intentional misrepresentation of the
quality of services and care provided by Mr. Rechnitz's
facilities.

"The complaint alleges that Mr. Rechnitz preys on the extremely
vulnerable segment of our society knowing the residents have no
knowledge or sophistication concerning the operation of skilled
nursing facilities and would have no way of detecting his fraud,
concealment and other violations," said lead attorney Stephen M.
Garcia.  "The Complaint alleges that he repeatedly disregards
compliance with industry laws and regulations, and intentionally
jeopardizes patient care in order to avoid liability and personal
negative financial impact."

The complaint alleges that Mr. Rechnitz and his corporate entities
actively engaged in intentional misrepresentation to the public of
the quality and services provided by each of the nursing
facilities, including:

    Concealing from patients of Mr. Rechnitz's long history as a
serial violator of skilled nursing industry laws and regulations,
including those of the California Department of Health Care
Services;

    Hiding from residents that the health care facilities were
chronically understaffed and under-funded in order to enhance Mr.
Rechnitz's personal profits;

    Failing to treat patients with consideration, respect,
dignity, and individuality, including privacy in treatment and
care of personal needs;

    Failing to employ an adequate number of qualified staff
necessary to carry out the functions of the nursing facilities;
    Misleading prospective patients into believing that the health
care facilities were properly operated to induce them to become
residents;

    Knowing that each of the residents would be harmed by the
defendants' frauds, concealments and other violations; and
    Failing to provide the state-mandated statutory and regulatory
Bill of Rights to patients.

The class action suit seeks to permanently enjoin Mr. Rechnitz and
his entities from future violations of patient rights and that he:

    Comply with the laws and regulations regarding health care
facilities;

    Report future violations to the Department of Public Health;

    Conduct confidential quarterly surveys of patients to detect
abuses that would only be disclosed to the Long Term Care
Ombudsman;

    Notify all of the current and future residents of the
injunction and its terms;

    Be subject to monetary damages;

    Draft a suitable policy and procedure regarding suspected
patient abuse and neglect.

Case number: BC559909, filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California County of Los Angeles.

Garcia, Artigliere & Medby, a national law firm with offices in
California, Florida, Arizona, Washington and Kentucky, specializes
in elder abuse and nursing home neglect.


BROOKS HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Mackin and Amber Osche, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Brooks Hospitality, LLC, d/b/a Qdoba
Mexican Grill, Case No. 2:14-cv-01428 (W.D. Pa., October 21,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Brooks Hospitality, LLC owns and operates Qdoba Mexican Grill
restaurants in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


CALVIN KLEIN: Sued in New York for Misclassifying Interns
---------------------------------------------------------
Tess Hofmann and Jessica Corso, writing for Law360, report that
Calvin Klein Inc. and parent company PVH Corp. are the latest
targets of allegations that they didn't pay interns for work that
didn't qualify as education or training, according to a proposed
statewide class action filed on Oct. 21 in Manhattan.

The fashion companies are accused of misclassifying interns as
exempt from minimum wages and paying nothing, while requiring them
to perform tasks that would otherwise have been performed by paid
staff, including data entry, inventory and setting up for a
fashion show.

"Defendants' unlawful conduct had been pursuant to a corporate
policy or practice of minimizing labor costs by denying plaintiff
and the putative class compensation in violation of [New York
Labor Law] and its implementing regulations," the complaint says.

Lead plaintiff Rajwinder Kaur worked approximately 28 to 30 hours
each week and performed tasks ranging from researching recent
trends to checking merchandise in and out, according to the
complaint.

The class consists of more than 100 interns who were employed by
PVH and Calvin Klein beginning in October 2008 or at any time
after, the complaint says.

Calvin Klein and PVH are accused of paying no wages intentionally,
willfully and in bad faith, in violation of New York Labor Law.

This is the latest in a spate of unpaid intern class actions filed
against media and fashion companies in New York by similar legal
teams. Columbia Recordings Corp., Sirius XM Radio and Coach Inc.,
have also faced suits.

In September, the lead plaintiff in a class action on behalf of
"Late Show with David Letterman" interns against CBS Broadcasting
Inc. withdrew her suit and went public with a letter claiming she
was coerced into participating by attorneys at Virginia & Ambinder
LLP.

Additionally, former interns with one of the world's largest
talent agencies, International Creative Management Partners LLC,
are currently battling for conditional certification in a federal
collective action suit over unpaid wages for purported entry-level
work.

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.

The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey K. Brown and Daniel
Markowitz of Leeds Brown Law PC and Lloyd R. Ambinder and Kara
Miller of Virginia & Ambinder LLP.

The case is Rajwinder Kaur et al. v. PVH Corp., Calvin Klein Inc.
et al., case number 160264/2014, in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York.


CANE CREEK: Recalls Bicycle Shocks Due to Risk of Injury
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cane Creek Cycling Components, Inc.; Fletcher, N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,000 in the US and 500 in Canada
DBINLINE Rear Shock.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The shock absorber is marked with graphics that incorrectly
identify the adjustment directions for High Speed Rebound (HSR)
damping.  Following these directions will cause unexpected
behavior by a bike's suspension and pose a fall hazard to a rider.

Cane Creek has received four complaints from customers, one of
which involved a report of injury with bruises in the midsection.

The recall involves Cane Creek Cycling Components DBINLINE bicycle
rear shock absorbers.  The shocks are marked with graphics that
incorrectly identify the adjustment directions for High Speed
Rebound (HSR) damping.  HSR on the shock is decreased by turning
the adjuster counter-clockwise and increased by turning it
clockwise.  The incorrect graphics present the opposite; that is,
the plus(+) and minus(-) symbols are switched.  The consumer can
be misled or confused when adjusting HSR on these shocks.  The
shocks come in black anodized aluminum with the words "INLINE"
marked on the air can portion of the shock and are attached to a
full-suspension mountain bike frame.  Recalled products have a
serial number on the underside of the top valve body in the
following ranges: AA00002 - AA07304 and SA00077 - SA03926.

The shocks were sold separately and were sold with these mountain
bikes:

2015 Alutech - Tofane
2015 Banshee - Phantom and Spitfire
2015 Bianchi - Methanol 29
2015 Canyon - Spectral 140 - 27.5 and 29; and Strive CF
2015 Ghost - AMR Riot 130
2015 Guerilla - Gravity Megatrail
2015 Ibis - Ripley 29
2015 Intense - Tracer, Carbine 29 and Spyder 29 Comp
2015 Knolly - Warden
2015 Nicolai - Helius
2015 Norco - Sight Carbon 7.1
2015 Nukeproof - Mega TR
2015 Orange - Five and Five 29
2015 Specialized - Enduro 650B and 29

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/m0nVHl

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at distributors and retailers globally from May 2014 through Sept.
2014 for about $495 each or included in the price of the bike.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
Cane Creek for a repair decal kit to correct the HSR adjustment
markings on affected product.


CAREFIRST: 3rd Circuit to Address Catalyst Theory in ERISA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that after broaching the issue in a nonprecedential opinion
released last summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit suggested during arguments on Oct. 21 that it might soon
answer definitively whether the catalyst theory for recovering
attorney fees applies in ERISA cases.

The catalyst theory allows plaintiffs to collect fees when the
pressure of legal action causes a defendant to voluntarily change
its conduct.

"I'm trying to sort out the law here . . . on the catalyst
theory," Judge Thomas L. Ambro told Mark Oberstaedt --
moberstaedt@archerlaw.com -- on Oct. 21. Mr. Oberstaedt, of Archer
& Greiner in Haddonfield, N.J., argued on behalf of CareFirst, a
member of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and a
defendant in the case.

The case, Templin v. Independence Blue Cross, was initially filed
as an Employee Retirement Income Security Act action in 2009 by
people who have hemophilia seeking reimbursement for their
medication.  The insurance companies agreed to pay $2.2 million in
claims, according to court papers. The plaintiffs then moved to
collect the interest that had accrued on those claims, which
settled in 2013.  They are now seeking to recover attorney fees
for that part of the litigation.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hardt v. Reliance
Standard Life Insurance that the ERISA statute gives district
courts broad discretion to award attorney fees to plaintiffs.  The
high court ruled the statute doesn't limit attorney fee awards to
only prevailing parties, but allows parties who show "some degree
of success on the merits" to recover attorney fees.

U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania had rejected the plaintiffs' bid to collect attorney
fees in the hemophilia case because the interest they collected
came from a settlement rather than a judgment and the amount of
interest they had won was small.

The plaintiffs got $68,000 in interest through a settlement.
"The district court erred in holding that appellees' payment did
not constitute 'success on the merits' because it was obtained in
out-of-court settlement discussions rather than by means of a
judgment or judicial decision," the plaintiffs argued in their
brief to the Third Circuit.

"This may be the problem, at least that I personally have, with
what Judge Slomsky does -- it sounds like it has to be judicial
activity in his world, whereas it could be litigation activity in
other worlds," Judge Ambro said during arguments, citing to the
Second Circuit's 2013 opinion in Scarangella v. Group Health,
which Judge Slomsky had read as requiring that some kind of
judicial activity must spur the ultimate outcome in order for the
catalyst theory to apply.  "But other circuits, the Fourth, the
Eleventh, and the D.C. Circuit seem to think it's litigation
activity," Judge Ambro said to Blue Cross' lawyer, Katherine
Katchen -- kkatchen@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld.  "Don't we need to weigh in on that legal issue?" he asked.

"I think this is not the case to do that," Ms. Katchen said.
In August, the appeals court issued a nonprecedential ruling in a
case captioned Boyle v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Local 863 Welfare Fund, in which a panel led by Judge Jane
Richards Roth, and including Judges Thomas I. Vanaskie and Joseph
A. Greenaway Jr., reversed a New Jersey district judge's ruling
that the ERISA statute does not permit attorney fee awards under
the catalyst theory.

In that case, the court held that while the plaintiffs ultimately
didn't prevail, they still achieved some success with their
lawsuit by prompting their former employer to voluntarily offer to
retroactively reinstate benefits to early retirees and to
reimburse them for any alternative coverage they may have
purchased during the four-month period in 2011 when benefits
ceased.

During arguments on Oct. 21, Judge Julio Fuentes referred to
Judge Slomsky's comments at a hearing about the amount of interest
due in the case several weeks before it settled, discrediting two
of the three bases on which the plaintiffs had argued that
interest was owed -- they were the two state statutes from
Pennsylvania and Maryland that the plaintiffs had cited in
addition to ERISA itself.

"Slomsky said, 'You have a Treasury note that would amount to
$68,000.' Within six or seven weeks, the case is settled after
years of litigation," Judge Fuentes said, summarizing the
plaintiffs' argument that "that comment spurred the settlement."
Ms. Katchen responded by saying Judge Slomsky's comment catalyzed
the plaintiffs to act, not the defendants.

"They were seeking $1.5 million going in to that hearing.  They
took 4 percent of that," Ms. Katchen said.

You do "agree that catalyst theory can be adopted in the ERISA
context?" Judge Fuentes asked her.

"I don't think it can," Ms. Katchen said.

"By definition, I think, a catalyst theory requires analysis of a
defendant's subjective motivations for settling a case," she
explained.  "I think the ramifications of that could be endless."
"Are you asking us to create a circuit split?" Judge Ambro asked.
"You've got 2002, the Eleventh Circuit says that the catalyst
theory applies; 2003, the D.C. Circuit says that; 2007, the Fourth
Circuit says that; and then Scarangella from the Second Circuit
says it, albeit with judicial activity," Judge Ambro said.

Senior Judge Richard L. Nygaard was also on the panel.


CASTLE GROUP: Discriminated Against Latina Worker, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Hernandez v. C Castle Group, Corporation, Spa Castle, Inc.,
Steve Chon, Individually, and Gean Choe, Individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-06238 (E.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014) seeks damages to
redress the alleged injuries the Plaintiff has suffered as a
result of being discriminated against and terminated on the basis
of race (Latina) and gender.

C Castle Group Corporation is a New York domestic business
corporation headquartered in Flushing, New York.  Spa Castle,
Inc., is a New York domestic business corporation headquartered in
College Point, New York.  Spa Castle is a wholly owned subsidiary
of C Castle.  The Individual Defendants are officers or managers
of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marjorie Mesidor, Esq.
          Nicole Welch, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          E-mail: mmesidor@tpglaws.com


CHEMICAL STRATEGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Carpenter v. Chemical Strategies, Inc., a Deleware
corporation; Christopher Meagher and Jane Doe Meagher, husband and
wife; Richard Williams and Jane Doe Williams, husband and wife,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02371-NVW (D. Ariz., October 24, 2014) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount of
liquidated damages, including interest, statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Chemical Strategies, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware, and has
its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona.  The
Individual Defendants are owners, directors or officers of the
Company.  Chemical Strategies is a company specializing in
chemical distribution and supply management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


CINNABAR SERVICE: Oklahoma High Court Upholds Picher Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wally Kennedy, writing for The Joplin Globe, reports that the
Oklahoma Supreme Court on Oct. 20 upheld a 2013 ruling that a
class-action lawsuit brought by former residents of Picher,
Oklahoma, can proceed against a Tulsa-based appraisal firm
involved with the buyout of property in Picher.

The court's decision upholds an appellate court ruling on July 24
that was appealed by Cinnabar Service Co., the appraisal firm.
A spokeswoman for the clerk of the Oklahoma Supreme Court on
Oct. 21 said the court issued a writ of certiorari that ordered
the lower court to deliver its record of the case so that the
higher court could review it.  After that review, the court denied
Cinnabar's appeal, she said.

John Wiggins, an Oklahoma City attorney representing the class,
advised his clients "that the case should become active again
shortly."  Unless an out-of-court settlement can be reached, the
case will proceed to trial.

About 260 former residents of Picher were granted class-action
status in a 2013 ruling by the Tulsa County District Court.  They
allege that their properties were intentionally undervalued by
Cinnabar Service Co., during the company's appraisal process for
the Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust
(LICRAT).

The Oct. 20 decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court to uphold the
decision of the Division II Court of Civil Appeals preserves the
residents' class-action status so that they could pursue the
matter as one entity against Cinnabar Service Company, of Tulsa,
which performed the appraisals along with several smaller
companies that also are named in the suit.

A spokesman for Barber and Bartz, the Tulsa law firm representing
Cinnabar in the appeal, could not be reached for comment on
Oct. 21.

Picher, located in Ottawa County, Okla., lies at the heart of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Tar Creek Superfund Site.
Years of zinc and lead mining led to studies conducted by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers that found properties in the town were
undermined and at high risk of caving in. That prompted the buyout
of residents.

There were 878 buyout offers totaling nearly $45 million for
property in the area.


COACH INC: Bid to Dismiss "Pattie" Fraud Class Action Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan denied a motion to dismiss the
case Julie Pattie, Plaintiff, v. Coach, Inc., Defendant, CASE NO.
1:14 CV 628, (N.D. Ohio).

Julie Pattie, brought this putative class action against Coach,
Inc. for the distribution of in-store coupons by the defendant.
The Court previously dismissed most of Plaintiff's original
complaint, including claims for fraud and unjust enrichment
because they failed to meet the pleading standards of Rule 9.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which she again alleges
claims for unjust enrichment and fraud.

"Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts in support of her unjust
enrichment claim and as such the motion to dismiss is denied,"
ruled Judge Gaughan in her October 24, 2014 memorandum of opinion
and order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/vPi9Yg
from Leagle.com.


COOLTRADE INC: Faces "Ehlinger" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Landon Ehlinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cooltrade, Inc. and Robotic Returns, Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-02998 (S.D. Tex., October 21, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a computer stock trading company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Edwards Wynne, Esq.
      WYNNE & WYNNE LLP
      1021 Main Street, Suite 1275
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-8835
      Facsimile: (713) 227-6205
      E-mail: dwynne@wynne-law.com

         - and -

      Kenneth R. Wynne, Esq.
      WYNNE & WYNNE LLP
      1021 Main Street, Suite 1275, One City Centre
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-8835
      Facsimile: (713) 227-6205
      E-mail: kwynne@wynne-law.com


CORELOGIC INC: $9.9 Million Accord Reached in RESPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the RESPA class action conducted a court-ordered
mediation and subsequently reached agreement in principle to
settle the case for a total of $9.9 million inclusive of attorney
fees, subject to court approval, CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT
alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between
WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to
artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value
loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9,
2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against
eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for
class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a
nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006,
received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that
were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class
certification order.

Following discovery, on July 1, 2014 the defendant filed motions
for summary judgment and to decertify the class. On September 16,
2014 the trial court granted summary judgment against one named
plaintiff but denied it as to the other, denied the motion to
decertify the class, and bifurcated trial into two phases with the
first phase to begin November 24, 2014.

The parties thereafter conducted a court-ordered mediation and
subsequently reached agreement in principle to settle the case for
a total of $9.9 million inclusive of attorney fees, subject to
court approval. This amount has been reserved and recorded within
loss from discontinued operations, net of tax for the three months
ended September 30, 2014.

CoreLogic, Inc., is a global property information, analytics and
data-enabled services provider operation in North America, Western
Europe and Asia Pacific.


CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara L. Roberts, Robin Thomas, Michael Lowery, Machelle Brush,
Michael Shane Sullivan, Melissa Nuce, Charles Reece, Ethan Howell,
James Fleming, James Polk, Anthony Bennett, Kendrick Sanders, and
Marchello Harris, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated current and former employees v. Corrections Corporation
of America, Case No. 3:14-cv-02009 (M.D. Tenn., October 21, 2014),
unpaid overtime compensation, interest thereon, liquidated
damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees.

Corrections Corporation of America operates facilities across the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
      101 North Highland Ave
      Jackson, TN 38301
      Telephone: (731) 664-1340
      Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
      E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com

         - and -

      Ross Webster, Esq.
      Saul C. Belz, Esq.
      GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC
      6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400
      Memphis, TN 38119
      Telephone: (901) 576-1741
      Facsimile: (901) 576-2389
      E-mail: sbelz@glankler.com
              rwebster@glankler.com


CVS PHARMACY: Can Move Wage-and-Hour Class Action to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal appeals court is allowing drugstore chain CVS to move a
purported wage and hour class action to federal from state court
under a new interpretation of the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005's removal rules.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Romulus v. CVS
Pharmacy Inc., addressing an issue of first impression for the
circuit, ruled that an email containing a damages estimate could
qualify as "other paper" justifying a removal motion.
The court reversed U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel's March 2014
order granting the plaintiff's motion to send the case back to
state court.

"We now hold that [the law's] 30-day clocks [related to the post-
complaint filings] are triggered only when the plaintiffs'
complaint or plaintiffs' subsequent paper provides the defendant
with sufficient information to easily determine that the matter is
removable.  The district court erred in imposing too great a duty
of inquiry on the defendant," Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote.
Judges Jeffrey Howard and Juan Torruella joined her.

Whenever a class action is filed in state court, defendants have a
30-day deadline for seeking removal.  Damages of more than $5
million allow defendants to shift cases to federal court.
Following the initial case filing and deadline, the statute allows
later court filings to trigger a new 30-day window for removal.
These later filings include: "a copy of an amended pleading,
motion, order or other paper."

A plaintiffs' email to CVS containing information about the class
period 17 months into the case gave the company the information to
"ascertain the amount in controversy for the first time," Judge
Lynch wrote.

David Romulus and four other Massachusetts shift supervisors filed
their first amended class action against CVS in Massachusetts
Superior Court in August 2011.  They claim a store policy
requiring them to stay on the premises for unpaid rest or meal
breaks when there are no other managers or only one other worker
on duty violates the state's wage and overtime laws.  They are
seeking unpaid wages, overtime, triple damages, interest, attorney
fees and costs.

Their first amended complaint did not specify the number of breaks
at issue or total damages.

CVS sought removal right away based on its own $10.4 million
damage estimate, which assumed that class members lost every meal
break during the class period.  In March 2012, Judge Zobel
rejected that estimate and granted the plaintiffs' motion to
remand to state court.

During discovery, the plaintiffs informed the defense in a January
2013 email that there were 116,499 meal breaks during the class
period when no other shift supervisor was working.  The following
month, CVS filed another removal motion.

Judge Lynch looked to Fifth Circuit and Ninth Circuit precedents
holding that informal correspondence from the plaintiff to the
defendant could be an "other paper" under the statute.  "The
correspondence triggers the 30-day clock if it is the first
document in which the plaintiff puts the defendant on notice that
the criteria for removal are met," Judge Lynch wrote.

James Boudreau -- boudreauj@gtlaw.com -- a Greenberg Traurig
partner in Philadelphia who chairs the firm's labor and employment
practice's class and collective action group, argued for CVS.  He
declined to comment without his client's permission.

"We are pleased with the court's decision that the case belongs in
federal court," CVS spokesman Mike DeAngelis said in an email.
Thomas Urmy Jr. -- turmy@shulaw.com -- a partner at Boston's
Shapiro Haber & Urmy who argued for the plaintiffs, did not
respond to requests for comment.


DAKOTA GROWERS: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
New Jersey federal judge has deemed done a reported $23 million
settlement of a proposed class action alleging the manufacturer of
Dreamfields Pasta falsely advertised the product as healthier than
ordinary pasta because it contained fewer "digestible"
carbohydrates.

U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano of New Jersey gave final approval
Oct. 20 to the deal between consumers and Dakota Growers Pasta
Co., maker of Dreamfields.

The agreement in Mirakay v. Dakota Growers, filed in July 2013,
will create a settlement of fund of $5 million, from which class
members will be eligible to claim $1.99 for each box of
Dreamfields pasta they bought, up to a total of 15.  Deamfields
will pay an additional $2.9 million in attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, which the judge found justified, particularly in
relation to the value of the injunctive relief won by the
plaintiffs.

That relief is a vow by Dakota Growers to remove, for one year,
claims on the pasta's packaging about its alleged low-carb and
other health benefits.  That injunctive relief is projected by the
parties to be worth about $15 million, a sum arrived at by a
Maryland marketing professor's calculation of likely consumer
response.

The pasta's slogan, on its packaging and in its advertising, was
"Healthy Carb Living," and the product, which sold at a higher
price than regular pasta, was also falsely advertised as a good
alternative for diabetics because of its purported "Lower Glycemic
Index," the proposed class action complaint alleged.

The plaintiffs said independent scientific tests of the
defendants' carbohydrate and glycemic contentions did not back
them up.  For instance, test subjects had the same blood sugar
response curves with Dreamfields' noodles as with ordinary pasta,
the complaint says.  As of Jan.1, Dakota Growers had replaced
those claims with the statement that its pasta is high in dietary
fiber.

The assignment of value to the injunctive relief is a relatively
uncommon feature of a class-action settlement.  In this case,
Towson University marketing professor Thomas Maronick, who also
holds a J.D. from the University of Baltimore School of Law, said
he arrived at the estimate by calculating the price differential
that existed between a box of Dreamfields pasta with the health
claims (selling at about $2.65 a pound) and ordinary Barilla White
Pasta (selling for about $1.38 a pound).  In other words,
according to Mr. Maronick, consumers were willing to pay an extra
$1.37 for the purportedly healthier noodles.

Multiplying that differential by the amount of Dreamfields sold in
2012 -- 11,310,055 pounds -- results in a $15,494,775 premium
Dakota Growers enjoyed because of its label claims of healthier
pasta, and, conversely, the possible amount Dakota Growers would
forfeit by removing that branding, Mr. Maronick calculated.

Between Jan. 1, when Dakota Growers changed the labels, and
July 5, sales of Dreamfields pasta fell by 5.2 percent, Mr.
Maronick reported.

Plaintiffs are represented by Zaremba Brownell & Brown.  Dakota
Growers' counsel is the firm Coughlin Duffy.


DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY: Sued in California Over Violation of ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Morris, Caroline Plaza, Veronica Tench, Jacqueline Murray,
Maidaflor Maybir, Jocelyn Manacmul, Donna Gutierrez, Eleanore De
Dios, and Elenita Santos-Funai, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Daughters of Charity Health System, Robert
Issai, Stephanie Battles, Mike Stuart, Daughters of Charity
Ministry Services Corporation, Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent
de Paul, Province of The West, and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:14-cv-
04681 (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, specifically by failure to provide all promised
retirement benefits to Plaintiffs and other Plan participants.

The Defendants operate a nonprofit multi-hospital health system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
      Margaret Hassleman, Esq.
      Catha Worthman, Esq.
      Jacob Richards, Esq.
      LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
      476 9th Street
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 839-6824
      Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
      E-mail: jlewis@lewisfeinberg.com
              mhasselman@lewisfeinberg.com
              cworthman@lewisfeinberg.com
              jrichards@lewisfeinberg.com


DIALYSIS CENTER: Seeks Dismissal of Product Liability Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a dialysis clinic has moved to dismiss a Missouri
plaintiff's lawsuit from federal multidistrict litigation over
dialysis products.  The clinic's counsel argues that the plaintiff
cannot stick with products liability claims and actually must meet
the higher standards of a claim for medical malpractice.

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that "strict liability claims
are not applicable to health care providers," and that same
reasoning applies to negligent design and breach of warranty
claims, defense counsel Hal Meltzer -- meltzer@bscr-law.com -- and
Caroline Tinsley --- tinsley@bscr-law.com -- of Baker Sterchi
Cowden & Rice in Kansas City, Mo., said.

"Plaintiff's negligent design and breach of warranty claims should
be dismissed by this court as an impermissible expansion of the
liability of health care providers beyond that anticipated by the
Missouri Legislature," the clinic's counsel said.

"Permitting plaintiff to recover from a dialysis center in an
action rooted in design defect claims against a pharmaceutical
manufacturer would open all health care providers to such claims
regardless of [their] 'culpable state of mind.'"

Beverly Coby received dialysis treatment at Dialysis Center Inc.
and her survivors allege that dangerous chemicals made by
Fresenius Medical North America Inc. and related defendants caused
her fatal cardiac arrest.

The plaintiffs also allege that Fresenius' GranuFlo Dry Acid
Concentrate and NaturaLyte dialysis products causes
cardiopulmonary arrest and even death.  GranuFlo and NaturaLyte
are components of dialysate, which maintains the proper balance of
acid and base in patients' blood when undergoing hemodialysis for
advanced renal disease.  But the powders cause unsafe changes in
the blood pH, according to the plaintiffs.

Moreover, the plaintiffs only included two paragraphs of
allegations against Dialysis Center, and medical records show that
Ms. Coby did not receive any dialysis treatment at any of the
center's clinics in Missouri on the day she died from cardiac
arrest, the clinic's lawyers said.

As of Aug. 15, more than 2,000 cases were pending in the
multidistrict litigation.


DOUBLE D CONTRACTORS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidencio Nataren Cruz, and Mario Hernandez, et al. v. Double D
Contractors, LLC d/b/a Double D Construction, and Dennis Darrow,
individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-06520 (D.N.J., October 21, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked in a work week.

The Defendants own, maintain, and operate a construction business
throughout the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Lawrence Office Park
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Petition for Writ of Mandate Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Lee and Pedro Chevez were hired by Dynamex Operations
West, Inc. (formerly Dynamex, Inc.), a nationwide courier and
delivery service, as drivers to make deliveries of packages,
letters and parcels to Dynamex customers. Prior to 2004 Dynamex
had classified its California drivers as employees and compensated
them subject to this state's wage and hour laws. In 2004 Dynamex
converted the status of all drivers from employee to independent
contractor. A lawsuit was filed in April 2005 alleging that
drivers, as a practical matter, continued to perform the same
tasks as they had when classified as employees with no substantive
changes to the means of performing their work or the degree of
control exercised by Dynamex and, as a consequence, the
reclassification of Dynamex drivers violated California law. The
plaintiff, Charles Lee, sought to represent approximately 1,800
drivers engaged by Dynamex as independent contractors. After its
initial denial of class certification was reversed by the court,
the Superior Court of Los Angeles County certified the proposed
class in 2011.

Over the course of the next two years, Dynamex twice moved to
decertify the class. When its second motion was denied, Dynamex
filed a petition for a writ of mandate, arguing the superior court
had improperly adopted the definition of "employee" found in
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders to ascertain the
status of class members (see Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th
35 (Martinez)), and had failed to use the common law test for
distinguishing between employees and independent contractors
discussed in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial
Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello). According to Dynamex, if
the Borello common law test, rather than the IWC standard approved
in Martinez, is applied, the class must be decertified because the
predominance of individual issues relevant to that test would make
it infeasible to litigate the plaintiffs' claims as a class
action.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, on October 15, 2014, granted in part the petition for a
writ of mandate.  The Appeals Court concluded that the Superior
Court correctly allowed plaintiffs to rely on the IWC definition
of an employment relationship for purposes of those claims falling
within the scope of Wage Order No. 9-2001.  With respect to those
claims falling outside the scope of Wage Order No. 9, the common
law definition of employee will control, ruled the Appeals Court.
As to those claims, the petition is granted to allow the Superior
Court to reevaluate whether, in light of the Supreme Court's
recent decision in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc.
(2014) 59 Cal.4th 522 (Ayala), class certification remains
appropriate by focusing its analysis "on differences in [the
defendant's] right to exercise control" rather than "variations in
how that right was exercised."

A copy of the Calif. Appeals Court's Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/tyNjbvfrom Leagle.com.

The case is DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, INC., Petitioner, v. THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; CHARLES LEE et
al., Real Parties in Interest, NO. B249546.

Pope, Berger & Williams, A. Mark Pope -- pope@popeberger.com --
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Kevin Ruf -- kevinruf@yahoo.com --
Boudreau Williams and Jon R. Williams -- williams@bwlawllp.com --
for Real Parties in Interest, Charles Lee and Pedro Chevez.


EASTMAN OUTDOORS: Archer Can Pursue Defective-Manufacturing Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
an Ohio federal judge has ruled that an archer injured by a
shattering arrow can pursue a defective-manufacturing claim
against Eastman Outdoors Inc., but not claims for design defect,
inadequate warning or failure to conform to representations.

In considering Eastman's motion for summary judgment, Judge James
Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
also denied Eastman's request to dismiss plaintiff Trevor Cawley's
claim for punitive damages.

The court ruled on Oct. 17 in Cawley v. Eastman Outdoors.
Mr. Cawley filed suit in 2013 alleging he sustained lasting
injuries to his hand while practicing archery in Ohio in 2012.
Cawley was shooting Wolverine 6070 carbon fiber arrows when one
shattered upon release and pierced Mr. Cawley's left hand and
thumb, the court's opinion says.  Shin Kwang Corp., a South Korean
company, manufactured the arrows and Eastman distributed them in
the United States.

Mr. Cawley claims the arrow shattered due to a manufacturing or
design defect, suing Eastman for products liability, breach of
warranty, strict liability, negligence and gross negligence.
Eastman argued that it was plaintiff's longtime use of the arrows
and failure to follow proper safety protocols that led to his
injury.

In his opinion, Judge Gwin first addressed Mr. Cawley's common-law
negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability and gross
negligence claims, saying they are preempted by the Ohio Product
Liability Act.

In discussing the products liability claim, Judge Gwin said that
although Eastman was a supplier and not the manufacturer of the
arrows it could still be liable for compensatory damages because
it "marketed th[e] product under its own label or trade name."  He
said there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
the arrow that injured Mr. Cawley had a manufacturing defect and
it is a jury's job to decide.

Judge Gwin ruled that whether punitive damages should be awarded
to the plaintiff was a question for the jury and that a statutory
damages cap would not be allowed at this stage of the litigation.


EASTSIDE PIZZA: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Rodriguez v. Eastside Pizza, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-23922
(S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Eastside Pizza, Inc. own and operate a pizza restaurant located at
731 NE, 79th Street, Miami FL 33138.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


EDF ENERGY: Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Sizewell C Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Hirst, writing for EADT24, reports that homeowners who
claim power plant proposals have left their properties unsaleable
are preparing a class action lawsuit against those involved in the
project.

Leonora Van Gils, who owns a country house in Darsham, close to
where EDF Energy is proposing to build a park and ride for
Sizewell C construction workers, is leading the legal challenge
and inviting others to join her.

Speaking during a public meeting about Sizewell C in Yoxford, she
said the behavior of EDF and the government, in respect to the
project, had been "absolutely scandalous".

"The people who cannot sell their homes because of Sizewell C are
prisoners in their homes," she said.  "I'm hoping if we get enough
people together to form a class action lawsuit it will cause huge
embarrassment for the government and could maybe get us
somewhere."

Three other homeowners, who say the threat of increased traffic
has affected their property values, contacted Ms. Van Gils after
the meeting and have asked to join her legal battle.  They were
set to meet with solicitors on Oct. 23 to discuss the options
available.

Ms. Van Gils claims the park and ride would ruin the views from
her home and has left it unsalable in the 18 months it has been on
the market.  She said major projects should not be left hanging
over communities unresolved for years.

"Many people have been affected by this and we are all in a very
tricky situation -- it's extremely stressful."

An EDF spokesman said the company was aware of residents' concerns
and would be working with the local community to put appropriate
mitigation measures in place as it developed more detailed plans
for stage two of its consultation.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change said local people can
have their say in any large infrastructure -- in this case by
contacting EDF.


EDGER ASSOCIATES: Suit Seeks to recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Shearer v. Edger Associates, Inc., and Gerald Terenzi,
Case No. 8:14-cv-02689-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla., October 24, 2014) is
brought to recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Cardiac Sonographer.
The Plaintiff's primary duties and responsibilities included
traveling to and from the Defendants' client's facilities to
perform ultrasounds of the patient's heart and vascular systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
          TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
          2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


EDWARD L. MARRA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Fritts" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Fritts v. Edward L. Marra DMD, PLLC, an Arizona company;
Edward Marra and Deanna Marra, husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02369-GMS (D. Ariz., October 24, 2014) is brought in connection
with, among other things, the Debtors' alleged unlawful failure to
pay overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Edward L. Marra DMD, PLLC, was incorporated in the state of
Arizona, and has its principal place of business in Gilbert
Arizona.  Edward Marra is the owner of the Company.  Deanna Marra
is Edward Marra's wife.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


ELECTRIC-ROOTERMAN: "Hankins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Hankins and David Seegars, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Electric-Rooterman and Handyman,
Inc. f/k/a The Electric-Rooterman, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:14-cv-
04094 (D.S.C., October 21, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Electric-Rooterman and Handyman, Inc. owns and operates a one stop
shop for all service needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John G. Reckenbeil, Esq.
      JOHN G. RECKENBEIL LAW OFFICE
      PO Box 1633
      Spartanburg, SC 29306
      Telephone: (864) 582-5472
      Facsimile: (864) 582-7280
      E-mail: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com

         - and -

      Lawrence Everett McNair III, Esq.
      JOHN RECKENBEIL LAW OFFICE
      215 Magnolia Street
      Spartanburg, SC 29306
      Telephone: (864) 582-5472
      E-mail: lee@johnreckenbeillaw.com


ELNA CO: Faces Quathimatine Suit Over Capacitor-Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Quathimatine Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Divicom, USA, on behalf of
itself and all those similarly situated v. Elna Co., Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-04704 (N.D. Cal., October 22, 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 J. Tabacco Jr., Esq.
      Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
      E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
              tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

         - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
      Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212)-907-0700
      Facsimile: (212)-818-0477
      E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
              ebelfi@labaton.com
              mperez@labaton.com


ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: NRMA, CGU Take Policyholders Out of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Brown, writing for ABC, reports that people who lost their
homes in last year's Blue Mountains bushfire say insurance
companies are hijacking their class action.

The $200 million Maddens class action is seeking to recoup losses
from the power company, Endeavour Energy.  But unbeknown to their
customers, NRMA and CGU have taken their policy holders out of the
class action. The insurance companies want to launch their own.

The lower Blue Mountains bushfire that ripped through Springwood
and Winmalee in October last year destroyed 193 homes and
partially damaged 200 more.

Hundreds of residents have launched a class action against
Endeavour Energy, alleging poor tree management by the company
sparked the blaze.  The class action is expected to be heard in
the second half of next year -- but it's already taken a knock.

NRMA Insurance, and now also CGU Insurance have removed their
members from the action without members' blessing or consent.

Ken McAnally says claimants are devastated.

At the time of the fire, a lot of residents were hit with news
they were under-insured because of new 'flame zone' construction
regulations, that no-one had told them about.


ERICK FLOWBACK: May Not Provide List of Potential Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti ruled that defendants in JEREMY
SAENZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ERICK FLOWBACK SERVICES LLC, and MARK
SNODGRASS, Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-14-593-D, (W.D. Okla.) need
not provide a list of potential class members to the plaintiff
prior to the Court's determination whether conditional
certification of a class of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
plaintiffs is appropriate.

"[I]nformation regarding individual employees who may fall within
the alleged class becomes important only after conditional
certification, when potential class members are notified of a
collective action and individual differences are considered,"
Judge DeGiusti added.  "Should the Court conditionally certify a
class of employees, then a list of individual class members will
be relevant to a party's claim or defense and, thus,
discoverable."

A copy of the Court's October 23, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/pdmWDEfrom Leagle.com.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued in D. Minnesota Over Forgery of Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Alison Nora, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-04449 (D. Minn.,
October 22, 2014), is a class action of homeowners whose property
rights were injured by the creation and transmission of forged
documents by wire and mail.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. is a vertically integrated title
insurance and financial services firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wendy Alison Nora, Esq.
      ACCESS LEGAL SERVICES
      210 Second Street NE
      Mpls, MN 55413
      Telephone: (612) 333-4144
      Facsimile: (612) 886-2444
      E-mail: accesslegalservices@gmail.com


FUJI HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhong Xian Chen, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. Fuji Hibachi Restaurant LLC, d/b/a
Mr. Sushi & Grill Japanese Hibachi Steak House, James Yu Lam, John
Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-08444 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant at Wallkill
Plaza Store 2A, 400 RT. 211 East & Carpenter Ave., Middletown, New
York 10940.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jahng@hanglaw.com


GREAT LAKES HIGHER: Has Invaded Customers' Privacy, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Loker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation, Case No.
2:14-cv-08167 (C.D. Cal., October 22, 2014), is brought for
willfully employing and causing to be employed certain recording
equipment in order to record the telephone conversations of the
Plaintiff without consent, thereby invading the Plaintiff's
privacy.

Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation is engaged in the
business of servicing student loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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


GREENSTAR AGRICULTURAL: Faces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on Oct. 21 announced the commencement of a securities
class action against GreenStar Agricultural Corporation (f.k.a.
China Green Star Agricultural Corporation), certain of its current
and former directors and officers and its former auditor.

The action relates to the circumstances surrounding GreenStar's
failure to complete 2013 audit procedures and the resignation of
its Canadian directors and management.  The action alleges that,
among other things, documents released by GreenStar, including
certain of its audited and unaudited financial statements and the
subscription agreement for its 2014 private placement, contained
material representations that were untrue.  It is alleged that the
defendants have liability for damages sustained by the proposed
class.  The action is brought to recover losses suffered by all
persons, subject to certain exclusions, who held GreenStar
securities on June 4, 2014.

Inquiries regarding this proposed class proceeding can be directed
to Nicole Young at Siskinds LLP at (800) 461-6166 (ext. 2380) or
nicole.young@siskinds.com

Holders of GreenStar securities on June 4, 2014 who wish to obtain
information and updates about this proceeding may complete an
online information form at:

     http://www.classaction.ca/joinaction.aspx?action=greenstar

                       About Siskinds LLP

Siskinds LLP -- http://siskinds.com/-- is a full-service law firm
headquartered in London, Ontario.  Its class actions team has
recovered over $450 million for investors over the last 10 years.
In each of 2010, 2011, and 2013, Siskinds has been ranked the top
Canadian firm in the SCAS 50, an annual global ranking of the
world's 50 leading securities class action law firms published by
Securities Class Action Services, a unit of Institutional
Shareholder Services (ISS).


GULFVIEW II OWNERS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Cohan v. Gulfview II Owners' Association, Inc., a Florida
Non Profit Corporation, d/b/a Gulfview, Case No. 3:14-cv-00580-RS-
EMT (N.D. Fla., October 24, 2014) alleges that the Defendant is in
violation of the American Disabilities Act Standards and is
discriminating against the Plaintiff as a result of, inter alia,
its failure to provide sufficient disabled parking spaces based on
the total parking spaces available.

The Plaintiff suffered from a "qualified disability" under the
ADA.

The Defendant is the lessee, operator, owner and lessor of the
Real Property located in Walton, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Sconzo, Esq.
          KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.
          PGA Financial Plaza
          3399 PGA Boulevard, Suite 180
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 296-7900
          Facsimile: (561) 296-7919
          E-mail: gsconzo@kaplansconzolaw.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Reached Agreement to Settle Macondo Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in September 2014,
the Company reached an agreement, subject to court approval, to
settle a substantial portion of the plaintiffs' claims asserted
against the Company relating to the Macondo well incident.

Pursuant to the MDL Settlement, Halliburton agreed to pay an
aggregate of $1.1 billion, which includes legal fees and costs,
into a trust in three installments over the next two years, except
that one installment of legal fees will not be paid until all of
the conditions to the settlement have been satisfied or waived.
Under the MDL Settlement, (1) a class of plaintiffs alleging
physical damage to property or damages associated with the
commercial fishing industry arising from the Macondo well incident
agree to release all claims against the Company for punitive
damages and (2) class members of the BP Economic Loss Settlement
agree to release the claims against the Company that BP assigned
to them in that settlement.

The Company also agreed to release BP for any damages,
consideration, or other relief that the Company provides under the
MDL Settlement.

Since April 21, 2010, plaintiffs have filed lawsuits relating to
the Macondo well incident. Generally, those lawsuits allege either
(1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and contamination
(e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax revenue, lost
business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability to engage in
recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongful death or
personal injuries.

Halliburton is named along with other unaffiliated defendants in
more than 1,800 complaints, most of which are alleged class
actions, involving pollution damage claims and at least six
personal injury lawsuits involving three decedents and at least
two allegedly injured persons who were on the drilling rig at the
time of the incident. At least six additional lawsuits naming the
Company and others relate to alleged personal injuries sustained
by those responding to the explosion and oil spill. Additional
civil lawsuits may be filed against the Company.


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: December 2014 Hearing in Securities Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the district court
is scheduled to hold a hearing in December 2014 to consider
whether there was an impact on the Company's stock price from the
alleged misrepresentations in the Securities litigation.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities
laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated
an investigation in connection with the Company's change in
accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and
related disclosures.

The Company said, "In the weeks that followed, approximately
twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of
those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or
former officers and directors. The class action cases were later
consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint,
styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was
filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.
AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).
We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

"In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by
the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the
resulting asbestos liability exposure.

"In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to
dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August
2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior
to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims
to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006,
the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed
a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been
re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in
March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all
individual defendants other than our Chief Executive Officer
(CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and
us.

"In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The
district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order
in November 2008 denying the motion for class certification. The
Fund appealed the district court's order to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order denying class certification. In May 2010, the Fund filed a
writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. In January
2011, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and
accepted the appeal. The Court heard oral arguments in April 2011
and issued its decision in June 2011, reversing the Fifth Circuit
ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in order to
obtain class certification. The Court's ruling was limited to the
Fifth Circuit's loss causation requirement, and the case was
returned to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration of our
other arguments for denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit
returned the case to the district court, and in January 2012 the
court issued an order certifying the class. We filed a Petition
for Leave to Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was granted. In
April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the
District Court's order certifying the class.

"We filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court seeking an appeal of the Fifth Circuit decision. In November
2013, the Supreme Court granted our writ. Oral argument was held
before the Supreme Court in March 2014. The Supreme Court issued
its decision in June 2014, maintaining the presumption of class
member reliance through the "fraud on the market" theory, but
holding that we are entitled to rebut that presumption by
presenting evidence that there was no impact on our stock price
from the alleged misrepresentation.

"Because the district court and the Fifth Circuit denied us that
opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's
decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the
Supreme Court decision. In December 2014, the district court is
scheduled to hold a hearing to consider whether there was an
impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentations.
Fact discovery has been stayed except as it relates to class
certification. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of
this case, which we intend to vigorously defend."


HAMTRAMCK CITY, MI: Discriminates Against Workers, Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Serafino, Walter Tripp, and Michael J. Szymanski, on behalf
of themselves, and others similarly situated v. Hamtramck, City
of, and Cathy Square, Case No. 4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH (E.D. Mich.,
October 24, 2014) accuses the Defendants of employment
discrimination.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert D. Fetter, Esq.
          MILLER COHEN, PLC
          600 W. Lafayette Blvd., 4th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 964-4454
          Facsimile: (313) 964-4490
          E-mail: rfetter@millercohen.com


HCA INC: Jacksonville Memorial Hospital Sued Over Exorbitant Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Michele Jones, writing for Jacksonville Business Journal,
reports that Memorial Hospital in Jacksonville is defending itself
against allegations that it billed "exorbitant and unreasonable
fees for emergency radiological services."

The class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court by four
Florida residents who received care at Memorial Hospital or other
Florida medical centers run by parent company HCA, which is based
in Nashville.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Nicholas Acosta, was treated at
Memorial Hospital's emergency room in October 2013 following a car
accident.  According to the complaint, Acosta was charged $6,965
for a CT scan of his spine and $6,277 for a CT scan of his brain,
which put him over the $10,000 personal injury protection
insurance coverage required under Florida's No Fault Car Insurance
Law.

Those charges, the plaintiffs claim, are "up to 65 times higher"
than what the hospital charges patients whose treatment is not
being paid for by personal injury protection insurance.

"Patients who show up at the emergency room following a motor
vehicle accident not only have to pay their 20 percent co-pay, but
then are billed far more for their tests, which clearly violates
the PIP law that requires 'customary and reasonable' pricing,"
said plaintiffs' lead attorney Theodore J. Leopold of Cohen
Milstein's Palm Beach Gardens office.

Because of the higher fees, the lawsuit says, the patients'
insurance coverage was "prematurely exhausted," and Acosta and the
other plaintiffs in the case were billed thousands of dollars each
for radiological services not paid for by their PIP insurers.
A spokesperson for Memorial Hospital released this statement: "The
allegations are unfounded and we intend to defend ourselves
vigorously."


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Inkjet Printer Litigation Deal Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeremy Fogel issued a final judgment on October 14,
2014, approving a settlement in In Re: HP Inkjet Printer
Litigation, MASTER FILE NO. C053580 JF (PVT), (N.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finally certified the action for settlement purposes as a
nationwide class action on behalf of: all individual or entity
end-users located in the United States who purchased or received
as a gift an Affected Model from September 6, 2001, to September
1, 2010.

The Court has determined that the proposed Settlement of the
claims of the Settlement Class Members against HP, as well as the
release of HP and the Released Parties, the significant relief
provided to the Settlement Class Members -- in the form of HP's
agreement to discontinue the use of certain pop-up messaging and
to make certain changes to the disclosures on its website and the
packaging, manuals and/or user interfaces for HP inkjet printers,
as well as HP's agreement to contribute e-credits to be
distributed to Settlement Class Members -- as described in the
Stipulation of Settlement, and the award of attorney's fees and
expenses requested, are fair, reasonable and adequate.

The Court appointed as counsel for the Class these law firms:

     * Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy;
     * Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP;
     * Berk Law PLLC;
     * Chavez & Gertler LLP;
     * Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLC;
     * Edelson & Associates, LLC;
     * The Garcia Law Firm;
     * Law Offices of Michael D. Liberty;
     * Law Offices of Scott E. Shapiro, P.C.;
     * McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP;
     * Pearson, Simon, Soter, Warshaw & Penny, LLP; and
     * Seeger Weiss, LLP.

The Court designates named Plaintiffs Daniel Feder, Nicklos
Ciolino, Carl K. Rich, David Duran, Jackie Blennis, and David
Brickner as the representatives of the Settlement Class.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/7MB54Lfrom
Leagle.com.

STEVEN N. BERK -- steven@berklawdc.com -- (admitted pro hac vice),
BERK LAW PLLC, Washington D.C.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Profinium Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Profinium, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03388
(N.D. Ga., October 21, 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, Esq.
      Everett L. Doffermyre, Esq.
      DOFFERMYRE, SHIELDS, CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC
      1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 881-8900
      Facsimile: (404) 881-3007
      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

         - and -

      Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn IL, 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4505
      Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
      E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Hudson City Savings Bank Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hudson City Savings Bank, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated financial institutions v. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03387 (N.D. Ga., October 21, 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:

      Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
      GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
      8 East Liberty Street
      Savannah, GA 31412
      Telephone: (912) 447-8400
      Facsimile: (912) 233-6584
      E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com

         - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      PNC Park, 115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Eric N. Linsk, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com
              rkshelquist@locklaw.com
              khriebel@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com
              rnlinsk@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
      17 Washington Ave. N. Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55401-2048
      Telephone: (612) 339-7300
      Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
      E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
              jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
              bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com


HOME NURSERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Gonzales v. Home Nursery, Inc. & Ann Tosovsky, Case No.
3:14-cv-01140 (S.D. Ill., October 22, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a plant nursery in Albers,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite #133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com


HUB GROUP: "Lubinski" Suit Transferred From Illinois to Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Lubinski v. Hub Group Trucking,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07117, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis).
The Tennessee District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02843-JPM-dkv to the proceeding.

The action is brought on behalf of current and former Illinois
drivers challenging Hub Group's alleged unlawful practice of
misclassifying delivery drivers as independent contractors instead
of as employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas James Piskorski, Esq.
          Abigail Anne Cahak, Esq.
          Kara Lea Goodwin, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: tpiskorski@seyfarth.com
                  acahak@seyfarth.com
                  kgoodwin@seyfarth.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Production Worker Files Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
in a twist on the axiom that it pays to exercise, a production
worker has filed a proposed class action that faults Hyundai Motor
Manufacturing Alabama for not paying workers enough for mandatory
stretching and exercise sessions.

Plant worker Frank Bates alleges in his Oct. 17 filing in U.S
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama that workers
must participate in daily exercise sessions designed to help
prevent injuries on the job.  The sessions accompany meetings
where the production schedule of the day is presented.

During the week, workers are compensated for their time engaged in
the activities with a quarter-hour's pay, according to the
complaint in Bates v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing.  But on
Saturdays, workers get no compensation for their time spent in
those activities.

Mr. Bates contends that is because the company does not want to
shell out for overtime for the meetings and exercise.  He
calculates that, at the overtime rate of $37.47 an hour, Hyundai
saves $9.37 per employee per overtime shift by denying them the
quarter-hour pay.

The 3,000-worker plant, described by the company as one of the
most technologically advanced in North America, produces Hyundai
Elantra and Sonata cars, along with three types of 4-cylinder
engines.

The complaint alleges Hyundai's no-overtime compensation policy
violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs seek
three years of back compensation, damages, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

Mr. Bates is represented by the firm Winston Cooks.


I.C. SYSTEM: Court Narrows Claims in "Abramov" FDCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss the case captioned ELMAN ABRAMOV,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants,
NO. 14-CV-4000 (ADS)(ARL), (E.D. N.Y.).

Elman Abramov brought this class action on June 26, 2014, on
behalf of himself and a proposed nationwide class seeking redress
for certain actions taken by the Defendants I.C. System, Inc. and
John Does 1-25 allegedly in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. (the FDCPA).  I.C.
System is a company that operates with the alleged principal
purpose of collecting debts alleged to be due another.  I.C.
System delivered to the Plaintiff on May 26, 2014, a letter in an
attempt to collect an alleged obligation owed to a third party,
AT&T, by the Plaintiff.

On August 28, 2014, I.C. System served the Plaintiff with a Rule
68 Offer of Judgment, which provided that:

"Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, defendant I.C. System, Inc.
hereby offers to allow judgment to be taken against it in this
action as to the individual Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") claim of plaintiff Elman Abramov in the amount of (a)
One Thousand Five Hundred and One Dollars ($1,501.00) payable to
Elman Abramov plus (b) reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be
determined by the Court, payable to Elman Abramov for the benefit
of all attorneys in this matter, including counsel of record. Any
judgment entered pursuant to this offer will be in full
satisfaction of the plaintiff's individual claims under the FDCPA
for damages, costs, and attorney's fees in this action. See
Compl.

"If this Offer of Judgment is not accepted in writing within
fourteen (14) days after its services, it shall be deemed
withdrawn."

The Plaintiff's counsel e-mailed I.C. System's counsel advising
that "said Offer is improper at this time and therefore Plaintiff
can neither accept nor reject said Offer."  The Plaintiff also
contended that an Offer of Judgment could not moot a putative
class action absent undue delay in the filing of a motion for
class certification.  On September 10, 2014, I.C. System moved to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

Judge Spatt's October 14, 2014 decision and order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/j3jeTJfrom Leagle.com, rejects the
Plaintiff's argument that the Defendant's Rule 68 Offer of
Settlement mooted the motion to dismiss.

As to the merits of the Plaintiff's claims under Section 1692e and
1692g of the FDCPA, the Court found that the Plaintiff may advance
the theory that the second cited paragraph of the Letter
"overshadowed" or "contradicted" the first sentence of the first
cited paragraph or was "misleading" with respect to that sentence
on the basis that the language "in writing" in that paragraph
leaves the consumer debtor unsure as to whether disputing a debt
requires oral or written communication. However, the Court found
that, as a matter of law, the Plaintiff may not proceed on the
theory that the second cited paragraph of the Letter
"overshadowed" or "contradicted" the first cited paragraph or was
"misleading" with respect to that paragraph on the basis that the
directive to call the creditor in the event of suspected identity
theft leaves the consumer debtor unsure as to whether disputing a
debt requires contacting the debt collector or creditor.

Finally, the Court found that the Plaintiff has adequately plead
materiality.

Concepcion A. Montoya, Esq., Of Counsel -- cmontoya@hinshawlaw.com
-- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for the
Defendant IC Systems, Inc.


INDIGO BOOKS: Recalls Magnetics Spheres and Magnetics 4 x 4
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 21, 2014
Posting date:             October 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41863

Affected products: Magnetics Spheres and Magnetics 4 x 4

The recall involves small powerful magnetic spheres and 4 x 4
magnetic squares that can be used to build sculptures, puzzles,
patterns, or shapes.  These magnet sets come in a clear plastic
box and are sold with the description: magnetic toy and stress
reliever.  The products can be identified by the following UPC
code:

Indigo Books & Music Inc. is voluntarily recalling these products
from the market in response to a risk assessment conducted by
Health Canada.

The risk assessment on these magnet sets has informed Health
Canada's determination that they are a danger to human health and
safety because they contain small powerful magnets which can be
easily swallowed or inhaled by children.  Unlike other small
objects that would be more likely to pass normally through the
digestive system if swallowed, when more than one small powerful
magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract one another while
travelling through the digestive system.  The magnets can then
pinch together and create a blockage and slowly tear through the
intestinal walls, causing perforations.

The results of swallowing small powerful magnets can be very
serious and life-threatening.  Swallowing incidents have often
resulted in considerable damage to the gastrointestinal tissues
and required emergency surgical treatment.  For survivors, there
can be serious long-term health consequences.

Neither Indigo Books & Music Inc. nor Health Canada has received
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product.

For more information on the danger or swallowing magnets, please
see Health Canada's page on Magnets.

Approximately 1,289 units of the affected products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
Aug. 2014 to Oct. 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Zorbitz Inc.
                    Los Angeles
                    California
                    United States

   Retailer         Indigo Books & Music Inc.
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should stop using the recalled magnet sets immediately
and return the product to Indigo Books & Music Inc. for a full
refund, no receipt required.  For more information, consumers may
contact Indigo Books & Music Customer Relations at 1-416-263-5002,
Monday to Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, by email or 1-800-832-7569
Monday to Friday 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET.


INTEGRATED PRODUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Dull" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Dull, Marlin Addison, Latrice Allen, Mark Castin, Paul
Dunkel, Christopher Niedzwiecki, Robert Thorpe, on behalf of
themselves, and all others similarly situated v. Integrated
Production Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01437 (W.D. Pa.,
October 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages.

Integrated Production Services, Inc. is a natural gas services
company that provides a variety of support functions related to
the production of natural gas at well sites throughout North
America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTREPID USA: Faces "Paine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shelley Paine, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Intrepid U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02005 (M.D.
Tenn., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess if 40 per
week.

Intrepid U.S.A., Inc. is engaged in the business of providing home
treatments and other medical assistance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
              jmartin@barrettjohnston.com


IOD INCORPORATED: Sued Over Overcharged Medical Records Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
Demond Moore v. IOD Incorporated and, NYU Hospitals Center, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08406 (S.D.N.Y., October 21, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for unlawful and deceptive acts and practices of
overcharging requests for medical records.

IOD Incorporated is a Wisconsin for-profit corporation with a
principal place of business in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

NYU Hospitals Center is a New York not-for-profit hospital with a
principal place of business in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William H. Narwold, Esq.
      Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      20 Church St., 17th Floor
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Telephone: (860)882-1681
      Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
      E-mail: bnarwold@mofleyrice.com
              mjasinski@motleyrice.com

         - and -

      Steven L. Hess, Esq.
      SIMONSON HESS LEIBOWITZ & GOODMAN, P.C.
      299 Broadway - Suite 1220
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212)233-3133
      E-mail: sh@hessleibowitz.com


IRAN: Faces Suit Over 1983 U.S Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
federal lawsuit was filed against the government of Iran on behalf
of surviving U.S. military veterans and families of service
members killed in the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut.

Relvas, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran was filed on Oct. 20 in
federal court in the District of Columbia by Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll attorneys Matthew Axelrod in Washington and
Theodore Leopold in West Palm Beach.  Mr. Axelrod is co-counsel,
and Leopold is co-lead counsel, the firm said in a statement.

An earlier lawsuit involving several hundred current and former
members of the U.S. military and their families was filed against
Iran in 2001.  In that case, Peterson et al v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, the judge entered a default judgment of $2.65 billion.  The
current case involves a few dozen veterans and other survivors.

The Peterson ruling largely rested on arguments and evidence
showing terrorist groups that participated in the deadly attack --
Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- had the backing
of the Iranian government.  The suicide bombing killed 241 U.S.
service members and severely injured numerous others.

In 2008, more than $2 billion of Iranian assets held by Citibank
for Bank Markazi, the central bank of Iran, were frozen.  The
Peterson plaintiffs sued the bank in New York federal court and in
March 2013 were granted a summary judgment that ordered the funds
transferred to a victims' fund.  The judgment was upheld by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in July.

Bank Markazi indicated it intends to seek review by the U.S.
Supreme Court.

"We are optimistic that the Second Circuit's ruling will stand and
have faith in the judicial system that all victims of this
horrific attack against U.S. military personnel -- those who first
filed the lawsuit against Iran and those similarly situated
claimants who have come forward since -- will be able to
rightfully share in the victims' fund," said plaintiffs co-counsel
Jeremy McKenzie of Karsman, McKenzie & Hart in Savannah, Ga.


J R STONE: Faces "Lorenzo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Facundo S. Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. J R Stone Design, Inc., a Florida
corporation, and Jaime Rodriguez, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-
81292 (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per work week.

The Defendants own and operate commercial businesses providing
design, fabrication and installation and related services to
customers from all locations throughout South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Charles Copeland, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND P.A.
      824 W. Indiantown Rd
      Jupiter, FL 33458
      Telephone: (561) 691-9048
      Facsimile: (866) 259-0719
      E-mail: ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com


KPMG US: 200 Female Employees Join Gender Bias Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Reed, writing for FinancialDirector, reports that more than
200 KPMG US female employees, past and present, have signed up to
a class action against the firm.

Two weeks ago 9,000 KPMG US fee-earning women, from its advisory
and tax divisions, were contacted about joining a class action
against the firm, with the action alleging gender discrimination.
The former and current employees, who have served between October
2008 and the present day, were contacted after a US district judge
approved the communication on 3 October.

The action revolves around former KPMG manager Donna Kassman, who
spent 17 years working in the firm's New York office before
resigning, then claiming that she and other females suffered
gender discrimination.

The firm has been accused of developing a hostile work environment
in which women are underpaid and rarely promoted to leadership
roles. The UK business is uninvolved in the action.

Katherine Kimpel -- kkimpel@sanfordheisler.com -- a managing
partner at Sanford Heisler and lead counsel for the plaintiffs,
told Accountancy Age that the initial response from women looking
to join the claim was "high".

"It's indicative of a real interest in this case, and [shows
there's] likely a real problem," said Ms. Kimpel.  Current
employees have joined the case, Ms. Kimpel confirmed, but a ratio
of existing versus former staff that have joined the action was
currently unavailable.

KPMG has previously said: "We will not comment on pending
litigation other than to note that plaintiffs' allegations are
without merit, and KPMG will vigorously defend itself.

"As we have noted previously, KPMG is recognized as a leader for
its strong commitment to supporting women in the workplace.
Diversity and inclusion have long been priorities for the firm,
and as such are woven into our culture and everything we do.  We
continue to believe this lawsuit has no basis in fact."


LEAR CORPORATION: Settlement Remains Subject to Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the settlement
agreements in a class action lawsuit remain subject to the final
approval of the district court.

On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport
to be direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses
supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the
relevant period. The complaints allege that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were
sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate
commerce in the United States. The complaints further allege that
defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy. The
plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and
expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees.
On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions (the "Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial
purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court").

In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to
litigate the Consolidated Cases, on May 5, 2014, the Company
entered into settlement agreements (the "Settlement Agreements")
under which the class plaintiffs will release the Company from all
claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of action in the
Consolidated Cases. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission
by the Company of any wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that
it violated no laws in connection with this matter. Because the
conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to
periods prior to the Company's emergence from bankruptcy in 2009,
the Settlement Agreements provide that the aggregate settlement
amount of $8.75 million will consist of $370,263 in cash
contributed by the Company with the remainder paid in outstanding
common stock and warrants of the Company held in the bankruptcy
reserve established under the Company's plan of reorganization.

The Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27,
2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by
the District Court on July 1, 2014. The Settlement Agreements
remain subject to the final approval of the District Court, which
will be decided following the provision of notice to purported
class members and hearings, with respect to each class, to confirm
the fairness of the settlement.

Lear Corporation and its affiliates design and manufacture
automotive seating and electrical distribution systems and related
components. The Company's main customers are automotive original
equipment manufacturers. The Company operates facilities
worldwide.


LEAR CORPORATION: Dismissed From Public Entities' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the City of
Richmond, California filed on February 20, 2014, a putative class
action lawsuit in the District Court on behalf of itself and other
"Public Entities," comprising states, state subdivisions, agencies
and instrumentalities and local government subdivisions and
agencies, and amended their complaint on October 3, 2014 (the
"Public Entities Complaint"). The allegations in the Public
Entities Complaint are substantially similar to those in the
Consolidated Cases. The Public Entities dismissed the Company,
without prejudice, from the Public Entities' lawsuit on October 9,
2014.

Lear Corporation and its affiliates design and manufacture
automotive seating and electrical distribution systems and related
components. The Company's main customers are automotive original
equipment manufacturers. The Company operates facilities
worldwide.


LEAR CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that beginning in early
2012, putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior
Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia against
the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive wire
harnesses alleging violations of Canadian laws related to
competition (the "Canadian Complaints"). The allegations in the
Canadian Complaints are substantially similar to those in the
Consolidated Cases. The ultimate outcome of this litigation, and
consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to
the Canadian Complaints cannot reasonably be determined at this
time. However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations
against it are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself in these proceedings.

Lear Corporation and its affiliates design and manufacture
automotive seating and electrical distribution systems and related
components. The Company's main customers are automotive original
equipment manufacturers. The Company operates facilities
worldwide.


MASSEY-YARDLEY INC: Faces "Alson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Latanya L. Alson, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Massey-Yardley, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-62415
(S.D. Fla., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages.

Massey-Yardley, Inc. is a new and used car dealer.

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


MEIJER: Recalls Halloween Projector Flashlight Due to Burn Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Meijer Distribution Inc., of Grand Rapids, Mich., announced a
voluntary recall of about 8,600 flashlight.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The flashlight can overheat and melt the plastic handle, posing a
burn risk to the user.

Meijer has received one report of a flashlight overheating and the
plastic handle melting.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves a Signature Designs Halloween image projector.
The projector is a flashlight with cap that holds special lenses
to project messages and images onto a wall or other surfaces.  The
flashlight handle is black with the word Halloween and pictures of
a skull and a jack o' lantern printed in white.  The handle is
about 7 inches long and holds two size C batteries.  The cap is
orange and is about 3 inches high and about 2 inches in diameter.
The projector comes with three lenses: an orange lens with a black
jack o' lantern, a yellow lens with a black bat and a purple lens
with the words "Trick or Treat" in black.  A clear label with
"Signature Designs (HK) Ltd, Ningbo, China, 14-121-02, 05/2014"
printed in white is on the side of the handle opposite the orange
on/off switch.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Meijer stores from Sept. 2014 to Oct. 2014 for about $3.

Consumers should immediately stop using the flashlight, remove the
batteries and return it to the customer service desk at any Meijer
store or contact Meijer for a full refund.


MIA HOSPITALITY: "Suarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Suarez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Mia
Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Fairfield Inn and Suites a/k/a Fairfield
Inn Miami Airport and Natalia Fernandez, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-23925 (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014), seeks to recover
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel and motel in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Obtains Final Approval of "Vassalle" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David A. Katz issued a memorandum opinion on
October 14, 2014, granting final approval of a settlement in the
class-action litigation entitled MARTHA VASSALLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, et. al., Defendants, CASE NO.
3:11-CV-00096, (N.D. Ohio).

Previously, the Court, in its preliminary order, certified a
nationwide class of persons who had been sued by Defendants
Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., Encore
Capital Group, Inc., and related entities between January 1, 2005
and March 11, 2011 in any debt-collection lawsuit in any court
where an affidavit attesting to facts about the underlying debt
was used by Midland in connection with the debt-collection
lawsuit.  The Court also appointed as Class Counsel the law firm
of Murray & Murray, counsel for Andrea Brent, Martha Vassalle,
Jerome Johnson, and Hope Franklin, the Named Plaintiffs in these
suits, and approved the proposed form of notice to the class.

Judge Katz concluded in this final order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/adqwKYfrom Leagle.com, that the
settlement class satisfies the requirements for class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

"The attorneys' fees for class counsel remain in the same amount
of $1,500,000 and are reasonable, particularly in light of the
length and breadth of this matter," added Judge Katz.  "Motions
for attorneys' fees filed by Mr. Clawson's counsel, Charles
Delbaum of the National Consumer Law Center and the Pelzer
Objectors for their counsel, Ian Lyngklip, will be addressed
separately by this Court. Should any fees be awarded, they will
not come from the common fund and will not reduce the amount to be
distributed to Class Members."

State of Illinois, Interested Party, represented by Paul A. Isaac,
Office of the Attorney General.


MIDWEST POULTRY: May 6, 2015 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased Shell Eggs or Egg Products produced in the United
States directly from any Producer from January 1, 2000 through
July 30, 2014, you could be a Class Member in a proposed class
action settlement.

This legal notice is to inform you of proposed Settlements between
Plaintiffs and Defendants Midwest Poultry Services, LP
("Midwest"), National Food Corporation ("NFC"), and United Egg
Producers/United States Egg Marketers ("UEP/USEM"), reached in the
class action lawsuit, In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 08-md-02002, pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and also
to inform you of a second amendment to the Sparboe Settlement.

Who is included in the Settlements & Second Sparboe Amendment?
The Settlement "Classes" include all persons and entities in the
United States that purchased Shell Eggs and Egg Products, in the
United States directly from any Producer from January 1, 2000
through July 30, 2014.  Due to the recent Settlements, the prior
Sparboe Settlement is amended to add to the Sparboe Settlement
Class direct purchases of Shell Eggs and Egg Products from
March 1, 2014 through July 30, 2014, expanding the Class Period to
make it comparable to the more recent Settlement Classes.

What is this case about?
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants conspired to limit the supply of
Shell Eggs and Egg Products, which raised the price of Shell Eggs
and Egg Products and, therefore, violated the Sherman Antitrust
Act, a federal statute that prohibits agreements that unreasonably
restrain competition. The settling Defendants deny all of
Plaintiffs' allegations.

What do the Settlements provide?
Under the Settlements, Plaintiffs will release all claims against
Midwest, NFC and UEP/USEM.  In exchange, Midwest will pay $2.5
million; NFC will pay $1 million; and UEP/USEM will pay $500,000,
into a settlement fund for the benefit of the Classes.  Plaintiffs
also will receive documents and information that Plaintiffs'
attorneys believe will aid in their analysis and prosecution of
this Action.

What does the Sparboe Settlement provide?
There is no monetary relief under the Sparboe Settlement.  Sparboe
agreed to provide substantial and immediate cooperation to
Plaintiffs, which the Court already found conferred substantial
benefits upon the Class.  The second amendment merely conforms the
Sparboe Class to the recent Settlement Classes.

What do I do now?
If you are a Class Member your legal rights are affected, and you
now have a choice to make.

Participate in the Settlements: No action is required to remain
part of the recent Settlements or the amended Sparboe Settlement.
If the Court grants final approval to the Settlements and the
Second Sparboe Amendment, they will be binding upon you and all
other Class Members.  By remaining part of the Settlements, you
will give up any potential claims that you may have against
Midwest, NFC, UEP/USEM and Sparboe relating to the claims alleged
in this lawsuit.  You may be eligible to receive a settlement
payment at a future date.

Ask to be excluded: If you wish to exclude yourself from the
Sparboe Settlement as amended (if you had no purchases before
March 1, 2014) and/or the recent Settlements and wish to retain
your rights to pursue your own lawsuit relating to the claims
alleged in this lawsuit, you must formally exclude yourself from
the Classes by sending a signed letter to the Claims Administrator
postmarked on or before March 6, 2015.

Object: You may notify the Court that you object to the recent
Settlements and/or Second Sparboe Amendment by mailing a statement
of your objection(s) to the Court, Plaintiffs' Counsel, and
Defense Counsel postmarked by March 6, 2015.  Detailed
instructions on how to participate, opt out or object are on the
Settlement website.

Who represents you?
The Court appointed Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff &
Asher LLC; Michael D. Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP; Stanley D.
Bernstein of Bernstein Liebhard LLP; and Stephen D. Susman of
Susman Godfrey LLP as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel.  You do not
have to pay them or anyone else to participate. You may hire your
own lawyer at your own expense.

When will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlements
and/or the Second Sparboe Amendment?
At 9:30 a.m. on May 6, 2015, at the United States District Court,
James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse, 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106, the Court will hold a hearing to determine
the fairness and adequacy of the recent Settlements and the Second
Sparboe Amendment, and consider any motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and incentive awards and reimbursement of
litigation costs.  You may appear at the hearing, but are not
required to do so.

Please note that the Court may change the date and/or time of the
Fairness Hearing.  Settlement Class Members are advised to check
www.eggproductssettlement.com for any updates.

How can I learn more?
This notice is only a summary.  For more information, visit
www.eggproductssettlement.com


MISSOURI: Court Approves Deal in Suit vs. Corrections Dept
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey approved a settlement resolving
the case captioned BOBBIE Y. LANE d/b/a CAGED POTENTIAL,
Plaintiff, v. GEORGE LOMBARDI, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-
4219-CV-C-NKL, (W.D. Mo.).

Bobbie Lane filed this class action lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 seeking to enjoin the censorship of books or other
publications mailed to inmates held in the custody of the Missouri
Department of Corrections (MODOC) without affording the sender
notice of non-delivery and the opportunity to be heard.

In November 2012, the Court granted Mr. Lane's motion to certify
the class is defined as: All current and future publishers,
distributors, and authors of written materials, who mail books,
publications, or other written materials to inmates incarcerated
in prisons operated by MODOC.

The Parties' Settlement Agreement requires the MODOC to provide
notice to the sender of censored materials, an opportunity to be
heard, and review by a prison official who did not originally
withhold the material.

Judge Laughrey found the Settlement Agreement fair, reasonable,
and adequate.  The Court also dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' claims.

A copy of the Court's October 22, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/bmgmR9from Leagle.com.

Mariann B. Atwell, Defendant, represented by Emily A. Dodge,
Missouri Attorney General's Office & Elizabeth Callahan, Missouri
Attorney General's Office.


MUTUAL PHARMA: Georgia Plaintiffs Can't Sue Over Design Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that in a case of first impression, a federal judge has
ruled that Georgia plaintiffs cannot sue over design defects in
drugs that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

U.S. District Judge David Katz of the Northern District of Ohio
ruled that federal law preempts design-defect claims under Georgia
law because it would be impossible for drugmakers both to design
new, safer drugs and to comply with federal law.  Pharmaceutical
companies cannot change their drugs without approval from the FDA.

The judge noted the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Mutual
Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, in which the justices found that a
New Hampshire claim for design defect was preempted because the
state law requiring drugmakers to make a pharmaceutical product
safer "either by altering its composition or altering its
labeling" conflicted with federal laws that don't allow
manufacturers to unilaterally change the composition of a drug.

"The court having carefully read Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.
concludes that it was impossible for defendants to comply with
both its state-law obligations to alter the drug's composition and
it's federal-law duty not to do so," Judge Katz said.

New Hampshire and Georgia both analyze design defects for whether
the danger of products outweighs their utility and alternative
designs would have made the products safer, Judge Katz added.
Defendants can't both pursue alternative designs and keep their
drugs in compliance with federal regulatory approvals, the judge
said.  He granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs' claims
for design and manufacturing defects, intentional infliction of
emotional distress and derivative claims for loss of consortium
and others.

Judge Katz is presiding over the case because the parties are
citizens of different states and because it was centralized in the
federal multidistrict litigation over birth control pill Ortho
Evra.

Raissa Booker allegedly died because of a pulmonary embolism she
developed from using the Ortho Evra birth control patch, and her
mother Donna Booker prosecuted the lawsuit.

The defendants include Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson
Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC and Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical Inc.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Lawyers Seek $50 Million in Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers who scored licensing rights for college athletes at trial
this summer want $50 million for their role in what they call
"trailblazing litigation" that ended in a "landmark victory."

The team led by Michael Hausfeld of Washington, D.C.'s Hausfeld
asked the court on Oct. 21 for $45 million in fees and $5.3
million in costs.  The plaintiffs lawyers secured injunctive
relief for athletes this August in O'Bannon v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, following a widely publicized, three-week
bench trial in the Northern District of California.

"The result is superlative: a ground-breaking permanent injunction
that finally prohibits suppression of competition for college
athletes through the sharing of revenue obtained through the use
of their names, images, and likenesses," the Hausfeld lawyers
wrote.  "Along the way, plaintiffs exposed the inequities of
college athletics, including the . . .  machinations of one of
America's oldest cartels."

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland ruled the NCAA must
allow colleges to pay athletes up to $5,000 a year in licensing
revenue from television and video game contracts.  She also
ordered the NCAA to increase men's football and basketball
scholarships by about $3,000 a year, enough to cover the full cost
of attending school.  Judge Wilken denied athletes' request to
earn endorsement money during their college careers.

NCAA lawyers, including partners from Munger Tolles & Olson and
Schiff Hardin, have appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and are scheduled to file their
opening brief in January.

The Oct. 21 motion does not include attorney time or expenses
associated with the mediation of claims against Electronic Arts
Inc. and Collegiate Licensing Co., which settled last year before
trial.  Those fees and costs will come in a future motion.

The NCAA declined to comment on the proposed fees.

Plaintiffs lawyers say the trial verdict, which they estimate
could net athletes tens of millions of dollars each season, was
not easy to come by. It took five years of "painstaking
litigation," they argue, comprised of 10 motions to dismiss, 76
depositions, discovery feuds, extensive summary-judgment filings,
and more than a year of class-certification briefing and
proceedings.  "The complexities of, and risks associated with,
this litigation defy comparison to most other contingent antitrust
matters in recent history," the Hausfeld team wrote.

They calculated their fee request based on lawyers' hourly rates
ranging from $175 for junior associates to $985 for senior
partners.  Hausfeld lawyers also supervised and coordinated with
31 other plaintiffs law firms, they wrote, deploying a "staggering
investment of resources."


NEENAH, WI: Teachers' Retirement Benefits Class Action Reinstated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Wisconsin appeals court judge
has reinstated a class-action lawsuit filed by more than 250
Neenah teachers seeking to recover more than $61 million in post-
retirement benefits.

The Second District Court of Appeals ruled on Oct. 22 that a
Winnebago County judge wrongly dismissed the lawsuit last year.
That judge had said only claims filed by people who included
itemized lists of the relief they sought would be considered.  Of
the 261 teachers named in the lawsuit, only two had filed the
required paperwork.  The lower court judge dismissed the other 259
claims.

But the appeals court says that reasoning was incorrect and
overturned the ruling.

The court did not rule on the merits of the case, which now goes
back to Winnebago County Circuit Court.

Joe Forward, in an article for State Bar of Wisconsin, reports
that a state appeals court has ruled that a "mass action" filed by
teachers against the Neenah Joint School District was not barred
by a statute that requires a notice of claim against a government
entity to be filed by the claimants.

In April 2013, six teachers filed a complaint "on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated" claiming
damages of more than $61 million based on changes to the
district's retirement plan for district employees.

Wisconsin's "class action" statute, Wis. Stat. section 803.08,
allows class actions lawsuits to be brought by representatives of
a group of similarly situated persons.  State statute does not
require all class members in a class action to be named.
But when the defendant is a government entity, such as a school
district, the claimants must also serve the defendant with a
"notice of claim" under section 893.80.

The notice of claim must identify the injury and all claimants.
Thus, class actions with unnamed claimants are not allowed against
government entities.

But in Townsend et al. v. Neenah Joint School District, 2013AP2839
(Oct. 22, 2014), a three-judge panel for the District II Court of
Appeals clarified that so-called "mass actions" of named claimants
that bring similar claims are allowed.

"Nothing in Wisconsin law bars the other type of class action
against a governmental body, a mass action of named claimants
bringing similar claims, provided that each claimants has complied
with Wis. Stat. Sec. 893.80," wrote Chief Judge Richard Brown.

The panel questioned an explanatory note in the official statutes
under section 803.08, which cites Hicks v. Milwaukee Cnty., 71
Wis. 2d 401, 238 N.W.2d 509 (1976).  It says "the class action
statute has no application to making claims against a county."
The three-judge panel explained that this note "has created
confusion" and said the "record supports that the annotation
affected the courts analysis."  The circuit court dismissed the
claims of all claimants besides the two teachers who filed the
notice.

The appeals panel clarified that the class action statute does
apply to actions against government units so long as the notice of
claim identifies all claimants by name.

"What matters is not whether the notice was labeled a 'class
action' but whether the claimants satisfied Sec. 893.80," wrote
Judge Brown, noting that Hicks dealt with unnamed claimants and a
different statute that allows counties to require that notices be
verified.

"We think what may have led to confusion is the failure to
recognize that not every 'class action' is the type in which
representatives sue on behalf of unnamed persons."
Teachers "Substantially Complied" with Notice Statute

The district argued that the notice of claim did not comply with
section 893.80, because it did not show the two teachers who filed
it had authority from the other claimants.

The appeals panel explained that a notice is sufficient if it
"substantially complies" with section 893.80, which requires the
notice to describe the injury and identify the claimants' identity
and address, along with the relief sought in an itemized
statement.

"These two notice requirements give the governmental entity a
chance to investigate potential claims, and to compromise and
budget for settlement," Judge Brown noted.

The district argued that "substantial compliance" applies when
determining if the notice of injury is adequate, but "strict
compliance" applies when determining if the notice properly
identified the claimants.  The appeals court panel disagreed.
The panel said the attached list that identified the "class"
claimants by name and address was sufficient, even though the body
of the notice only named two teachers.

In addition, the panel rejected the district's argument that the
notice of claim was deficient because it did not show it was made
by the authority of all claimants.

"No court of which were are aware has ever dismissed on
'authority' grounds the claims of claimants whose names, addresses
and claim amounts were itemized in a notice of claim," wrote Judge
Brown, noting that an attorney signed the notice.  "The class
actions dismissed by Hicks and its progeny were claims by unnamed,
unidentified claimants."


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Forced Resignation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Trujillo v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
08501-PGG (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014) is brought against
Defendants to redress an alleged pattern and practice of wrongful
and unlawful conduct, including disparate treatment,
discrimination based upon race, ethnicity and national origin,
hostile work environment, retaliation, constructive
termination/forced resignation/retirement.

Prior to his constructive termination/forced resignation, Mr.
Trujillo was a Sergeant with the New York City Police Department
and served in the NYPD for over 22 years.  He is a male Hispanic
and is of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino ethnicity/race/national origin
and of Dominican descent.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation existing by and
under the laws of the state of New York.  The City is a
governmental subdivision of the state of New York and is the
public employer of the New York City Police Department Officers.
The Individual Defendants are Police Officers.

The Defendants are The City of New York, New York City Police
Department, New York City Police Department Captain Deodat
Urprasad, New York City Police Department Deputy Inspector John
D'adamo, New York City Police Department Chief Thomas Purtell, New
York City Police Department Inspector John Danberry, New York City
Police Department Sergeant John Rajan, New York City Police
Department Lieutenant Ariola, New York City Police Department
Captain Nicole Papa Michael, New York City Police Department
Deputy Chief McNamara, New York City Police Department Sergeant
George Ebrahim, New York City Police Department Inspector Paul
Piekarski, New York City Police Department Captain Thomas Traynor,
New York City Police Department Lieutenant Frank Basendello, New
York City Police Department Lieutenant Jesus Romero, New York City
Police Department Sergeant Benevolent Association's Manhattan
North Delegate Sergeant Cliff Thieleke and "John Does" and "Jane
Does", names being fictitious intended to be
officers/representatives/agents/servants of the New York City
Police Department, individually and in their official capacities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          JoAnn Squillace, Esq.
          DRUMMOND & CRAWFORD, P.C.,
          221-10 Jamaica Avenue, Suite 106-108
          Queens Village, NY 11428
          Telephone: (516) 599-8585
          Facsimile: (516) 599-0144
          E-mail: jsquillace.drummondcrawford@verizon.net


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over ATK Merger
----------------------------------------------------
Orbital Sciences Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that putative
class action and derivative lawsuits challenging the proposed
merger transaction with Alliant Techsystems Inc. ("ATK") have been
filed on behalf of Orbital stockholders in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware.  On May 9, 2014, a purported class
action was filed by Gregory Ericksen; on May 16, 2014, a purported
class action was filed by Daniel Walsh; on May 22, 2014, a
purported class action was filed by Betty Greenberg; and on May
23, 2014, a purported class action was filed by Michael Blank.  On
September 16, 2014, Ms. Greenberg voluntarily dismissed her
claims.

The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits allege, among other
things, that the directors of Orbital breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger and that ATK aided and
abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiffs in each of
these lawsuits seek, among other relief, to enjoin the proposed
merger or to rescind it in the event it is consummated.  Orbital
believes the allegations and claims asserted in the complaints in
these actions to be without merit and intends to defend these
actions vigorously.

Orbital develops and manufactures small- and medium-class rockets
and space systems for commercial, military and civil government
customers.


PAN ASIA: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products Due to Undeclared Mustard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Pan Asia Food Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
                          Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9396

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 17, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling Ottogi curry products from the marketplace
because they contain mustard which is not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to mustard should not consume the recalled
product described.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: 500 g. Ottogi Curry (medium) with all codes
where mustard is not declared on the label.


PENFORD CORPORATION: Sued in Colo. Over Illegal Sale of Company
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Pill, Marilyn Pill, and David Pill, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Penford Corporation, a
Washington Corporation, Thomas D. Malkoski, Paul H. Hatfield, Evan
Behrens, William E. Buchholz, R. Randolph Devening, John C. Hunter
III, Sally G. Narodick, Edward F. Ryan, James E. Warjone, Matthew
M. Zell, Jeffrey T. Cook, Ingredion Incorporated, a Delaware
Corporation, and Prospect Sub, Inc., a Washington Corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02867 (D. Colo., October 21, 2014), is brought in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Penford by Ingredion,
specifically by agreeing to an unfair Merger Price that fails to
adequately value the Company and its potential growth.

Penford Corporation develops, manufactures and markets specialty
ingredient systems for a variety of food and industrial products.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Penford
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Dyer III, Esq.
      Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
      DYER & BERENS LLP
      303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 810
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 861-1764
      Facsimile: (303) 395-0393
      Email: bob@dyerberens.com
             jeff@dyerberens.com

        - and -

      Carl L. Stine, Esq.
      Roy Herrera Jr., Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 759-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
      Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
             rherrera@wolfpopper.com


PHILIPS ORAL: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Coe" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY COE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPS ORAL HEALTHCARE INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. C13-518 MJP, (W.D. Wash.) is before the Court
on the defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
seventh cause of action -- violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act.

This putative class action seeks damages and equitable relief for
purchasers of Defendant's allegedly defective Sonicare Diamond
Clean, FlexCare, FlexCare+, Healthy White, EasyClean, and Sonicare
for Kids powered toothbrushes and related replacement parts.

Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman, in an order entered
October 24, 2014, granted the defendant's motion.

"Plaintiffs survived a motion to dismiss their New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act claim by alleging futility of repair or replacement
under the warranty due to underlying defect. Plaintiffs have not
produced any evidence, however, that Coe believed replacement
under the warranty would be futile when she decided not to seek
repair or replacement. Coe's decision not to invoke the warranty,
absent evidence of futility, forecloses the showing of loss
required to bring a private claim under CFA. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs have produced no evidence of a representation by
Philips as to the life expectancy of the Toothbrushes, which is
what is allegedly affected by the defect. Plaintiffs' CFA claim
fails as a matter of law, and Defendant's motion for summary
judgment is granted," ruled Judge Pechman.

A copy of the ruling is available at from http://is.gd/wDvlF0
Leagle.com.


PRICELINE GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Resort Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Ubay, writing for Pacific Business News, reports that Maui
resident Kathleen Soule is pursuing a class action lawsuit against
Priceline Group and Marriott International seeking monetary
damages "arising from the unfair and unconscionable assessment and
collection of 'resort fees.'"

The complaint was filed by Kathleen Soule in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Hawaii in Honolulu on Oct. 10.

Resort fees are common in Hawaii and cover amenities such as
Internet access, use of a fitness center, pool usage, daily
newspaper, etc.

Although the lawsuit specifically names Marriott, the class
includes anyone who was charged a resort fee at any Hawaii hotel
after booking a stay on Priceline.com since 2010, although it can
be amended.

Class action lawsuits against Priceline have been filed on the
Mainland and failed, but this could have a different outcome
because of Hawaii's pro-consumer laws, says Brandee J.K. Faria--
bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com -- managing member at Perkin & Faria LLC
and a representative for the plaintiff.

"The use of deceptive pricing practices like resort fees harm
consumers and harm competitors, and harm Hawaii's important
tourism industry," the lawsuit said.

On Aug. 9, 2011, Ms. Soule used Priceline.com to book a
reservation at the Wailea Beach Marriott Resort & Spa for Aug. 12,
2011.  The room rate was listed at $110 per night.  Before
finalizing the transaction, Priceline quoted a total room cost of
$133.49, which included the room rate and taxes and fees of
$23.49.  The suit alleges that the mandatory resort fee was known
by Priceline but was not included.

When Ms. Soule checked out of her room, she was charged a $30
resort fee per night.

A call and email to both Priceline and Marriott were not
immediately returned.

Hotels and third-party booking sites compete for customers by
offering the lowest room rates online.  "Hotels and third-party
booking websites have a huge incentive to post base rates that are
as low as possible," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit claims hotels and booking sites "omitted resort fees
from posted room rates for certain hotels, in an effort to make
certain hotels appear less expensive than they actually were."
The suit also alleges that Priceline never adequately informed
consumers about resort fees.

"Because the 'resort fees' are mandatory, there was no reason to
omit them from the base room rate, other than to deceive
consumers," the suit said.  "If a consumer has to pay this charge
for the use of a room, it is not a separate 'fee' at all, but part
of the room rate. It should be disclosed as such."

The lawsuit also slams mandatory resort fees levied on customers
who have no intention of using any of the resort amenities the
resort fees cover.

"Defendants have devised a mechanism through the use of resort
fees whereby they advertise what appears to be a low room rate but
then secretly recoup an additional charge," the suit said.

Ms. Faria said statute of limitations in these cases is usually
four years, but if the court decides the defendants' actions were
fraudulent, the statute of limitations can be increased.

The lawsuit cites Bjorn Hanson, dean of the Tisch Center for
Hospitality, Tourism and Sports Management at New York University,
who say hotels took in approximately $1 billion in resort fees in
2012 alone.

The lawsuit also cites the Federal Trade Commission, which in
November 2012, sent a letter to 22 hotel chain operators warning
that online reservation sites may violate the law by providing low
estimates to consumers.

"Without a class action, defendants will likely retain the benefit
of their wrongdoing and may continue the course of their actions,
which could result in further damages," the lawsuit said.


QUALITY OFFICE: "Infante" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Infante, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Quality Office Solutions, Inc. and Gerardo Gonzalez,
Individually, Case No. 4:14-cv-02993 (S.D. Tex., October 21,
2014), to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Quality Office Solutions, Inc. is engaged in the business of
installing commercial furniture.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002-1637
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
              melissa@mooreandassociates.net


RALLYE MOTORS: Faces "Siancas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Siancas individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rallye Motors, LLC, Rallye Motors Holding LLC, Rallye
Leasing, Inc., Rallye Glen Cove, LLC, Rallye Northern, LLC, Rallye
Roslyn, LLC, Rallye Roslyn Holding, LLC, Rallye Westbury, LLC, and
Exclusive Detailing, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06151 (E.D.N.Y.,
October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate automobile dealerships in Long
Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven John Moser, Esq.
      STEVEN J. MOSER, PC
      3 School Street, Suite 207B
      Glen Cove, NY 11542
      Telephone: (516) 671-1150
      Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
      E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC: To Get $7.1MM From LCD Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
recorded a $7.1 million credit for payment to be received as a
result of a class-action settlement with the manufacturers of LCD
screen displays.

The Company participated in an anti-trust class-action suit as an
entity that indirectly purchased liquid-crystal displays from
certain manufacturers during the period from 1999 to 2006.

"We will be receiving net proceeds of approximately $7.1 million
pursuant to a negotiated settlement of this matter. Under the
terms of the settlement agreement, we will receive a specified
payment based on the number of LCD units purchased during this
time period, and there are no performance obligations or other
contingencies associated with our right to receive the specified
payment. The settlement proceeds that we will receive are reported
as a reduction to cost of goods sold in the consolidated
statements of earnings in the amount of $7.1 million for the
three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2014, and a
receivable in that amount is included in prepaid expenses and
other assets at September 30, 2014, in the consolidated balance
sheets," the Company said.


RJ REYNOLDS: Motions Pending for New Trial in Wilcox Tobacco Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
attorneys for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco have motions pending for a new
trial in the Wilcox tobacco suit.

Cleston Wilcox was a career U.S. Marine who signed up weeks after
the Pearl Harbor attack.  He fought in the Pacific during World
War II and later in Korea.

Mr. Wilcox married a U.S. Navy nurse in 1946.  Lorraine Wilcox and
her husband had two sons.  She is now 90 and blind.

Michael Wilcox, the elder son, is a retired Army helicopter pilot
and recipient of the Bronze Star and Distinguished Flying Cross
for his service in the Vietnam War.  Robert Wilcox is a Miami-Dade
police homicide lieutenant and representative of his father's
estate.

Mr. Wilcox retired from the Marine Corps in 1963 and moved the
family to Miami, where he worked as an aviation mechanic for
Eastern Air Lines until he retired in 1983.

Mr. Wilcox began smoking at 8 in 1932.  He smoked Camels for about
40 years before switching in the 1970s to Salem menthols.
Mr. Wilcox was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1993 and died in
1994.  His wife was the only survivor with a claim because the
sons were adults when he died.

Plaintiffs case: The jury was told Mr. Wilcox made every effort to
quit smoking after he suffered a heart attack in 1973.  He
switched to Salem based on R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
representations that a filtered cigarette was safer than
filterless Camels.  He later switched to Salem Light, also for
health reasons, James Gustafson Jr. of Searcy Denney Scarola
Barnhart & Shipley, said.

"He used everything.  He tried Aquafilter, cold turkey, cutting
back, smoking half the cigarette.  He tried nicotine gum and
nicotine patches right when they came out.  He went to hypnosis.
He was unable to quit," Mr. Gustafson said.

Michael Herkov, a psychiatrist from Jacksonville, and Dr. Juan
Barrio, Wilcox's pulmonologist in Miami, testified Wilcox was
addicted to cigarettes, Gustafson said.  Dr. Barrio also testified
about the causal link between smoking and cancer and that the lung
was the primary source of the cancer.

Defense case: Attorneys for Reynolds did not respond to a request
for comment by deadline.

Mr. Gustafson said Jack Abramson, an Aventura psychiatrist,
testified Wilcox was not addicted to nicotine.  Dr. Thomas
Bennett, a pathologist from Billings, Mont., said Mr. Wilcox's
cancer did not originate in his lung but could not say where it
originated.

A pulmonologist from Los Angeles, Dr. Lawrence Brooks, also
claimed the cancer was not primary lung cancer, Gustafson said.

Outcome: The jury decided Mr. Wilcox was addicted to cigarettes
and his addiction was the legal cause of his lung cancer and
death.  It found Mr. Wilcox 30 percent at fault and Reynolds 70
percent at fault.

The jury also found Mr. Wilcox relied to his detriment on
Reynolds' concealed or omitted material facts about the health
dangers posed by cigarettes and relied to his detriment on
statements by Reynolds and other tobacco companies about the
hazards of cigarettes.

Lorraine Wilcox was awarded $7 million in compensatory damages and
$8.5 million in punitive damages.

Because of the fault assigned to Ms. Wilcox, her award was reduced
to $13.5 million when the trial judge entered final judgment on
Sept. 23.

Comments: "R.J. Reynolds always says nobody heard what they said,
or paid any attention or relied on what they said.  The evidence
in this case was that he switched to filters and then to filtered
lights in reliance of what Reynolds said," Mr. Gustafson said.

Post-settlement: Attorneys for Reynolds have motions pending for a
new trial, and Wilcox is seeking attorney fees, Mr. Gustafson
said.

Case: Robert A. Wilcox v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Case no: 2010-45462-CA
Description: Product liability
Filing Date: Aug. 20, 2010
Trial dates: Aug. 4-28, 2014
Judge: Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Norma Lindsey
Plaintiff attorneys: F. Gregory Barnhart -- FGB@searcylaw.com --
West Palm Beach, and James Gustafson Jr. -- JWG@searcylaw.com --
Tallahassee, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley; David J.
Sales, David J. Sales P.A., Jupiter Defense attorney: Frank T.
Bayuk Jr., Atlanta, and Ursula Henninger, Charlotte, N.C., King &
Spalding, Ga. Verdict amount: $13.4 million


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: LA Unified School District Workers File Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Los Angeles Unified School District workers have filed
a federal class-action lawsuit against the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) Local 99 for violating their rights.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation-
provided staff attorneys, Los Angeles school district building and
grounds keeper Douglas Kennedy; bus drivers Eduardo Berumen and
Griselda Moran; and cafeteria worker Magi Shanagian filed the
lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

In the complaint, the school employees detail how SEIU Local 99
union officials denied their several requests, in one case dating
back to October 12, 2012, to refrain from full dues paying union
membership.

Because California does not have Right to Work protections for
workers, workers can be forced to pay union dues and fees to an
unwanted union as a condition of employment.  However, under
Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent, workers who refrain
from union membership can also refrain from paying for union
politics and members-only events.

Despite the workers' requests to refrain from union membership and
full union dues payments, the Los Angeles Unified School District
continues to confiscate full union dues from the workers'
paychecks at SEIU Local 99 officials' behest.  The workers are
also challenging SEIU Local 99's agreement provision with the
school district that illegally restricts workers' ability to
resign union membership and dues payments to a period of 30 days
over the life of an agreement, which is often for a period of
three years.

"SEIU officials are stonewalling workers' attempts to refrain from
paying for the union bosses' radical political agenda," said
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation.
"This case underscores the need for California to pass a Right to
Work law making union membership and dues payments strictly
voluntary."


SMUCKER NATURAL: Falsely Marketed Root Beer Products, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Silva, individually on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Smucker Natural Foods, Inc. and J.M.
Smucker Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-06154 (E.D.N.Y., October 21, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants' made false and misleading statements
in their Natural Brew Draft Root Beer product label, in order to
exploit the preference of health-conscious consumers for beverages
devoid of artificial ingredients.

The Defendants own and operate an international food company that
owns ubiquitous food brands such as Jif and Crisco.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
      Po Box 581
      Hopewell Junction, NY 12533
      Telephone: (845) 705-9460
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
              liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Peck v. Swift Transportation
Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al., Case No. RIC 1409181, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-08274 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hilary Ann Habib, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: hhabib@sheppardmullin.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Removes "Peck" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Lawrence J. Peck v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al., Case No. RIC 1409181,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Riverside).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-02206-JGB-KK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James S. Cahill, Esq.
          Neal J. Fialkow, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NEAL FIALKOW INC.
          215 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 584-6060
          Facsimile: (626) 584-2950
          E-mail: jscahilllaw@aol.com
                  nfialkow@pacbell.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          379 Lytton Avenue
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 815-2600
          Facsimile: (650) 815-2601
          E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Mussig, Jr., Esq.
          Hilary Ann Habib, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: rmussig@sheppardmullin.com
                  hhabib@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail: rholland@sheppardmullin.com


TAKEDA PHARMA: Discovery of E-mails Whitewash, Plaintiffs Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that plaintiffs lawyers fighting Takeda Pharmaceuticals
U.S.A. over the drugmaker's spoliation of evidence have denounced
as a "whitewash" its recent claim that it is on track to restore
the evidence.

Takeda and five related corporations reported that they have
recovered 61,000 emails and attachments after a Louisiana federal
judge found them liable for spoliation of evidence in litigation
over diabetes drug Actos.

The plaintiffs steering committee has moved to strike Takeda's
report because, it said, "Takeda's destruction of evidence did not
come to light through disclosure, but instead through exposure by
the persistence of the plaintiffs steering committee."

The document should not be part of the case in which plaintiffs
won a $9 billion verdict against Takeda and Eli Lilly and Co.,
which co-promoted diabetes drug Actos, the committee said.  The
plaintiffs said the defendants failed to warn of the increased
risk of developing bladder cancer from using Actos.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty of the Western District of
Louisiana ruled that Takeda intentionally deleted evidence
relevant to the first Actos bellwether case in federal court and
instructed the jury that Takeda had been obliged to retain
documents about Actos since 2002.  The jury was free to infer the
plaintiffs would have been helped by now-deleted computer data
involving 46 employees intimately involved in the drug's
production, the judge said.

After ruling that Takeda intentionally deleted evidence, Judge
Doherty added that the drugmaker had acted in bad faith and
willfully abused the judicial process in destroying evidence
indicating it knew about the potential health risks of Actos.
Judge Doherty ruled that Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., the
Japanese parent of companies based in the United States and
Europe, acted in bad faith in its destruction of documents and
violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

Takeda said in an amendment to its report that it would respond to
the plaintiffs' motion separately.  The drugmaker also it has
determined that searches conducted for emails have sometimes
returned emails "actually associated with other individuals who
had similar names and email addresses."  As a result, Takeda said,
it has removed those documents from its production.


TAKEDA PHARMA: Judge Cuts Actos Punitive Damages Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has reduced a $9 billion punitive damages
verdict against the manufacturers of Type 2 diabetes drug Actos to
less than $37 million.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty of the Western District of
Louisiana on Oct. 27 denied a motion by the defendants for new
trial in the first federal bellwether test of claims that taking
Actos increased the risk of getting bladder cancer.  She also
concluded that the punitive damages award was not "unreasonable
given the evidence presented of a high degree of reprehensibility
of the defendants' conduct and the need to adequately deter such
conduct in the future."

However, she reduced the award after finding that the ratio of
punitive compared to compensatory damages was unconstitutionally
excessive.  She issued an amended final judgment reducing punitive
damages to $27.6 million against Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
and $9.2 million against Eli Lilly and Co.

Judge Doherty had previously reduced an award of $1.475 million in
compensatory damages to $1.27 million. She had denied a motion by
Takeda and Eli Lilly and Co. to reject the verdict as a matter of
law.

"We view the substantially reduced damage award as a step in the
right direction, but we believe a damage award of any amount is
not justified based on the evidence presented in this trial and we
will appeal," Takeda general counsel Kenneth Greisman said.  The
company originally faced paying $6 billion of the punitive damages
award.

"While we have empathy for the plaintiff, we believe the evidence
did not support his claims," said Mike Harrington, senior vice
president and general counsel for Eli Lilly.  "We will continue
working vigorously to overturn the verdict."

Plaintiffs attorney W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm in
Houston did not respond to a request for comment.


TARANTINO PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Mathis" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dora Mathis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tarantino Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation,
d/b/a Lake Forest Park, Case No. 2:14-cv-14418 (S.D. Fla., October
22, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week.

Tarantino Properties, Inc. own and operate a senior living
facility known as Lake Forest Park in St. Lucie County, located at
2909 S 25th St, Ft. Pierce, FL 34981.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Charles Copeland, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND P.A.
      824 W. Indiantown Rd
      Jupiter, FL 33458
      Telephone: (561) 691-9048
      Facsimile: (866) 259-0719
      E-mail: ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Two Plaintiffs Added in "Dunn" FLSA Case
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in
KATHLEEN DUNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE & ANNUITY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, NO. C-13-5456 EMC,
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs have sought to amend the complaint to add plaintiffs
Fred Hickson and Karen Hobson, to expand a Fair Labor Standards
Act collective action from a California class to a nationwide
class and to add a New York class under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion as to the addition of
Plaintiffs Hickson and Hobson and the expansion of the FLSA
collective action to a nationwide class, but denied as to the
addition of a Rule 23 New York Class.

A copy of Judge Chen's October 24, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/oyFHAnfrom Leagle.com.

Pride Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Fraser Angus
McAlpine -- fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.
& Mia N Tucker -- Mia.Tucker@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C.


TEMPUR SEALY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Moved to Feb. 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on October 20, 2014, a
stipulation and order modifying the June 4, 2014 Scheduling Order
in ALVIN TODD and MELODY TODD, et al., Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR SEALY
INTERNATIONAL, INC., formerly known as TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL,
INC. and TEMPUR-PEDIC NORTH AMERICA, LLC Defendants, CASE NO.
3:13-CV-04984-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

The Parties stipulate and agree to these modified deadlines:

                                        Current         Proposed
  Event                                 Deadline        Deadline
  -----                                 --------        --------
Deadline for Plaintiffs to identify     None           1/16/2015
expert witnesses and provide proposed
deposition dates

Deadline to file motion for class       1/15/2015      2/16/2015
certification

Deadline for Defendants to identify     None           3/10/2015
expert witnesses and provide
proposed deposition dates

Depositions of Plaintiffs' expert       1/30/2015-    2/18/2015-
witnesses re: class certification       3/3/2015      3/20/2015

Deadline to file opposition to motion   3/25/2015      4/6/2015
for class certification

Depositions of Defendants' expert       4/9/2015-     4/15/2015-
witnesses re: class certification       5/9/2015       5/9/2015

Deadline to file reply in support of    6/13/2015     No change
motion for class certification

Class certification hearing              7/2/2015     No change


A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/doUbMpfrom Leagle.com.

Douglas B. Brown -- dbrown@rumberger.com -- Daniel J. Gerber --
dgerber@rumberger.com -- RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A.,
Orlando, FL, Attorneys for Defendants Tempur Sealy International,
Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., and
Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC.


TRUASSETS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charity Glick v. TruAssets, LLC, an Ohio company; Steve Johnson
and Jane Doe Johnson, husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-02370-NVW
(D. Ariz., October 24, 2014) alleges that the Defendants had a
consistent policy and practice of requiring its employees to work
well in excess of 40 hours per week without paying them time and a
half for hours worked over 40 hours per week.

TruAssets, LLC, was incorporated in Ohio and does business in
Arizona through its principal place of business in Scottsdale,
Arizona.  Steve Johnson is the owner of TruAssets.  Jane Doe
Johnson is Steve Johnson's wife.

The Defendants are a "property preservation company that offers
property preservation services for pre foreclosure, REO and vacant
properties."  The Defendants' services include "initial secures,
trash-outs, sales cleans, lawn maintenance/landscaping."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


TRUSCAPES INDUSTRIES: Failure to Pay OT Hours, "Raymer" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Raymer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Truscapes Industries, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation and Truscapes SW FLA Inc., A Florida Profit
Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-02662 (M.D. Fla., October 21, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours over 40 per week.

The Defendants offer commercial and residential landscaping and
property maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


UNITED STATES: Motion to File Counterclaims v. Border Agents Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Beck, writing for Legal Times, reports that a federal judge
in Washington has blocked the government's effort to bring claims
against U.S. Border Patrol agents in an overtime pay dispute.

U.S. Federal Claims Judge Nancy Firestone dismissed the
government's motion to file counterclaims against the border
agents as "unfairly prejudicial."

The government sought to bring counterclaims against border patrol
agents over so-called administratively uncontrollable overtime
(AUO), which allows agents to collect overtime pay without
supervisor approval.  The feds wanted to recover AUO payments that
the government argued had exceeded the rates allowed by the
controlling federal regulation.

"The [government] filing is particularly offensive because the
government is only pursuing the agents named in this suit . . .
not the thousands of border patrol employees that have received
the AUO benefits," Raymond Fay, an attorney for the agents, said
in an interview.  "It's clearly retaliatory."

The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately return requests
for comment.

In March 2012, more than 200 supervisory U.S. Customs and Border
Protection instructors sued the government for failure to pay Fair
Labor Standards Act overtime.  The agents didn't challenge
administratively uncontrollable overtime -- base pay plus 25
percent -- in their suit.

"Allowing the government to amend its answer and inject these
claims into the litigation would fundamentally alter the nature of
the case at this late date," Judge Firestone wrote in her ruling.

The government first filed a counterclaim in May, asserting most
plaintiffs owed the government between $15,000 and $25,000 for AUO
overtime payouts, according to court papers.  Judge Firestone
threw out that claim in July.

In the effort to refile the claims, the government said in its
papers that "the issues raised by the proposed counterclaims will
have to be resolved by the court regardless of whether
counterclaims are asserted."

Judge Firestone has set a hearing for Nov. 18 to hear arguments
over summary judgment.


UNITED STATES: Aponte Case Plaintiffs May Amend Notice of Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victor J. Wolski of the United States Court of Federal
Claims granted a motion to amend the notice of appeal filed in
JORGE A. DELPIN APONTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, NO. 05-1043C.

The plaintiffs filed on September 22, 2014, a motion to amend
their notice of appeal filed the previous day, ostensibly to add
an additional party to the list of appellants.  The government has
not filed any opposition to the motion.

A copy of the Court's October 23, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/BoT0tVfrom Leagle.com.

USA, Defendant, represented by Paul Davis Oliver, United States
Department of Justice - Civil Division.


US BANCORP: Court Upholds Denial of Discovery Bid
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge John R. Tunheim overruled plaintiff's objections
and affirmed a magistrate judge's order dated February 10, 2014,
in IRON WORKERS MID-SOUTH PENSION FUND, Derivatively on Behalf of
U.S. Bancorp, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD K. DAVIS, ANDREW CECERE,
PATRICK T. STOKES, O'DELL M. OWENS, JERRY W. LEVIN, VICTORIA
BUYNISKI GLUCKMAN, DAVID B. O'MALEY, ARTHUR D. COLLINS, JR., JOEL
W. JOHNSON, CRAIG D. SCHNUCK, OLIVIA F. KIRTLEY, DOUGLAS M. BAKER,
JR., Y. MARC BELTON, RICHARD D. REITEN, TERRANCE R. DOLAN, RICHARD
J. HIDY, DIANE L. THORMODSGARD, BRYAN R. CALDER, Defendants, and
U.S. BANCORP, a Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, CIVIL NO.
13-289 (JRT/HB), (D. Minn.).

The Plaintiff brought a complaint alleging that Defendants -- who
are current and former officers and directors of U.S. Bancorp (US
Bank) -- breached their fiduciary duty by failing to properly
oversee the performance of US Bank's largest subsidiary, U.S. Bank
National Association (US Bank NA) as trustee of several trusts
that invested in mortgage-backed securities. The Court previously
dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's claim based on failure of
oversight, finding that Plaintiff's allegations were "insufficient
to plausibly state a claim that Defendants consciously disregard
their oversight duties."  The Court allowed Plaintiff 45 days in
which "to file an amended complaint addressing the noted
shortcomings in its breach of fiduciary duty claim."

The Plaintiff then brought a motion to conduct limited discovery
for the purpose of obtaining documents from US Bank that would
allow it to fully and fairly plead its failure of oversight claim.
The Plaintiff also sought an extension of the deadline in which to
file its amended complaint. United States Magistrate Judge Jeanne
J. Graham, on February 10, 2014, denied Plaintiff's motion to
conduct limited discovery and allowed a short extension of the
time for filing the amended complaint. The Plaintiff objected to
the Magistrate Judge's order.

"Because the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that
discovery is not warranted is neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law under these circumstances, the Court will overrule
Plaintiff's objections," wrote Judge Tunheim in his memorandum
opinion and order dated October 14, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/e24Ob3from Leagle.com.

Sarah H. Daggett -- sdaggett@gaskinsbennett.com -- and Steve W.
Gaskins -- sgaskins@gaskinsbennett.com -- GASKINS, BENNETT,
BIRRELL, SCHUPP, LLP, Minneapolis, MN for nominal defendant.


US PARKING: Faces "Amorin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Edmundo Vasquez Amorin and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. U.S. Parking, Inc. and Joseph Padovano,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23906 (S.D. Fla., October 21, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages.

U.S. Parking, Inc. is a premier parking attendant service provider
based out of Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Obagi Class Action in Delaware Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered the dismissal of the
Obagi shareholder class action with prejudice as to the named
plaintiffs, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

Prior to the acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of
Obagi, the following complaints were filed: (i) a complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, dated March 22, 2013,
and amended on April 1, 2013 and on April 8, 2013, captioned
Michael Rubin v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.; (ii) a
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, dated March 22, 2013, and amended on March 27,
2013, captioned Gary Haas v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.;
and (iii) a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 27, 2013, captioned
Drew Leonard v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.

Each complaint is a purported shareholder class action and names
as defendants Obagi and the members of the Obagi Board of
Directors. The two complaints filed in California also name
Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. (the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Obagi
acquisition) as defendants. The plaintiffs' allegations in each
action are substantially similar. The plaintiffs allege that the
members of the Obagi Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Obagi's stockholders in connection with the sale of the
company, and the California complaints further allege that Obagi,
Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

In support of their purported claims, the plaintiffs allege that
the proposed transaction undervalued Obagi, involved an inadequate
sales process and included preclusive deal protection devices. The
plaintiffs in the Rubin case in Delaware and in the Haas case in
California also filed amended complaints, which added allegations
challenging the adequacy of the disclosures concerning the
transaction. The plaintiffs sought damages and to enjoin the
transaction, and also sought attorneys' and expert fees and costs.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into an MOU with the
plaintiffs in the actions pending in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of
California, pursuant to which Obagi and such parties agreed in
principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle those
stockholder lawsuits. The parties executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release on January 31,
2014, which set forth the terms for the settlement and dismissal
of the lawsuits and provided, among other things, that Obagi and
the other defendants would not oppose plaintiffs' request for a
fee award (subject to a capped amount). That settlement and fee
award were subject to court approval.

On February 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware issued an Order for Notice and Scheduling of Hearing on
Settlement, preliminarily certifying the Rubin case as a non-opt
out class action for settlement purposes, directing notice of the
proposed settlement to members of the class, and setting a hearing
to consider final approval of the settlement for April 30, 2014.

At the settlement hearing on April 30, 2014, the Delaware Court of
Chancery declined to approve the settlement or award plaintiff any
attorneys' fees.

On May 1, 2014, Obagi filed its Answer to Plaintiff's Verified
Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. After receiving notice that the parties had
reached an agreement to settle the litigation, the Superior Court
of the State of California scheduled a "Hearing on Order to Show
Cause Re Dismissal" and continued the hearing several times
pending completion of definitive documentation and approval
proceedings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
Following the decision of the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware declining to approve the settlement, that "OSC re:
Dismissal" hearing in the Superior Court of the State of
California has been continued to December 24, 2014 pending the
parties' discussions regarding further proceedings.

On October 3, 2014, plaintiffs in the action pending in Delaware
filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice.  The Delaware Court of
Chancery entered the dismissal of the action with prejudice as to
the named plaintiffs on October 8, 2014.

On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the California actions sought
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of each of those actions
without notice to the proposed class.  The court in the California
actions has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Solta Class Action Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement hearing was held on September 29, 2014, in the Solta
Medical Shareholder Class Actions and the settlement was approved
by the Court, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

Prior to the Company's completion of the acquisition of Solta
Medical, several purported holders of then public shares of Solta
Medical filed putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court
of Chancery and the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda, against Solta Medical and the members of its
board of directors, as well as the Company, Valeant, and Sapphire
Subsidiary Corp. (the wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant formed in
connection with the Solta Medical acquisition). The Delaware
actions were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re
Solta Medical, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9170-CS
(Del. Ch.). The California actions were filed under the captions
Lathrop v. Covert, et al., Case No. HG13-707363 (Cal. Super.);
Walter, et al. v. Solta Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. RG13-
707659 (Cal. Super.); and Bushansky v. Solta Medical, Inc., et
al., Case No. RG13-707997 (Cal. Super.). The plaintiffs'
allegations in each action were substantially similar. The actions
all alleged, among other things, that the directors of Solta
Medical breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of
Solta Medical in connection with the Company's proposed
acquisition of Solta Medical. In support of their purported
claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the proposed transaction did
not appropriately value Solta Medical, was the result of an
inadequate process and included preclusive deal protection
devices. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Schedule 14D-9 filed
by Solta Medical on December 23, 2013, in connection with the
proposed transaction contained material omissions and
misstatements.  The complaints claimed that Solta Medical, the
Company, Valeant, and Sapphire Subsidiary Corp. aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions sought,
among other things, injunctive and other equitable relief, and
money damages. The plaintiffs also sought attorneys' and expert
fees and costs.

While the defendants believed that each of the aforementioned
lawsuits were without merit and that they had valid defenses to
all claims, in an effort to minimize the cost and expense of any
litigation relating to the lawsuits, on January 11, 2014,
following arms-length negotiations, Solta Medical and the other
named defendants signed an MOU to settle the actions and resolve
all claims asserted by the purported stockholder classes. The
settlement, which is subject to court approval and further
definitive documentation, provides for a release and settlement by
Solta Medical's stockholders of all claims against Solta Medical
and the other defendants and their respective affiliates and
agents in connection with the Company's acquisition of Solta
Medical.

In connection with the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs intend
to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, which amount is
subject to approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On July 10, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release and the Court
entered a scheduling order on July 14, 2014. Pursuant to the
scheduling order, a settlement hearing was held on September 29,
2014 and the settlement was approved by the Court.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Responses Due Nov. 24 in Solodyn Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
An initial status conference was held on September 29, 2014, in
the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions and any responsive
pleadings are due on November 24, 2014, Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On July 22, 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, filed a civil
antitrust class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:13-CV-
04235-JCJ, against Medicis, the Company and various manufacturers
of generic forms of Solodyn(R), alleging that the defendants
engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from
the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets,
a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis
under the brand name, Solodyn(R).  The plaintiff further alleges
that the defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly restrain
trade, and maintain, extend and abuse Medicis' alleged monopoly
power in the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release
tablets to the detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of
end-payor purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay
overcharges.  Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state
antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleges that
defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and,
where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages,
including attorneys' fees.

Additional class action complaints making similar allegations
against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company have
been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs
purporting to represent certain classes of similarly-situated
direct or end-payor purchasers of Solodyn(R) (Rochester Drug Co-
Operative, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-04270-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed July
23, 2013); Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4642-
JCJ (E.D.Pa. filed Aug. 9, 2013); Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4659-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed
Aug. 8, 2013); Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge
31, Insurance Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-5021-JCJ (E.D. Pa.
filed Aug. 27, 2013); Heather Morgan, Case No. 2:13-CV-05097 (E.D.
Pa. filed Aug. 29, 2013); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 176 Health
& Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-05105 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug.
30, 2013); Ahold USA, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-12225 (D. Mass. filed
Sept. 9, 2013); City of Providence, Rhode Island, Case No. 2:13-
cv-01952 (D. Ariz. filed Sept. 24, 2013); International Union of
Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund, Case No. 1:13-cv-12435 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 2, 2013);
Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-12517 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 7, 2013); Man-U
Service Contract Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-06266-JCJ (E.D. Pa.
filed Oct. 25, 2013)).

On August 29, 2013, International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund voluntarily dismissed the class
action complaint it had originally filed on August 1, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed its class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:13-cv-05108). The
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund complaint makes similar allegations against all
defendants, including Medicis and the Company, and seeks similar
relief, to the other end-payor plaintiff complaints.

On October 11, 2013, Medicis and the Company filed a motion with
the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking
an order transferring and consolidating the thirteen putative
class action cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  On
February 25, 2014, the JPML ordered that the cases pending outside
the District of Massachusetts be transferred to the District of
Massachusetts, with the consent of that court, for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions already pending
in that district.  The Multi-District Litigation ("MDL"),
captioned In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC, is now pending before U.S.
District Judge Denise Casper.  Two additional end-payor actions
have been filed in the District of Massachusetts since the
February 25th centralization order:  Allied Services Division
Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-10786 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 14,
2014); and NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-11015
(D. Mass. filed Mar. 19, 2014).  These cases have been included in
the pending MDL.

On September 12, 2014, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the
End-Payor Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint; however, on September 19, 2014, both the Direct
Purchasers Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs notified Medicis
and the Company of errors in their respective complaints. With
Defendants' consent, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a
corrected amended complaint on September 22, 2014. The Defendants
did not consent to the End-Payor Plaintiffs' filing of a corrected
complaint, and the End-Payor Plaintiffs have yet to move for leave
to file a further amended complaint.

An initial status conference was held on September 29, 2014. Under
the current schedule, any responsive pleadings are due on November
24, 2014.  The Company is in the process of evaluating the claims
and plan to vigorously defend these actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against Afexa Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the Company denies the allegations being made and is
vigorously defending the Afexa Class Action.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that
Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-
FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product
during the applicable period and that the proposed class has
suffered damages as a result. The Company filed its certification
materials on February 6, 2013 and a hearing on certification was
held on September 3 to 6, 2013.  An additional hearing day was
scheduled for January 16, 2014.

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of
civil claim which seeks to re-characterize the representation
claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed.  As a
result, the hearing date scheduled for January 16, 2014 was
cancelled and, at the request of the Court, the parties made
submissions to address the impact of the amendments. The Court
rendered a decision on March 27, 2014 denying costs orders for
both parties and directing the parties to obtain a revised
certification hearing schedule for the continuation of the
certification hearing at an agreeable time. The Company denies the
allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: MoistureLoc(TM) Appeal Fully Briefed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the MoistureLoc(TM) Product Liability Lawsuits
have perfected their appeal, the matter has been fully briefed by
the parties and is awaiting argument before the New York Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, First Department, Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Currently, Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated has been served or
is aware that it has been named as a defendant in approximately
322 currently active product liability lawsuits (some with
multiple plaintiffs) pending in a New York State Consolidated
Proceeding as well as certain other U.S. state courts on behalf of
individuals who claim they suffered personal injury as a result of
using a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM). Two
consolidated cases were established to handle MoistureLoc(TM)
claims. First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated proceeding in the
Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Second,
on January 2, 2007, the New York State Litigation Coordinating
Panel ordered the consolidation of cases filed in New York State,
and assigned the coordination responsibilities to the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County. There are
approximately 320 currently active non-fusarium cases pending in
the New York Consolidated Proceeding.

On July 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the
New York Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L's motion to exclude
plaintiffs' general causation testimony with regard to non-
fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from
testifying that MoistureLoc(TM) caused non-fusarium infections. On
September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division, First
Department, affirmed the Trial Court's ruling.

On February 7, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied
plaintiffs' additional appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
motion to renew the trial court's ruling, and B&L cross-filed a
motion for summary judgment to dismiss all remaining claims. On
May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to renew,
and granted B&L's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all
remaining non-fusarium claims.

On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial
Court's ruling.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Application for an
Enlargement of Time in which to perfect the within appeal to the
September term.

A decision was granted on May 13, 2014, pursuant to which the
Court granted the requested extension to perfect the within appeal
to the October term. The plaintiffs have perfected the appeal, the
matter has been fully briefed by the parties and is awaiting
argument before the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
First Department.

All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in
the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have
been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury
and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers
who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact
lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM).

Currently B&L has settled approximately 629 cases in connection
with MoistureLoc(TM) product liability suits. All but one U.S.
based fusarium claims have now been resolved and there are less
than five active fusarium claims involving claimants outside of
the United States that remain pending. The parties in these active
matters are involved in settlement discussions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Allergan Seeks Preliminary Injunction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan filed its motion for preliminary injunction in the
Allergan Securities Litigation, Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On August 1, 2014, Allergan commenced the federal securities
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company, Valeant, Valeant's subsidiary AGMS
Inc. ("AGMS"), Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1
and William A. Ackman (Allergan, Inc. et al. v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-01214-
DOC). The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 13(d), 14(a),
14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC
under those Sections. The complaint seeks, among other relief, a
declaration that the defendants violated Rule 14e-3 and Sections
13(d), 14(a) and 14(e); an order requiring rescission of the
defendants' purchases of Allergan securities; an order requiring
the defendants to file corrective disclosures; preliminary and/or
permanent injunctive relief as may be necessary to prevent the
defendants from enjoying any rights or benefits from Allergan
securities that were acquired unlawfully and to prevent
irreparable injury to Allergan or its stockholders arising out of
unlawful solicitations; damages under Section 20A of the Exchange
Act; and costs and attorneys' fees.

On August 4, 2014, Allergan filed an application for an expedited
schedule, which was denied on August 21, 2014. On August 19, 2014,
the Company, Valeant and AGMS filed an Answer to Complaint and
Affirmative Defenses. The remaining defendants filed a separate
answer on August 19, 2014. Also on August 19, 2014, the Company,
Valeant, AGMS, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman filed Counterclaims
against Allergan and the members of the Allergan Board of
Directors. The Counterclaims allege violations of Sections 14(a),
14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC
under those Sections, and seek, among other relief, an injunction
requiring Allergan to issue corrective disclosures; an order
enjoining further violations of Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rules 14a-9 and 14a-3, and costs and
attorneys' fees.

On September 2, 2014, the counterclaim-defendants filed an Answer
to the Counterclaims. On September 12, 2014, the Court entered the
parties' stipulation, setting a hearing date of October 28, 2014
for Allergan's intended motion for a preliminary injunction.

On October 6, 2014, Allergan filed its motion for preliminary
injunction, seeking to enjoin defendants and their officers,
agents, representatives, employees, assigns, and/or anyone acting
on their behalf or in concert with them from (1) exercising any of
the rights or benefits attendant to any shares acquired by PS Fund
1, including voting or acting in the December 18, 2014 special
meeting of Allergan stockholders; and (2) voting any proxies
solicited by defendants on the basis of their September 24, 2014
proxy solicitation and the July 22, 2014 Form S-4 and from
soliciting any further proxies until corrective disclosures are
made. The motion also requests that defendants be ordered to make
corrective disclosures to their September 24, 2014 proxy
solicitation and the July 22, 2014 Form S-4, including disclosure
of the facts that give rise to their alleged potential liability
under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14e-3
promulgated thereunder.


VALOR HOMES: Faces "Sanders" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santigo Sanders, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Anthony Alaimo, Anthony Alaimo, Inc., Valor Homes 521
LLC, and Valor Plumbing LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00163 (N.D. Ga.,
October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours over 40 per week.

The Defendants provide affordable home loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Jefferson Kerr, Esq.
      MAYS & KERR, LLC
      Suite 202, North Tower
      235 Peachtree Street N.E.
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 410-7998
      Facsimile: (877) 813-1845
      E-mail: jeff@maysandkerr.com


VARIABLE ANNUITY: Class Certification Hearing Set for January
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.


VENTAS INC: Faces 13 Putative Class Actions Over HCT Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ventas Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that in the weeks following the
announcement of the Company's pending acquisition of American
Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("HCT") on June 2, 2014, a
total of 13 putative class actions were filed by purported HCT
stockholders challenging the transaction. Certain of the actions
also purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of HCT.

"Among other things, the lawsuits allege that the directors of HCT
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the transaction and
that Ventas, Inc. and our subsidiaries, Stripe Sub, LLC and Stripe
OP, LP, aided and abetted this purported breach of fiduciary duty.
The complaints seek injunctive relief and damages," the Company
said.

"Ten of these actions were filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland and consolidated under the caption In re:
American Realty Capital, Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder &
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534, two actions were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New
York, and one action was filed in the United States District Court
of Maryland.

"We believe that each of these actions is without merit."

Ventas, Inc., an S&P 500 company, is a real estate investment
trust ("REIT") with a highly diversified portfolio of seniors
housing and healthcare properties located throughout the United
States, Canada and the United Kingdom.


VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves $15MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, report that a
California judge on Oct. 20 approved a $15 million settlement that
would resolve a class action accusing Verizon California Inc. of
issuing inaccurate wage statements that excluded crucial
information that made it impossible for employees to determine
whether they had been paid properly.

Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff approved plaintiffs' Oct. 10 motion for
an order to preliminarily approve the settlement and continue to
certify the proposed settlement class, which consists of employees
paid biweekly in California who received itemized income
statements from Verizon between Apr. 1, 2009, and May 2011.

The class action, filed by former Verizon field technician Hector
Banda in April 2010, alleged the company violated the California
Labor Code and the code's Private Attorney General Act by not
listing the pay period beginning date, applicable hourly rates and
number of hours worked at each rate on the wage statements it
issued to employees.  Scott Cerkoney filed a similar complaint
against Verizon three months later and the cases were consolidated
in 2011.

Verizon allegedly issued approximately 223,000 wage statements to
its roughly 6,800 employees during the class period.

"Although the class may be entitled to recover penalties under
[the California Labor Code] in the amount of approximately $100
per wage statement, recovery here is a zero-sum game in that any
recovery requires continued class certification, and proof at
trial . . .  that violations occurred, were intentional and that
the class suffered injuries as a result of receiving pay stubs
with no pay period beginning date and no applicable hourly rate,"
said an Oct. 10 memorandum supporting the motion.  "Thus, success
at trial is not a foregone conclusion."

In August 2013, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Abraham
Khan ruled that issues of material fact existed as to whether he
may award less than the maximum penalty "under the circumstances
where employees have been able to calculate any missing portions
of the wage statements, by doing simple math and viewing a
calendar, and did not complain about that to the employer,"
according to his two-page ruling.

In April, Verizon urged Judge Beckloff to toss the class action,
arguing Banda had signed the release to all claims against the
company to receive $28,000 of a $6 million settlement of a case
brought by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.  Verizon
said the plaintiff thus wasn't an "aggrieved employee" and
couldn't bring his suit on behalf of the state through the Private
Attorneys General Act, which Verizon's counsel described as a way
in which California acts as a sheriff, deputizing private citizens
to bring actions on its behalf.

In their October filings, plaintiffs' attorneys said they would
seek $5.25 million in fees and $150,000 in costs from the $15
million settlement payment.

The plaintiffs are represented by R. Rex Parris, Alexander R.
Wheeler, Kitty K. Szeto and Jacob R. Karczewski of R. Rex Parris
Law Firm; and Jeffrey C. Jackson and Kirk D. Hanson of Jackson
Hanson LLP.

Verizon is represented by Linda S. Husar -- lhusar@reedsmith.com
-- Julius Turman -- jturman@reedsmith.com -- and Steven B. Katz --
skatz@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP.

The cases are Hector Banda et al. v. Verizon California Inc. et
al., case number BC434587, and Scott Cerkoney et al. v. Verizon
California Inc. et al., case number BC442358, both in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.


VERIZON COMMS: 5th Cir. Upholds Judgment in "Murphy" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed a
district court judgment entered in PHILIP A. MURPHY, JR.; SANDRA
R. NOE; CLAIRE M. PALMER, Individually and as Representative of
plan participants and plan beneficiaries of Verizon's Pension
Plans involuntarily re-classified and treated as transferred into
IDEARC's Pension Plans, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED; VERIZON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE;
VERIZON PENSION PLAN FOR NEW YORK AND NEW ENGLAND ASSOCIATES;
VERIZON MANAGEMENT PENSION PLAN; SUPERMEDIA EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE, formerly known as Idearc Employee Benefits Committee;
VERIZON CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP, INCORPORATED; VERIZON
ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT PENSION PLAN; VERIZON PENSION PLAN FOR MID-
ATLANTIC ASSOCIATES, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-11117.

This suit arose from the November 17, 2006 spin-off of Verizon
Communications Inc.'s information services unit into a new
corporation called Idearc, Inc., which subsequently evolved into
SuperMedia, Inc. The spin-off is described in greater detail in
U.S. Bank National Association v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
No. 13-10752, 2014 WL 3746476, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. 2014). In
2009, several retirees whose pension benefits were transferred
from Verizon pension plans to Idearc pension plans as part of the
spin-off -- Appellants Philip A. Murphy, Jr., Sandra R. Noe, and
Claire M. Palmer -- brought a class action suit against Appellees
-- Verizon, the Idearc (and later the SuperMedia) pension plans,
and the Verizon pension plans -- asserting a variety of claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29
U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq.  The claims arose from the Verizon
Appellees' alleged breach of their duties to the plan during the
spin-off, as well as Appellees' alleged failure to turn over
certain documents and disclose certain information to the
retirees.

The district court resolved Appellants' claims under ERISA
Sections 406(b)(2) and (b)(3), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1106(b)(2) and
(b)(3), ERISA Section 404(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104(a)(1),1
and ERISA Section 102(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 1022(b), in a thorough
and well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion and Order filed September 16,
2013, granting Appellees' motions for summary judgment and denying
Appellants' partial motion for summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit
affirmed the grant of summary judgment on these claims.

Appellants' claims under ERISA Section 104(b)(4), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1024(b)(4), and ERISA Section 404(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. Section
1104(a)(1), relating to Appellees' failure to produce certain
documents, were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) in a separate
Memorandum Opinion and Order filed October 18, 2010.  The Fifth
Circuit held that that the lower court did not err in dismissing
the Section 104(b)(4) claim.  Appellants' claim for disclosure
pursuant to Section 404(a)(1) is also moot because they have
already received all requested relief, it added.

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's October 14, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/ijSTvvfrom Leagle.com.


WATERWAY PLASTICS: Recalls Spa Drain Suction Covers
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Waterway Plastics, of Oxnard, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 26,000 Designer Pro Series Suction Covers.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The drain suction cover can become disengaged from the spa wall,
posing an entrapment hazard to consumers.

The firm has received 70 reports of drain covers detaching.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Waterway Plastics Designer Pro Series suction
covers with model number 640-52XX S, printed on top of the outside
edge of the plastic.  The round covers are black and silver and
were installed in select spas manufactured by Catalina Spas, Four
Winds Spas, Dimension One Spas, and Sunrise Spas from June 2011 to
June 2013.  The covers are installed on these model spas:

Sunrise Spas Series

989 Aquarian, Bimini (Mermaid brand only), 939 Endeavour, 959
Equinox, Essence 250, Genesis 250, Jewel 250, Legend 250,
Medallion 350, S102 (Whitewater brand only), S103, S104, S105,
203LS, 204LS, 205LS, 949 Meridian, 249 Spirit SE, Tonga (Mermaid
brand only).

Model and series numbers are located on the cabinet panel on the
lower right side near the top side control.
Dimension One Spa Series
At Home Series, Bay Series, Reflection Series

The model name is on the inside of the cabinet access door.
Four Winds Spa Series
XL Swim Spas XL 12000, XL14000, XL 16000

The model name is printed on stainless steel plates mounted on the
outside of the spa.  They are usually located on the left panel,
using the topside as the front panel.
Catalina Spas

All models manufactured from 2011-2013.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/0FdWs4

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Pool and Spa dealers nationwide from June 2011 to June 2013 for
between $3,500 and $16,000 for the spas.

Consumers should immediately stop using spas with the recalled
drained covers.  Consumers should contact Waterway Plastics for
inspection instructions and information on receiving a free
replacement cover.


WHITEHA VEN: Court Orders "Chestnut" Case Parties to Arbitrate
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Crotty granted defendants' motion to compel
arbitration in the case captioned DERICK CHESTNUT, on behalf of
himself and others, Plaintiff, v. WHITEHA VEN INCOME FUND I, LLC;
WHITEHAVEN SHERWOOD FOREST, LLC WHITEHAVEN S.M.H. FUND I, LLC; and
ARCHSTONE CASTLE HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, NO. 12 CV 8854 (PAC),
(S.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiff brought this class action against Defendants
alleging unjust enrichment and violations of New York General
Business Law Section 349. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief
holding the parties' a litigation funding contract (Agreement)
unenforceable because it is unconscionable and illegal. On January
6, 2014, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.  On April
2, 2014, Defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an
arbitration clause in the Agreement.

A copy of the Court's October 23, 2014 opinion & order is
available at http://is.gd/QnP0sQfrom Leagle.com.


ZIMMER SURGICAL: Recalls Power System Handpiece (2014-10-21)
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 21, 2014
Posting date:             October 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41895

Reason:

Zimmer has initiated a recall of modular electric/battery double
trigger and modular electric/battery single trigger handpieces
with manufactured serial numbers below 400000, because of a
potential malfunction.  It is possible that the handpiece could
start by itself when the power source is connected.  The
unexpected output of the device (start by itself) could lead to an
injury to the user during usage or preparation of the device.

Affected products: Zimmer Universal Power System Handpiece

Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.

Model or catalog number:
89-8507-400-00
89-8507-400-10

Companies:

Manufacturer: Zimmer Surgical SA,
              3, Chemin Du Pre Fleuri, Plan Les Ouates
              Geneva 1228
              Switzerland


* Gov Christie Calls on President Obama to Help Enact Tort Reform
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 21
railing against what he said is a "cottage industry" of class
action lawsuits targeting businesses, calling on President Barack
Obama to help enact tort reform.

Delivering the keynote address at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
annual Legal Reform Summit, Gov. Christie, a potential 2016
Republican candidate to succeed Obama, said the president can help
address income inequality by focusing on tort reform, instead of a
minimum-wage increase.

Gov. Christie, a self-proclaimed "recovering lawyer" who served as
New Jersey's U.S. attorney during President George W. Bush's
administration, said reducing incentives for class actions could
help grow the economy.

"Companies would have a lot more income to be able to pay to their
folks in their businesses if they didn't have to worry about
putting away the billions and tens of millions of dollars they
have to put away for legal fees and legal settlements in the
system that we have today," he said.

The U.S. legal system shouldn't help "a narrow group of people in
this country who either have not been truly injured" or have
injuries that incentivize class actions as a way to generate
revenue, not as "a true redress of grievances," Gov. Christie
said.

"Everybody in this country wants to have a fair legal system,
which gives people the ability to be able to sue for appropriate
causes and injuries," he said.  "What we don't need is for that
tort system to become an industry unto itself. And in America,
that's what's happening."

In conjunction with the summit, the U.S. Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform released a report on "swarm" litigation, which it
says harms U.S. businesses and their customers.  "Unprincipled
Prosecution: Abuse of Power and Profiteering in the New
'Litigation Swarm,'" authored by Mayer Brown partner
Andrew Pincus, says companies often are forced into settlements
when faced with large monetary claims and multiyear litigation on
multiple fronts from state attorneys general, as well as state and
federal regulators and class action lawyers.

Thomas Donohue, the chamber's president and CEO, said after
Gov. Christie's remarks that actual wrongdoing should be punished.
But companies regularly are finding themselves with "a gun to
their head" to reach settlements in cases that have "unclear"
allegations and "arbitrary" fines, he said.

"The settlement proposal is like a ransom note," Mr. Donohue said.
"You comply or someone dies.  In this case, your company, along
with your jobs, are at stake."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reichhold Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Stays Fibro Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a North Carolina resin manufacturer and its affiliates that
have been named in numerous asbestos lawsuits have filed for
protection under Chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to address its
current and future asbestos liability.

Reichhold Holdings US, Inc. voluntarily filed its petition for
relief on Sept. 30 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.

Reichhold Holdings is joined by affiliates Reichhold, Inc.,
Canadyne Corporation and Canadyne-Georgia Corporation -
collectively known as the debtors.

"This action was taken to facilitate a restructuring of the debts
of Reichhold, Inc., which represents only the U.S. portion of the
global Reichhold organization," the company stated in a release.

The company announced that it has arranged $130 million in
financing from its bondholders to fund continuing operations, of
which $100 million will be available to Reichhold, Inc., in the
form of debtor-in-possession financing if the court approves.

The financing will also be used in part to repay the debtors'
existing secured financing in North American and Europe.

As a result of the bankruptcy, defense attorneys Joanna Drozd and
Mark Hsu of the Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young law firm filed
a notice of bankruptcy and automatic stay of proceedings in the
New York City Asbestos Litigation court, addressing plaintiffs
attorneys who have named the debtors as a defendant or third-party
defendant.

The Oct. 3 notice explains that according to the Bankruptcy Code,
an automatic stay is imposed for all pending and future lawsuits
against the debtors.

"[N]o cause of action arising prior to, or relating to the period
prior to, the petition date may be commenced or prosecuted against
the debtors and no related judgment may be entered or enforced
against the debtors outside the bankruptcy court without the
bankruptcy court first issuing an order lifting or modifying the
automatic stay for such specific purpose," the notice states.

The Board of Directors of Reichhold, Inc., resolved which actions
to take after holding a meeting to discuss the voluntary
bankruptcy petition.

It is resolved, "that in the judgment of the board it is desirable
and in the best interests of the company, its creditors,
stockholders and other interested parties, that the company seek
relief under the provisions of Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United
States Code," the directors concluded.

The law firm of Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard is
representing the debtors as general bankruptcy counsel.

The law firm of CDG Group LLC is retained as the financial advisor
and investment banker for the debtors.

The Hunton & Williams LLP law firm is retained as special counsel
to the debtors to handle environmental and similar issues in
relation to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Kelly Garfinkle Strategic Restructuring LLC is employed as special
pension advisor to the debtors.

Dickstein Shapiro LLP is retained as special asbestos counsel for
the bankruptcy proceedings.

Logan & Company, Inc., is employed to provide the debtors with
consulting services, including noticing, claims management and
reconciliation and other related matters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Has $1MM Fibro-related Litigation Expense
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc.'s expense for asbestos-related
litigation was $1.0 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known. Costs related to such matters were not
material to the periods presented.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or
health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our products. We have never
manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-
containing components into our products for several decades. A
substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered
by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been
resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the
aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are
generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage
for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary
depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits. As
a result, we may have greater financial exposure for future
settlements and judgments. For the nine months ended
September 30, 2014, and 2013, expense for asbestos-related
litigation was $1.0 million, and $0.5 million, net of insurance
recoveries, respectively.

"It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations for a particular period."

Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range
of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold
through multiple distribution channels under brand names,
including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced
Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company
operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling,
Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration.
On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business
from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of
refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout
North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In
April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest
Investment Partners IV.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Has 8,100 Claimants at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. had 8,100 asbestos-related claimants,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We, like many other industrial companies,
have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of
lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from
asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities
that we own or formerly owned, or from products that we formerly
manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.
Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have
been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we
can make no assurances that this pattern will continue.

"For the nine-months ended September 30, 2014, the Company had
8,100 claimants.

"Claims are recorded as closed when a claimant is dismissed or
severed from a case. Claims are opened whenever a new claim is
brought, including from a claimant previously dismissed or severed
from another case.

"Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party, which is updated every three years. During the third
quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos
related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables,
which will be updated again in the third quarter of 2015. The
study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of
historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of
malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for
malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and
reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim
type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049.

"In 2012, as a result of our findings, we recorded a decrease of
$2.1 to our self-insured and insured contingent liabilities for
indemnity costs for pending and anticipated probable future claims
and recorded a decrease of $1.0 related to receivables for
probable insurance recoveries for these pending and future claims.
The reserve decrease was attributable to lower projected claim
filings offset by more severe malignancy rates and settlement
value projections. The decrease in the receivable was a result of
the lower gross liability and a shift in the types of future
claims expected. Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48%
of our future indemnity costs. We have completed Coverage-In-
Place-Agreements with most of our larger insurance carriers.

"The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all
pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with
certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous
variables that can affect the amount of the liability and
insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited
to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii)
changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws
applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co-
defendants and insurers."

Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty materials and
Chemicals Company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. The Company's products serve a diverse range
of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials,
mining and plastics. The Company operates in four segments:
Aerospace Materials, Industrial Materials, In Process Separation
and Additive Technologies. Its Aerospace Materials segment is a
global provider of technologically advanced materials for
aerospace markets. Its Industrial Materials product line includes
Structural materials and Process materials. The Company's In
Process Separation segment product line includes Mining chemicals
and Phosphines. Its Additive Technologies include Polymer
additives, Specialty additives and Formulated resins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 3,200 Fibro Claims at Sept. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc says its subsidiaries had 3,200 asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 27, 2014.

The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

"As of September 27, 2014, there were approximately 3,200 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries. This amount includes
adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted.
This amount is not adjusted for claims that identify incorrect
defendants or duplicate other actions. In addition, the amount
does not include certain claims pending against third parties for
which we have been provided an indemnification."

Pentair plc provides products, services and solutions for its
customers' needs in water and other fluids, thermal management and
equipment protection. The Company invents and manufactures
solutions for its products, services and technologies related to
food, water or energy. The Company serves a range of customers in
the food and beverage, residential and commercial, industrial,
infrastructure, and energy sectors. It designs and manufactures
technologies for the separation of solids, liquids, and gases, and
for the treatment of water and steam. Its segments include Flow
Technologies, Technical Solutions, Process Technologies and Valves
and Controls. The Company's solutions include filtration and
desalination, aquaculture systems, communications and electronics
protection, controls and electrical protection, crop spray and
crop protection, dewatering, flood water and wastewater systems,
food and processing, foodservice, industrial heat tracing, and
irrigation management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Had $250.5MM Fibro Liability at Sept. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc had $250.5 million estimated liability for asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2014.

The Company states: "Periodically, we perform an analysis with the
assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update our
estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of
the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

"Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

"Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $250.5
million and $254.7 million as of September 27, 2014 and December
31, 2013, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for
pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries was $116.1 million and $119.6
million as of September 27, 2014, and December 31, 2013,
respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to and received from third
parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and
cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary
significantly from actual results."

Pentair plc provides products, services and solutions for its
customers' needs in water and other fluids, thermal management and
equipment protection. The Company invents and manufactures
solutions for its products, services and technologies related to
food, water or energy. The Company serves a range of customers in
the food and beverage, residential and commercial, industrial,
infrastructure, and energy sectors. It designs and manufactures
technologies for the separation of solids, liquids, and gases, and
for the treatment of water and steam. Its segments include Flow
Technologies, Technical Solutions, Process Technologies and Valves
and Controls. The Company's solutions include filtration and
desalination, aquaculture systems, communications and electronics
protection, controls and electrical protection, crop spray and
crop protection, dewatering, flood water and wastewater systems,
food and processing, foodservice, industrial heat tracing, and
irrigation management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Suits v. Travelers Companies Are Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits filed against The Travelers Companies, Inc.,
alleging the company engaged in unfair trade practices in
violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and
settling asbestos claims remain pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, and other insurers (not including The St. Paul
Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004) in state
court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed
in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs
alleged that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs sought to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs sought damages,
including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, were also asserted in various
state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these
suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory
Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court
that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder
Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated
injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Johns-
Manville bankruptcy (the 1986 Orders). The bankruptcy court issued
a temporary restraining order and referred the parties to
mediation. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to
$90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies. Among the
contingencies for each of these settlements was that the
bankruptcy court issue an order, which must become a final order,
clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-
related claims against TPC, as well as related contribution
claims, are barred by the 1986 Orders.

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the Clarifying Order).
The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct action claims
that may be filed in the future. Although the District Court
substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order, on February 15, 2008,
the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on jurisdictional
grounds the District Court's approval of the Clarifying Order.

On December 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court granted
TPC's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and, on June 18, 2009, the
Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008
decision, finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are
final and therefore may not be collaterally challenged on
jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court further ruled that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.
However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain
additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and
the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further
proceedings on those specific issues.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to one
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC. TPC's Petition for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc was denied May 25, 2010 and its Petition for
Writ of Certiorari and Petition for a Writ of Mandamus were denied
by the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common
Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy
court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement
agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the
settlements had been met. On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy
court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was
required to fund the settlements. The court entered judgment
against TPC on January 20, 2011 in accordance with this ruling and
ordered TPC to pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment
interest. The bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the
district court on March 1, 2012, the district court having found
that the conditions to the settlements had not been met in view of
the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 ruling permitting the filing
of contribution claims against TPC. The plaintiffs appealed the
district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals. On July 22, 2014, the Second Circuit issued an
opinion reversing the district court's decision and reinstating
the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 order which ordered TPC to
pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest. On August 5,
2014, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
with the Second Circuit. The parties await the court's decision on
that petition. At September 30, 2014, the settlement amount
recognized in the Company's consolidated financial statements
totaled $579 million, comprising the $502 million settlement
amount, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest totaling $77
million. Post-judgment interest will continue to accrue at an
annual rate of 0.27% until the settlement is paid.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, from time to time has been named as a
defendant in direct action cases in Texas state court asserting
common law claims. All such cases that are still pending and in
which SPC had been served are either currently on the inactive
docket in Texas state court or have been superseded by amended
petitions that do not name SPC. If any of those cases becomes
active or are amended to name SPC, SPC intends to litigate those
cases vigorously. SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct
actions in Ohio state court, which have been dismissed following
favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts. From time to
time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries have been named in similar
individual direct actions in other jurisdictions.

Currently, it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and their
impact on the future development of claims and litigation relating
to asbestos and environmental claims. Any such development will be
affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as
changes in applicable legislation. Because of these uncertainties,
additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the
Company's current reserves. In addition, the Company's estimate of
ultimate claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These
additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of
either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could result in
income statement charges that could be material to the Company's
results of operations in future periods.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range
of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, Government units,
associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three
business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and
International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States. The Financial, Professional and
International Insurance segment includes surety and financial
liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based
underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products
that are marketed on a domestic basis. In November 2013, the
Company completed the sale of its wholly owned subsidiary The
Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company to The Travelers
Companies, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Companies Has $2.45B Fibro Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., reported that its net asbestos
reserves were $2.45 billion, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking
asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It
is possible that the filing of other direct actions against
insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It
is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings,
including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these
actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of
liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain
jurisdictions.

TPC had previously entered into settlement agreements in
connection with a number of these direct action claims (Direct
Action Settlements). The Company has been involved in litigation
concerning whether all of the conditions of the Direct Action
Settlements have been satisfied. On July 22, 2014, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the
Company and found that all of the conditions have been satisfied.

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

In the third quarter of 2014, the Company completed its annual in-
depth asbestos claim review, including a review of active
policyholders and litigation cases for potential product and "non-
product" liability, and noted the continuation of the following
trends:

* continued high level of litigation activity in certain
jurisdictions involving individuals alleging serious asbestos-
related illness, primarily involving mesothelioma claims;

* while overall payment patterns have been generally stable, there
has been an increase in severity for certain policyholders due to
the continued high level of litigation activity; and

* continued moderate level of asbestos-related bankruptcy
activity.

While the Company believes that over the past several years there
has been a reduction in the volatility associated with the
Company's overall asbestos exposure, there nonetheless remains a
high degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure from
asbestos claims.

In the Home Office and Field Office categories, which account for
the vast majority of policyholders with active asbestos-related
claims, both the number of policyholders with open asbestos claims
and net asbestos-related payments were essentially unchanged in
the first nine months of 2014 when compared with the same period
of 2013. Payments on behalf of policyholders in these categories
continue to be influenced by the high level of litigation activity
in a limited number of jurisdictions where individuals alleging
serious asbestos-related injury continue to target defendants who
were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation.

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

The completion of these reviews and analyses in the third quarters
of 2014 and 2013 resulted in $250 million and $190 million
increases, respectively, in the Company's net asbestos reserves.
In both 2014 and 2013, the reserve increases were primarily driven
by increases in the Company's estimate of projected settlement and
defense costs related to a broad number of policyholders in the
Home Office category due to a higher level of litigation activity
surrounding mesothelioma claims than previously anticipated. In
addition, the reserve increase in 2013 also reflected higher
projected payments on assumed reinsurance accounts. The increase
in the estimate of projected settlement and defense costs resulted
from payment trends that continue to be higher than previously
anticipated due to the impact of the current litigation
environment discussed above. Notwithstanding these trends, the
Company's overall view of the underlying asbestos environment is
essentially unchanged from recent periods and there remains a high
degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure to asbestos
claims.

Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first nine months
of 2014 were $154 million, compared with $145 million in the same
period of 2013. Net asbestos reserves were $2.45 billion at
September 30, 2014, compared with $2.42 billion at September 30,
2013.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range
of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, Government units,
associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three
business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and
International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States. The Financial, Professional and
International Insurance segment includes surety and financial
liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based
underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products
that are marketed on a domestic basis. In November 2013, the
Company completed the sale of its wholly owned subsidiary The
Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company to The Travelers
Companies, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Ingersoll-Rand plc continue to defend themselves
against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of
those claims have been filed against either IR-New Jersey or Trane
U.S. Inc. and generally allege injury caused by exposure to
asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-New
Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake
shoes.  Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or
manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured
products utilized asbestos-containing components such as gaskets
and packings purchased from third-party suppliers.

The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The
methodology used to project the Company's total liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims
relied upon and included the following factors, among others:

* the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

* epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung
cancer;

* the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-
malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant
diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung
cancer claims filed against the Company;

* the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely to
file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the Company
based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's most recent three-year claims history;

* an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease
claimed and by year filed;

* an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history to
determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims,
by type of disease claimed;

* an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted
downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims
resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and

* an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
future.

At September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, over 80% of the open
claims against the Company are non-malignancy or non-specified
claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or deferral
dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no
settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of
recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company's total asset for probable
asbestos-related insurance recoveries was $308.3 million.

The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New
Jersey and Trane was $129.1 million and $179.2 million at
September 30, 2014, respectively, and $137.6 million and $184.2
million at December 31, 2013, respectively.

The total cost associated with the settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries for the three
and nine months ended September 30, 2014, was $1 million.

IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within
discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested
businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in
2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within continuing operations.

Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most
of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for
approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance
receivable as of September 30, 2014. Most of Trane's settlement
agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which
the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified
portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane
agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the
insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane
remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November
2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin,
relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's
historical asbestos-related liabilities.

In January 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory
judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to
defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are
several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies
that had been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim
defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's
unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims
that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The responding
defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery,
and raised various coverage defenses. In December 2013, IR-New
Jersey filed a similar action in the same court against an insurer
that was not a party to the 2012 action.

The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded
that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of the following factors:

* a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to IR-
New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other companies in
recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's
favorable settlement discussed above;

* the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

* the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New
Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had been
the subject of prior litigation.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information. The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results. Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations described above, are expected to result in the
projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the
probable insurance recovery.

Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR-
Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions,
Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security
Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the
design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of
industrial and commercial products that include Club Car,
Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30,
2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the
Hussmann business. In December 2013, the Company announced that it
has completed the spinoff of the Company's commercial and
residential security businesses named Allegion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $9-Mil. Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation had $9 million asbestos-related
liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both
asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following
assumptions:

   * The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be
     consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation.

   * The number of claims filed against us will decline each
     year.

   * The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted
     claims will be equivalent to historical averages.

   * The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be
     equivalent to historical averages.

"Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments. Approximately 19% of the recorded liability is
related to asserted claims and approximately 81% is related to
unasserted claims at September 30, 2014.

"For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company's
asbestos-related liability was $9 million.

"We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to
resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset
for estimated insurance recoveries at September 30, 2014, and
December 31, 2013.

"We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related
claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The
amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related
insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However,
future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year,
average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could
cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or
lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the
future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos
litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing
asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount
of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with
respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants."

Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) owns transportation companies. Its
principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links
23 states in the western 66% of the country. Union Pacific
Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products,
automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal.
Union Pacific Railroad Company connects with Canada's rail systems
and is the railroad serving six gateways to Mexico. Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UPRR) is a Class I railroad operating in the
United States. In June 2012, the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, PS Technology (PST), acquired the Yard Control Systems
division of Ansaldo STS USA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had $352.9-Mil. Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation reported that its long-term asbestos liability
was $352,922,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 26, 2014.

The Company states: "During the three months ended September 26,
2014, the Company received judicial rulings in two of our
subsidiaries' coverage litigation matters. In the New Jersey case,
the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court rulings. In the
Delaware case, the Superior Court issued a final judgment
concerning the payment obligations of the excess insurers related
to a trial that concluded during the year ended December 31, 2012.
Appeals have been entered in both of these matters. These rulings
did not impact the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements.

"Due to a higher number of asbestos claims settlements, and a
decline in the insurance recovery rate that have occurred for one
of the Company's subsidiaries, the Company recorded a $5.0 million
pre-tax charge during the three and nine months ended September
26, 2014. This was partially offset by a reduction of allowances
for collectibility of $4.1 million related to insurance
receivables of another subsidiary during the three and nine months
ended September 26, 2014.

"Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flow."

Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company provides gas- and fluid-
handling and fabrication technology products and services to
commercial and governmental customers worldwide under the Howden
and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. Colfax's
products are marketed principally under the brand names Allweiler,
Baric, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, COT-Puritech,
Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. The Company has
production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia. It offers
customized fluid handling solutions to meet individual customer
needs. In February 2011, the Company acquired Rosscor Holding B.V.
In December 2011, it acquired COT-PURITECH. On January 13, 2012,
Colfax acquired Charter International plc. In May 2012, the
Company acquired 91% interest in Soldex S.A. In April 2014, Colfax
Corporation completed the acquisition of Victor Technologies
Holdings Inc from Irving Place Capital.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bartel" Suit Recommended for Remand
-----------------------------------------------------
William E. Bartel, personal representative of the estate of Guy M.
Thrasher, filed an action in the 19th Judicial District Court for
the Parish of East Baton Rogue, Louisiana.  The Plaintiff alleges
that between the years 1946 and 1963, decedent was employed by the
following defendants: Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc.; Crowley
Marine Services, Inc., as successor by merger to Delta Steamship
Lines, Inc., f/k/a Mississippi Shipping Co.; Delta Steamship
Lines, Inc.; Mississippi Shipping Company; and Waterman Steamship
Corporation.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Decedent contracted
and died of lung cancer as a result of asbestos exposure while
working on vessels owned or operated by Defendants.

Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc., filed a Notice of Removal on
May 29, 2014.  The remaining Defendants consented to the removal.
The Plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court.

Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle of Louisiana, in an Oct. 2, 2014, report and
recommendation recommended that the the motion should be granted
and the case remanded to state court.

The case is WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the
ESTATE OF GUY M. THRASHER v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., ET
AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-339-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy
of Magistrate Bourgeois' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/byAvIpfrom Leagle.com.

Waterman Steamship Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Esq. -- john.bolles@phelps.com -- Annette N. Peltier, Esq.
-- annette.peltier@phelps.com -- Kevin Jacob LaVie, Esq. --
kevin.lavie@phelps.com -- Meredith W. Blanque, Esq. --
meredith.blanque@phelps.com -- and Robert J. Barbier, Esq. --
robert.barbier@phelps.com -- at Phelps Dunbar.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit Recommended for Remand to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Bartel, personal representative of the Estate of Jose
A. Spina, filed an action in the 19th Judicial District Court for
the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, alleging that between
1946 and 1991, the Decedent was employed by the following
Defendants: Delta Steamship Lines, Inc.; Crowley Marine Services,
Inc., as successor by merger to Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., f/k/a
Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc.; and Mississippi Shipping Company.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Decedent contracted and died of
asbestosis as a result of asbestos exposure on vessels owned or
operated by Defendants.  Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. and
Mississippi Shipping Company filed a Notice of Removal on May 23,
2014.  The Plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court.

Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, on Oct. 2,
2014, issued a report and recommendation recommending that the
Plaintiff's motion should be granted and the action should be
remanded to state court.

The case is WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the
ESTATE OF JOSE A. SPINA v. CROWLEY MARINE SERVICES, INC., ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-329-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of
Magistrate Bourgeois' Decision is available at http://is.gd/FGvMyD
from Leagle.com.

Mississippi Shipping Company, Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Esq., Kevin Jacob LaVie, Esq., Meredith W. Blanque, Esq.,
Robert J. Barbier, Esq., and Annette N. Peltier, Esq., at Phelps
Dunbar.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Drumgo" Suit Junked for Failure to State Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
DeShawn Drumgo, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center, in Smyrna, Delaware, filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  He alleges that the vents are filthy and have not
been cleaned in decades, there is a gas leak, and asbestos is
airborne and is coming through the vents.

Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware issued a memorandum on Oct. 24, 2014, dismissing the
complaint for failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and Section
1915A(b)(1).  Judge Sleet, however, gave the Plaintiff leave to
amend the conditions of confinement claims.

The case is DESHA WN DRUMGO, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL,
et al., Defendants, CIV. ACTION NO. 14-1134-GMS (D. Del.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Sleet's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/LWtRn5from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Grants 32 Motions to Junk MARDOC Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Before the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania are 32 motions to dismiss due to lack of personal
jurisdiction in cases originally filed in the District Court for
the Virgin Islands.  The cases were later transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated as part of the
maritime multidistrict asbestos litigation.  The plaintiffs in
these cases are various merchant marines and their
representatives, survivors, and spouses.  The 18 affected
defendants assert that the Pennsylvania Court may not exercise
personal jurisdiction over them as they lack sufficient contacts
with the Virgin Islands.  In their responses, and in addition to
several novel arguments the Pennsylvania Court has previously
rejected, the plaintiffs allege that the Pennsylvania Court has
general jurisdiction over the defendants.  They do not assert that
the Pennsylvania Court may exercise specific jurisdiction --
either through the Due Process Clause of the Constitution or
through the Virgin Islands long-arm statute -- as there are no
cases in which the plaintiffs' damages arise from the defendants'
contacts in the forum.

U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno in Pennsylvania granted the
32 motions, after finding that the Plaintiffs do not allege, and
cannot allege, that the Pennsylvania Court has specific
jurisdiction (based on the long-arm statute or constitutional due
process) over any of the defendants as their claims do not arise
from the defendants' activities in the Virgin Islands.  The
plaintiffs also have failed to adequately plead facts which would
allow the Pennsylvania Court to exercise general jurisdiction over
any of these defendants under the restrictive holding in Daimler
AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 758 (2014).

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)
relating to COWART, ET AL. v. VARIOUS DEFENDANTS, CONSOLIDATED
UNDER MDL DOCKET NO. 875 (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Robreno's Decision dated Oct. 23, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/7udehffrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Izell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation appeals from a judgment entered in favor
of Plaintiffs Bobbie Izell and Helen Izell on claims for personal
injuries and loss of consortium stemming from Mr. Izell's alleged
exposure to Union Carbide asbestos and subsequent diagnosis with
mesothelioma.  After a four-week trial the jury returned special
verdicts finding Union Carbide 65% comparatively at fault for the
Plaintiffs' injuries and awarding the Plaintiffs $30 million in
compensatory damages plus $18 million in punitive damages against
Union Carbide.  By remittitur, which the Plaintiffs accepted, the
trial court reduced the compensatory damage award to $6 million,
but declined to disturb the punitive damages.

On appeal, Union Carbide contends the evidence was insufficient to
support the liability finding, apportionment of comparative fault,
and the remitted compensatory damage award.  Union Carbide also
challenges the punitive damage award as excessive.  The Court of
Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three, concluded
that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, as well
as the compensatory and punitive damage awards.  Accordingly, the
California Court of Appeals affirmed.

The appeals case is BOBBIE IZELL et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant and
Appellant, NO. B245085 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Oct. 22, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/25EHrn
from Leagle.com.

Baron & Budd, P.C., John Langdoc, Denyse Clancy and Christine
Tamer for Plaintiffs and Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Superior Court Affirms "Krauss" Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appellant Colleen M. Krauss, Executrix of the Estate of Henry M.
Krauss, appeals from the orders granting summary judgment in favor
of Appellees General Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C; CBS
Corporation-Westinghouse; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Zurn Industries; and
Trane US Inc., f/k/a American Standard.  The Superior Court of
Pennsylvania, in an opinion dated Oct. 22, 2014, affirmed, after
determining that the Appellants failed to establish that Zurn
boilers found at the worksites where the Decedent worked contained
asbestos.  The Superior Court adds that Mike Morgan presents no
testimony through his deposition establishing that the Decedent
worked frequently and regularly in proximity to an asbestos-
containing product manufactured by Zurn Industries.  Thus,
pursuant to Eckenrod v. GAF Corp., 544 A.2d 50, 52 (Pa. Super.
1988), and Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Company, 943 A.2d 216, 226
(Pa. 2007), the trial court properly granted summary judgment in
favor of Zurn Industries.

The appeals case is COLLEEN M. KRAUSS, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
HENRY M. KRAUSS, Appellant, v. TRANE US INC., f/k/a AMERICAN
STANDARD, et al; ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPORATION; AQUA CHEM, INC.,
d/b/a CLEAVER BROOKS DIVISION, INDIVIDUALLY AND SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO SPRINGFIELD BOILERS; AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE USA, INC.,
a/k/a AMCHEM PRODUCTS INC., now known as BAYER CROPSCIENCE INC.,
f/k/a BENJAMIN FOSTER CO., c/o CORPORATION SERVICES CO.; A.W.
CHESTERTON CO.; BABCOCK POWER, INC., f/k/a BABCOCK BORSIG POWER
INC., f/k/a D.B. RILEY STOKER CORPORATION; BONDEX INTERNATIONAL
INC., c/o DANIEL J. RYAN, ESQUIRE; CRANE COMPANY; CROWN CORK AND
SEAL COMPANY INC.; DURABLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; ELLIOT
TURBOMACHINERY COMPANY, a/k/a ELLIOT COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER
ENERGY CORPORATION; GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.; GEORGIA-
PACIFIC CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO BESTWALL
GYPSUM COMPANY; GOODRICH CORPORATION; GOULDS PUMPS INCORPORATED;
GUARDLINE INC.; INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, f/k/a THE
CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
LOCKPORT FELT, A DIVISION OF THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY; INGERSOLL
RAND COMPANY; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; KCG INC., AS SUCCESSOR
IN INTEREST TO RUCO; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; MURCO
WALL PRODUCTS, INC.; OAKFABCO, INC., f/k/a KEWANEE BOILER
CORPORATION; OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY; RAPID-AMERICAN
CORPORATION f/k/a GLEN ALDENCORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO GLEN ALDEN CORPORATION, BRIGGS
MANUFACTURING CO., PHILIP CAREY CORPORATION AND PHILIP CAREY
MANUFACTURING COMPANY; RPM INC., AS SUCCESSOR TO REPUBLIC POWDERED
METALS, SUCCESSOR TO BONDEX; SEPCO CORPORATION; THE SHERWIN-
WILLIAM COMPANY; T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION LLC.; UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND f/k/a UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND
PLASTIC COMPANY, INC.; UNIROYAL HOLDING, INC., AS SUCCESSOR TO
UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY; VIACOM, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC CORPORATION; WICKES CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WICKES BOILER CO.; ZURN INDUSTRIES INC.,
a/k/a AND AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO ERIE CITY IRON WORKS; KELLY
MOORE PAINT COMPANY INC.; BORDEN CHEMICAL INC., f/k/a BORDEN
CHEMICAL COMPANY AND n/k/a HEXIO SPECIALTY CHEMICALS INC.,
PRENTICE HALL CORPORATION; CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION f/k/a
CERTAINTEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FREEPORT-
McMORAN INC., f/k/a FREEPORT CHEMICAL COMPANY, AND SUCCESSOR TO
AGRICO INC.; THE PEP-BOYS MANNY, MOE & JACK; A.P. GREEN a/k/a A.P.
GREEN REFRACTORIES, INC., f/k/a A.P. GREEN REFRACTORIES COMPANY,
AND A SUBSIDIARY OF ANH REFRACTORIES COMPANY; BENJAMIN FOSTER
COMPANY, A DIVISION OF AMCHEM; HARBISON-WALKER, f/k/a HARBISON-
WALKER REFRACTORIES COMPANY AND A SUBSIDIARY OF ANH REFRACTORIES
COMPANY; KAISER ALUMINUM AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellees.
COLLEEN M. KRAUSS, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY M. KRAUSS,
Appellant, v. CBS CORPORATION, et al; ANCO INSULATIONS, INC.;
BORDEN CHEMICAL INC., f/k/a BORDEN CHEMICAL COMPANY AND n/k/a
HEXION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC., PRENTICE HALL CORPORATION; CBS
CORPORATION; CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION, f/k/a CERTAINTEED PRODUCTS
CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FREEPORT-McMORAN INC., f/k/a
FREEPORT CHEMICAL COMPANY AND SUCCESSOR TO AGRICO INC.; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS INC.; THE PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE &
JACK; TRANE US INC., f/k/a AMERICAN STANDARD INC.; ZURN INDUSTRIES
INC., a/k/a AND AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO ERIE CITY IRON WORKS;
A.P. GREEN a/k/a A.P. GREEN REFRACTORIES, INC., f/k/a A.P. GREEN
REFRACTORIES COMPANY, AND A SUBSIDIARY OF ANH REFRACTORIES
COMPANY; BENJAMIN FOSTER COMPANY, A DIVISION OF AMCHEM; HARBISON
WALKER f/k/a HARBISON WALKER REFRACTORIES COMPANY AND A SUBSIDIARY
OF ANH REFRACTORIES COMPANY; KAISER ALUMINUM AND CHEMICAL
CORPORATION, Appellees, NOS. 644 EDA 2013, 671 EDA 2013 (Pa.
Super.).  A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/c5ldMvfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand "Laurent" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Scott Laurent filed a motion to remand his asbestos-
related wrongful death and survival action to the Civil District
Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, after the
action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana by General Electric asserting that the
District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier in Louisiana issued an order
and reasons on Oct. 23, 2014, denying the motion, after finding
that the GE has demonstrated that (1) it is a person within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1) and (2) it has a colorable
federal defense, thus the removal of the matter was proper.

The case is SCOTT LAURENT v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., SECTION
"J" (5), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2022 (E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Barbier's Decision is available at http://is.gd/QlobGUfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leave to Appeal in "Suttnet" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
Motion for leave to appeal granted in the IN THE MATTER OF EIGHTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to JOANN H.
SUTTNER, ETC., Respondent, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants, CRANE CO., Appellant, MOTION NO. 2014-843 (N.Y. App.).
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of New York dated
Oct. 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/zkijDFfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Palazzo" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled IN RE: NEW YORK CITY
ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to CATHY PALAZZO, AS EXECUTRIX FOR
THE ESTATE OF JACK P. SCAINETTI, AND MARGARET SCAINETTI,
INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190278/13, MOT. SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.),
defendant The Fairbanks Company moves for summary judgment to
dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against it
on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to come forward with
any proof that decedent Jack Scainetti was exposed to an asbestos-
containing product manufactured, distributed, sold, or installed
by Fairbanks.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
in a decision and order dated Oct. 8, 2014, denied Fairbanks'
motion, holding that the identification of Leonard Gropper, in his
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit, of the Fairbanks valves
as among the valves used at the Astoria powerhouse in the 1960s,
create a reasonable inference that Fairbanks' valves were a source
of Mr. Scainetti's asbestos exposure.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/JESUDwfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Oneal" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James A. Oneal served in the United States Navy for
about twenty years between June 7, 1958, and March 30, 1980.
During his naval career, Oneal worked aboard several different
vessels, mainly in the boiler rooms.  His work mainly involved
servicing equipment associated with the boilers, including steam
pipes, valves, gaskets, pumps, and doors.  Much of this work
included removing and replacing packing or insulation materials
that contained asbestos.  Further, while serving on repair ships,
Oneal boarded other ships to work on their boilers.  Later in his
career, Oneal also supervised other sailors performing these
tasks, coordinated repair projects, and conducted quality-control
inspections of boilers.  Defendants Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation and Crane Co. filed separate Motions for Summary
Judgment.

Judge James I. Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, in an order dated Oct. 19, 2014, granted
Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment.  Judge Cohn also
granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment as it concerns
Oneal's alleged exposure to asbestos from Crane valves, but is
denied with respect to Oneal's claimed exposure to Cranite sheet
gasket material.

The case is JAMES A. ONEAL and LINDA ONEAL, Plaintiffs, v. ALFA
LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-61510-CIV-
COHN/SELTZER (S.D. Fla.).  A full-text copy of Judge Cohn's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/TXhaygfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Podedworny" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Constance Podedworny, Executrix for the Estate of Joseph
Podedworny, by her agent, The Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust, filed an asbestos-related negligence claims against
a number of defendants, including Turner & Newell.  The Defendant
moves for summary judgment pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 56 and
the Plaintiff objects.

The Superior Court of Rhode Island, in a decision dated Oct. 24,
2014, denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, after
finding that the Plaintiff has demonstrated that there exist
material questions of fact precluding the granting of summary
judgment.  The Superior Court pointed out that Section 4.5 of the
Federal-Mogul Chapter 11 Plan specifically conditioned the
Defendant's discharge upon the exhaustion of the asbestos
liability policy purchased from Curzon Insurance, Ltd.  At this
point in time, the Hercules Policy has yet to be exhausted, the
Superior Court said.

The Superior Court ruled that the Defendant has not been provided
with a discharge, the automatic stay has not lifted, and the
statute of limitations has not begun to run.  With regard to the
facts of the case, there remain material questions of fact as to
whether T&N's product caused the Plaintiff's injury, the Superior
Court said.  Accordingly, the Superior Court denied the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case is CONSTANCE PODEDWORNY, Executor for the ESTATE of
JOSEPH PODEDWORNY, by her agent, THE FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS
PERSONAL INJURY TRUST Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSULATED WIRE CORP.,
T&N LIMITED, f/k/a T&N plc, TURNER & NEWALL PLC, and TURNER &
NEWALL LIMITED, TAF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, f/k/a TURNERS ASBESTOS
FIBRES LIMITED and RAW ASBESTOS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED, and JOHN DOE
Defendants.  A full-text copy of the Superior Court's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/ZcpDDSfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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  * * *