CAR_Public/141103.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 3, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 218

                             Headlines

57TH RESTAURANT: "Bravo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ADVANCED CLINICAL: Settles Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Faces "Parker" Consumer Suit in S.D. Florida
APPLE INC: Trial in iTunes Antitrust Litigation This Month
APPLE INC: Outcome of Appeal to Determine eBook Suit Damages

AR RESOURCES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AT&T INC: Unlimited Data Plans Mislead Customers, FTC Claims
BANKRATE INC: Faces "Jahm" Securities Class Suit in Florida
BARAGA MAXIMUM: Dist. Court Tosses "Patterson" Suit vs. Directors
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Sued Over Failure to Update Product Risks

CACH LLC: Removes "Hudson" Suit to Eastern District of Arkansas
CAJUN OPERATING: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Sued inn E.D. Mo. Over Mortgage Satisfactions
COCA-COLA: Truth in Advertising Wants Settlement Rejected
CRACKER BARREL: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa.

DEBT RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
DOLLAR GENERAL: Settles FCRA Class Action for $4.02 Million
EBAY INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Stock Manipulation
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Byrd" Suit Claims

FLORIDA: Faces Crafted Keg Suit Over Ban on Sale of Growlers
FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Gender Discrimination Suit in Arkansas
GOOGLE INC: Koh's No-Poach Approach May Impact Future Settlements
HOME DEPOT: Sued by Gulf Coast Bank Over Recent Security Breach
HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Accused of Failing to Pay Minimum Wages

HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: February 2016 Trial Set in Antitrust Suit
HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: 2nd Amended Class Action Complaint Filed
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS: Court Refused to Junk US Citizens Suit
INTERLINE BRANDS: Continues to Defend Craftwood Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action for $12MM

KINDER MORGAN: "Arendt" and "Haynes" Cases Consolidated
KINDER MORGAN: Plaintiffs in Unitholders Case Seek Injunction
KINDER MORGAN: Hearing Held in Edwards et al. v. El Paso
KINDER MORGAN: No Claims Against KMEP in "Berlin" Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Defending Against Class Suit in Del Chancery Court

KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Case Stayed Pending Derivative Litigation
KOHL'S CORP: Faces Another Class Action Over ADA Violations
LEWIS TREE: Unlawfully Denied Overtime Wages, Arborist Claims
MARTIN TRANSPORT: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages
MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Davis" Suit to Tennessee District Court

MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suite Claims
MIRADOR CORP: "Banegas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
MYC RESORT: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, "King" Suit Claims
NAT'L HOCKEY: Consolidated Concussion Class Action Filed in Minn.

NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Settles Class Action for $6.4 Million
NIKE RETAIL: Removes "Patel" Suit to California District Court
NORTH COUNTY TIMES: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay
NOVA SCOTIA: Losing Plaintiffs Ordered to Pay $733,000
NQ MOBILE: "Hsieh" Suit Transferred From Texas to New York Court

NQ MOBILE: Lead Plaintiff Files Consolidated Securities Complaint
OCWEN LOAN: Accused of Sending Illegal Debt Collection Notices
OCWEN LOAN: Illegally Collects Consumer Debts, Class Suit Says
PANASONIC CORP: Faces Antitrust Walker Suit Over Capacitor Sale
PROTEUS SERVICES: "Faniola" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: 6th Circuit Refuses to Apply 8% Usury Rate
PRODIRECTIONAL SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
RLI CORP: Faces Belmont Retirement System Class Action
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Worker Files Pregnancy Discrimination Suit
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Nov. 14 Deadline to Submit Detailed List in MDL

SEACOR HOLDINGS: 142 Individuals Opted in "Prejean" Class Suit
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Tolling Agreement in "Singleton" Action Expires
SEAS & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Whaley" Suit Over Violations of TCPA
SILVER CARE: Court Narrows Claims in "Jones" Class Action
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces 3 County Class Suit in N.D. Mississippi

SYNGENTA CORP: Accused by S.C. Farmers of Crippling Corn Sales
TAMPA FIREFIGHTERS FUND: Parker Entitled to Attorney's Fees
TESCO PLC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
TESCO PLC: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Class Action
TREX COMPANY: Distributed All Cash Payments Under Settlement

UNION CARBIDE: Appeals Court Upholds Award in Asbestos Case
US FOODS: Final Settlement Okay Seen in Late 2014 or Early 2015
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Pension Suit
WALGREEN CO: Denial of Class Cert. in "Collins" Case Upheld
WEST MARINE: Files Interlocutory Appeal With Ninth Circuit

WEST MARINE: Former Hourly Employee Files Class Action
WIWI TRANSMISSION: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WORLD BUSINESS: Loses Bid for Protective Order in Rinky Dink Case
WVVA PROPERTIES: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime


                             *********


57TH RESTAURANT: "Bravo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Pavia Bravo, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. 57th Restaurant Associates LLC d/b/a Rue 57,
Marvin Azrak, Richard Wolf, Marc Packer, David Jaroslawicz and
Emanuel Maris, Case No. 1:14-cv-08492 (S.D.N.Y., October 23,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due to time-
shaving, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant under the trade name
Rue 57 located at 60 West 57th Street, New York, NY 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


ADVANCED CLINICAL: Settles Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
To participants in any of the following four research studies at
Advanced Clinical Research Institute in Anaheim, California
between 2004 and 2011: (1) The Orasure Technologies Protocol OQ-
HCV-8 -- a mouth swab study designed to immediately test for
Hepatitis C conducted in 2007; (2) The Braintree Pharmaceuticals
Protocol BLI-850-302 -- a colon prep study conducted in 2009-10;
(3) The Takeda Pharmaceuticals Protocol 01-05-TL-375-069 -- an
insomnia drug study in 2004; or (4) The Takeda Pharmaceuticals
Protocol TP-107-174 -- a drug study for pediatric GERD in 2011.  A
class action settlement has been reached with ACRI for the
loss of patient medical records from these studies.  The
settlement includes one year of free credit monitoring service.
You have the right to participate in that settlement, object or do
nothing.  To learn more about the details of the settlement and
your rights, please visit www.ACRIsettlement.com or contact Class
counsel at:

          Robert G. Loewy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT G. LOEWY
          2550 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-3200
          Facsimile: (619) 235-3300

          Steven L. Marchbanks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN L. MARCHBANKS
          1101 Quail Street
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 442-7103
          Facsimile: (949) 242-5105


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Faces "Parker" Consumer Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher L. Parker and Marwa Moussa, individually and on behalf
of others similarly-situated v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.,
ATS Consolidated, Inc., American Traffic Solutions, LLC and
American Traffic Solutions Consolidated, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
24010-RNS (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2014) asserts claims related to
consumer credit.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Diana Leigh Martin, Esq.
          Leslie Mitchell Kroeger, Esq.
          Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
          E-mail: dmartin@cohenmilstein.com
                  lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com
                  tleopold@cohenmilstein.com


APPLE INC: Trial in iTunes Antitrust Litigation This Month
----------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the fiscal year
ended September 27, 2014, that the Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust
Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker
v. Apple Computer, Inc.), is set for trial in November 2014.

These related cases were filed on January 3, 2005 and July 21,
2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of a purported class of direct purchasers
of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various claims
including alleged unlawful tying of music and video purchased on
the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and unlawful
acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under Sec.
Sec. 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California
Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 (unfair competition), the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California
monopolization law. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class, treble damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys fees. Plaintiffs are also seeking digital rights
management free versions of any songs downloaded from iTunes or an
order requiring the Company to license its digital rights
management to all competing music players. The cases are set for
trial in November 2014.


APPLE INC: Outcome of Appeal to Determine eBook Suit Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the fiscal year
ended September 27, 2014, that pursuant to a settlement agreement
reached by the parties in June 2014 in the Apple eBooks Antitrust
Litigation (United States of America v. Apple Inc., et al.), any
damages the Company may be obligated to pay will be determined by
the outcome of an appellate decision.

On April 11, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil
antitrust action against the Company and five major book
publishers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging an unreasonable restraint of interstate trade
and commerce in violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act and
seeking, among other things, injunctive relief, the District
Court's declaration that the Company's agency agreements with the
publishers are null and void and/or the District Court's
reformation of such agreements.

On July 10, 2013, the District Court found, following a bench
trial, that the Company conspired to restrain trade in violation
of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act and relevant state statutes to the
extent those laws are congruent with Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act.
The District Court entered a permanent injunction, which took
effect on October 6, 2013 and will be in effect for five years
unless the judgment is overturned on appeal.

The Company has taken the necessary steps to comply with the terms
of the District Court's order, including renegotiating agreements
with the five major eBook publishers, updating its antitrust
training program and hiring an antitrust compliance monitor. The
Company appealed the District Court's decision. Pursuant to a
settlement agreement reached by the parties in June 2014, any
damages the Company may be obligated to pay will be determined by
the outcome of the appellate decision.


AR RESOURCES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marc A. Kopple, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AR Resources, Inc., and Does 1 Through 10,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06118-PD (E.D. Pa., October 27, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


AT&T INC: Unlimited Data Plans Mislead Customers, FTC Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer C. Kerr, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
AT&T is being sued by the government over allegations it misled
millions of smartphone customers about its unlimited data plans.

The Federal Trade Commission says AT&T failed to adequately
disclose to customers that it would reduce data speeds if they
went over a certain amount of data use in a billing cycle.  The
practice, known as throttling, slows down things like web
browsing, GPS navigation or watching streaming videos.

The FTC alleges that AT&T began throttling customers on unlimited
data plans in 2011.

According to the complaint filed in federal court in San
Francisco, about 3.5 million consumers have been affected.  The
commission says some customers had their data speeds slowed by
nearly 90 percent.


BANKRATE INC: Faces "Jahm" Securities Class Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rashid Jahm, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Bankrate, Inc., Edward J. Dimaria, Kenneth S. Esterow,
and Thomas R. Evans, Case No. 9:14-cv-81323-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
October 28, 2014) is a federal securities class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of all investors, who purchased or acquired
Bankrate securities traded on the New York Stock Exchange between
October 16, 2012, and September 15, 2014, inclusive.

Bankrate, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in North
Palm Beach, Florida.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Lewis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          1641 Worthington Road, Suite 100
          West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
          Telephone: (561) 227-5858
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3415
          E-mail: WLewis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Steven P. Harte, Esq.
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
                  Jason@blockesq.com
                  Steven@blockesq.com


BARAGA MAXIMUM: Dist. Court Tosses "Patterson" Suit vs. Directors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAYMAN PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL H. HEYNS, Defendants, CASE
NO. 2:14-CV-118, (W.D. Mich.) is a civil rights action brought by
a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Mr.
Patterson, currently confined at the Baraga Maximum Correctional
Facility (AMF), filed this action against Defendants MDOC Director
Daniel H. Heyns and Deputy Director Thomas G. Finco. In his
complaint, Plaintiff purports to bring a class action on behalf of
all prisoners similarly situated to challenge the Incentives in
Segregation Program (IISP).  The Court has granted Plaintiff leave
to proceed in forma pauperis without immediate payment of the
initial partial filing fee.  Under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), the Court is
required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law
if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant immune from such relief.

Applying these standards, District Judge Robert Holmes Bell ruled
that Plaintiff's action will be dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and
42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c).

A copy of the Court's October 23, 2014 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/P7btlofrom Leagle.com.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Sued Over Failure to Update Product Risks
------------------------------------------------------------
Ido Efrati, writing for Haaretz, reports that an Israeli attorney
on Oct.23 filed an application to launch a class action suit
against German drug company Bayer for failing to update the public
about the risks associated with one of its products in a timely
fashion.

Bayer updated the user information leaflet of its popular birth
control pill Yasmin in January 2010, adding the risk of clotting
and blood vessel blockage to the list of rare side effects.
According to the petition for a class action suit filed at the
Central District Court against Bayer Israel and Perrigo Israel
(local distributor of Yasmin at the time), the update was too
little and too late.

Attorney Yaakov Davidovich, who filed the petition on behalf a
woman who took the pill, claimed that the pharmaceutical company
did not make public the risks entailed by the pill -- despite the
real risks involved -- and made do with merely updating the
pamphlet.  If the application is approved, a suit for NIS 204
million in damages will be filed.

The petition also claims that the pamphlet was updated years after
evidence of the significant clotting risk had accumulated.  "The
respondents did not see fit to make public and to inform users of
the Yasmin pill that it comes with a risk of excessive blood
clotting, which is liable to cause complications from lung
embolisms to death, well beyond the usual relatively trivial risks
of other pills," Mr. Davidovich said at a press conference on
Oct. 23.

"We are doing today what the drug company should have done
immediately upon learning of the side effect of blood clotting,
and that is we are informing the public about the risks in an open
and wide-ranging way by means of the media," he said.

According to Mr. Davidovich, the intention of updating the
pamphlet was to do the necessary minimum without informing the
women who take the pill.  "A person who uses a medication on a
regular basis does not read the usage pamphlet every time he uses
it," the attorney said.

Mr. Davidovich's client, Ruth Teitler, 29, suffered a dangerous
pulmonary embolism in 2007, ostensibly as a result of taking the
pill.  "A year after I started taking the pill, I began to feel
pain in my chest and a few days later I felt I could not breathe,"
she told Haaretz.  "When I got to the hospital I was in danger of
dying." X-rays showed her lungs were full of blood clots, she
said.

An estimated 700,000 women in Israel use birth control pills. Of
them, 100,000 take Yasmin, which has been available in Israel
since 2001.

The U.S. Federal Drug Administration published a warning regarding
Yasmin in 2011, noting that the specific form of synthetic
progesterone used in the pill has been tied to blood clots and
pulmonary embolisms.

Another request for a class action against Bayer over Yasmin was
filed in 2013 in the Tel Aviv District Court.


CACH LLC: Removes "Hudson" Suit to Eastern District of Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Hudson v. CACH LLC, Case No. CV-
2014-300, was removed from the Pope County Circuit Court to the
U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little
Rock).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00630-
JM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex G. Streett, Esq.
          James A. Streett, Esq.
          Robert M. Veach, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968-2030
          Facsimile: (479) 968-6253
          E-mail: alex@streettlaw.com
                  james@streettlaw.com
                  robert@streettlaw.com

               - and -

          Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
          227 Second Avenue North, Suite 400
          Nashville, TN 37201-1631
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David M. Donovan, Esq.
          WATTS, DONOVAN & TILLEY, P.A.
          200 River Market Avenue, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1769
          Telephone: (501) 372-1406
          E-mail: david.donovan@wdt-law.com


CAJUN OPERATING: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lilian Holton, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Cajun Operating Company d/b/a Church's Fried
Chicken, Case No. 8:14-cv-02703-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla., October 27,
2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Sued inn E.D. Mo. Over Mortgage Satisfactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Nicklaw, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Citimortgage, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01795 (E.D. Mo.,
October 23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
present mortgage satisfactions in a timely manner.

Citimortgage, Inc. is an operating subsidiary of Citibank, N.A.,
services the mortgages originated by Citibank, N.A.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don M. Downing, Esq.
      GRAY AND RITTER, P.C.
      701 Market Street, Suite 800
      St. Louis, MO 63101-1826
      Telephone: (314) 241-5620
      Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
      E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com


COCA-COLA: Truth in Advertising Wants Settlement Rejected
---------------------------------------------------------
Alexander C. Kaufman, writing The Huffington Post, reports that
for earlier this month, Red Bull agreed to pay up to $10 to anyone
who's ever bought a Red Bull to settle claims that it misled
customers into thinking the energy drink "gives you wings."

Now a nonprofit wants Vitaminwater to offer a similar payout.

Truth In Advertising, a Connecticut-based group that fights
against deceptive advertising, is trying to get compensation for
people who bought Vitaminwater thinking it was more healthful than
it actually is.  To do this, the group is pressuring a judge to
reject a class-action settlement over the brand's advertising.

Earlier in October, Coca-Cola, which owns Vitaminwater, agreed to
pay $1.2 million to end a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of
residents of Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and the U.S. Virgin
Islands that said Vitaminwater was making exaggerated health
claims on its bottles and listing calorie counts for an
unrealistic serving size.  The company also agreed to list the
total calories per bottle and add "see nutrition facts for more
detail" to Vitaminwater labels.

But the settlement's critics point out that Coca-Cola had already
made these labeling changes, meaning the settlement won't make any
difference to Coca-Cola.  Truth In Advertising wants the company
to do more.  It wants a payout for customers in the class-action
states who bought the drink, and it wants Coca-Cola to change
Vitaminwater's name and sell it as a soda, instead of a hydration
or sports drink.

"Ideally, what we want is for Coke to compensate consumers for
being deceived, similar to the Red Bull settlement," Bonnie
Patten, the executive director of the group, told The Huffington
Post on Oct. 22.  The group also wants Vitaminwater to end what it
calls "deceptive marketing" by changing its name, Patten said.

A judge has to approve the current settlement on Dec. 2, but Truth
In Advertising wants residents of the four states and territory
listed in the lawsuit to send letters to lawyers for plaintiffs
and defendants and court clerks in several locations before the
Nov. 3 filing deadline and express opposition.  Then, the
settlement could be reconfigured, with a payout for those
affected.

Coca-Cola may be eager to get the settlement approved because the
case is similar to another one from 2009 that's still languishing
in New York courts.  The Center for Science in the Public Interest
took Coca-Cola to court in 2009, accusing it of deceptive
marketing and of violating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
rules against fortifying junk food with vitamins.

That lawsuit targeted Vitaminwater's claims that its drinks could
reduce the risk of chronic diseases, improve joint function and
boost mental and physical wellness, according to court documents.
The company has since replaced such blurbs with conversationally
written anecdotes hinting at how the drinks, which contain about
33 grams of sugar per 20-ounce bottle -- or almost a third of the
sugar in a bottle of Coke -- can improve focus, remedy alcoholic
hangovers or boost immune systems.

Danielle Dubois, a Coca-Cola spokeswoman, said the company was
"pleased to reach an amicable resolution" of the class-action
suit, but declined to comment on the earlier New York case.  She
did not immediately respond to questions about what prompted the
company to change the blurbs on its bottles.

Steve Gardner, who as litigation director at the Center for
Science in the Public Interest filed the original lawsuit in 2009,
told HuffPost on Oct. 22 that the class-action settlement isn't
really punishing the brand because Vitaminwater had already
changed its labels.  He said his nonprofit group was considering
filing an objection to accompany Truth in Advertising's efforts
with the judge.

"All the things they said Coke has agreed to change, Coke has now
put in writing, but in reality they had already done," he said.
"The settlement is worthless to anyone in the public interest, the
class members and the consumers, but it's very profitable for the
lawyers who settled it."


CRACKER BARREL: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Case No. 2:14-
cv-01455-RCM (W.D. Pa., October 27, 2014) alleges violations of
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


DEBT RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Riccio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-06695-JAP-DEA (D.N.J., October 27, 2014) arises from
the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC, is a foreign limited liability
company with its executive offices located at in Westbury, New
York.  DRS is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and
facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose
of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.
John Does 1-25 are fictitious names of individuals and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Settles FCRA Class Action for $4.02 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Dollar
General has agreed to a $4.02 million settlement in a class action
lawsuit claiming the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Dollar General has denied all of the plaintiffs' claims and denies
any wrongdoing, but has agreed to settle the class action anyway,
according to the Oct. 15 settlement document filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Virginia.

Attorneys' fees will not exceed 25 percent of the net settlement
fund of $3.81 million. Service awards will not exceed $10,000 per
class representative.

The class action lawsuit was initially filed on Feb. 13, 2012, by
Jonathan Marcum.  Jackie E. Lewis Sr. was later named as a second
plaintiff in the suit.

Mr. Marcum claimed he applied for employment at Dollar General on
Jan. 15, 2012, in Richmond and that the company failed to comply
with procedural protections and requirements imposed on it by the
FCRA.

The woman who interviewed Marcum, known only as Ruth, allegedly
told him the job was his if he wanted it, and Mr. Marcum then, as
part of the interview process "may have seen an FCRA disclosure
and he may have signed an authorization permitting the defendant
to obtain a consumer report for employment purposes," the
complaint states.

Mr. Marcum claimed on Jan. 20, 2012, Ruth was telling people in
the shopping center where Dollar General was located that he would
not be getting the job because of his criminal record.

"Ruth specifically informed people in the shopping center,
including Henry, a manager at Radio Shack in the same shopping
center, that plaintiff had a firearms conviction," the complaint
stated.

Mr. Marcum claimed Ruth also told Henry that he had a conviction
for domestic abuse.

"Plaintiff has never been convicted of a firearms charge, nor has
he ever been convicted of domestic abuse," the complaint stated.

On Jan. 23, 2012, Marcum received a letter with his consumer
report, which failed to comply with the FCRA, he said.

There are approximately 112,000 class members who can file claims
in the class action settlement, according to the settlement
document.

Class members in Group One will receive a check in the amount of
$53. Class members eligible for Group Two will receive a pro rata
payment capped at $53.

Mr. Marcum is represented by Casey S. Nash, Matthew J. Erausquin,
Susan Mary Rotkis and Leonard Anthony Bennett of Consumer
Litigation Associates PC; and Christopher Colt North and William
L. Downing of the Consumer & Employee Rights Law Firm PC.

Dollar General is represented by David M. Gettings --
david.gettings@troutmansanders.com -- John C. Lynch --
john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- and David Neal Anthony --
david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman Sanders LLP.

The case is assigned to District Judge James R. Spencer.

U.S. District Court for the District of Virginia case number:
3:12-cv-00108


EBAY INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that online
auction company eBay has filed a motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit against it for an alleged data breach, claiming the
plaintiff failed to state a claim.

"Plaintiff brings this putative class action seeking to capitalize
on a cyberattack on eBay's computer network in which criminal
hackers accessed a database containing non-financial eBay user
information and encrypted passwords," the Sept. 30 motion to
dismiss states.

The company states that plaintiff Collin Green's claims fail
because he has not alleged any cognizable injury whatsoever, and
he thus lacks Article III standing.

"Plaintiff does not allege that he has been injured by misuse of
the stolen information," the motion states.  "He does not allege
that anyone has used his password, or that anyone has even tried
to commit identity fraud with his information -- let alone that
anyone has actually succeeded in doing so -- and that he has
thereby suffered harm."

Instead, Mr. Green relies on vague, speculative assertions of
possible future injury -- that maybe at some point in the future,
he might be harmed, according to the motion.

"In fact, he concedes that an injury may never materialize,
alleging explicitly that he may 'never [be] subject to active
identity fraud,'" the motion states.  "But the speculative
possibility of future injury does not constitute injury-in-fact."

Because the plaintiff has not alleged specific facts constituting
an injury that is present or "certainly impending," the plaintiff
lacks standing and the complaint must be dismissed, according to
the motion.

Separately, the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, according to the motion.

The company claims that the plaintiff takes a "shotgun" approach
to pleading his claims, asserting no fewer than 10 causes of
action, including one under a statute that does not provide a
private right of action and another under a statute that was
repealed before the complaint was filed.

"In sum, plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that he has
standing to bring this case or that he has any legally sufficient
claim even if he did have standing," the motion states.  "Because
any further amendment would be futile given the fundamental
problems with plaintiff's allegations, the complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice."

In February or March, eBay's files were accessed by identity
thieves, without eBay's permission. The thieves, at a minimum, had
access to and reportedly copied customer names, encrypted
passwords, email addresses, physical addresses, phone numbers and
dates of birth.

Mr. Green claims eBay did not notify its customers of the security
breach until May 21, only after the security breach had been
reported by independent Internet sources.

Mr. Green claims the security breach was the result of eBay's
inadequate security in regard to protecting identity information
of its millions of customers.

The company's failure to properly secure this information has
caused, and is continuing to cause, damage to its customers,
according to the suit.

Mr. Green claims eBay claims it encrypted passwords, but only in
the least safe method.

"According to industry reports, eBay chose to use the cheaper
security method of encryption as opposed to hashing, with full
knowledge that hashing was much more secure and preferred by
security experts," the complaint states.  "Once a hacker steals
the encryption key, the complex nature of a 'strong' encrypted
password is irrelevant as the hacker can simply reveal the
password with the encryption key."

With hashing, the hacker still cannot access the password,
according to the suit.

Mr. Green claims eBay breached its implied contract, breached its
fiduciary duty, violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, violated
multi-state privacy laws and violated the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Mr. Green is seeking class certification and compensatory and
consequential damages with pre- and post-judgment interest.  He is
represented by Charles F. Zimmer II, Eric H. O'Bell and Bradley T.
Oster of O'Bell Law Firm LLC.

The defendant is represented by Kerry J. Miller, Joseph N. Mole
and Heather McArthur of Frilot LLC; and Matthew D. Brown --
brownmd@cooley.com -- Michael G. Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com --
and Benjamin Kleine -- bkleine@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Susie Morgan.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana case
number: 2:14-cv-01688


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Stock Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Electronic Arts Inc. engaged in benign "corporate optimism," not
securities fraud, when it touted to investors its ultimately buggy
Battlefield 4 video game, a California federal judge ruled in
zapping a proposed class action that alleged the company had
engaged in stock manipulation.

In dismissing Kelly v. Electronic Arts on Oct. 20, U.S. District
Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California also
noted that the complaint filed by investors was largely flawed
because many of the allegedly illegal, stock-pumping statements
made by Electronics Arts' leaders occurred after the lead
plaintiffs had already bought their EA stock.

But Judge Illston gave the plaintiffs the chance, with a Nov. 3
deadline, to keep the complaint alive by amending it to either
identify earlier statements or find new lead plaintiffs.

The world's third largest video-gaming company, EA had a history
of "disastrous" game launches and failures in transitioning games
to new consoles, according to court documents.  But the company
was repairing its damaged reputation, and looked to the
Battlefield 4 game as a key to an improved image and as a
substantial factor in its 2014 revenues.

The rolling launch, from Oct. 29, 2013 to Nov. 22, 2013, was met
with a growing cascade of complaints that the game wouldn't start,
or would crash or freeze.

In retrospect, the investors saw what they believed was an effort
by duplicitous EA executives to hype the game and boost both the
stock price and preorders, even as they knew the product was beset
with bugs, the complaint alleges.  Although EA developers and
executives acknowledged some difficulties in developing BF4, they
conveyed confidence right up to the rollout that they'd worked out
the glitches and expected a successful launch.

"I think that our launch software this time is head and shoulders
above where we were last time . . . [W]e are certainly bullish as
we come into this platform generation, particularly as well as we
have executed," EA chief executive officer Andrew Wilson said on
Oct. 29, 2013, according to the complaint and other court records.

The plaintiffs argued the quote, among others, was "materially
false or misleading," the complaint alleged.  The stock peaked at
$27.99 a share on Sept. 4, 2013, then tanked to $21.01 on Dec. 5,
2013. In between, the complaint alleges, four of the EA insiders
sold $19.8 million worth of stock.

To Judge Illston, however, the statements were empty of malign
intent, and amounted, the judge said, to "statements of opinion,
corporate optimism, or puffery."

For example, the judge noted, "Defendant (and president of EA
Labels Frank) Gibeau's May 7, 2013 statement that EA was in a
'much better state' for the next-generation transition and that
(technology platform) Frostbite 3 had 'largely been de-risked' is
a non-actionable vague expression of corporate optimism and
puffery upon which no reasonable investor would rely."

Defendants are represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.  The
plaintiffs' team includes lawyers from Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd; Glancy Binkow & Goldberg; and Pomerantz.


EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Byrd" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Byrd, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08226 (C.D.
Cal., October 23, 2014), is brought for negligently and
intentionally contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Equinox Holdings, Inc. is engaged in soliciting and providing
fitness services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman (SBN 216752)
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (888)595-9111
      Facsimile: (866)633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


FLORIDA: Faces Crafted Keg Suit Over Ban on Sale of Growlers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Crafted Keg, LLC v. Ken Lawson, Secretary of the State of
Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, in his
official capacity, and William Spicola, Director of the State of
Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, in his
official capacity, Case No. 2:14-cv-14430-RLR (S.D. Fla.,
October 28, 2014) alleges that a statute of the state of Florida
that prohibits the selling or filling of 64-ounce containers of
beer, known as growlers, has no rational basis and, thus, violates
the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and
equal protection.

A growler is simply a jug.  Growlers are a container for the beer
drinker, who wants to drink draft-quality beer at home.

The Plaintiff contends that the unconstitutional ban inflicts an
ongoing loss of business on The Crafted Keg, and all other
businesses similarly situated, and the Court must enjoin the
Growler prohibition in order to put an end to this
unconstitutional infringement on The Crafted Keg's economic
liberty.

The Crafted Keg is a limited liability corporation doing business
in the historic Crary Buchanan Building located in downtown
Stuart, Florida.  The Crafted Keg is a full-time "growler bar"
supplying the best crafted beers, wines, ciders and sodas from
throughout the world.

Ken Lawson is the Secretary of the state of Florida Department of
Business and Professional Regulation.  William Spicola is the
Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Miller, Esq.
          Christina Martin, Esq.
          PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
          8645 N. Military Trail, Suite 511
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 691-5000
          Facsimile: (561) 691-5006
          E-mail: mm@pacificlegal.org
                  cmm@pacificlegal.org


FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Gender Discrimination Suit in Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Sessions v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00629-SWW (E.D. Ark.,
October 27, 2014) alleges that throughout her employment under her
district manager, the Plaintiff was subjected to differential and
discriminatory treatment to which similarly situated male
counterparts were not subjected.

Forest Laboratories, Inc. is a Delaware foreign corporation that
develops and manufactures pharmaceutical products and sells those
products, either directly or through distributors and
subsidiaries, within the state of Arkansas.

Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware foreign corporation
engaged in business within the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Forest Pharmaceuticals is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Forest
Laboratories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Reddick, Esq.
          Brent L. Moss, Esq.
          Matthew D. Swindle, Esq.
          Robert W. Francis, Esq.
          REDDICK MOSS, PLLC
          One Information Way, Suite 105
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-7790
          Facsimile: (501) 907-7793
          E-mail: brian@reddickmoss.com
                  brent@reddickmoss.com
                  matthew@reddickmoss.com
                  rob@reddickmoss.com


GOOGLE INC: Koh's No-Poach Approach May Impact Future Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a group of
academic economists are weighing in on the Silicon Valley "no-
poach" appeal, saying U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's rationale for
rejecting a $324 million deal could discourage future settlements.

Economists and professors from schools including Boston
University, UC-Berkeley and UCLA filed an amicus brief with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 24.  They are
represented by Morrison & Foerster partner Sean Gates.

"If adopted by other courts, the district court's methodology
threatens to impede class action litigants from reaching efficient
settlements," Mr. Gates wrote, "while giving courts false comfort
that they have dutifully carried out the objectives of judicial
review of class action settlements."

Judge Koh rejected the "no-poach" deal in August, ruling it wasn't
adequate.  Employees had filed a class action alleging that Google
Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and Intel Corp. had illegally
conspired not to recruit each other's employees.  Judge Koh
demanded $55 million more than the proposed $324.5 million
settlement offered, based on an earlier $20 million deal reached
with smaller defendants Pixar Animation Studios Inc., Lucasfilm
and Intuit Inc.  The larger settling defendants should pay at
least the proportional amount the smaller defendants did,
Judge Koh reasoned, especially because plaintiffs received
favorable pre-trial rulings after the first settlement.

Defendants Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel appealed Judge Koh's
decision, and the appeals court ordered both sides to file a
response.  According to the amici brief filed on Oct. 24,
Judge Koh failed to consider individual case factors, such as a
party's degree of risk tolerance, or confidential information that
makes one side more or less likely to settle.  The math-heavy
brief lays out several formulas for calculating economically
efficient settlements.

"A prior settlement is only one point in a possible range of
efficient settlement values," the motion states, "and gives only
limited information about the expected trial outcome."

A wide adoption of Judge Koh's rule could affect the incentives of
parties to settle, according to the brief.  Defendants who haven't
yet settled could have a greater motivation to go to trial, as any
prior settlements could diminish their chances of striking a deal.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, may be tempted to accept smaller
deals from early settling defendants, for fear a large sum will
hurt their chances of future deals.  Or they could insist on
higher settlements out of the gate, assuming they won't get a
secondary settlement approved anyway.

"These effects undermine the policy favoring class-action
settlements," the economists wrote, "and the goals of judicial
review."


HOME DEPOT: Sued by Gulf Coast Bank Over Recent Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
03448-WSD (N.D. Ga., October 27, 2014) arises from the alleged
security breach at Home Depot that started in April 2014 and
continuing through September 2014.

According to the complaint, Gulf Coast Bank and other financial
institutions suffered losses resulting from and relating to, among
other things, the expense of creating, issuing, and mailing new
payment cards to their customers, and customer reimbursements for
fraudulent charges as required by the Electronic Transfers Act.

Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company is a Louisiana bank headquartered
in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Home Depot, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Home Depot
advertises and sells merchandise directly to millions of consumers
through its retail stores in the United States.

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 -

          Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
          GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
          One Securities Centre, Suite 1050
          3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 842-9700
          Facsimile: (404) 842-9750
          E-mail: aclake@gwllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
          Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Esq.
          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
          E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com
                  knelson@murray-lawfirm.com


HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Accused of Failing to Pay Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Hernandez and Maricruz Patino, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated persons v. Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC
and Embassy Suites Management, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08514 (N.D.
Ill., October 28, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Illinois Minimum Wage law, the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, and the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services
Act for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees at least the federally and Illinois-
mandated minimum wages for all time worked.

Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC is a Delaware corporation.
HSS employs day or temporary laborers to provide services, for a
fee, to third party clients, pursuant to contracts between itself
and third party clients.

Embassy Suites Management, LLC, is a Delaware corporation.
Embassy Suites contracted temporary laborers through staffing
agencies for a fee, including HSS, pursuant to contracts between
itself and the staffing agencies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          Jenee Gaskin, Esq.
          Alvar Ayala, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          401 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121
          Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
          E-mail: cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com
                  jgaskin@wagetheftlaw.com
                  aayala@wagetheftlaw.com


HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: February 2016 Trial Set in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled for February 22, 2016, in a civil antitrust
suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the
Direct Purchasers class litigation, Huntsman Corporation said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 27, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

Huntsman has been named as a defendant in consolidated class
action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that
Huntsman and its co-defendants and other asserted co-conspirators
conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S.
between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The other
defendants named in this matter are DuPont, Kronos and Cristal
(formerly Millennium).

On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all
U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide directly from the
defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003.
Huntsman and all other defendants settled the Direct Purchasers
litigation and the court approved the settlement on December 13,
2013.  Huntsman has paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to
its condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).

On November 22, 2013, Huntsman was named as a defendant in a civil
antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the
Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt Out Litigation"). On
April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against Huntsman from
the other defendants and ordered Huntsman's case transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Trial
is scheduled for February 22, 2016. It is possible that additional
claims will be filed by other Direct Purchasers who opted out of
the class litigation.

Huntsman is a global manufacturer of differentiated organic
chemical products and of inorganic chemical products.


HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: 2nd Amended Class Action Complaint Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint
narrowing the class of plaintiffs to merchants and consumers of
architectural coatings containing titanium dioxide, Huntsman
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

Huntsman is named as a defendant in a class action civil antitrust
suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California by the purchasers of products made
from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers") making
essentially the same allegations as the Direct Purchasers. On
October 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to merchants
and consumers of architectural coatings containing titanium
dioxide. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the
laws of 16 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of 10
states, as well as unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 20
states. The Opt-Out Litigation and Indirect Purchasers plaintiffs
seek to recover injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum
damages allowed by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees.

"We are not aware of any illegal conduct by us or any of our
employees. Nevertheless, we have incurred costs relating to these
claims and could incur additional costs in amounts which in the
aggregate could be material to us. Because of the overall
complexity of these cases, we are unable to reasonably estimate
any possible loss or range of loss associated with these claims
and we have made no accruals with respect to these claims," the
Company said.

Huntsman is a global manufacturer of differentiated organic
chemical products and of inorganic chemical products.


IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS: Court Refused to Junk US Citizens Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that two U.S.
citizens get one more chance to persuade a federal judge that
their civil rights were violated when Immigration and Customs
Enforcement detained them on "immigration holds."

In June 2013, Gerardo Gonzalez sued ICE and its officials John
Morton, David Marin, and David Palmatier in a federal class action
alleging unlawful seizure and unreasonable detention.

Simon Chinivizyan, placed on an immigration hold after he was
arrested last year on drug charges and receiving stolen property,
joined the lawsuit when Gonzalez filed a first amended complaint a
month later.  They claimed that since 2008, ICE has issued
immigration detainers, or "holds," that allow local authorities to
keep detainees an extra 48 hours so ICE could check if they were
subject to deportation.

ICE has detained thousands of U.S. citizens and legal residents,
the lawsuit claimed.  The holds prevent detainees from posting
bail, accepting plea agreements, and affect their eligibility for
work programs in jail, according to the complaint.

Gonzalez and Chinivizyan asked the court to certify the lawsuit as
a class action, declare that the detainers violate the Fourth and
Fifth Amendment, and enjoin ICE from issuing the holds without
probable cause.  But U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell
said the plaintiffs' third amended complaint had not persuaded her
to issue an injunction because it failed to demonstrate a
"substantial likelihood of future injury."

The judge gave them one more chance to remedy the deficiencies,
either by including more facts or adding another plaintiff.

The judge, however, rejected ICE's claim that Gonzalez and
Chinivizyan lack standing because they were no longer on
immigration holds when they filed an amended complaint in August.

"(T)he operative dates for determining plaintiffs' standing are
the dates they initially entered this action, and it is undisputed
that both Gonzalez and Chinivizyan were subject to a detainer when
each became involved in these proceedings," O'Connell wrote.

The judge denied class certification, finding that the "early
state of the proceedings" makes the motion "premature."  She said
the plaintiffs may submit a motion for class certification later,
should the case move forward.

At the time he filed suit, Gonzalez, now 25, was in a Los Angeles
County jail awaiting trial on a charge of possession of
methamphetamine.

According to Gonzalez, officers mistakenly identified him as a
Mexican national even though FBI records of his prior arrests make
it clear that he was born in Pacoima, Calif., and is a native-born
U.S. citizen.  Those records were available to ICE, he claimed.

Gonzalez learned of the hold when his girlfriend tried to post
bail, according to court records.

"When it comes to immigration holds, ICE's mantra is: Detain
first, investigate later," Gonzalez's complaint stated.

ICE canceled the detainer hours after Gonzalez filed the lawsuit.

Gonzalez said that immigration officers, rather than courts or
judicial officials, issue the immigration detainer form, the
I-247.  He claims in the lawsuit that prisoners with immigration
detainers spend an average of 20 extra days in jail.

Gonzalez and Chinivizyan were given until Nov. 7 to file a final
amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Pasquarella, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 W 8th St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90026
          Telephone: (213) 977-5236
          E-mail: jpasquarella@aclu-sc.org

The case is Gerardo Gonzalez, et al. v. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, et al., Case No. CV 13-04416 BRO (FFMx), in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Continues to Defend Craftwood Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Interline Brands, Inc. continues to defend the class action filed
by Craftwood Lumber Company, Interline said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 27, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 26,
2014.

In May 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in the case of
Craftwood Lumber Company v. Interline Brands, Inc. ("Craftwood
Matter"), filed before the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of
Lake County, Illinois, and subsequently removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited fax
advertisements to businesses nationwide in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("Junk Fax Act"). At the time of filing
the initial complaint in state court, the plaintiff also filed a
motion asking the Court to certify a class of plaintiffs comprised
of businesses who allegedly received unsolicited fax
advertisements from the Company during the four-year statute of
limitations period.

In its amended complaint filed in the United States District
Court, the plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief enjoining the Company from violating the Junk Fax Act, as
well as statutory damages for each fax transmission found to be in
violation of the Junk Fax Act. The Company continues to vigorously
contest class action certification and liability; however, in
light of the Company's assessment of potential legal risks
associated with the Craftwood Matter, the Company recorded a pre-
tax charge in the amount of $20.5 million in the third quarter of
2013. The pre-tax charge was included in selling, general and
administrative expenses in the statements of operations for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2013.

As of September 26, 2014 and December 27, 2013, the litigation-
related accrual of $20.5 million was included in accrued expenses
and other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.
Based upon the uncertain outcome of the Craftwood Matter, a range
of reasonable outcomes cannot be estimated as of the date of these
financial statements. Accordingly, actual results may differ.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action for $12MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that JPMorgan
Chase Bank has agreed to settle a wage and hour class action
lawsuit for up to $12 million to employees in 12 states who
allegedly worked off-the-clock.

There are approximately 145,000 current and former Chase employees
that are eligible for the settlement, according to a settlement
document filed Oct. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

"The proposed settlement class is comprised of 'all persons
employed by defendant as a 'Personal Banker,' 'Teller,' 'SSA,' or
'ABM Trainee' in one of defendant's branches in Arizona,
California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New
York, Ohio, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin during the covered
periods," the settlement document states.

Covered periods are defined different by some states.  In
California, it is since Sept. 25, 2008; in New York, it is since
July 20, 2005; and in Arizona, Illinois, Florida, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin, it is
since Feb. 17, 2008.

"For each covered position in each state, the settlement
administrator will multiply the total number of workweeks in that
state worked by class members and/or FLSA collective members in
the covered position by the average weekly pay rate for the
covered position in that state and by any applicable state
multiplier," the settlement document states.

The settlement administrator will then divide that number by the
sum of this calculation for all covered positions in all states.

The resulting percentage will be the percent of the net settlement
amount that will be allocated to all class members and/or FLSA
collective members in the covered position in that state.

The lawsuit was originally filed on March 2, 2011.

The plaintiffs claimed Chase was not paying its bank tellers
proper wages or overtime because of not counting some hours
worked, not giving duty-free meal or rest breaks and not paying
for employee uniforms, among other claims.

The plaintiffs claimed Chase used an accounting system that
converted worked minutes into fractions of an hour, and then
converted that fraction into decimals, which translated to
employees not being paid for all the time they worked.

Chase's policy of converting the number of minutes worked into a
decimal system also cut down their wages because fractions such as
one-third cannot accurately be converted to decimals, they
claimed.

In addition to Fair Labor and Standard Act violations, the wage
and hour class action lawsuit alleged Chase violated state labor
laws in Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington and
Wisconsin.

The lead plaintiffs shall receive $10,000 each for their efforts
and service, while additional named plaintiffs will receive $7,500
each.

Class members who provided depositions shall receive $1,000 each
and class members who provided declarations in support of
certification shall receive $500 for their efforts and service.

A total of $25,000 is allocated to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency for PAGA penalties, 75 percent of which will be
paid to California, as required by PAGA.

Attorneys will receive $3.6 million for attorneys fees and
$200,000 for litigation costs, pending court approval.

The plaintiffs are represented by Marcus J. Bradley, Kiley Lynn
Grombacher, Louis M. Marlin and Stanley D. Saltzman of Marlin &
Saltzman LLP; Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com
-- Rebecca Labat -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- and Matthew Thomas
Theriault -- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- of Capstone
Law APC; Solomon E. Gresen and Steven R. Rheuban of the Law
Offices of Rheuban & Gresen; David Harrison of Harrisson Harrison
& Associates Ltd.; Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum -- maimon@jhllp.com
-- and Denise Andrea Schulman -- denise@jhllp.com -- of Joseph
Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum; Suzy E. Lee of Arias Ozzello &
Gignac LLP; Michael Malk of Michael Malk Law Offices; Gene Arthur
Meneses of Initiative Legal Group APC;  Jonathan Shub of Seeger
Weiss LLP;  William Bransfield Sullivan of Sullivan & Christiani;
and Erik K. Yaeckel of Sullivan Law Group LLP.

Chase was represented by Carrie A. Gonell --
cgonell@morganlewis.com -- John D. Hayashi --
jhayashi@morganlewis.com -- and Samuel S. Shaulson --
sshaulson@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is assigned to District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number:  2:11-cv-01802


KINDER MORGAN: "Arendt" and "Haynes" Cases Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that four
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware in connection with the proposed Merger
Transactions with El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.: (i) William
Bryce Arendt v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Case
No. 10093-VCL; (ii) The Haynes Family Trust U/A. v. Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 10118-VCL; (iii) George H.
Edwards, et al., v. El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case
No. 10160-VCL; and (iv) Irwin Berlin v. Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 10191-VCL. On September 28, 2014,
the Arendt and Haynes actions were consolidated under the caption
In re Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Unitholders Litigation,
Case No. 10093-VCL, with the complaint in the Haynes action
designated as the operative complaint. Among the relief sought in
the complaints filed in these lawsuits is to enjoin one or more of
the proposed Merger Transactions.


KINDER MORGAN: Plaintiffs in Unitholders Case Seek Injunction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
plaintiffs in the In re Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
Unitholders Litigation action allege that (i) Kinder Morgan
Management, LLC or KMR, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, and
individual defendants breached the express terms of and their
duties under the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. partnership
agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing, by entering into the KMP Transaction and by failing to
adequately disclose material facts related to the transaction;
(ii) KMI aided and abetted such breach; and (iii) KMI tortiously
interfered with the rights of the plaintiffs and the putative
class under the KMEP partnership agreement by causing KMGP and the
individual defendants to breach their duties under the KMEP
partnership agreement. Further, plaintiffs allege that the KMEP
partnership agreement mandates that the transaction be approved by
two-thirds of KMEP's limited partner interests. On September 26,
2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings. On
September 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the KMEP vote.


KINDER MORGAN: Hearing Held in Edwards et al. v. El Paso
--------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in
the George H. Edwards, et al. v. El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.,
et al. action, plaintiffs allege that (i) El Paso Pipeline GP
Company, L.L.C. (EPGP) breached the implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing by approving the transaction with El Paso Pipeline
Partners, L.P. or EPB in bad faith; (ii) EPGP, the EPGP directors
named as defendants, E Merger Sub LLC, and Kinder Morgan, Inc. or
KMI aided and abetted such breach; (iii) EPGP breached its duties
under the EPB partnership agreement, including the implied duty of
good faith and fair dealing; and (iv) EPB, the EPGP directors
named as defendants, E Merger Sub LLC, and KMI aided and abetted
such breach and tortiously interfered with the rights of the EPB
unitholders under the EPB partnership agreement.

The plaintiffs also allege that (i) KMR and KMGP breached their
duties under the KMEP partnership agreement including the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (ii) KMEP, the KMGP
directors named as defendants, P Merger Sub LLC, and KMI aided and
abetted such breach and tortiously interfered with the rights of
the KMEP unitholders under the KMEP partnership agreement. In
addition, plaintiffs allege that KMR and KMGP breached the
residual fiduciary duties owed to KMEP unitholders, and KMEP, the
KMGP directors named as defendants, P Merger Sub LLC, and KMI
aided and abetted such breach. Finally, plaintiffs allege that the
KMEP partnership agreement mandates that the KMEP merger be
approved, alternatively, by at least 95% of all of KMEP's limited
partner interests, by at least two-thirds of KMEP's limited
partner interests, or by at least two-thirds of KMEP's common
unitholders.

On September 26, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
discovery, and a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin the KMEP vote.

On October 7, 2014, the Court ruled that expedited discovery and
expedited proceedings could proceed with respect to claims
relating to the vote required to approve the KMP merger. The Court
has scheduled a hearing on this matter for October 31, 2014.


KINDER MORGAN: No Claims Against KMEP in "Berlin" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in
the Irwin Berlin v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., et al.
action, plaintiff alleges that (i) Kinder Morgan Management, LLC
or KMR, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, Kinder Morgan, Inc. or
KMI, and members of the Board of Directors of KMGP breached their
fiduciary duties by entering into the KMP Transaction and by
failing to adequately disclose material facts related to the
transaction; (ii) KMI aided and abetted such breach; and (iii)
KMGP breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Although
KMEP is listed as a defendant in the caption, no claims are
asserted against it in the complaint.

The defendants believe the allegations against them lack merit,
and they intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits.


KINDER MORGAN: Defending Against Class Suit in Del Chancery Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against defendants KMI,
KMGP and nominal defendant KMEP on February 5, 2014 and March 27,
2014 captioned Slotoroff v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan
G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9318) and Burns et al v. Kinder Morgan,
Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9479) respectively.
The cases were consolidated on April 8, 2014 (Consolidated Case
No. 9318). The consolidated suit seeks to assert claims both
individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all
public holders of KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011
through the date of the filing of the complaints.

The suit alleges direct and derivative causes of action for breach
of the partnership agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, aiding and abetting, and tortious interference.
Among other things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad
faith allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital
expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the
alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions
and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions
to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond amounts that would
have been distributed in accordance with a "good faith" allocation
of maintenance capital expenses, together with other unspecified
monetary damages including punitive damages and attorney fees.
Defendants believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend
it vigorously.


KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Case Stayed Pending Derivative Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that by
agreement of the parties, the case Walker v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al is stayed pending further
resolution of In Re Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Derivative
Litigation.

On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint
was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No.
2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against Kinder Morgan,
Inc. or KMI, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, Kinder Morgan
Management, LLC or KMR, Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A.
Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and nominal
defendant KMEP.  The suit was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported
unit holder of KMEP, and alleges direct and derivative causes of
action for alleged violation of duties owed under the partnership
agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, "abuse of control" and "gross mismanagement" in
connection with the calculation of distributions and allocation of
capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures and
maintenance capital expenditures. The suit seeks unspecified money
damages, interest, punitive damages, attorney and expert fees,
costs and expenses, unspecified equitable relief, and demands a
trial by jury. Defendants believe this suit is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously.


KOHL'S CORP: Faces Another Class Action Over ADA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a woman who
has filed at least eight class action lawsuits alleging violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act has filed a new lawsuit
against Kohl's.

Sarah Heinzl has a mobility disability and is dependent upon a
wheelchair, according to a complaint filed Oct. 6 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Ms. Heinzl claims Kohls violated Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, in connection
with accessibility barriers at various properties owned, operated,
controlled and/or leased by the defendant.

"Plaintiff has patronized defendant's facilities in the past, and
intends to continue to patronize defendant's facilities," the
complaint states.  "However, unless defendant is required to
remove the access barriers described below, plaintiff will
continue to be denied full access to defendant's facilities as
described, and will be deterred from fully using defendant's
facilities."

Ms. Heinzl claims the defendant's facilities violate federal law.

The plaintiff has visited Kohl's retail property in Pittsburgh on
multiple occasions and during these visits she experienced
unnecessary difficulty and risk due to excessive slopes in the
purportedly accessible parking area, according to the suit.

"The surfaces of one or more access aisles had slopes exceeding
1:48," the complaint states.  "As a result of defendant's non-
compliance with the ADA, plaintiff's ability to access and use
Defendant's facilities has been significantly impeded."

Ms. Heinzl claims though the defendant has centralized policies
regarding the management and operation of its facilities, The
defendant has never had a plan or policy that is reasonably
calculated to make its facilities fully accessible to, and
independently usable by individuals with mobility disabilities,
the complaint says.

As an individual with a mobility disability who is dependent upon
a wheelchair, Ms. Heinzl has a keen interest in whether public
accommodations have architectural barriers that impede full
accessibility to those accommodations by individuals with mobility
impairments, according to the suit.

Ms. Heinzl claims without injunctive relief, the plaintiff will
continue to be unable to fully access the defendant's facilities
in violation of her rights under the ADA.

Ms. Heinzl is seeking class certification and an injunction
directing the defendant to take all steps necessary to remove
architectural barriers.  She is being represented by R. Bruce
Carlson -- bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- Benjamin J. Sweet --
bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- and Stephanie Goldin --
sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLC.

The case is assigned to District Judge Robert C. Mitchell

Ms. Heinzl previously filed a class action lawsuit against Levin
Furniture on Sept. 8, and against Zamagias Properties, WP Realty
Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Starbucks Corporation, Boston
Market Corporation, Kamin Realty Company and Quality Foods
Corporation in July for denying full access to their facilities
for those with mobility disabilities.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case
number: 2:14-cv-01353


LEWIS TREE: Unlawfully Denied Overtime Wages, Arborist Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Towerton v. Lewis Tree Service, Inc., Case No. 2:14-
cv-14425-DLG (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, were unlawfully
denied overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an Arborist.

Lewis Tree Service, Inc., was the Plaintiff's employer and a
corporation conducting business in Florida.

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


MARTIN TRANSPORT: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Anthony N. Bowie v. Martin Transport, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
00998-JRG (E.D. Tex., October 27, 2014) alleges that the Company
has repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees straight time and overtime for hours they worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Martin Transport, Inc. is a business corporation that has its
principal place of business in Kilgore, Gregg County, Texas.  The
Company is in the trucking business hauling materials, including
crude oil and sulfuric acid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, # 363
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 593-5588
          Facsimile: (214) 853-9382
          E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Davis" Suit to Tennessee District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Davis v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT-
004564-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02854-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by his physician's off-
label use of the Defendants' Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar
Tapered Fusion Device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Turner W. Branch, Esq.
          Margaret M. Branch, Esq.
          Adam T. Funk, Esq.
          BRANCH LAW FIRM
          2025 Rio Grande Blvd., NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 243-2500
          E-mail: tbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  mbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  afunk@branchlawfirm.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suite Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Floyd, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-06306 (E.D.N.Y., October 27, 2014) is brought for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
          E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


MIRADOR CORP: "Banegas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lesby Banegas, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. The Mirador Corp. d/b/a El Rey De Copas, Mi Rancho Restaurant
Bar Corp. d/b/a Rey De Copas 2, Gustavo Ramirez and Mario Ramirez,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08491 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate El Rey de Copas restaurant in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Maciel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., Stephen J.
Greathouse, Stephen P. Ives, Neil E. Jenkins, Michael J. Maples,
Sr., Justin A. Orlando, Patrick J. Ramsey, Robert D. Repass,
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., and Movie Merger Sub, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00964 (W.D. Tex., October 23, 2014), alleges that
the Defendants caused to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission an inadequate and misleading definitive proxy statement
and failed to disclose the Company's financial projections.

Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of slot
machines and other gaming systems used by both commercial casinos
and by establishments in the Native American gaming industry.

Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. is a global provider of cash
access and data intelligence services and solutions to the gaming
industry.

Movie Merger Sub, Inc. is a Texas corporation wholly owned by
Global Cash that was created for the purposes of effectuating the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      David M. Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4957
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      Email: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
             cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
             dsborz@andrewsspringer.com


MYC RESORT: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, "King" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Michael King, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MYC Resort, LLC d/b/a Montauk Yacht Club,
Case No. 2:14-cv-06235 (E.D.N.Y., October 23, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay the spread of hours
premium.

MYC Resort, LLC owns and operates a hotel known as the Montauk
Yacht Club located at 32 Star Island Road, Montauk, New York
11954.

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


NAT'L HOCKEY: Consolidated Concussion Class Action Filed in Minn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims Journal reports that the consolidated class-action lawsuit
by former NHL players against the league over concussion-related
injuries has been filed in federal court.

Attorneys for the ex-players filed the complaint in Minnesota.
The case had been assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan Richard
Nelson.  It's a combination of several lawsuits previously filed.

Dan LaCouture, Michael Peluso, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, David
Christian and Reed Larson are the former players serving as six
class representatives.  They are seeking a jury trial for
unspecified financial damages and NHL-funded medical monitoring
for neurological disorders.  They are alleging that the league had
the knowledge and resources to better prevent head trauma, failed
to properly warn players of the risks, and promoted violent play
that led to their injuries.


NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Settles Class Action for $6.4 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that on
Oct. 22 plaintiffs lawyers at Outten & Golden unveiled a $6.4
million class action settlement with NBCUniversal Media LLC -- the
first major deal with an employer since the intern litigation
began to heat up a couple of years ago.  If approved by a federal
judge in Manhattan, the settlement would be split between three
subclasses that include nearly 8,000 interns who worked on
"Saturday Night Live" and other shows beginning between 2007 and
2011.

NBC is represented by Samuel Shaulson -- sshaulson@morganlewis.com
-- and Russell Bruch -- rbruch@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius.  Mr. Shaulson didn't respond to a request for comment.

Outten & Golden said in its settlement motion that it will seek
$1.18 million in attorney fees.  Along with Virginia & Ambinder
and Leeds Brown Law, Outten & Golden has taken the lead on the
plaintiffs side in the intern cases.  In addition to claiming the
first notable settlement last week, the firm won a key decision
against Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. in June 2013 that terrified
employers and helped to spur additional cases.

In the Fox case, U.S. District Judge William Pauley III in
Manhattan concluded that former unpaid interns at the company
qualify as employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York labor laws.  In a parallel case against Hearst
Corporation that was also brought by Outten & Golden, however,
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. refused to rule as a matter of
law that Hearst's unpaid interns qualified as employees.  The two
suits were consolidated for appeal before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has fielded a flurry of
amicus briefs but hasn't yet set a date for oral arguments.
Outten & Golden's Rachel Bien is lead counsel for the plaintiffs
in the Second Circuit appeal.  Neal Katyal --
neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells represents Fox
along with lawyers at Proskauer Rose.  Hearst is relying on an in-
house team led by deputy general counsel Jonathan Donnellan.

According to the Oct. 22 settlement motion, the average payout for
former NBCUniversal interns will be $505.  Outten's Justin Swartz,
who represents the NBC plaintiffs, wasn't immediately available to
comment on the deal.


NIKE RETAIL: Removes "Patel" Suit to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Patel v. Nike Retail Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. HG13704610, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the California Northern District (San
Francisco).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
04781-JCS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Kyle Roald Nordrehaug, Esq.
          BLUMENTHA, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com
                  aj@bamlawlj.com
                  kyle@bamlawlj.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maya Harel, Esq.
          Casey Jean Teele McCoy, Esq.
          Jonathan Douglas Meer, Esq.
          Sheryl Lyn Skibbe, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: mharel@seyfarth.com
                  cjtmccoy@seyfarth.com
                  jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  sskibbe@seyfarth.com


NORTH COUNTY TIMES: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge has granted preliminary approval of a settlement in a class
action lawsuit against the North County Times by former newspaper
carriers.

District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted preliminary approval in
the 2008 class action on Oct. 17, granting $3.2 million to the
class members.

NCT agreed to establish a maximum settlement fund in the amount of
$3.2 million, according to the settlement order filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

A net settlement fund will be made available to class members
after deductions are made for attorneys' fees, which are estimated
at $800,000; attorneys' costs, which are estimated at $50,000;
claims administration, which is estimated between $30,000 and
$40,000; and service awards to the named plaintiffs, which are
estimated at $36,000.  The net settlement fund will be
approximately $2.27 million.

"Class members may file claims against the net settlement fund and
it is estimated that they will be eligible to receive payouts that
amount to approximately 90% of all deductions recorded on NCT's
records during the relevant period," the order states.

Sharon Hughen and Hector Miguel Salgado will receive incentive
awards of $7,500 each.  Yvonne Dalton, Dian Garza, Arminda Guzman,
Etelvina Salgado and Refugio Sanchez will receive incentive awards
of $3,500 each.

The plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit against NCT on April
18, 2008 in state court.  It was removed to federal court on June
17, 2008.

The plaintiffs claimed NCT violated multiple California labor
codes and routinely made deductions from the class members' wages.

For each alleged complaint it received from its customers for,
among other things, damaged papers, wet papers and allegedly
undelivered papers, NCT would make deductions from their wages, up
to $5 per complaint and "redelivery fees," according to the suit.

"The defendant made said deductions as part of a wrongful attempt
to make the plaintiffs and class members insurers of the
defendant's merchandise, which purpose is prohibited by California
law," the complaint stated.

NCT routinely provided the class members with newspapers in excess
of the number that was needed to complete their respective
delivery routes, and then routinely made deductions for each extra
newspaper and charged class members for their own mandatory
subscription to the newspaper, the plaintiffs alleged.

The plaintiffs are represented by C. Keith Greer and Julie A.
Lowell of Greer & Associates APC.

NCT is represented by David D. Kadue of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number: 3:08-cv-01072


NOVA SCOTIA: Losing Plaintiffs Ordered to Pay $733,000
------------------------------------------------------
Paul Withers, writing for CBC News, reports that Nova Scotia's top
court delivered a decision that may "chill" class action lawsuits
in the province by ordering losing plaintiffs in a class action to
pay the governments they were suing $733,000.

"I never thought something like this would happen," said Neila
MacQueen, who lives in Sydney.

Ms. MacQueen is one of four people from Sydney who launched a
class action suit against the governments of Nova Scotia and
Canada.  They were seeking damages for alleged environmental
contamination caused during the decades the governments ran the
Sydney Steel plant.

The action was thrown out in December after judges ruled the
plaintiffs should proceed as individuals.  The Nova Scotia Court
of Appeal ordered the four to pay $733,000 in costs.

"I thought it was intolerable for us to be charged $700,000.  We
can't afford it.   We would go bankrupt.  We would lose our
homes," Ms. MacQueen said on Oct. 23.

Ray Wagner, Ms. MacQueen's lawyer in Halifax, said his law firm
and another Ontario firm involved in the case will pay the award.
The lawyers had taken out the equivalent of an insurance policy in
case of a defeat, which covers two thirds of the cost.

"When lawyers are now called upon to pay large cost awards you are
going to be hard pressed to find somebody who is going to be
interested in bringing class proceedings in this province in the
future," Ms. Wagner said.

"If you have a high cost award -- $733,000 would chill any
plaintiff or any lawyer from participating in a class proceeding
in this province."

'I would definitely do it again'

Ray Wagner

Class actions are relatively new in Nova Scotia and Mr. Wagner had
hoped to make Halifax a "hotbed" of class action litigation in
Canada.  However, Nova Scotia is one of the few provinces where
courts can award costs to the defendant or plaintiff in a class
action.

"Now, given the circumstances here, where we can, we will be
filing our pleadings in other provinces," Mr. Wagner said.

It's the second recent setback for Mr. Wagner, who had his legal
fees reduced by the courts after a successful class action
representing former residents of the home for Colored Children in
Dartmouth.

Mr. Wagner said the costs awarded against his clients in the
Sydney Tar Ponds class action are "punitive" and designed to send
a message by the judiciary.

"This was their first opportunity to put their stamp on it," said
Mr. Wagner.

The justices had sent a clear signal last year when they rejected
the Tar Ponds case.  In that December 2013 decision, the Appeal
Court said of class action cases: "They permit potentially massive
reallocations of resources by courts, invite confusion between
public (punitive) and private (compensatory) remedial regimes,
affect matters as diverse as the adequacy of insurance coverage,
the nature, extent and timing of settlements, counsels'
compensation, ethical challenges created by the potential conflict
between counsel and claimants, and inter-jurisdictional disputes
about which courts should hear which case or cases."

As Ms. MacQueen, who first started the case back in 2004, she has
no regrets.

"I would definitely do it again.  I feel the people of Sydney
deserve somebody to fight for them," she said.


NQ MOBILE: "Hsieh" Suit Transferred From Texas to New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hsieh v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 1048
(E.D. Tex.), has been transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and accepted by the Southern
District of New York as related to the consolidated putative
shareholder class action, In re NQ Mobile, Inc. Securities
Litigation, the Company said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On October 25, 2013, a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit against our company, Kostuk v. NQ Mobile,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 12712 (D. Mass.), was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. Shortly thereafter, six more putative shareholder
class action suits against our company and certain current and
former directors and officers of our company were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York: Ho v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7608
(S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October 28, 2013); Ghauri v. NQ Mobile, Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7637 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October
29, 2013); Pang v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13
CIV 7685 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October 30, 2013); Hiller v. NQ
Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7713 (S.D.N.Y.)
(filed on October 30, 2013); Gangaramani v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7858 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on November 5,
2013); Martin v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV
8125 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on November 14, 2013)."

"On December 2, 2013, another putative shareholder class action
suit against our company and certain current and former directors
and officers of our company, Hsieh v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 13 CIV 1048 (E.D. Tex.), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

"On January 6, 2014, Kostuk v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 13 CIV 12712 (D. Mass.), was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff.

"On April 9, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York consolidated the six putative
shareholder class action suits filed in that court under the
caption, In re NQ Mobile, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 13 CIV 7608 (S.D.N.Y.) ("In re NQ Mobile, Inc. Securities
Litigation"), and appointed a lead plaintiff.

"On May 13, 2014, Hsieh v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 13 CIV 1048 (E.D. Tex.), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York and was
accepted by the Southern District of New York as related to the
consolidated putative shareholder class action, In re NQ Mobile,
Inc. Securities Litigation."


NQ MOBILE: Lead Plaintiff Files Consolidated Securities Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NQ Mobile, Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on July 21, 2014, the
lead plaintiff in In re NQ Mobile, Inc. Securities Litigation
filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint") against the Company, its co-chief executive officers
Henry Yu Lin and Omar Sharif Khan, chief operating officer Vincent
Wenyong Shi, former chief financial officer Suhai Ji, former chief
financial officer Kian Bin Teo, and its former auditors
PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian LLP and its affiliate,
PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited.

The Company said "the Consolidated Complaint alleges that various
press releases, financial statements and other related disclosures
made by our company during the alleged class period contained
material misstatements and omissions, in violation of the federal
securities laws, and that such press releases, financial
statements and other related disclosures artificially inflated the
value of our company's ADSs. The Consolidated Complaint states
that the lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who
allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading activities
related to our ADSs from March 6, 2013 to July 3, 2014, and,
similar to previous complaints filed in the putative class
actions, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  78(b) and
78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec.
240.10b-5 (2013)."

The actions remain at their preliminary stages.

"We believe the cases are without merit and intend to defend the
actions vigorously," the Company said.


OCWEN LOAN: Accused of Sending Illegal Debt Collection Notices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lubna Janjua v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Financial
Services SRL, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06303 (E.D.N.Y., October 27,
2014) is brought on behalf of persons/consumers, who have received
similar debt collection notices and letters/communications from
the Defendant, which are in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Financial Services SRL, LLC,
are Georgia limited liability corporations engaged in the business
of debt collection with an office in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward B. Geller, Esq.
          M. HARVEY REPHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 796-0930
          Facsimile: (212) 330-7582
          E-mail: epbh@aol.com


OCWEN LOAN: Illegally Collects Consumer Debts, Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Snyder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08461
(N.D. Ill., October 27, 2014) alleges that the Defendant's use of
illegal conduct to collect a consumer debt, including placing
calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, is
unfair and unconscionable and, therefore, violates the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC is one of the largest non-bank mortgage
servicers in the United States.  The Company services mortgage
loans in all 50 states, including Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 870-0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com

               - and -

          Guillermo Cabrera, Esq.
          Jared Quient, Esq.
          THE CABRERA FIRM, APC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 500-4880
          Facsimile: (619) 785-3380
          E-mail: gil@cabrerafirm.com
                  jared@cabrerafirm.com


PANASONIC CORP: Faces Antitrust Walker Suit Over Capacitor Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walker Component Group, Inc., Plaintiff, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-04800-MEJ (N.D. Cal., October 28, 2014) is an
antitrust action that seeks damages and injunctive relief for the
alleged collusive and concerted restraint of trade in aluminum,
tantalum and film capacitors orchestrated by the Defendants during
a period spanning from at least January 1, 2005, to present.

Walker Component Group, Inc. is a Colorado corporation with its
principal place of business located in Denver, Colorado.  Walker
directly purchased Capacitors from one or more Defendants during
the Class Period.

Panasonic Corporation is a Japanese corporation headquartered in
Osaka, Japan.  Panasonic Corporation of North America, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation, is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.

The Defendants are Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of
North America; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America
Corporation; Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.; Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc.; NEC
Tokin Corporation; NEC Tokin America, Inc.; Kemet Corporation;
Kemet Electronics Corporation; Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation;
United Chemi-Con, Inc.; Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.; Hitachi AIC
Inc.; Hitachi Chemical Co. America, Ltd.; Nichicon Corporation;
Nichicon (America) Corporation; AVX Corporation; Rubycon
Corporation; Rubycon America Inc.; Elna Co., Ltd.; Elna America
Inc.; Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd.; Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd.; Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc.; Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd.;
Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.; Rohm Co., Ltd.; Rohm
Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC; TDK Corporation; TDK-EPC Corporation;
and TDC U.S.A. Corporation.

The Defendants are the leading manufacturers and direct
competitors in the global Capacitors industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          James G. Dallal, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  apurdy@saverilawfim.com
                  jdallal@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com


PROTEUS SERVICES: "Faniola" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Faniola v. Proteus Services, LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00489, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).  The
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-03081 to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Melton, Esq.
          MELTON KUMLER
          2705 Bee Cave Rd., Ste 220
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 330-0017
          E-mail: jmelton@meltonkumler.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles H. Wilson, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          One Houston Center, Suite 2900
          1221 McKinney Street
          Houston, TX 77010-2009
          Telephone: (713) 750-3117
          Facsimile: (713) 512-5159
          E-mail: cwilson@cozen.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: 6th Circuit Refuses to Apply 8% Usury Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Because the original creditor waived its right to collect interest
and charge off the debt, the 6th Circuit refused to apply the 8%
usury rate in Kentucky, reports Lorraine Bailey, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

The case at hand stems from Dede Stratton's delinquent credit card
debt from 2008. When GE Money Bank charged off the $2,630.95 debt
as uncollectable, it "stopped charging Stratton interest on her
debt," an October 24 decision from the 6th Circuit states.

"GE's decision was neither irrational nor altruistic: By charging
off the debt and ceasing to charge interest on it, GE could take a
bad-debt tax deduction, and could avoid the cost of sending
Stratton periodic statements on her account," the ruling
continues.

Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) bought GE Money's interest in
Stratton's charged-off debt for between 4 cents and 14 cents on
the dollar.

The 6th Circuit noted that the practice of letting creditors
recover some money for bad loans, with an assignee seeking payment
on the delinquency, is "increasingly common."

PRA sought a default judgment in Kentucky on the amount of
Stratton's debt, plus 8 percent annual interest, the default usury
rate under Kentucky law.

Stratton's attorney Ken Henry said in an interview that PRA's
complaint "alleged that Ms. Stratton owed 8 percent interest from
date of charge off."

PRA "later claimed [that the request for interest] was
aspirational," Henry added. "But no, it was an allegation. They
were trying to collect interest they were not entitled to."

Though the default 8 percent interest rate is far less than the
21.99 percent interest that Stratton's contract with GE Money
provided, Henry represents Stratton in a federal class action that
says PRA had no right to statutory interest since GE waived its
right to collect interest on the debt.

PRA is "not entitled to any interest until a court awards it,"
Henry said, adding that its contrary assertion violates the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Though a federal judge in Lexington dismissed Stratton's case, a
divided three-judge appellate panel reversed October 24.

"GE gave up the right to collect 8% statutory interest when it had
Stratton agreed to a 21.99% contractual rate of interest," GE
cannot recover the right it bargained away simply because it later
chose to waive the right for which it bargained," Judge Jane
Stranch wrote for the majority in Cincinnati.

The court noted that debt collection agencies have started going
straight to court to seek a default judgment against a debtor,
rather than meaningfully negotiate payment on the debt.

Complaints against PRA across the nation based on the statute of
limitations and harassment have led to at least one injunction
against the debt collector.

The 6th Circuit found October 24 that, as GE's assignee, "PRA
cannot be given a right to collect interest -- contractual or
statutory -- that GE waived."

Judge Alice Batchelder slammed her colleagues for a "'gotcha!'
maneuver" that "impermissibly expands the scope of the FDCPA."

The ruling allows PRA to ask the court for prejudgment interest,
rather than enjoying such interest automatically, she said.

"I confess that this distinction makes no sense to me,"
Batchelder's dissent states.  "Under the majority's reasoning we
are either authorized to award prejudgment interest under
Section360.010, or we are not.  If not, we cannot 'exercise our
discretion' and award interest anyway."

Henry told Courthouse News he was pleased with the ruling.  "We
look forward to getting the class certified and moving forward."

Defense counsel was not available for comment.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          James H. Lawson, Esq.
          LAWSON AT LAW, PLLC
          10600 Timberwood Circle, Suite 1
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Telephone: (502) 473-6525
          Facsimile: (502) 473-6561
          E-mail: james@kyclc.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Joseph N. Tucker, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
          101 S. Fifth St., Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 540-2360
          Facsimile: (502) 585-2207
          E-mail: joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com

The appellate case is Dede Stratton, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
13-6574, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.  The district court case is Dede Stratton v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 5:13-cv-00147, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at
Lexington.


PRODIRECTIONAL SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coleman Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Prodirectional Services, LLC, PDS Energy Ltd.,
Directional Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03076 (S.D.
Tex., October 27, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages owed by the Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are an oilfield service company with significant
operations in every major United States shale basin.  The
Defendants provide horizontal and directional drilling services
through MWDs and other field support personnel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


RLI CORP: Faces Belmont Retirement System Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
RLI Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014,  in July 2014, the Belmont
Massachusetts Contributory Retirement System filed a putative
class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit against RLI Corp.
and its Board of Directors in Illinois state court.

"The lawsuit alleges breach of contract and breach of fiduciary
duty by its directors relating to adjustments made to the exercise
price of outstanding stock options under our equity-based
incentive plans, as a result of extraordinary cash dividends paid
by us in 2011, 2012 and 2013," the Company said.  "The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, to subject these adjustments to a vote
of our shareholders and does not seek monetary damages or
compensation for shareholders, but does seek payment for
plaintiff's attorney fees.  We believe that such allegations are
without merit, that we have valid defenses and will vigorously
contest this action.  Because of the uncertainty and costs
incident to litigating this matter, RLI may seek to settle or
otherwise resolve this matter on terms we deem to be in the best
interests of the company and its shareholders.  While it is not
possible to predict the ultimate disposition of this matter and
whether it will be resolved consistent with our positions,  RLI's
management expects that the outcome will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."

RLI underwrites selected property and casualty insurance through
major subsidiaries collectively known as RLI Insurance.


ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Worker Files Pregnancy Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dugon, writing for New York Post, reports that Royal Bank of
Canada and two senior executives have been hit with a pregnancy
discrimination suit by an employee who claims they denied her a
promotion and took away her biggest accounts.

Lauren Mitzner, a director in credit sales at the Toronto-based
lender, is suing RBC and her bosses, Andrew Schwartz and Douglas
Colandrea, both managing directors.

Ms. Mitzner's complaint, filed Oct. 17 in Manhattan state court,
alleges "systemic discrimination at RBC against women which
infected the bank's personnel practices."

The suit comes as Wall Street banks ranging from Goldman Sachs to
HSBC are embroiled in their own gender bias suits, with female
workers accusing the firms of fostering a "boys' club" culture and
following a pattern of bias.

"We believe the claims are without merit," said RBC spokeswoman
Kait Conetta.  "We have a proven track record of attracting,
retaining and advancing a diverse workforce, which includes the
equitable and fair treatment of women."

Ms. Mitzner requested a meeting in June 2011 with Schwartz to ask
for more responsibility and to tell him that she was pregnant and
planned on returning after maternity leave.

"If you come back" was his response, the suit alleges.
Schwartz told her that she wouldn't be up for a promotion from
vice president to director because her "numbers were down," even
though her revenue was up 35 percent.  Soon after, her top clients
were given to less experienced traders and she was given accounts
with lower revenue.

When she told Mike Meyer, the head of US fixed income, about the
loss of her accounts, he called her "a complainer," the suit
alleges.

Ms. Mitzner is seeking unspecified damages.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Nov. 14 Deadline to Submit Detailed List in MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Clean-Up
Responder Defendants' deadline to work with the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee in the multi-district litigation, In re Oil
Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", and provide the Court
with a detailed listing regarding compliance with the pretrial
order is November 14, 2014.

On December 15, 2010, National Response Corporation or NRC, a
subsidiary of the Company prior to the SES Business Transaction,
and O'Brien's Response Management Inc. or ORM were named as
defendants in one of the several consolidated "master complaints"
that have been filed in the overall multi-district litigation, In
re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana ("MDL").  The "B3" master complaint naming ORM and NRC
asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against
multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally,
and the use of dispersants specifically.  The Company believes
that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC in the master
complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC
moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master complaint
on legal grounds.

On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended
decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several
grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original
order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced
master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did
recognize the validity of the "derivative immunity" and "implied
preemption" arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and directed ORM
and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to
support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments. The
Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain other
claims that had been asserted in the referenced master complaint,
and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have failed to
allege a legally-sufficient injury.

A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was
established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule,
ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their
derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18,
2012. Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012 and are still
pending decision.

On July 17, 2014, the Court issued a pretrial order that
established a protocol for disclosures clarifying the basis for
the "B3" claims asserted against the Clean-Up Responder
Defendants, including ORM and NRC, in the MDL. Under this
protocol, Plaintiffs who satisfy certain criteria and believe they
have specific evidence in support of their claims, including that
any Clean-Up Responder Defendant(s) failed to act pursuant to the
authority and direction of the federal government in conducting
Deepwater Horizon oil spill remediation and clean-up operations,
must submit a sworn statement or face dismissal. Plaintiffs'
deadline to serve such sworn statements in support of their claims
was September 22, 2014, with the exception of several Plaintiffs
who were granted an extension until October 10, 2014.  The Clean-
Up Responder Defendants' deadline to work with the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee in the MDL and provide the Court with a
detailed listing regarding compliance with the pretrial order is
November 14, 2014.

In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to
contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible
party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to
indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection with these claims
in the MDL. Although the Company is unable to estimate the
potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the
Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.

SEACOR's operations are divided into four main business segments
-- Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Illinois Corn Processing ("ICP"). The Company also
has activities that are referred to and described under Other that
primarily include emergency and crisis services, agricultural
commodity trading and logistics activities, lending and leasing
activities and various other investments in 50% or less owned
companies.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: 142 Individuals Opted in "Prejean" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of February 28,
2014 the Court-ordered deadline for potential class members to opt
into the class in the Prejean class action lawsuit, 142
individuals have opted in.

ORM is defending against two collective action lawsuits, each
asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who
provided service on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response (the
"DPH FLSA Actions") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
These cases, Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean Action") and
Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the "Himmerite Action"), were
each brought on behalf of certain individuals who worked on the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who were classified as
independent contractors. The Prejean and Himmerite Actions were
each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana and then subsequently consolidated with the
overall MDL, in which the Himmerite Action was stayed pursuant to
procedures of the MDL. However, both the Prejean and Himmerite
Actions were severed from the MDL on September 19, 2013, and
referred to a Magistrate Judge for pretrial case management,
including issuing a scheduling order, overseeing discovery, and
any other preliminary matters.

On October 31, 2013, ORM filed an answer in the Himmerite Action.
In the Himmerite Action, pursuant to an earlier tolling order
entered by the Court, the limitations periods for potential
plaintiffs to opt-in to the action has been tolled pending further
action by the Court. In the Prejean Action, ORM has answered the
complaint and a scheduling order has been issued.

On November 6, 2013, the Court conditionally certified a
collective class in the Prejean Action. On December 9, 2013 the
Court approved a jointly-submitted form notice and authorized the
issuance of notice to all members of the conditionally certified
class in the Prejean Action.

On December 20, 2013, ORM served plaintiffs' counsel with a list
containing information for approximately 330 potential class
members in the Prejean Action. The deadline for plaintiffs to file
executed consent forms with the Court has expired.

As of February 28, 2014 the Court-ordered deadline for potential
class members to opt into the class, 142 individuals have opted
in. Although the Court has conditionally certified the Prejean
class, the Court has not made a final ruling on whether a class
exists.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its position that a class
should not be certified, and intends on filing a motion to
decertify the Prejean class. The Court has also not yet ruled on
any of the merits of Plaintiffs' claims. The Company does not
expect the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these DPH
FLSA Actions will have a material impact on the Company's results
of operations or cash flows, but believes the actions are without
merit and will continue to vigorously defend against them.

SEACOR's operations are divided into four main business segments
-- Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Illinois Corn Processing ("ICP"). The Company also
has activities that are referred to and described under Other that
primarily include emergency and crisis services, agricultural
commodity trading and logistics activities, lending and leasing
activities and various other investments in 50% or less owned
companies.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Tolling Agreement in "Singleton" Action Expires
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in Baylor
Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01716) (the "Singleton Action"),
which was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana and in which plaintiffs alleged
claims similar to those alleged in the Prejean and Himmerite
Actions, the parties reached a full and final settlement agreement
on February 13, 2014 with respect to all of the Plaintiff's
individual claims for an undisclosed amount. On April 11, 2014,
the Court approved the parties' settlement and dismissed the
Singleton Action with prejudice in its entirety. The Court also
ordered that the tolling order which had been entered in the
Singleton Action expired as of April 11, 2014.

SEACOR's operations are divided into four main business segments
-- Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Illinois Corn Processing ("ICP"). The Company also
has activities that are referred to and described under Other that
primarily include emergency and crisis services, agricultural
commodity trading and logistics activities, lending and leasing
activities and various other investments in 50% or less owned
companies.


SEAS & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Whaley" Suit Over Violations of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arrianna Whaley, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Seas & Associates LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02394-ROS
(D. Ariz., October 28, 2014) alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 265-3332
          Facsimile: (602) 230-4482
          E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com


SILVER CARE: Court Narrows Claims in "Jones" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Noel L. Hillman granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' putative collective and class
action claims in TYMECO JONES, IESHA BULLOCK, and TEAIRRA PIZARRO,
on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. SCO, SILVER CARE OPERATIONS LLC d/b/a ALARIS HEALTH AT CHERRY
HILL, Defendant, CIVIL NO. 13-7910 (NLH/AMD), (D. N.J.).

The Plaintiffs are employed by nursing home, SCO, Silver Care
Operations LLC d/b/a Alaris Health at Cherry Hill, as certified
nursing assistants. They claim that defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and
New Jersey's Wage and Hour Law and New Jersey's Wage Payment Law,
when it failed to properly pay them for hours they worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint,
arguing that it fails to meet the federal pleading standards, as
to both the plaintiffs' individual claims, and as putative
collective and class actions.

According to Judge Hillman, plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
survives defendant's motion to dismiss. To the extent, however,
that plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief under the FSLA, such
relief, as pointed out by defendants and not objected to by
plaintiffs, is unavailable to plaintiffs.  Accordingly,
defendant's motion to dismiss will be denied, except as to any
request for injunctive relief under the FSLA, he added.

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

On behalf of defendant:

     Stuart Weinberger, Esq.
     GOLDBERG & WEINBERGER LLP
     630 3rd Ave #1801
     New York, NY 10017
     United States
     Telephone: +1 212-986-8999


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces 3 County Class Suit in N.D. Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------------
3 County Farms, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Syngenta Corporation and
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-00153-DMB-JMV
(N.D. Miss., October 27, 2014) asserts claims related to product
liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart Halkett McCluer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          P.O. Box 2294
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 236-1401
          Facsimile: (662) 234-3060
          E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Accused by S.C. Farmers of Crippling Corn Sales
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action claims Syngenta Corp. recklessly brought
genetically modified corn seed to market, and then cost farmers
millions when its assurances that China would embrace the altered
crops proved to be unfounded, reports Dan McCue at Courthouse News
Service.

In their lawsuit, South Carolinians John and Beth Houser, who do
business as Houser Farms in Bishopville, S.C., claim Syngenta
crippled the corn market by introducing its genetically-modified
seeds, and then, in an effort to build sales of its product,
repeatedly lied to farmers, exporters, and the general public
about the likelihood of China allowing genetically modified corn
to be sold there.

China has historically been a substantial importer of corn from
the United States.  Today, it ranks as the third largest export
market for American corn, and it has substantially increased corn
imports in recent years, according the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.

Syngenta develops and markets genetically-modified corn.  Once it
develops a new variety, it licenses the seeds to its subsidiaries
and other manufacturers who then sell them to farmers across the
country, the Housers say.

Syngenta entered MIR162, also known as Agrisure Viptera -- a
genetically engineered corn trait -- into the U.S. market in 2009.
A second generation of the seed line, known as Agrisure Duracade,
was sold for planting in 2014.  In both cases the corn was
modified to protect it from insects, tolerate herbicides, and to
allow it to be grown with less water than naturally-occurring
corn.

Syngenta's genetically modified seeds are approved for use in the
United States and several over countries, but not in China, where
the company has a pending application for approval.

The Housers say they have always been careful to buy only non-
modified seeds or those whose genetically-modified traits have
long been approved by all major corn importing countries,
including China.

They do so, they, explain because they sell their corn through a
commodity-based system in which the crops from thousands of farms
are commingled and consolidated, and then shipped to foreign
markets through exporters.

According to the Housers, one bad apple -- in this case kernel --
can indeed spoil the whole bunch, and that's exactly what happened
in November 2013, when Chinese regulatory authorities detected
traces of MIR 162 in United States corn shipments.

The regulators quarantined the corn and ultimately sent it back to
the United States.

"As a result of China's prohibition on the importation of MIR 162
corn, even in trace, low-level amounts, and Syngenta's decision to
continue marketing MIR 162 to a small minority of U.S. corn
farmers -- the vast majority of U.S. corn has been effectively
excluded from what was previously the third-largest export market
for U.S. Corn, causing farmers within the State to suffer
significant damages as corn prices have dropped from the loss of
the Chinese market," the Housers say.

They contend Syngenta misled farmers to believe that approval of
MIR 162 in China was imminent, and that even if China failed to
approve its modifications, the lack of approval would have no
material impact on the corn market.

"Syngenta's decision to bring Viptera to the market crippled the
2013/14 corn export market to China and caused damage to
plaintiffs and other Class members," the Housers say.  "Syngenta
knew, or should have known, that releasing Viptera would lead to
the contamination of U.S. corn shipments and prevent U.S. corn
from being sold to export markets such as China, which had not
granted regulatory approval of MIR 162.

Then, "[e]ven in the wake of significant harm," they say.
"Syngenta released its second generation MIR 162, Duracade, for
2014.  This further exemplifies Syngenta's reckless disregard and
deliberate ignorance of the consequences its conduct on the corn
market.  Syngenta's conduct caused Plaintiffs and the Class
members to lose million of dollars in lost sales and income."

The Housers are seeking both compensatory damages, and to have
Syngenta enjoined from selling its genetically-modified corn seed
until such time as it is approved for sale in China on claims
Syngenta violated the Lanham Act, public nuisance, trespass to
chattels, negligence, tortuous interference with business
relations, product liability.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC
          12019 Ocean Highway
          Post Office Box 1885
          Pawleys Island, SC 29585
          Telephone: (843) 314-4202
          Facsimile: (843) 314-9365
          E-mail: bill@hopkinslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Roman A. Shaul, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Roman.Shaul@BeasleyAllen.com


TAMPA FIREFIGHTERS FUND: Parker Entitled to Attorney's Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
In JOHN N. PARKER, etc., Petitioner, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE CITY PENSION FUND FOR FIREFIGHTERS & POLICE OFFICERS IN THE
CITY OF TAMPA, Respondent, NO. SC13-890, the Supreme Court of
Florida considered whether the prevailing party attorney's fees
provisions in sections 175.061(5) and 185.05(5), Florida Statutes
(2004), apply to lawsuits brought to obtain benefits under a
firefighter and police officer pension plan established by local
law.

John Parker, a retired City of Tampa firefighter, filed a class
action complaint against the Board of Trustees of the City Pension
Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa
(Board) in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,
claiming that the Board had failed to pay eligible beneficiaries
their 13th check benefit for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004. Parker's complaint included a request for attorney's fees.
Upon further review, the Board concluded that it erroneously
failed to pay the 13th check benefit for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004. Following its review, the Board paid eligible
retirees $5700 and eligible surviving spouses $2850 under the 13th
Check Program. Parker and the Board subsequently agreed to a
settlement in which class members received the remaining
outstanding principal payments that they were entitled to under
the 13th Check Program and interest on the amounts not timely
paid.

The trial court approved the class action settlement and
specifically determined that the Board's failure to pay the 13th
check benefit was a result of its erroneous interpretation of the
pension contract and applicable law. The trial court determined
that Parker and others similarly situated are "entitled to recover
from the defendant Board of Trustees of the City Pension Fund for
Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa [their]
taxable costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, because this case
was brought 'under or pursuant to the provisions of' Chapters 175
and 185, Florida Statutes."

Alternatively, the court also found that Parker and others
similarly situated are entitled to recover their taxable costs and
reasonable attorney's fees from the Board under the "substantial
benefit" doctrine because the "action was of benefit to both the
plaintiff class and defendant in that it corrected a
misinterpretation of the pension plan and caused the distribution
of benefits which had been erroneously withheld contrary to the
terms of the plan."

Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court determined that
Parker is entitled to recover from the Board attorney's fees in
the amount of $1,026,610.

The Board appealed the trial court's decision to the Second
District, challenging Parker's entitlement to attorney's fees as
well as the amount of the fees. The Second District upheld the
amount of attorney's fees awarded by the trial court, but it
reversed the trial court's decision to require the payment of the
fees by the Board.

In its October 23, 2014 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/cLjByUfrom Leagle.com, the Florida Supreme Court
concluded that Parker is entitled to prevailing party attorney's
fees under sections 175.061(5) and 185.05(5).  The Supreme Court
answered the restated certified question in the affirmative,
quashed the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal, and
remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Patrick H. Gonyea of the Law Offices of Patrick H. Gonyea, P.A.,
Davie, Florida, and Bruce S. Rogow -- brogow@rogowlaw.com -- and
Tara A. Campion -- tcampion@rogowlaw.com -- of Bruce S. Rogow,
P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Respondent.


TESCO PLC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irving Firemen's Relief And Retirement Fund, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Tesco PLC, Philip
Clarke, and Laurie McIlwee, Case No. 1:14-cv-08495 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 23, alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Tesco PLC is a multinational grocery and general merchandise
retailer headquartered in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, England, United
Kingdom.

Philip Clarke is the Chief Executive Officer of Tesco PLC.

Laurie McIlwee was the Chief Financial Officer of Tesco PLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph P. Gugliehno, Esq.
      Donald A. Brogogi, Esq.
      Tom Laughlin, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: 212-223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              dbroggi@scott-scott.com
              tlaughlin@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com


TESCO PLC: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
On October 23, 2014, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a
class action complaint against Tesco PLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint was
filed on behalf of those persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tesco securities between February 2, 2014 and
September 22, 2014 and seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Investors who purchased Tesco securities during the Class Period
and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class action must
move the Court no later than December 22, 2014.  Members of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain absent class members in the lawsuit.

The securities class action charges that, throughout the Class
Period, Tesco made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts.  Specifically, on
September 22, 2014, Tesco surprised the market when it announced
that it had overstated its expected profit for the half year by
approximately GBP250 million ($402 million) and that it had
accelerated recognition of income and delayed accrual of certain
costs.  The complaint alleges that when this adverse information
became known, the Company's share prices declined significantly,
from $11.29 per share on September 19, 2014 to $9.61 per share on
September 22, 2014.

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

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


TREX COMPANY: Distributed All Cash Payments Under Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company has
distributed substantially all cash payments and rebate
certificates under the settlement in a class action lawsuit.

On December 16, 2013, the United States District Court, Northern
District of California Court granted final approval of the
settlement with the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
relating to the previously reported class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of Dean Mahan, and other named and similarly situated
plaintiffs generally which alleged certain defects in the
Company's products relating to mold growth, color fading and color
variation.

As of the date of Form 10-Q report, the Company has distributed
substantially all cash payments and rebate certificates under the
settlement. Claimants who were denied relief could appeal Trex's
decision, and the deadline for appeals has now passed. The Company
believes that payments to consumers for all relief under the
settlement, even after determination of all appeals, will not
exceed approximately $1.0 million. In addition to such amount, the
Company previously paid $1.8 million related to this litigation,
representing payment of attorneys' fees to class counsel and named
plaintiff awards in the nationwide settlement and the settlement
of corollary cases brought in Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey and
Michigan, all as previously disclosed.

Trex Company, Inc. is the world's largest manufacturer of wood-
alternative decking and railing products, which are marketed under
the brand name Trex(R).


UNION CARBIDE: Appeals Court Upholds Award in Asbestos Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a divided California appeals court has upheld a punitive
damages award for a homebuilder who claimed he contracted
mesothelioma from breathing in dust that contained asbestos
fibers.

A jury originally awarded $48 million, including $30 million in
compensatory damages to Bobbie Izell, whose business built 200
homes in Southern California from 1964 to 1994, and Helen Izell,
his wife, who sued for loss of consortium.  Los Angeles County,
Calif., Superior Court Judge Steven Kleifield granted asbestos
supplier Union Carbide Corp.'s motion for a new trial on the
compensatory damages, but both sides later stipulated to a reduced
amount of $6 million, all in noneconomic damages.

The Oct. 22 ruling by California's 2d District Court of Appeal
disagreed with Union Carbide that the 2012 award was based on
insufficient evidence or that the $18 million in punitive damages
was "unconstitutionally excessive."

In upholding punitive damages, the majority found that Union
Carbide, with an estimated net worth of about $4.2 billion, "acted
with a reprehensible indifference to the health and safety of
others."

In a dissent, Justice Patti Kitching said she would remand the
punitive damages for a new trial.

"In my view, the significant reduction of the jury's compensatory
damage award requires a new trial on the amount of punitive
damages," she wrote.

Union Carbide's attorney, Michele Odorizzi --
modorizzi@mayerbrown.com -- a partner in Mayer Brown's Chicago
office, declined to comment.  A spokeswoman for The Dow Chemical
Co., parent company of Union Carbide, said in an emailed
statement: "The California Court of Appeal for the 2nd District's
decision in Izell once again makes clear defendants in asbestos
litigation cannot expect proper application of California law in
California's trial or appellate courts.  While UCC feels sympathy
for Izell and his family, UCC is extremely disappointed in the
decision and believes that the jury's verdict, and the 2nd
District's affirmance of it, was based on a fundamentally flawed
interpretation of California law on the issues of causation,
comparative fault and punitive damages.  UCC agrees with Justice
Kitching's dissent that it is entitled to a new trial on punitive
damages, and indeed believes that the entire verdict should be set
aside.  UCC intends to vigorously pursue its appellate options,
including petitioning the California Supreme Court for review, as
the time is now for the California Supreme Court to level the
playing field and abandon the relaxed rules governing asbestos
litigation.  UCC will continue to vigorously defend all asbestos
cases brought against the company."

Plaintiffs attorney John Langdoc, a partner at Dallas-based Baron
& Budd, did not return a call for comment.

The jury found that Union Carbide, one of five defendants at
trial, was 65 percent at fault for Mr. Izell's 2011 diagnosis with
mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer.  Union Carbide and another
company were found to have acted with "malice, oppression or
fraud," but the jury awarded punitive damages only against Union
Carbide after the other defendant settled.

The panel said evidence submitted at trial was speculative as to
whether Union Carbide supplied the asbestos contained in some
materials Mr. Izell's workers used on construction sites.  But
other evidence supported the claim that the company supplied all
the asbestos for a specific all-purpose compound that Mr. Izell's
workers used to fill in seams, cover nail heads and fill corner
sections of drywall. The panel also upheld the assignment of fault
against Union Carbide and its $3.9 million share of the
compensatory damages.

"Though we recognize the remitted amount remains on the high-end
of noneconomic damage awards discussed in reported mesothelioma
decisions -- particularly for plaintiffs of the Izells' advanced
age -- this alone is not sufficient to second guess the trial
judge," the majority wrote.

As for the punitive damages finding, evidence showed that Union
Carbide failed to warn its customers about health risks associated
with its product despite a 1967 internal report finding that even
low levels of exposure to asbestos could cause mesothelioma.

"All this suggests Union Carbide knew the dangers of its product,
but failed to warn consumers of those dangers, while seeking to
maintain profits from the sale of asbestos," the panel wrote.

Justice Kitching, in her dissent, said that the 80 percent
reduction in compensatory damages showed that the jury either
"acted with passion or prejudice" or followed the court's
instruction to award punitive damages that bore a "reasonable
relationship" to the harm caused by Union Carbide's conduct.

"If the first scenario is the case, Union Carbide was plainly
entitled to a new trial," she wrote.  But the second scenario, she
noted, also makes the punitive damages award "suspect," since the
jury was misled about the amount of compensatory damages it could
grant.


US FOODS: Final Settlement Okay Seen in Late 2014 or Early 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in a class action was preliminarily approved by the
United States District Court of Connecticut on July 14, 2014 and
is subject to final approval in late 2014 or early 2015, US Foods,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 27, 2014.

In October 2006, two customers filed a putative class action
against the Company and Koninklijke Ahold N.V. ("Ahold"). In
December 2006, an amended complaint was filed naming a third
plaintiff. The complaint focuses on certain pricing practices of
the Company in contracts with some of its customers. In February
2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In
August 2007, two additional customers filed putative class action
complaints. These two additional lawsuits are based upon the
pricing practices at issue in the October 2006 case. In November
2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
transfer of the two additional lawsuits to the jurisdiction in
which the first lawsuit was filed -- the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut -- for consolidated or coordinated
proceedings.

In June 2008, the Plaintiffs filed their consolidated and amended
class action complaint. The Company moved to dismiss this
complaint. In August 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. In December 2009, the court issued a ruling on the
Company's motion to dismiss. It dismissed Ahold from the case and
also dismissed certain of the plaintiffs' claims.

On November 30, 2011, the court issued its ruling granting the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On April 4, 2012, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the Company's
request to appeal the district court's decision which granted
class certification. Oral argument was held and the court upheld
the grant of class certification. The Company filed a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court which was denied on April 29,
2014.

On May 20, 2014, an agreement in principle was reached to settle
the matter for $297 million which would release the Company from
all claims from all participating class members in relation to
these pricing practices.  Ahold has indemnified the Company in
regards to this matter and, as a consequence, payment of the
settlement will be made by Ahold and will not impact the Company's
results of operations or cash flows. The settlement was
preliminarily approved by the United States District Court of
Connecticut on July 14, 2014 and is subject to final approval in
late 2014 or early 2015.

The settlement is also subject to potential reduction and/or
termination based on the compensable sales volume attributable to
class members that elect to opt out of the settlement. The Company
has recorded a $297 million current liability and a corresponding
$297 million indemnification receivable from Ahold in its
September 27, 2014 Consolidated Balance Sheet to reflect the
probable settlement of this matter. Based on the language in the
proposed settlement agreement, public written statements of Ahold
and the financial condition of Ahold, management believes that
Ahold will satisfy its obligation under the indemnification
agreement.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Pension Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that in a win
for Verizon Communications Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit held that only formal, governing plan documents must
be turned over upon request to participants in employee benefit
plans (Murphy v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 2014 BL 287183, 5th Cir.,
No. 13-11117, unpublished 10/14/14).

The court rejected claims that a Verizon spinoff, a company that
later became known as SuperMedia, violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by failing to turn over its pension plan's
investment guidelines.  Instead, the court found that these
documents weren't binding on the plan and therefore didn't qualify
as formal plan instruments subject to ERISA's mandatory disclosure
requirement.

The court's ruling specifically left open the possibility that
binding investment guidelines could be subject to mandatory
disclosure in another case.

In so holding, the Fifth Circuit aligned itself with the U.S.
courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Seventh and Eighth
circuits, all of which have held that only formal, legal documents
are subject to mandatory disclosure.  The Sixth and Ninth circuits
have taken a more expansive view of the types of documents subject
to disclosure, while the Fourth Circuit has required the
disclosure of investment guidelines when they described an
employer's obligation to fund the plan.

Although the court weighed in on the participants' disclosure
claims, it paid little attention to their class action claims,
which challenged Verizon's decision to transfer them to
SuperMedia's pension plans following a corporate spinoff.  On
those claims, the court affirmed the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas's ruling, written by Judge A. Joe Fish,
in favor of Verizon "for essentially the reasons expressed" by the
district court.

Jeffrey G. Huvelle, senior counsel with Covington & Burling LLP in
Washington and counsel for Verizon, praised the court's decision.

"Verizon is pleased that the Fifth Circuit agreed with Judge
Fish's well-reasoned decision that Verizon's spinoff complied with
ERISA," Mr. Huvelle told Bloomberg BNA on Oct. 15.  He added that
the document disclosure claims at issue "related to SuperMedia,
not Verizon."

Counsel for the participants and for SuperMedia didn't respond to
Bloomberg BNA's requests for comments.

Pension Plan Transfer

The class action stemmed from Verizon's 2006 spinoff of its
information services division.  As part of the spinoff, Verizon
reclassified more than 2,000 of its employees as employees of
Idearc Inc. and transferred them to Idearc's pension plans.  After
exiting from bankruptcy protection in 2010, Idearc changed its
name to SuperMedia, and the pension plans became SuperMedia plans.

When the new company ran into financial trouble and began reducing
pension benefits, a group of transferred employees filed a class
action against Verizon, SuperMedia and related entities, bringing
multiple ERISA claims.

The district court dismissed their disclosure and benefit
interference claims and later granted class certification on their
remaining fiduciary breach and equitable relief claims.

Last year, the district court ruled for Verizon on the employees'
challenge to the pension plan transfer, reasoning that Verizon
wasn't acting as an ERISA fiduciary when it effected the spinoff
and subsequent plan transfer.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed this most recent ruling
largely without comment, saying that it agreed with the reasoning
of the district court.


WALGREEN CO: Denial of Class Cert. in "Collins" Case Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
In re WALGREEN COMPANY OVERTIME CASES, NO. B230191 is a class
action about meal breaks at work. Lead plaintiff Darryl Collins
charged that Walgreens violated employees' rights to meal breaks.
Walgreens is a drug store chain. In a coordinated action, Mr.
Collins moved for class certification on the theory that
Walgreens's stated policy on meal breaks was proper, but that
Walgreens's actual practice departed from its stated policy in an
illegal and classwide way.

The trial court denied Mr. Collins's motion for class
certification.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One
affirmed the trial court ruling saying Mr. Collins's motion failed
in the trial court because he had no good proof.  Mr. Collins
tried to support his motion with evidence of three kinds: an
expert opinion, emails, and declarations but this evidence was too
weak to convince the trial court. Accordingly, the trial court
evaluations were valid, the Appeals Court held in its October 23,
2014 opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/NKcupl
from Leagle.com.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Diana Tabacopoulos --
dtabacopoulos@seyfarth.com -- Ann H. Qushair --
aqushair@seyfarth.com -- and James M. Harris --
jmharris@seyfarth.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


WEST MARINE: Files Interlocutory Appeal With Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the Company filed
an interlocutory appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit asserting that the District Court erred in
certifying various classes.

On October 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California by two California former hourly
employees. The complaint sought unspecified damages for alleged
violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as
well as civil penalties and attorney's fees under the Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act. The complaint alleged that the
Company miscalculated and failed to pay overtime for employees
off-the-clock work and certain selling incentive bonuses (or
spiffs), issued inaccurate wage statements, failed to provide
adequate rest and meal periods and other labor-related complaints.
On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment on a number of the asserted claims,
including the rest and meal break allegations, but certified the
spiff miscalculation class and the derivative wage statement and
former employee classes. On October 10, 2014, the Company filed an
interlocutory appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit asserting that the District Court erred in
certifying the various classes. The Company's appeal remains
pending.


WEST MARINE: Former Hourly Employee Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that a putative class
action was filed on October 8, 2014, against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by
a California former hourly employee claiming violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees,
alleging the Company's failure to pay overtime to hourly store
employees who earned bonus wages or commissions during pay periods
in which they worked overtime, and the derivative claims of
failure to provide accurate wage statements and all wages owed
upon termination of employment.


WIWI TRANSMISSION: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reinaldo A Lopez, and others similarly-situated v. Wiwi
Transmission & Company, Inc., a Florida corporation, Luis Zabala
individually, and Elio Diaz individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23991-
JAL (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2014) seeks to recover money damages
for unpaid overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wiwi Transmission & Company, Inc., is a Florida corporation with
its principal place of business in Miami Dade County.  The
Individual Defendants are corporate officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher F. Zacarias, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
          5757 Blue Lagoon Dr, Suite 230
          Miami, FL 33126
          Telephone: (305) 403-2000
          Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
          E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com


WORLD BUSINESS: Loses Bid for Protective Order in Rinky Dink Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John C. Coughenour denied a motion for protective
order filed by defendants in RINKY DINK, INC. d/b/a PET STOP,
ORDER ON JOINT LCR 37 Plaintiff, v. WORLD BUSINESS LENDERS, LLC,
Defendant, CASE NO. C14-0268-JCC, (W.D. Wash.).

Rinky Dink, Inc. brought this proposed class action suit against
WBL for alleged telemarketing.  Plaintiff alleges that, by using
an Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device (ADAD), Defendant
violated the Washington Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device
Statute (WADAD), RCW 80.36.400, and -- by design the Washington
Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), RCW 19.86 et seq. Plaintiff brings
suit on its own behalf and as a class representative for similarly
situated businesses. The class has not been certified, and the
parties are conducting discovery for certification motions. In the
current discovery dispute, Defendant both (1) objects to several
production requests and (2) seeks a protective order barring
Plaintiff from using identifying information to "solicit new
clients or class plaintiffs."  Defendant proposes "a reasonable
compromise" by disclosing the requested information subject to a
protective order.

"Defendant's motion for a protective order and any remaining
objections to discovery disclosures are denied," ruled Judge
Coughenour. "Defendant is ordered to produce any remaining
discovery."

A copy of the Court's October 23, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/y4fvZDfrom Leagle.com.


WVVA PROPERTIES: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Rivera, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees v. WVVA Properties, LLC.; D/B/A Club Fantasy Gentleman's
Club and Jeffrey R. White, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-04138
(D.S.C., October 23, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate a full nude Gentlemen's Club,
located at 7240 Peppermill Pkwy North Charleston, SC 29418.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (800) 385-8160
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


                             *********

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  * * *