CAR_Public/141106.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 6, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 221

                             Headlines

21 MOTT: "Mok" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
3M COMPANY: Synagro Bankruptcy Status Report Due December 31
3M COMPANY: Dismissed From Class Suit Over Ceradyne Acquisition
4000 ELECTRIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties
7-ELEVEN INC: Faces "Dotel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ABATE DISASTER: Faces "Vega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ADVANCED MICRO: Faces "Hatamian" Securities Class Action
AMERICAN SALES: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Approves 2007 ERISA Class Action
ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Faces "Eskinazi" Securities Lawsuit

BISTRO CENTRAL: Fails to Timely Pay Workers, "Martinez" Suit Says
BOLU INC: "Gualsaqui" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CALIX INC: Expert Witness Reports Filed in Merger Class Action
CANADIAN FOOD: Recalls MD Extra Hot Chili Sauce Due to Sulphites
CAPTAIN D'S: "Dunham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CAREY LIMOUSINE NY: Faces "Yim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CASEDHOLE SOLUTIONS: Faces "Baker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CHARCUTERIE L. FORTIN: Recalls L. Fortin Cooked Bacon
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Woodards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Sale

CIGNA CORP: Says 2nd Circuit Decision Could Be Issued Any Time
CIGNA CORP: Plaintiffs File Appeal to Third Circuit
COMCAST CORP: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $50 Million
COMMERCIAL METALS: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
COMMERCIAL METALS: Motion to Remand Not Yet Decided

COST PLUS: Recalls Modular Storage Bars Due to Injury Hazard
COUNTRY COOKHOUSE: Recalls Baked Goods Due to Allergens
COURTNEY BAY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Obtains Favorable Verdict in Hip Implant Suit
DINGSHING TRADING: Recalls Sesame Paste Product

DUN & BRADSTREET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Freyja" Suit Says
DXP ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Technicians Overtime
EATSTREET INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
ECOLAB INC: Paid Settlement Amount in "Cooper" Action
ECOLAB INC: 2 Wage Hour Cases Certified for Class Action Status

ECOLAB INC: "Franks" Product Liability Case v. Nalco Dismissed
ELI'S BREAD: "Zvonko" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EMULEX CORP: Says $179,000 in Expenses Related to Class Suit
EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Sued in Ohio Over Misleading Financial Reports
FIRST NATIONAL: Sued in Cal. Over Breach of Debt Collection Law

FMC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Want to Narrow Class Period
GERBER PRODUCTS: FTC Sues Over Misleading Baby Formula Ads
GIANT FACTORIES: Recalls Giant & Best Canadian Hot Water Heaters
GNC HOLDINGS: 76 Lawsuits Pending Related to Hydroxycut
GNC HOLDINGS: 21 Lawsuits Pending Related to DMAA or Aegeline

GNC HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Feb. 2015
GNC HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing on 71 Wage and Break Claims
GNC HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in "Vargas" and "Hickok" Action
GRANT & WEBER: Faces "Greer" Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection
HARMONY PRODUCTIONS: Recalls Terry Richards Lip Gloss - Night Owl

HAVANA CAFE: Faces "Serrano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HIKO ENERGY: Sued Over Deceptive Bait-and-Switch Sales Model
HOME DEPOT: Faces Kenmore NY in Ga. Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Morano" Suit in California Over Data Breach
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Confidential Agreement Reached in Class Action

J SISTERS: Faces "Lisboa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JDI DATING: Agrees to Settle FTC Suit Over Fake Virtual Profiles
JETSON TV: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Johnson" Suit Claims
JIANO FOODS: Recalls Beef Tortellini and Beef Ravioli
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces 12,300 DePuy Product Liability Claims

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Parties Await Decision in OCD Appeal
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Third Circuit Dismissed Appeal in "Monk" Case
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Certification Hearing Set for Oct. 2015
KEVIN'S FOOD: Recalls Taiyaki and Waffle Products
KONEXPRESS JAPANESE: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Sarceno" Suit Claims

LEONA'S PIZZERIA: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Primavera Pasta Sauce Due to Plastic
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Lundberg Rice Chips (Sea Salt)
M + M COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in D.R.I. Over Violation of FLSA
MARIA MANGANO: Faces "Saldana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MCCAIN FOODS: Recalls Hashbrowns Due to Pieces of Plastic
NAVIENT CORP: "Ubaldi" Plaintiffs Renew Class Certification Bid
NYK LINE: Sued in Cal. Over Vehicle Carrier Services Price-Fixing
ORGANIC MEADOW: Recalls 2% Cottage Cheese Due to Spoilage
PACIFIC SUNRISE: Recalls Fuji Dressing Due to Undeclared Wheat

PANASONIC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Capacitors-Price Fixing
PASTIFICIO D'APRILE: Recalls Tortellini and Ravioli
PATIENT ACCOUNTING: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
PERSONAL CARE: Faces "Morin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Herrera" Suit Says

PORT II SEAFOOD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
R & A OYSTERS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Cordova" Suit Says
SAHARA EAST: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
STEEL SPAN: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STRYKER CORP: Settles Hip Implant Suits for $1.43 Billion

SUNRIPE FARMS: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Milk and Mustard
SUPERMEDIA INC: Attorneys to Get $1.2MM If Court OKs Settlement
TAKATA CORP: Faces Three Class Actions Over Airbag Defect
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Actos Jury Verdict Still High, Judge Says
TARGET CORP: Symantec Fights Subpoena in Data Breach Class Action

TD BANK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bean" Action Claims
TECTRON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls USB Chargers Due to Fire Hazard
TEXTURA CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
UNITED STATES: Sued for Not Limiting Travel to Ebola-Hit Places
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Illegally Reverse Plan Benefits, Suit Claims

UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs Face November 21 Deadline to Appeal
UNUM GROUP: Files Asnwer to 2nd Amended Complaint in "Don" Suit
VISONIC LTD: Recalls Amber Personal Emergency Response Pendants
WELLS FARGO: Must Face $203-Mil. Overdraft Judgment
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Washer Class Action

WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Recalls Pumpkin Seed Pesto


                             *********


21 MOTT: "Mok" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Mok, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. 21 Mott St. Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Hop Kee
Restaurant, Peter Lee, and Philip Lee, jointly and severally, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08081 (S.D.N.Y., October 7, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and such other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Hop Kee Restaurant at 21 Mott
Street, Basement B, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr , Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
              jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com


3M COMPANY: Synagro Bankruptcy Status Report Due December 31
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2014, that parties in a purported class
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin County are to
report the status of the bankruptcy case of Synagro, which is a
co-defendant in the class action, on or before December 31, 2014.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in
the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals. The named defendants in the case include 3M,
Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC, and
Biological Processors of America. The named plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama who
have had PFOA, PFOS, and other perfluorochemicals released or
deposited on their property.

In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case
transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010,
consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan
County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending
the resolution of the class certification issues in the first case
filed there.

In May 2013, the court stayed the case due to co-defendant
Synagro's bankruptcy filing. The parties are to report the status
of the bankruptcy to the court on or before December 31, 2014.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M manages
its operations in five operating business segments: Industrial;
Safety and Graphics; Electronics and Energy; Health Care; and
Consumer. From a geographic perspective, any references to EMEA
refer to Europe, Middle East and Africa on a combined basis.


3M COMPANY: Dismissed From Class Suit Over Ceradyne Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2014, that the Court dismissed 3M and
Cyborg Acquisition Corporation from a class action.

In October 2012, four plaintiffs filed purported class actions
against Ceradyne, Inc., its directors, 3M, and Cyborg Acquisition
Corporation (a direct wholly owned subsidiary of 3M) in connection
with 3M's proposed acquisition of Ceradyne. Two suits were filed
in California Superior Court for Orange County, and two were filed
in the Delaware Chancery Court. The suits alleged that the
defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their
fiduciary duties to Ceradyne by seeking to sell Ceradyne through
an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair
terms, and/or by allegedly failing to make adequate disclosures to
Ceradyne stockholders regarding the acquisition of Ceradyne. 3M
completed its acquisition of Ceradyne in November 2012.

In November 2012, the parties reached a settlement with the
California plaintiffs for an amount that is not material to the
Company, while the Delaware plaintiffs dismissed their complaints
without prejudice. The settlement will bind all former Ceradyne
shareholders and has received preliminary approval from the
California court. A final approval hearing was held in July 2013,
and the California Court denied approval of the settlement.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of
approval of the settlement, which motion was denied by the
California court. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for leave to
amend their complaint, which motion was denied without prejudice
in January 2014.

By stipulation in February 2014, plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily
dismiss claims against 3M and Cyborg Acquisition Corporation
without prejudice. In March 2014, the Court entered its Order
dismissing 3M and Cyborg Acquisition Corporation from the action
without prejudice.

3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and
marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M manages
its operations in five operating business segments: Industrial;
Safety and Graphics; Electronics and Energy; Health Care; and
Consumer. From a geographic perspective, any references to EMEA
refer to Europe, Middle East and Africa on a combined basis.


4000 ELECTRIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Laborda Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 4000 Electric Corp., and Teofilo Estrella, Case No.
1:14-cv-08119 (S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

4000 Electric Corp. is engaged in building, servicing and
maintaining electrical, lighting, and control systems of an
extended number of commercial, industrial, and residential
projects throughout the New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


7-ELEVEN INC: Faces "Dotel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Netra Dotel, Mukhtar Afzal, Akram Mahmood, Yousef Mohammed, Yasir
Muhammed, Yawar-Hayat Muhammed, Attaullah Syed, Sabaratnam
Mahendran, Irfan Yousaf, Zaheer Waqar, Quamar Nazia, and Mohuiddin
Mohammed individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05867 (E.D.N.Y., October 7,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.

7-Eleven, Inc. is the largest chain in the convenience retailing
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
      Liane Fisher, Esq.
      SERRINS FISHER LLP
      233 Broadway, Suite 2340
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 571-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 233-3801
      E-mail: michael@serrinsfisher.com
              liane@serrinsfisher.com


ABATE DISASTER: Faces "Vega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Vega, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Abate Disaster Restoration Services, LLC,
Windsor Lifestyles, LLC, and Jay L. Cope, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-07867 (N.D. Ill., October 8, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants provide landscaping, water technician, demolition,
and construction services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCED MICRO: Faces "Hatamian" Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that on January
15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v. AMD, et
al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint purports to assert claims against the
Company and certain individual officers for alleged violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during
the period April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012. The complaint
seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading
statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the
individual officers regarding AMD's 32nm technology and "Llano"
product, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim,
allegedly operated to inflate artificially the price paid for the
Company's common stock during the period. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Based
upon information presently known to the Company's management, the
Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Advanced Micro Devices is a global semiconductor company with
facilities around the world.


AMERICAN SALES: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Remberto Diaz, Juan C. Delgado, and other similarly-situated
individuals v. American Sales and Management Organization, LLC,
d/b/a Eulen America, and Kurt Gomez, individually, Case No. 1:14-
cv-23711 (S.D. Fla., October 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and
reasonably attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

American Sales and Management Organization, LLC provides ground
handling and passenger services for domestic and foreign carriers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Approves 2007 ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers are cheering after an early test seemed to confirm that a
recent U.S. Supreme Court decision will make it easier for workers
to hold their employers responsible for mismanaging retirement
funds.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has approved a
2007 class action brought against biotech company Amgen Inc. by
employees who lost money investing in the company's stock.  The
decision is believed to be the first appellate ruling to apply
Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, a 2014 Supreme Court decision
that lowered a significant hurdle to pleading cases under the
federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.
On Oct. 30, Ninth Circuit Judges Jerome Farris and William
Fletcher and U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of the Eastern
District of New York sitting by designation sided with plaintiffs
who purchased Amgen stock as part of their employee investment
plans.

"[Defendants] knew or should have known that the Amgen common
stock fund was purchasing stock at an artificially inflated
price," Judge Fletcher wrote, "due to material misrepresentations
and omissions by company officers, as well as by illegal off-label
marketing, but they nevertheless continued to allow plan
participants to invest in the fund."

Plaintiffs claimed Amgen officers allowed them to buy company
stock as part of their retirement plan, while hiding troubling
information about the safety of its flagship anemia drugs, Aranesp
and Epogen.  According to the suit, Amgen stock prices fell 33
percent between 2005 and 2007 when it came to light that severely
ill patients taking Amgen's drugs experienced higher rates of
blood clotting, accelerated tumor growth, and a greater chance of
death.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez of the Central District of
California dismissed the case, and the Ninth Circuit revived the
suit last year.  Amgen then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear
the case, but the higher court deferred ruling while it considered
the similar Fifth Third case.  After ruling in June, the Supreme
Court remanded Amgen back to the Ninth Circuit.

The result was the same, but lawyers said the ruling has greater
implications this time around.

The lower court had dismissed Amgen under the "presumption of
prudence" standard, a safety net that generally protected
corporate officers from ERISA claims based on a presumption that
they had managed employee investments as a "prudent man" would.
Fifth Third did away with that standard.

Mark Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz in New York, who argued the Amgen case for
plaintiffs, said the Oct. 30 opinion is the first appellate
opinion to apply Fifth Third.

"I think it's going to be an important case for other courts to
consider," he said.

Mr. Rifkin said the presumption of prudence had become "almost
insurmountable" for plaintiffs litigating ERISA cases.  Now the
claims will have a better chance.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro partner Reed Kathrein --
reed@hbsslaw.com -- agreed.  "You don't get a get out of jail free
card now," he said.

Mayer Brown partner Robert Davis -- rdavis@mayerbrown.com -- who
argued for Amgen, was out of the office on Oct. 30 and did not
respond to a phone message or email seeking comment.

Kenneth Herzinger -- kherzinger@orrick.com -- a partner with
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, said he was surprised by the Amgen
ruling.

"They took the Supreme Court's opinion a step further than the
language in the opinion," he said, "and appear to have applied it
in a much broader way."

Mr. Herzinger said the Ninth Circuit relied solely on the Amgen
stock drop to form a basis for the case.  Before Fifth Third,
plaintiffs had to prove "dire circumstances" such as near
bankruptcy to overcome the presumption of prudence.  Fifth Third
changed that but still requires "special circumstances," which
Mr. Herzinger said he didn't see in Amgen.

The Ninth Circuit's interpretation could "trigger more lawsuits
based solely on stock drops," he added.


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Faces "Eskinazi" Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Sol M. Eskinazi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Arrowhead Research Corporation, Christopher
R. Anzalone, and Bruce D. Given, Case No. 2:14-cv-07911 (C.D.
Cal., October 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements about the Company's finances, operations
and sales.

Arrowhead Research Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company
developing targeted RNA Interference therapeutics.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Arrowhead
Research Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
      Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com


BISTRO CENTRAL: Fails to Timely Pay Workers, "Martinez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Martinez, Ana O'Reilly and Chris Wood, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Carl Halvorson, Does
1-50, Case No. 2:14-cv-01681 (D. Nev., October 13, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay the Plaintiffs on
the day the paycheck was due.

Carl Halvorson is a member and the sole manager of Bistro Central.

Bistro Central, LV, LLC leases space inside Caesar's Palace Hotel
and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada where it has operated a restaurant
under the name of Bistro Michel Richard.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristin L. Martin, Esq.
      MCCRACKEN, STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY
      1630 S. Commerce Street, Suite A-1
      Las Vegas, NV 89102
      Telephone: (702) 386-5107
      Facsimile: (702) 386-9848
      E-mail: klm@dcbsf.com

         - and -

      Eric B. Myers, Esq.
      DAVIS, COWELL & BOWE, LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 597-7200
      Facsimile: (415) 597-7201
      E-mail: ebm@dcbsf.com


BOLU INC: "Gualsaqui" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Vinicio Boada Gualsaqui and Elmar Antonio Perez, on behalf of
themselves, and others similarly situated v. Bolu, Inc. d/b/a
Turkish Kitchen, and Ilgar Peker, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
08120 (S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and residential
apartment building in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIX INC: Expert Witness Reports Filed in Merger Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Both parties in a class action lawsuit have filed expert witness
reports, Calix Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). In
response to the announcement of the Merger Agreement on October 6,
2010, a purported class action complaint was filed by stockholders
of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard-
Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010, these
stockholders filed an amended complaint (the "amended Steinhardt
complaint"). The amended Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which
has since been merged into Calix) and the members of the Occam
board of directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint
did not name Calix as a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief
rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees,
and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011. On
January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for
sanctions brought by the defendants against certain of the lead
plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead plaintiffs Michael
Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex
Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt Plaintiffs," had
engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and dismissed the
Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice. The court
further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i) barred from
receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii) required to self-
report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose their improper
trading in any future application to serve as lead plaintiff, and
(iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5 million, to be
distributed to the remaining members of the class of former Occam
stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the motion of the
remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler, for
class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and Sheeler as
class representatives. The certified class is a non-opt-out class
consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose shares were
converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger
transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware
action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the
class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continue to
seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

Fact discovery in the case closed on April 30, 2013. On June 11,
2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended
Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO
as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best
purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly
material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary
proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.

On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants
named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening
Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing
that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts
of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' answering brief to
the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 3, 2013,
and defendants' reply brief was filed on October 4, 2013. A
hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on December 6,
2013.

On April 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The court granted summary
judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as
directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper
actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The ruling also
granted summary judgment on all claims as to Occam, the corporate
entity. The court left in place process-based claims against
Occam's former CEO and CFO, and also declined to grant summary
judgment on separate claims that the director and officer
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy
statement for Occam's stockholder vote that allegedly contained
misleading disclosures and had material omissions.

On June 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company,
Inc. and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This motion sought
additional documents from defendants and from Jefferies, Occam's
former advisor, and requested that the court impose severe
sanctions, up to and including a finding of liability against
defendants. Defendants have rejected the suggestion that any
additional documents should be produced and vigorously opposed the
imposition of any sanctions.

On September 3, 2014, the court denied the motion without
prejudice as to defendants, directed counsel for the defendants to
provide an affidavit clarifying the prior conduct of discovery,
and ordered discovery into defendants' document collection and
review methodologies. The court also ordered Jefferies to produce
additional documents. Those proceedings are ongoing.

On October 17, 2014, both parties filed expert witness reports.

The Company continues to believe that the allegations in the
Second Amended Complaint are without merit and intends to continue
to vigorously contest the action as it moves forward toward trial.
However, there can be no assurance that the defendants will be
successful in defending this ongoing action. In addition, the
Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold
harmless and indemnify each of the former Occam directors and
officers against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses
related to claims against such directors and otherwise to the
fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and Occam's bylaws and
certificate of incorporation. Such obligations may apply to this
lawsuit and may ultimately result in the payment of
indemnification amounts by the Company. The plaintiffs have not
communicated any specific demand for damages. At this time, the
Company is unable to quantify its indemnification risk, and an
adverse result at trial could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, operating results or financial condition.

The trial is scheduled for February 16, 2015.

Calix is a global provider of broadband communications access
systems and software for fiber- and copper-based network
architectures that enable communications service providers to
connect to their residential and business subscribers.


CANADIAN FOOD: Recalls MD Extra Hot Chili Sauce Due to Sulphites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 23, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Nova Scotia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9358

Affected products: 400 g. MD Extra Hot Chili Sauce with all codes
where sulphites are not declared on the label


CAPTAIN D'S: "Dunham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Dunham, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Captain D's, LLC and Captain D's
Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01955 (M.D. Tenn., October 8,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid straight time and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Captain D's, LLC owns and operates a seafood fast food restaurant
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kara B. Huffstutter, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
      341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
      Franklin, TN 37067
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
      E-mail: khuffstutter@gilbertfirm.com

         - and -

      Michael L. Russell, Esq.
      Gilbert Russell McWherter PLC
      341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
      Franklin, TN 37067
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com


CAREY LIMOUSINE NY: Faces "Yim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunhong Yim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Carey Limousine NY, Inc., Carey International, Inc.
And Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 1:14-cv-05883
(E.D.N.Y., October 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in
one workweek.

The Defendants operate a luxury car and limousine transportation
business, using an integrated network of transportation,
communication, and dispatch facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Copley Jhaveri-Weeks, Esq.
      BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 444-9300
      Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
      E-mail: bill@bryanschwartzlaw.com


CASEDHOLE SOLUTIONS: Faces "Baker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Baker, Joshua Evans and Jessie Shelton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Casedhole Solutions,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00415 (S.D. Tex., October 7, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.

Casedhole Solutions, Inc. is engaged in the business of providing
wire line services, with its principal place of business at 1720
North Airport Rd., Weatherford, OK 73096.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S. Hommel Jr., Esq.
      WILLIAM S. HOMMEL JR, PC
      1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: 903-596-7100
      Facsimile: 469-533-1618


CHARCUTERIE L. FORTIN: Recalls L. Fortin Cooked Bacon
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Soy
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Charcuterie L. Fortin Ltee
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9352

Affected products: 2.5 kg. Le Select - L. Fortin Cooked Bacon


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Woodards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Deshandre Woodards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-04181
(D. Minn., October 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. owns and operates fast food Mexican
restaurants throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kent M. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
      1632 Homestead Trail
      Long Lake, MN 55356
      Telephone: (612) 940-4452
      E-mail: williamslawmn@gmail.com

         - and -

      J. Kyle Bachus, Esq.
      Karen O'Connor, Esq.
      BACHUS & SCHANKER, LLC
      1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 700
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 893-9800
      Facsimile: (303) 893-9900
      E-mail: kbachus@coloradolaw.net
              karen.oconnor@coloradolaw.net

         - and -

      Adam S. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ADAM S. LEVY, LLC
      P.O. Box 88
      Oreland, PA 19075
      Telephone: (267) 994-6952
      Facsimile: (215) 233-2992
      E-mail: adamslevy@comcast.net


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Sale
------------------------------------------------------
City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension
System on Behalf of Itself and all Other Similarly Situated
Shareholders of Chiquita Brands International, Inc. v. Chiquita
Brands International, Inc., Kerrii B. Anderson, Howard W. Barker,
Jr., Edward F. Lonergan, Clare M. Hasler-Lewis, Craig E. Huss,
Jeffrey N. Simmons, Steven P. Stanbrook, and Ronald V. Waters,
III, Case No. 1:14-cv-06200 (D.N.J., October 7, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for breached in its fiduciary duties
specifically by failing to maximize shareholder value, and
agreeing to a deal involving an unfair price when a higher,
competing bid was on the table and clearly in shareholders' best
interest. Instead of entertaining the higher, competing bid, the
Chiquita Board instead set up diminished and rushed negotiations
and erected defensive measures designed to thwart any higher
offer.

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. is one of the leading
marketers and distributors of bananas, salads, and other fruits
and vegetables in New York.

The Individual Defendants are member of the board of directors of
Chiquita Brands International, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

         - and -

      Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
      Adam Warden, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399


CIGNA CORP: Says 2nd Circuit Decision Could Be Issued Any Time
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Second Circuit
heard oral arguments in February 2014 in the Amara cash balance
pension plan litigation, and a decision by that court could be
issued at any time.

On December 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated participants in the
Plan affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.
The plaintiffs allege various ERISA violations, including, that
the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older
employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period
(when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-
conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained
inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court found in favor of the plaintiffs on
the disclosure claim only, but affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998.
The District Court ordered payment of enhanced benefits, requiring
that class members receive pre-1998 benefits under the pre-
conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits
under the post-conversion cash balance formula.  The Second
Circuit upheld this decision.

In May 2011, the Supreme Court reversed and returned the case to
the District Court.  In December 2012, the District Court ordered
the Company to pay substantially the same benefits as had been
ordered in 2008 and denied the Company's motion to decertify the
class.  Both parties appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the District Court's denial
of their request to return to the prior annuity benefit plan
formula, and Cigna and the Plan appealed the District Court's
order and class certification ruling.

The Second Circuit heard oral arguments in February 2014, and a
decision by that court could be issued at any time.  The Company
will continue to vigorously defend its position in this case.

Cigna is a global health services organization with a mission to
help customers improve their health, well-being and sense of
security.


CIGNA CORP: Plaintiffs File Appeal to Third Circuit
---------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's decision to the Third Circuit.

In April 2004, the Company was named as a defendant in a number of
putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company
improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through
the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of
the Company's competitors.  These actions were consolidated into
Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed on August 7, 2009,
asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act,
the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from
1998 through the present.  Other major health insurers have been
the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court dismissed all claims by the
health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack
of standing. In addition, the District Court dismissed the
antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the
disclosure claim under ERISA.

In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied
separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class
of subscriber plaintiffs.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit denied plaintiff's request for an immediate appeal of the
January 2013 ruling.  As a result, the case is proceeding on
behalf of the named plaintiffs only.

On June 24, 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion
for summary judgment, terminating all claims, and denied the
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment.  On July 24,
2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's decision to the Third Circuit.  The Company will continue
to vigorously defend its position in this case.

Cigna is a global health services organization with a mission to
help customers improve their health, well-being and sense of
security.


COMCAST CORP: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $50 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the suit alleging that Comcast monopolized the Philadelphia-
area cable market -- which had gone to the U.S. Supreme Court
where it became part of the high court's shift toward stricter
standards for class certification -- is settling for $50 million
in cash and services, according to court papers filed last week.

The plaintiffs, who are both current and former Comcast
subscribers, have agreed to settle with the company in an accord
presented to the trial court last week that would give each
subscriber a choice between taking $15 off of his or her next bill
or taking one of several options for services, like two free
months of The Movie Channel. Former subscribers can make a claim
for $15 in cash.

The plaintiffs submitted a motion for certification of a class for
the purposes of settlement and a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement on Oct. 28.

Comcast submitted a one-page response the same day saying it did
not oppose the motion.  The suit was filed in late 2003 on behalf
of roughly 2 million Philadelphia-area Comcast customers and got
class certification in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a
decision that was appealed by Comcast and upheld by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

When Comcast sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court, however,
the high court reversed the certification.

In its 2013 opinion in Comcast v. Behrend, the Supreme Court cited
to its 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, which had
rejected a class certification for more than a million women who
alleged that Wal-Mart maintained a system of gender discrimination
in its pay and promotion policies.

In the Comcast decision, the majority of the divided Supreme Court
had ruled that the model the plaintiffs had offered to the trial
court in order to show their common injury, that Comcast's
practice of excluding competitors had resulted in higher costs for
cable subscribers, didn't actually satisfy the federal rule
requiring predominance of an issue in order to get class
certification.

When the Third Circuit upheld the district court's opinion, it had
ruled that at the certification stage, plaintiffs need not "tie
each theory of antitrust impact to an exact calculation of
damages."

However, the Supreme Court disagreed.  Class determination, the
majority said, quoting from an earlier case, "generally involves
considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues
comprising the plaintiff's cause of action.  It is clear that,
under the proper standard for evaluating certification,
respondents' model falls far short of establishing that damages
are capable of measurement on a classwide basis."

Following that decision, U.S. District Judge John R. Padova of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania decided that the plaintiffs could
still seek certification of a narrower class.

Comcast had argued that the high court had left no room for the
plaintiffs to file another motion for class certification since it
hadn't vacated and remanded the Third Circuit's decision upholding
the initial class certification.  Rather, the Supreme Court had
reversed the decision.

"The Supreme Court reversed our prior certification order because
the plaintiffs' proffered evidence on antitrust impact was not
limited to the overbuilding theory, and thus failed the
predominance requirement," Judge Padova said.

"Importantly, the Supreme Court did not decide as a matter of law
that classwide proof could never be established," Judge Padova
said.

Although he gave no indication of his take on the merits of the
narrowed class proposal, he decided that the plaintiffs would be
allowed to pursue a new certification.

The proposed settlement that came before the narrowed class was
approved.

The agreement includes $16.7 million in cash and what is valued at
$33.3 million in services.

"Current subscribers of non-basic video programming services from
Comcast in any of the five designated counties will be entitled to
elect either a one-time credit of $15 off their bill, or from the
following Comcast services: (a) six free pay-per-view movies (an
estimated $35.94 value); or (b) for customers who subscribe to
Xfinity high-speed Internet service, four months' free upgrade in
Internet service from Performance Level to Blast! service (an
estimated $40 value), or one free month upgrade from Blast!
service to Extreme 105 service (an estimated $38 value); or (c)
two free months of The Movie Channel (an estimated $43.90 value),"
according to the proposed settlement.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are allowed to seek up to $15 million
in fees to be taken out of the settlement fund, according to the
agreement.

"The settlement is structured to provide a simplified method of
providing and maximizing benefits to settlement class members.
Cash elections by former subscribers, any attorney fees and
expenses awarded by the court to class counsel, and administration
costs are to be paid from the cash component of the settlement
fund.  To the extent such sums exceed the [$16.7 million] cash
component, Comcast agrees to contribute additional cash to the
settlement fund to fund such amounts, with the amount of
settlement credits for services to current subscribers [$33.3
million] correspondingly reduced," according to the memorandum in
support of the settlement.

David Woodward -- dwoodward@heinsmills.com -- of Heins Mills &
Olson in Minneapolis represented the plaintiffs, and M. Norman
Goldberger -- goldbergerm@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr in
Philadelphia represented Comcast.  Neither could be reached for
comment.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended August 31, 2014, that the court has granted
final approval of the settlement in a class action antitrust
lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The Company said, "On September 18, 2008, we were served with a
purported class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of
Scranton, Pennsylvania, against nine steel manufacturing
companies, including CMC. The lawsuit, filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleged that
the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which steel products were sold in the United States by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. The
lawsuit, which purported to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all parties who purchased steel products directly
from the defendants between January 1, 2005 and September 2008
(collectively, the "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs"), sought treble
damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

"On March 14, 2014, the Company entered into a final settlement
agreement with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. As part of that
final settlement, in April 2014, the Company paid approximately $4
million to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in consideration for
the full and final release of all claims of the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs. The Company maintains that the claims lacked merit and
that it has full and complete defenses to all of the claims
asserted against it. However, the Company agreed to enter into the
settlement agreement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and
distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation. On October
17, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement."

Commercial Metals Company together with its consolidated
subsidiaries manufacture, recycle and market steel and metal
products, related materials and services through a network
including steel mills, commonly referred to as "minimills", steel
fabrication and processing facilities, construction-related
product warehouses, metal recycling facilities and marketing and
distribution offices in the United States and in strategic
international markets.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Motion to Remand Not Yet Decided
---------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended August 31, 2014, that since the filing of
the direct purchaser lawsuit, a case has been filed in federal
court in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a
purported class of indirect purchasers in approximately 28 states
naming the same defendants and containing allegations
substantially identical to those of the Standard Iron Works
complaint. That case has in effect been stayed. Another indirect
purchaser action was filed in Tennessee state court, again naming
the same defendants but contending that the conspiracy continued
through 2010. The case has been removed to federal court, and
plaintiffs have moved to remand. The motion to remand has not yet
been decided, and no motion practice or discovery has taken place.

"We believe that the lawsuits are without merit and plan to defend
them vigorously," the Company said.

Commercial Metals Company together with its consolidated
subsidiaries manufacture, recycle and market steel and metal
products, related materials and services through a network
including steel mills, commonly referred to as "minimills", steel
fabrication and processing facilities, construction-related
product warehouses, metal recycling facilities and marketing and
distribution offices in the United States and in strategic
international markets.


COST PLUS: Recalls Modular Storage Bars Due to Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Management Services Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced
a voluntary recall of about 7,000 Modular Storage Bars.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

When weight is applied to the storage bar, the screws holding the
mounting plate can pull out of the bar allowing the storage bar to
fall, posing an injury hazard.

The firm has received one report of a short storage bar pulling
away from the wall.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes wall-mounted storage bars made of medium-
density fiberboard with an oak wood finish that allow hanging
storage accessories to be attached.  The storage bars were sold in
two sizes; long and short.  The long bar is 36 inches in length
and the short bar is 23.5 inches in length.  The accessories are
sold separately and include items such as a black metal mesh
basket, key hooks and S-hooks.  The storage bars have SKU numbers
491996 (long) and 491997 (short) printed on the UPC sticker
attached to the product packaging.  There are no identifying
labels on the product itself.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/48TnIT

The recalled products were manufactured in Hong Kong and sold at
Cost Plus World Market and World Market stores nationwide and
online from June 2014 through Aug. 2014 for between about $20 and
$25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the storage bars and
return them to any Cost Plus World Market or World Market store
for a free replacement.


COUNTRY COOKHOUSE: Recalls Baked Goods Due to Allergens
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk,
                          Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Soy,
                          Allergen - Sulphites, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Country Cookhouse Bakery
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9289


COURTNEY BAY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul T. Watkins, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Courtney Bay Seafood Restaurant & Lounge, LLC and
Karlene O'Neal individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-03976 (D.S.C.,
October 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Courtney Bay Seafood
Restaurant & Lounge, LLC a restaurant that serves both food and
alcohol.

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


DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Obtains Favorable Verdict in Hip Implant Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Law.com, reports that a jury issued a
favorable verdict for defendants Depuy Orthopedics, Inc., a
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, after an almost two-month-long
trial in the first bellwether case in the hip replacement device
multidistrict litigation in Dallas federal court.

Michael Powell, a partner in the Dallas office of Locke Lord,
represents DePuy and Johnson & Johnson.  Mr. Powell served as lead
for Locke Lord on this case. He did not immediately return a call
seeking a comment.

"We are pleased with the jury's decision, which reflects the facts
of this case," Mindy Tinsley, a company spokeswoman, said in a
press release.  "The evidence showed that ULTAMET Metal-on-Metal
was designed to meet the needs of patients and is backed by
clinical data showing a track record of safety and effectiveness
in reducing pain and restoring mobility for patients suffering
from chronic hip pain."  The statement noted that "[t]he company
expects additional cases to be tried in the coming months and
remains committed to the long-term and vigorous defense of the
allegations in these lawsuits."

Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm in Houston, who represents the
plaintiff in the case along with Wayne Fisher of Fisher, Boyd,
Johnson & Huguenard, also in Houston, emailed his conclusion about
the trial outcome: "A tough first battle in a long war.  We look
forward to pressing on with some more ammunition," he wrote.

This first bellwether case was scheduled to help set a pattern for
future trials in the MDL, which includes more than 4,000
complaints related to the hip replacement system filed against its
manufacturers.

In the bellwether case, Herlihy-Paoli v. DePuy Orthopaedics, the
plaintiff, Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli, filed a complaint in July 2012
alleging that "defendants have known, or should have known, that
the Pinnacle device was not safe or durable and presented a
considerable risk of injury to those implanted with it."


DINGSHING TRADING: Recalls Sesame Paste Product
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Dingshing Trading Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9381

Dingshing Trading Ltd., is recalling a sesame paste product from
the marketplace because it contains peanut which is not declared
on the label.  People with an allergy to peanut should not consume
the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

If you have an allergy to peanut, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

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

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


DUN & BRADSTREET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Freyja" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Freyja, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., and Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corp. LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-07831 (C.D. Cal., October
8, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made one or more
unauthorized calls to the Plaintiff's cell phone using an
automatic telephone dialing system for the purpose of soliciting
business.

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. is a credit-reporting agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Ryan Dufour, Esq.
      SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP
      22440 Clarendon Street Suite 200
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 591-4300
      Facsimile: (818) 591-4315
      E-mail: mdufour@swlegalgrp.com

         - and -

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      Brian B. Kilpatrick, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      Galleria Tower I
      2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com
              brian@hughesellzey.com


DXP ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Technicians Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
John T. Bouchard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00413 (S.D.
Tex., October 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay Safety Technicians and other workers overtime for
all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

DXP Enterprises, Inc. is engaged in the business of providing
well-site and safety services to oil companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq.
      THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
      115 E. Travis St., Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
      E-mail: ahartry@themoralesfirm.com


EATSTREET INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
North Branch Pizza and Burger Company, an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. Eatstreet, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No.
1:14-cv-07957 (N.D. Ill., October 13, 2014), arises out of the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

Eatstreet, Inc. supplies restaurants with software for handling
online orders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501


ECOLAB INC: Paid Settlement Amount in "Cooper" Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September 30, 2014,
that in Cooper v. Ecolab Inc., California State Court - Superior
Court-Los Angeles County, case no. BC486875, the plaintiffs sought
certification of a purported class of terminated California
employees of any business for alleged violation of statutory
obligations regarding payment of accrued vacation upon
termination. The company reached a preliminary settlement with the
plaintiffs, which was approved by the court on March 17, 2014. The
settlement amount, which is not material to the company's
operations or financial position, was paid in June 2014.


ECOLAB INC: 2 Wage Hour Cases Certified for Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the company is a defendant
in six pending wage hour lawsuits claiming violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or a similar state law. Of these six
suits, two have been certified for class action status. Ross
(formerly Icard) v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern
District of California, case no. C 13-05097 PJH, an action under
California state law, has been certified for class treatment of
California Institutional employees. In Cancilla v. Ecolab, U.S.
District Court - Northern District of California, case no. CV 12-
03001, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide class of
Pest Elimination Service Specialists for alleged FLSA violations.
The suit also seeks a purported California sub-class for alleged
California wage hour law violations and certifications of classes
for state law violations in Washington, Colorado, Maryland,
Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin and North Carolina.

A third pending suit, Charlot v. Ecolab Inc., U.S. District Court-
Eastern District of New York, case no. CV 12-04543, seeks
nationwide class certification of Institutional employees for
alleged FLSA violations as well as purported state sub-classes in
New York, New Jersey, Washington and Pennsylvania alleging
violations of state wage hour laws. A fourth pending suit,
Schneider v. Ecolab, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, case
no. 2014 CH 193, seeks certification of a class of Institutional
employees for alleged violations of Illinois wage and hour laws.

A fifth pending suit, Martino v. Ecolab, Santa Clara County
California Superior Court, seeks certification of a California
state class of Institutional employees for alleged violations of
California wage and hour laws. The Martino case has been removed
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. A sixth pending suit, LaValley v. Ecolab, United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota, seeks
certification of a class of Territory Representatives for alleged
violations of the FLSA and New York state wage and hour laws.


ECOLAB INC: "Franks" Product Liability Case v. Nalco Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that in March 2011, Nalco Company
was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in an amended
complaint filed by an individual in the Circuit Court of Harrison
County, Mississippi, Second Judicial District (Franks v. Sea Tow
of South Miss, Inc., et al., Cause No. A2402-10-228 (Circuit Court
of Harrison County, Mississippi)). The amended complaint generally
asserts, among other things, negligence and strict product
liability claims relating to the plaintiff's alleged exposure to
chemical dispersants manufactured by Nalco Company. The plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, medical expenses, and
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff's allegations place him
within the scope of the MDL 2179 Medical Benefits Class. In
approving the Medical Benefits Settlement, the MDL 2179 Court
barred Medical Benefits Settlement class members from prosecuting
claims of injury from exposure to oil and dispersants related to
the Response.

As a result of the MDL court's order, on April 11, 2013, the
Mississippi court stayed proceedings in the Franks case. The
Franks case was dismissed in May 2014.


ELI'S BREAD: "Zvonko" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoric Zvonko, Stevan Obradovic, Jensey Jorge, Daniel Werber, and
Dejan Jadric on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Eli's Bread, Inc. and Eli Zabar, Case No. 1:14-cv-
08105 (S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Eli's Bread bakery in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent Edward Bauer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT E. BAUER
      516 Fifth Avenue, 12th floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 575-1517
      Facsimile: (212) 764-0900
      E-mail: v.bauer@verizon.net


EMULEX CORP: Says $179,000 in Expenses Related to Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corporation (NYSE:ELX), a leader in network connectivity,
monitoring and management, announced earnings results for the
first quarter of fiscal 2015 ending September 28, 2014.  Emulex
Corporation that it incurred expenses of $179,000 related to a
class action lawsuit.


EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Sued in Ohio Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
IBEW Local No. 58 Annuity Fund, and Electrical Workers Pension
Trust Fund of IBEW Local No. 58, Detroit, Michigan, Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Everyware
Global, Inc., John K. Sheppard, Bernard F. Peters, and Samie A.
Solomon, Case No. 2:14-cv-01838 (S.D. Ohio, October 7, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Everyware Global, Inc. produces, markets, and distributes
kitchenware for baking, serving, using, storing, and displaying
food and related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12
      Cleveland Heights, OH 44106
      Telephone: (216) 229-6088
      Facsimile: (216) 229-6092
      E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, 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

         - 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


FIRST NATIONAL: Sued in Cal. Over Breach of Debt Collection Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Wurdemann, for himself and all those similarly situated v.
First National Collection Bureau Inc., LVNV Funding LLC, Resurgent
Capital Services LP, and Alegis Group LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-02075
(C.D. Cal., October 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of collection of
alleged consumer debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barak Berlin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BARAK BERLIN
      27349 Jefferson Ave, Suite 208
      Temecula, CA 92590
      Telephone: (951) 296-6188
      Facsimile: (951) 296-6187
      E-mail: barak@berlinlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
      Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
      James O. Latturner, Esq.
      Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
      EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
      120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
      Chicago IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 739-4200
      Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
      E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
              ccombs@edcombs.com
              jlatturner@edcombs.com
              cmiller@edcombs.com


FMC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Want to Narrow Class Period
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Canadian antitrust actions against FMC
Corporation have now moved to dismiss certain downstream
purchasers from the case and to reduce the class period to
November 1, 1998 through December 31, 2003 -- thereby eliminating
six of the eleven years of the originally certified class period.
The court has not yet ruled on this motion, FMC said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In 2005, after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury
investigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted
in no charges brought against FMC) and the filing of various class
actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which have all been
settled, putative class actions against the Company and five other
major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in provincial courts
in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under the laws of Canada.
The other five defendants have settled these claims for a total of
approximately $20.6 million.

On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide from 1994 to 2005. FMC's motion for leave to appeal the
class certification decision was denied in June 2010. The case was
largely dormant while the Canadian Supreme Court (the "Court")
considered, in different litigation, whether indirect purchasers
may recover overcharges in antitrust actions.

In October 2013 the Court ruled that such recovery is permissible.
Despite this ruling, the plaintiffs have now moved to dismiss
certain downstream purchasers from the case and to reduce the
class period to November 1, 1998 through December 31, 2003 -
thereby eliminating six of the eleven years of the originally
certified class period. The court has not yet ruled on this
motion.

"Since the proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect
to the merits, we are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of
our potential exposure of loss at this time. We intend to
vigorously defend these matters," the Company said.

FMC is a a diversified chemical company serving agricultural,
consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative
solutions, applications and market-leading products.


GERBER PRODUCTS: FTC Sues Over Misleading Baby Formula Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the Federal Trade Commission on Oct. 30 sued baby food maker
Gerber Products Co., alleging the company misled consumers by
suggesting that its "Gerber Good Start Gentle" formula prevents or
reduces the risk babies will develop allergies.

The suit, filed in New Jersey federal court, is the latest in a
line of FTC cases cracking down on health claims by food makers,
among them juice maker Pom Wonderful LLC, whose case is pending
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The FTC alleged that Gerber, doing business as Nestle Nutrition,
didn't have evidence to back its claims that feeding babies its
formula makes them less likely to develop allergies.  The agency
also said Gerber falsely advertised Good Start Gentle's health
claims as approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
"Parents trusted Gerber to tell the truth about the health
benefits of its formula, and the company's ads failed to live up
to that trust," Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau of
Consumer Protection, said in a statement.

Nestle Nutrition General Counsel Kevin Goldberg countered that the
company is "disappointed" with the FTC's decision to sue.  "We are
defending our position because we believe we have met, and will
continue to meet, all legal requirements to make these product
claims," he said in a statement.  "Gerber has been authorized by
the FDA to feature a qualified health claim. . . . We believe the
information conveyed in our marketing is important for parents who
have children at risk for atopic dermatitis, the most common
allergy in infancy."

Kelley Drye & Warren is representing the company in the suit.
According to the FTC complaint, Gerber ran ads with statements
such as "I love Mommy's eyes, not her allergies," stating that its
formula is "easy to digest and may also deliver protective
benefits."

Other ads claimed the product is "the first and only infant
formula that meets the criteria for an FDA Qualified Health
Claim."

Technically, that may be true, but the FTC takes issue with it
nonetheless.  To win FDA approval for a health claim, a petitioner
must show "significant scientific agreement among qualified
experts" to back the assertion.

According to the FTC, Gerber in 2005 sought FDA approval to claim
that its formula, made of partially hydrolyzed whey protein,
reduced the risk of food allergies in infants.  The FDA said no.
Gerber tried again in 2009, asking if it could say that "emerging
clinical research" shows that its formula may reduce the risk of
atopic dermatitis, more commonly known as eczema.  Again, the FDA
said no, but it did allow Gerber to make this qualified health
claim: "The relationship between 100% Whey-Protein Partially
Hydrolyzed infant formulas and the reduced risk of atopic
dermatitis is uncertain, because there is little scientific
evidence for the relationship."

Unsurprisingly, Gerber elected not to put that on its labels.  But
what it does say is that it's the "first and only infant formula
that meets the criteria for a FDA qualified health claim."  Which
is true -- but, according to the FDA, also misleading.

"Gerber took the FDA's narrow letter and turned it into a
prominent gold badge," wrote FDA senior attorney Lesley Fair in
the agency's blog.  "The leap Gerber made from the FDA's cautious
admonition to what the FTC says consumers would view as an FDA
approval claim is the gist of the second count of the FTC's
complaint."

The FTC in recent years has gone after other food makers for
unsubstantiated claims, suing Pom Wonderful for running ads that
allegedly misrepresented the health benefits of pomegranate juice.
During oral arguments in the D.C. Circuit in May, Pom argued the
FTC over-reached and impermissibly suppresses commercial speech.
Other cases have settled.  The Dannon Co. in 2010 agreed to quit
saying its Activia yogurt "relieves temporary irregularity" and
its DanActive dairy drink helps people avoid catching colds or the
flu.

Kellogg Co. also agreed to stop making immunity-related claims for
Rice Krispies cereal or claiming that Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal
was "clinically shown to improve kids' attentiveness."

In 2010, Nestle settled FTC charges that it falsely claimed its
drink BOOST Kid Essentials prevents upper respiratory tract
infections in children, protects against colds and flu by
strengthening the immune system, and reduces absences from daycare
or school due to illness.


GIANT FACTORIES: Recalls Giant & Best Canadian Hot Water Heaters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 22, 2014
Posting date:             October 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41845

The voluntary recall involves atmospheric gas water heater models
(natural gas or propane) in 30, 40, 50 or 60 gallon capacities.
They are white and have a red Giant logo or a red Best logo,
attached to the upper front portion of the outside surface of the
device.  The identification plate found near the gas valve of the
hot water heater shows the model number, the manufacturing date
and the unit's serial number.

The hot water heater model numbers potentially affected and
involved in this recall begin with these prefixes:

Model Numbers
GG30-27MF-P...      UG30-27MF-P...      UG50-38F-C...
GG30-30MF-N...      UG30-30MF-N...      UG50-40LF-N...
GG40-32LF-P...      UG40-32LF-P...      UG50-40LFD-N...
GG40-34LF-N...      UG40-34LF-N...      UG60-42MF-P...
GG40-9-34LF-N...    UG40-36LF-N...      UG60-47MF-P...
GG50-38LF-N...      UG40-38LF-N...      UG60-47MF-N...
GG50-9-38LF-N...    UG50-36LF-P...      UG60-47MF-C...
GG60-47MF-N...      UG50-38LF-N...      UG60-52MF-N...

These units may have a small space between the bottom of the water
tank and the combustion chamber.  This could, under extreme
conditions, affect the watertightness of the combustion chamber
and prevent the flame arrestor from functioning as designed, in
the event of a spill or incorrect use of a liquid or inflammable
gas in proximity to the hot water heater.  Under such
circumstances, there could be a higher risk of fire or explosion
of the flammable material.

Neither Health Canada nor Giant Factories Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
the product.

Approximately 6,985 recalled hot water heaters were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold from
April 1, 2014, to Sept. 26, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Usines Giant Inc.
                    Montreal
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers who have purchased a product whose model number appears
in the table above should immediately contact Giant at 1-800-363-
9354 to find out whether their unit is included in the recall.  If
the unit proves to be defective, it will be replaced at no charge
to the consumer.


GNC HOLDINGS: 76 Lawsuits Pending Related to Hydroxycut
-------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September
30, 2014, there were 76 pending lawsuits related to Hydroxycut in
which the Company had been named: 70 individual, largely personal
injury claims and six putative class action cases, generally
inclusive of claims of consumer fraud, misrepresentation, strict
liability and breach of warranty.

In 2009, the FDA issued a warning on several Hydroxycut-branded
products manufactured by Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc.
("Iovate") based on 23 reports of liver injuries from consumers
who claimed to have used the products between 2002 and 2009. As a
result, Iovate voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut-branded
products.

Following the recall, the Company was named, among other
defendants, in multiple lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-branded
products in several states. The United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial proceedings of many
of the pending actions in the Southern District of California (In
re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No.
2087), and Iovate previously accepted the Company's tender request
for defense and indemnification under its purchasing agreement
with the Company in these matters.

As of September 30, 2014, there were 76 pending lawsuits related
to Hydroxycut in which the Company had been named: 70 individual,
largely personal injury claims and six putative class action
cases, generally inclusive of claims of consumer fraud,
misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of warranty. In May
2013, the parties to the individual personal injury cases signed a
Master Settlement Agreement, under which the Company is not
required to make any payments. Settlement payments are being made
exclusively by Iovate and dismissals are expected to be entered in
these actions in the near term. The parties in the consolidated
class actions reached a settlement, which was approved by the
Court on October 20, 2014 and which does not require the Company
to make any payments. Following final resolution of the individual
personal injury cases and the settlement of the consolidated class
action suits, all of the Hydroxycut claims currently pending
against the Company will be resolved without any payment by the
Company.

GNC Holdings, Inc., is a global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


GNC HOLDINGS: 21 Lawsuits Pending Related to DMAA or Aegeline
-------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September
30, 2014, the Company was named in 21 lawsuits involving products
containing DMAA and/or Aegeline, including 18 personal injury
cases and three putative class action cases.

Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by
third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as
1.3-dimethylpentylamine/ dimethylamylamine/13-dimethylamylamine,
or "DMAA," which were recalled from its stores in November 2013,
and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees.  As of
September 30, 2014, the Company was named in 21 lawsuits involving
products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline, including 18 personal
injury cases and three putative class action cases.  As a general
matter, the proceedings associated with these cases, which
generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early
stages, and any liabilities that may arise from these matters are
not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. The Company is
contractually entitled to indemnification by its third-party
vendor with regard to these matters, although the Company's
ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims
against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the vendor
and/or its insurance coverage and the absence of any significant
defenses available to its insurer.

GNC Holdings, Inc., is a global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


GNC HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Feb. 2015
------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on October 13,
2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
preliminarily approved a settlement agreement among the parties to
two of three putative class action cases in which the Company is
named, involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline.  The
Court scheduled a hearing with regard to final approval of the
proposed settlement in February 2015.  The proposed settlement
does not require any payment by the Company.

GNC Holdings, Inc., is a global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


GNC HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing on 71 Wage and Break Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that discovery is
ongoing with respect to the California Wage and Break claims of 71
plaintiffs.

In November 2008, 98 plaintiffs filed individual claims against
the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Orange, alleging that they were not provided all of
the rest and meal periods to which they were entitled under
California law, and that the Company failed to pay them split
shift and overtime compensation to which they were entitled under
California law.  The plaintiffs also allege derivative claims for
inaccurate wage statements, failure to pay wages due at
termination, and penalty claims under the California Labor Code.
The cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, and in June 2013, a trial was conducted
that resulted in a verdict in favor of the Company with respect to
the claims of seven of the plaintiffs. The claims of 20 other
plaintiffs have been resolved and the claims of 71 plaintiffs
remain, with respect to which discovery is ongoing.  As any
liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable or
reasonably estimable at this time, no liability has been accrued
in the accompanying financial statements.

GNC Holdings, Inc., is a global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


GNC HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in "Vargas" and "Hickok" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that discovery is
ongoing with respect to the class action filed by Dominic Vargas
and Anne Hickok.

In June 2010, Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, sued General
Nutrition Corporation and the Company in federal court (U.S.
District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:5-mc-
2025), alleging, generally, that plaintiffs were required to
perform work on an uncompensated basis and that the Company failed
to pay overtime for such work. Class notice was mailed to putative
class members in November 2012 and discovery regarding opt-in
plaintiffs is ongoing.  As of September 30, 2014, an immaterial
liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements.

GNC Holdings, Inc., is a global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, which include: vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplements, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.


GRANT & WEBER: Faces "Greer" Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Greer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Grant & Weber, Case No. 2:14-cv-07812 (C.D. Cal.,
October 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for unlawfully
and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff.

Grant & Weber is a debt collection agency in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


HARMONY PRODUCTIONS: Recalls Terry Richards Lip Gloss - Night Owl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 22, 2014
Posting date:             October 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Cosmetics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Contamination
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41835

Affected products: Terry Richards Lip gloss - Night Owl

The recall involves Terry Richards Night Owl Lip gloss with batch
#1443, which is a glittery owl shaped product that comes in pink,
blue and silver colors, and can be identified by the universal
product code (UPC) 825713274346.  The batch number is located on
the label at the bottom of the product.

The lip gloss is being recalled due to contamination by a chemical
used in the manufacturing of the container of the product.  The
affected products may have a strong unpleasant smell.

Neither Harmony Productions nor Health Canada has received reports
of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of this lip gloss.

Approximately 4 of the recalled lip glosses were sold in London
Drugs stores across Western Canada.

The recalled lip gloss were manufactured in China and sold in
Sept. 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Harmony Productions
                   Montreal
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lip gloss and
return them to their original place of purchase for a refund.


HAVANA CAFE: Faces "Serrano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Serrano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Havana Cafe, LLC, a New York limited liability
company, Kevin Alicea, Ruben Rodriguez and Troy Perez, Case No.
1:14-cv-08059 (S.D.N.Y., October 7, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime and spread-of-hours premium
pay in a timely manner.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 3151 East
Tremont Avenue, Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Romano, Esq.
      ROMANO & ASSOCIATES
      220 Old Country Road
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Telephone: (516)248-8880


HIKO ENERGY: Sued Over Deceptive Bait-and-Switch Sales Model
------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Bogdanski, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hiko Energy, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01948 (M.D. Pa.,
October 7, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's fraudulent and
deceptive bait-and-switch sales model with their variable rate
customers. The Defendant represents that if they switch to HIKO
from their local utilities or other energy suppliers, they will
receive a low introductory rate on their energy bill, followed by
competitive market-based rates and savings on their energy bills.
However, following the low introductory rate, the Defendant's
energy rates increase dramatically, causing customers' electricity
bills to rise substantially.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beatrice Yakubu, Esq.
      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLC
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      E-mail: beatricey@cuneolaw.com
              charlesl@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Michelle R. O'Brien, Esq.
      THE O'BRIEN LAW GROUP LLC
      4099 Birney Avenue
      Moosic, PA 18507
      Telephone: (570) 209-7901
      E-mail: mobrien@theobrienlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Richard Greenfield, Esq.
      GREENFIELD & GOODMAN LLC
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (917) 495-4446


HOME DEPOT: Faces Kenmore NY in Ga. Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenmore NY Teachers Federal Credit Union, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03220 (N.D. Ga., October 7, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to secure and safeguard
its customers' personal financial data, personal identifying
information and private information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
      Alex D. Weatherby, Esq.
      W. PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES
      10 North Parkway Square
      4200 Northside Parkway
      Atlanta, GA 30327
      Telephone: (404) 442-9000
      Facsimile: (404) 442-9700
      E-mail: pcarr@wpcarr.com
              aweatherby@wpcarr.com

         - and -

      James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
      Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K. Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
              sbojedla@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Eric H. Zagrans, Esq.
      ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC
      6480 Rockside Woods Blvd. South, Suite 180
      Cleveland, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216)771-1000
      Facsimile: (866) 261-2008
      E-mail: eric@zagrans.com

         - and -

      Kim Stephens, Esq.
      Jason Dennett, Esq.
      TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
      1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 682-5600
      Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
      E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
              jdennett@tousley.com

         - and -

      Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      910 17th Street, Suite 800
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
      E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Morano" Suit in California Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Moran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02375 (S.D.
Cal., October 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to secure and safeguard its customers' personal financial
data, personal identifying information and private information.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Hartley, Esq.
      Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      550 West C. Street, Suite 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 400-5822
      Facsimile: (619) 400-5832

         - and -

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Confidential Agreement Reached in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. reached a confidential agreement in
principle to settle all pending claims in a class action, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 29, 2014.

The Company said, "On July 20, 2012, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against us following our announced intention to
restate our financial statements for the fiscal years ended
December 28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the
related interim periods. The complaint lodged against us, certain
of our directors and officers and the underwriters in the initial
public offering ("IPO") was based on allegations related to the
Company's disclosures in its registration statement and prospectus
for its IPO. On July 4, 2014, we reached a confidential agreement
in principle to settle all pending claims, subject to submission
and approval by the court."

Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. owned and operated three full
service, casual dining restaurant brands under the names Joe's
Crab Shack ("Joe's"), Brick House Tavern + Tap ("Brick House") and
Romano's Macaroni Grill ("Macaroni Grill"). As of September 29,
2014, we owned and operated 138 Joe's restaurants, 21 Brick House
restaurants and 167 Macaroni Grill restaurants in 36 states within
the United States, and franchised 25 Macaroni Grill restaurants
within the United States and foreign countries.


J SISTERS: Faces "Lisboa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Lisboa, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. J Sisters 57, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08115 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

J Sisters 57, Inc. owns and operates a full-service beauty salon
located at 41 West 57 Street, New York, New York, 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea Maria Paparella, Esq.
      LIDDLE & ROBINSON, LLP
      800 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-8500
      Facsimile: (212) 687-1505
      E-mail: apaparella@liddlerobinson.com


JDI DATING: Agrees to Settle FTC Suit Over Fake Virtual Profiles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
on Oct. 29, the Federal Trade Commission brought its first law
enforcement action against an online dating service, suing JDI
Dating Ltd. in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The company agreed to pay $616,165 to settle the case,
quit using virtual profiles and modify its billing practices.

The FTC alleged the U.K.-based company, which has 12 million
members across 18 dating sites, created phony profiles complete
with photos and hobbies -- for example, curvy blonde HeidiHi from
Arlington Heights, who loves sporting events and spending time
with her family.

Joining the dating sites, which include cupidswand.com,
flirtcrowd.com and findmelove.com, is free, but to send a
personalized message, view a picture at full size or read certain
messages, members must upgrade to a paid subscription.
That's where the so-called virtual cupids come in.

"As soon as a new user set up a free profile, he or she began to
receive messages that appeared to be from other members living
nearby, expressing romantic interest or a desire to meet,"
according to the FTC.  "However, users were unable to respond to
these messages without upgrading to a paid membership."  The plans
typically cost $10 to $30 a month.

The only indication that the available single was really a spam-
bot was a small "VC" icon ("darn near microscopic" is how FTC
senior attorney Lesley Fair described it in the agency's blog),
the meaning of which was buried in the terms and conditions page.

"JDI Dating used fake profiles to make people think they were
hearing from real love interests and to trick them into upgrading
to paid memberships," Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau
of Consumer Protection, said in a statement.  "Adding insult to
injury, users were charged automatically to renew their
subscriptions -- often without their consent."

The company also allegedly failed to tell subscribers that their
subscriptions would be renewed automatically and that they would
continue to be charged until they canceled.

The FTC accused JDI of violating Section 5 of the FTC Act, which
bars unfair or deceptive marketing.  The agency also said the
company violated the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act of
2010 by failing to disclose clearly the terms of the negative-
option plan, obtain express informed consent before charging
consumers and provide a simple way to stop recurring charges.
JDI was represented by Lawrence Walters of the Walters Law Group
in Longwood, Fla.  "JDI Dating has not admitted any wrongdoing in
this matter, but was happy to reach a resolution of the issues
that was satisfactory to all parties," Mr. Walters said.


JETSON TV: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Johnson" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Johnson, and other similarly situated individuals
v. Jetson T.V. & Appliance Centers Inc. and John T. Jetson, Case
No. 2:14-cv-14401 (S.D. Fla., October 13, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a TV and appliance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Brian Earle, Esq.
      John Patrick Carrigan, Esq.
      ROSS EARLE & BONAN
      789 S Federal Highway, Suite 101
      Stuart, FL 34994
      Telephone: (772) 287-1745
      Facsimile: 287-8045
      E-mail: dbe@reblawpa.com
              jpc@reblawpa.com


JIANO FOODS: Recalls Beef Tortellini and Beef Ravioli
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 22, 2014
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Jiano Foods
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9369

Affected products: 5 kg. Jiano Foods Beef Tortellini and Beef
Ravioli with all codes where milk is not declared on the label.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces 12,300 DePuy Product Liability Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that as of September
28, 2014, in the U.S. there were approximately:

   * 12,300 plaintiffs with direct claims in pending lawsuits
regarding injuries allegedly due to the DePuy ASR(TM) XL
Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System,

   * 6,900 with respect to the PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System,

   * 35,600 with respect to pelvic meshes, and

   * 1,000 with respect to RISPERDAL(R).

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a
worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and
DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement
surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy
and Johnson & Johnson. We expect the number of pending lawsuits to
fluctuate as certain lawsuits are settled or dismissed and
additional lawsuits are filed. Cases filed in Federal courts in
the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. Litigation has also been filed in countries
outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom,
Canada and Australia. In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement
with a Court-appointed committee of lawyers representing ASR(TM)
Hip System plaintiffs to establish a program to settle claims with
eligible ASR patients in the United States who had surgery to
replace their ASR hip, known as revision surgery, as of August 31,
2013. The U.S. settlement is valued at approximately $2.5 billion,
based on an estimate of 8,000 patients participating in the
program. This settlement program is expected to bring to a close
significant ASR litigation activity in the U.S. However, many
lawsuits in the U.S. will remain, and the settlement program does
not address litigation outside of the U.S. The Company continues
to receive information with respect to potential costs associated
with this recall on a worldwide basis. During the fiscal third
quarter of 2014, the Company increased its accruals for the DePuy
ASR(TM) Hip program and related product liability litigation based
on additional information. Updates to these accruals may be
required in the future as additional information becomes
available.

Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy and
Johnson & Johnson relating to DePuy's PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup
System used in hip replacement surgery. The number of pending
product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in Federal courts
in the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. The Company has established an accrual to cover
defense costs in connection with product liability litigation
associated with DePuy's PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System. Changes
to this accrual may be required in the future as additional
information becomes available.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc.
(Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse. The number of pending product liability lawsuits
continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated
number of cases. Cases filed in Federal courts in the United
States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia. In addition, class actions and individual personal
injury cases or claims have been commenced in Australia, Belgium,
Canada, England, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland and
Venezuela, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from
Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. The Company has established an
accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated
with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Changes to this accrual may
be required in the future as additional information becomes
available.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use
of RISPERDAL(R), indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia,
acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder
and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds.
The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to
increase, and the Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.
The Company has established an accrual to cover defense costs in
connection with product liability litigation associated with
RISPERDAL(R). Changes to this accrual may be required in the
future as additional information becomes available.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Parties Await Decision in OCD Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action against Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics,
Inc. are awaiting a decision by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit on OCD's petition for interlocutory review
of the class certification ruling, Johnson & Johnson said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 28,
2014.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation.

In August 2012, the District Court granted a motion filed by
Plaintiffs for class certification. In October 2012, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted OCD's
petition for interlocutory review of the class certification
ruling.

Oral argument on the appeal was held in February 2014 and the
parties are awaiting a decision. Following the divestiture of OCD,
Johnson & Johnson retains any liability that may result from these
cases.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Third Circuit Dismissed Appeal in "Monk" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
dismissed the appeal in a shareholder lawsuit, Johnson & Johnson
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 28, 2014.

In September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking class certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson
and certain individuals, including executive officers and
employees of Johnson & Johnson, failed to disclose that a number
of manufacturing facilities failed to maintain current good
manufacturing practices, and that as a result, the price of the
Company's stock declined significantly. Plaintiff sought to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover his
alleged economic losses.

In December 2011, a motion by Johnson & Johnson to dismiss was
granted in part and denied in part. In September 2012, Plaintiff
filed a Second Amended Complaint and Johnson & Johnson and the
individual defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint in part.

Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the case, and in July 2013, filed for preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement. In November 2013, the Court
approved the settlement.

Three parties that had objected to the settlement appealed the
Court's approval orders.  Prior to the mediation for the appeal,
the parties agreed to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and
without costs against any party. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the case in April 2014.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Certification Hearing Set for Oct. 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification hearing is scheduled for October 2015 in the
action brought on behalf of persons who reside in British
Columbia, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December
2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-
counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington
facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated
the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other
Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were
allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with
Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification
hearing is scheduled for October 2015.


KEVIN'S FOOD: Recalls Taiyaki and Waffle Products
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kevin's Food Group Inc.
Distribution:             British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9385

Kevin's Food Group Inc., is recalling Kevin's brand taiyaki and
waffle products from the marketplace because they contain milk
which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
milk should not consume the recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

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

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

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

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


KONEXPRESS JAPANESE: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Sarceno" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Barrera Sarceno and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Konexpress Japanese Food Corp. and Carlos M.
Cordeiro, Case No. 1:14-cv-23707 (S.D. Fla., October 8, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      JAMIE H. ZIDELL, PA
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


LEONA'S PIZZERIA: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Tapia-Sanchez a/k/a Daniel Vasquez on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Leona's
Pizzeria, Inc. d/b/a Tilly's Po'Boys and Lina's Chicago Kitchen,
and Leon Toia individually, 1:14-cv-07829 (N.D. Ill., October 7,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in one workweek.

The Defendants own and operate Tilly's Po'Boys and Lina's Chicago
Kitchen in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Primavera Pasta Sauce Due to Plastic
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Newfoundland and
                          Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince
                          Edward Island
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9384

Loblaw Companies Limited is voluntarily recalling President's
Choice Organics brand Primavera Pasta Sauce from the marketplace
due to possible plastic contamination.  Consumers should not
consume the recalled product described below.

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

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

The warning was triggered by the company.  Loblaw Companies
Limited is voluntarily recalling the potentially affected product
from the marketplace.

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

Affected products: 700 ml. President's Choice Organics Primavera
Pasta Sauce


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Lundberg Rice Chips (Sea Salt)
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loblaw Companies Limited, UNFI Canada
                          Grocery West
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9388

Industry is recalling Lundberg brand Rice Chips (Sea Salt) from
the marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on
the label.  People with an allergy to milk should not consume the
recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

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

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

Affected products: 170 g. Lundberg Rice Chips (Sea Salt) with Best
Before date of 2015 JN 08


M + M COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in D.R.I. Over Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sigui, Jose Sigui, Jose Cipriano, Joseph Mendez, and Jose L.
Santos, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals v. M + M Communications, Inc., alias, Cox Rhode Island
Telcom, LLC, d/b/a Cox Communications, alias, and Coxcom, LLC,
d/b/a Cox Communications New England, alias, and William Dowling,
alias, Case No. 1:14-cv-00442 (D.R.I., October 8, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants provide telecommunication services for home and
business use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
      SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      175 Hillside Road
      Cranston, RI 02920
      Telephone: 944-9692
      Facsimile: 943-9040
      E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com


MARIA MANGANO: Faces "Saldana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edson Uriel Saldana on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Maria Mangano and Herve Flota, Case No. 1:14-cv-08053
(S.D.N.Y., October 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours during a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate pizzerias including Ray's Pizza
located at 462 Columbus Avenue, New York, NY 10023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548
      Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


MCCAIN FOODS: Recalls Hashbrowns Due to Pieces of Plastic
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           McCain Foods (Canada)
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9379

McCain Foods (Canada) is voluntarily recalling McCain brand
Hashbrowns from the marketplace due to possible plastic
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled product
described.

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

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

The recall was triggered by the company. McCain Foods (Canada) is
voluntarily recalling the potentially affected product from the
marketplace.

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

Affected products: 900 g. McCain Hashbrowns with 0 55773 00080 1
UPC


NAVIENT CORP: "Ubaldi" Plaintiffs Renew Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "Ubaldi" class action filed a Renewed Motion for
Class Certification, which was held on October 14, 2014, Navient
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

On March 18, 2011, a student loan borrower filed a putative class
action complaint against Old SLM (now known as Navient, LLC) in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The complaint is captioned Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et.
al., Case No. C-11-01320EDL. The plaintiff purports to bring the
complaint on behalf of a class consisting of other similarly
situated California borrowers. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees proportional
to the amount of missed payments constituted liquidated damages in
violation of California law; and Old SLM engaged in unfair
business practices by charging daily interest on private
educational loans.

Following motion practice and additional amendments to the
complaint, which added usury claims under California state law and
two additional defendants (Sallie Mae, Inc., now known as Navient
Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and SLM PC Student Loan Trust 2004-A),
the operative complaint (Modified Third Amended Complaint) was
filed on December 2, 2013. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification on October 22, 2013.

On March 24, 2014, the Court denied plantiffs' Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice, but granted plantiffs leave to
file an amended Motion for Class Certification. On June 20, 2014,
a Complaint in Intervention was filed on behalf of two additional
customers representing a proposed usury sub-class. On June 23,
2014, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification,
which was held on October 14, 2014.

Plaintiffs seek restitution of late charges and interest paid by
members of the class, injunctive relief, cancellation of all
future interest payments, treble damages as permitted by law, as
well as costs and attorneys' fees, among other relief.

Prior to the formation of Sallie Mae Bank in 2005, Old SLM
followed prevalent capital market practices of acquiring and
securitizing private education loans purchased in secondary
transactions from banks who originated these loans. Plaintiffs
allege that the services provided by Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc.
to the originating banks resulted in Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc.
constituting lenders on these loans.

Since 2006, Sallie Mae Bank originated the vast majority of all
private education loans acquired by Old SLM. The claims at issue
in this case expressly exclude loans originated by Sallie Mae Bank
since its inception. Named defendants are subsidiaries of Navient
and as such the Ubaldi litigation will remain the sole
responsibility of Navient Corporation. It is not possible at this
time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for
amounts that may be payable in connection therewith.


NYK LINE: Sued in Cal. Over Vehicle Carrier Services Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua So, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NYK Line (North America) Inc., Nippon Yusen Kabushiki
Kaisha, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04559 (N.D. Cal., October 13,
2014), alleges that the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize prices and allocate the markets and
customers for Vehicle Carrier Services.

The Defendants are engaged in the business shipped new, assembled
motor vehicles to and from the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
      Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
      Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
      SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
      Three Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
      San Francisco, CA 94111-4018
      Telephone: 415-788-4220
      Facsimile: 415-788-0161
      E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
              wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
              nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com


ORGANIC MEADOW: Recalls 2% Cottage Cheese Due to Spoilage
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Organic Meadow Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9348
Affected products: 500 g. Organic Meadow 2% Cottage Cheese with 0
62325 50002 3 UPC


PACIFIC SUNRISE: Recalls Fuji Dressing Due to Undeclared Wheat
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Pacific Sunrise Foods
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail, Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9373

Pacific Sunrise Foods is recalling Pacific Sunrise Foods brand
Fuji Dressing from the marketplace because it contains mustard and
wheat which are not declared on the label.  People with an allergy
to mustard or wheat should not consume the recalled product
described.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

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

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

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

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


PANASONIC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Capacitors-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In Home Tech Solutions, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-04514 (N.D. Cal., October 8, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for unlawfully allocate markets for high capacitance
capacitors and to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices
of high capacitance capacitors sold directly to customers in the
United States.

Panasonic Corporation is a Japanese corporation, which
manufacture, market, and sell Capacitors and Capacitor Products
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
      Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
      Benjamin E. Shiftan, Esq.
      Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
      E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
              asheanin@pswlaw.com
              bshiftan@pswlaw.com
              mpearson@pswlaw.com

         - and -

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com
              erodette@locklaw.com


PASTIFICIO D'APRILE: Recalls Tortellini and Ravioli
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Pastificio D'Aprile Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9368

Affected products: Classic Beef Tortellini and Jumbo Beef Ravioli
with Vegetables with all codes where milk is not declared on the
label.


PATIENT ACCOUNTING: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Greer and Ghizlane Greer, Individually And On Behalf Of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Patient Accounting Service Center,
LLC d/b/a Arstrat, Case No. 2:14-cv-07825 (C.D. Cal., October 8,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for willfully employing
and causing to be employed certain recording equipment in order to
record the telephone conversations of the Plaintiffs without their
knowledge or consent, thereby invading privacy.

Patient Accounting Service Center, LLC is engaged in the business
of debt collection and regularly collects debts on behalf of
hospitals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


PERSONAL CARE: Faces "Morin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joann Morin, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Personal Care Services, Inc., a California
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-07764 (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Personal Care Services, Inc. owns and operates Home Instead Senior
Care franchise which, provides non-medical companion services to a
senior citizen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Crystal Gayle Foley, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
      100 North Sepulveda Boulevard Suite 1350
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-3555
      Facsimile: (310) 322-3655
      E-mail: cfoley@simmonsfirm.com


PETROCHEM INSULATION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Herrera" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Herrera and Luis Calderon, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Petrochem Insulation, Inc., 5:14-cv-02066
(C.D. Cal., October 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours per
work week.

Petrochem Insulation, Inc. is a construction contractor whose
principal business consists of forming and installation of
insulation in construction projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisl R. Duncan, Esq.
      WEINBERG ROGER AND ROSENFELD APC
      800 Wilshire Blvd Suite 1320
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 380-2344
      Facsimile: (213) 443-5098
      E-mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net


PORT II SEAFOOD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Miller v. Edwin J. Spence, Edwin J. Spence Jr., Port II
Seafood Oyster Bar, Inc., Gulf Coast Steamer, Inc., and The Shrimp
Basket, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00468 (S.D. Ala., October 7, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in 22 locations located
in Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Eduardo Arciniegas, Esq.
      Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
      Lachlan William Smith, Esq.
      Sean Ivan Goldfarb, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN, AND PANTAZIS, LLC
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0577
      E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com
              jgoldfarb@wigginschilds.com
              wsmith@wigginschilds.com
              sgoldfarb@wcqp.com


R & A OYSTERS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Cordova" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Angel Fuentes Cordova and Leobardo Morales Inclan, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. R & A
Oysters, Inc., Rodney L. Fox, and Ann P. Fox, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00462 (S.D. Ala., October 8, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to properly pay minimum wage as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate three oyster processing plants and
warehouses in Mobile County, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel Brooke, Esq.
      SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
      400 Washington Avenue
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Telephone: (334) 956-8200
      Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
      E-mail: Samuel.brooke@splcenter.org

         - and -

      Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
      SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
      1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 505
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 526-1497
      Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
      Email: Meredith.stewart@splcenter.org

        - and -

      Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Esq.
      James M. Knoepp, Esq.
      SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
      1989 College Ave. NE
      Atlanta, GA 30317
      Telephone: (404) 521-6700
      Facsimile: (404) 221-5857
      E-mail: Eunice.cho@splcenter.org
              Jim.knoepp@splcenter.org


SAHARA EAST: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joaquin Antonio Tapia-Castrejon, individually and in behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Sahara East Restaurant Corp. and
Mahoud Ahmed Ali Gomaa, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-
08080 (S.D.N.Y., October 7, 2014), seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime compensation, and such other relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 184 1st
Avenue, Storefront B, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr , Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
               jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
               bsherr@zellerlegal.com


STEEL SPAN: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Steel Span, Inc., A-Ok, Inc., and Orrin
Kinney, individually, Case No. 3:14-cv-50226 (N.D. Ill., October
13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants manufacture sheet metal precision fabricated parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STRYKER CORP: Settles Hip Implant Suits for $1.43 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that medical implant maker Stryker
will pay at least $1.43 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits
from patients who had to have surgery to remove problematic hip
implants, under a deal announced on Nov. 3.

The agreement, brokered by a New Jersey Superior Court judge,
resolves state and federal lawsuits against the maker of
orthopedics. It was announced Monday in U.S. District Court in
St. Paul, Minnesota.

Stryker said the $1.43 billion figure represents the "low end of
the range of probable loss to resolve these matters."

The lawsuits stem from two hip implants that Stryker recalled due
to corrosion and other problems in 2012.  One year ago Johnson &
Johnson paid $2.5 billion to settle 8,000 lawsuits from patients
who had to have the company's metal ball-and-socket hip implant
removed or replaced.  Plaintiffs in 39 states alleged Kalamazoo-
based Stryker sold defective hips that corroded while in patients'
bodies and caused illness, including pain and swelling in the
tissue around the implant.

"The settlement represents one of the largest medical device
settlements with an unlimited compensation fund," said Minneapolis
lawyer Charles Zimmerman, who helped negotiate the deal as part of
the lead-counsel committee for the case.  "We are pleased that we
were able to reach a settlement with such meaningful relief."

Stryker Corp. expects to make most of the payments by the end of
2015.  Thousands of cases from patients across the country have
been consolidated under a single federal judge in Minnesota in a
"multi-district litigation," a common type of mass lawsuit filed
against health care companies, the Star Tribune of Minneapolis
reported.


SUNRIPE FARMS: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Milk and Mustard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sunripe Farms
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9354


SUPERMEDIA INC: Attorneys to Get $1.2MM If Court OKs Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Law.com, reports that attorney fees for
class action plaintiffs in a proposed settlement with SuperMedia
Inc. and subsidiaries will top $1.2 million if the court approves
a proposed $3 million settlement.  The two sides in the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) dispute filed a joint motion seeking approval
of the proposed in federal court in Dallas.

According to the joint motion filed on Oct. 24 in Jones v.
SuperMedia, plaintiffs began the wage and hour action against
SuperMedia more than three years ago on behalf of "current and
former nonexempt, inside sales representatives known as media
consultants" who alleged they were not paid overtime.  The joint
motion states that the court certified more than two years ago a
nationwide "off-the-clock" collective action based on plaintiff
allegations.  The litigation intended to address claims of a class
of "approximately 1,700 current and former employees who worked as
media consultants at SuperMedia anytime between January 1, 2010,
and June 18, 2012."  SuperMedia is now owned and known as
DexMedia.

The joint motion calls for the total $3 million proposed
settlement to allocate $1,220,467.65 for plaintiffs' reasonable
attorney fees and costs.  The joint motion states: "Plaintiffs'
counsel expects to actually exceed the designated amount during
the settlement process, but will not seek those additional fees
from the plaintiffs."

Allen Vaught, of counsel at Baron & Budd in Dallas, who represents
the plaintiffs, declined to comment.  Edwin Sullivan --
ed@osattorneys.com -- a partner in Oberti Sullivan in Houston, who
also represents the plaintiffs, and Karen Griffin --
GriffinK@jacksonlewis.com -- the office managing shareholder in
Jackson Lewis in Dallas, who represents the defendants, did not
return calls by press time.


TAKATA CORP: Faces Three Class Actions Over Airbag Defect
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that some of the nation's most prominent plaintiffs firms, many of
them veterans of litigation against Toyota Motor Corp. and with
ignition-defect lawsuits pending against General Motors Co., have
a fresh target: Air bag manufacturer Takata Corp.

Takata has come under scrutiny from federal regulators and
Congress over a defect that could cause its air bags to explode,
pelting drivers with metal shrapnel.  About 7.8 million U.S. cars
and trucks made by 10 auto companies have been recalled.

At least three nationwide class actions have been filed against
Takata, its U.S. subsidiaries and carmakers alleging a defect in
the air bag inflater contributed to at least four deaths.  Two
suits have been filed in federal courts on behalf of injured
drivers.  Additional plaintiffs firms are investigating the
matter.

As with GM's ignition switch recalls, "you had reports of people
being injured in ways that called into question the safety of the
vehicle and the equipment -- and nothing being done about it for
years," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, who filed a nationwide class action on
Oct. 30 against Takata and Honda Motor Co. Ltd.  He is leading the
ignition-switch litigation and obtained a $1.6 billion consumer
settlement with Toyota over its sudden acceleration recalls.
"Then, all of a sudden, you have millions and millions of cars
being recalled," Mr. Berman said.

Although there had been previous recalls over Takata air bags,
their scope increased substantially in October, when the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expanded the list of
vehicles affected to include more than 50 models of BMW, Chrysler,
Ford, GM, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru and Toyota.
The agency issued an advisory urging drivers "to act immediately"
to get their cars fixed.

Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., in
letters to the NHTSA and the Department of Transportation,
criticized the NHTSA's response and insisted the recalls, limited
to vehicles in hot, humid climates such as Florida, Texas and
Puerto Rico, should be expanded nationwide.  NHTSA deputy
administrator David Friedman has said the problem appears to be
related to "high humidity and temperatures."

Takata was "committed to the highest standards of safety for our
customers" and has "been consistently cooperating with NHTSA,"
chief executive officer Shigehisa Takada said on June 20.  It's
unclear how many lawsuits have been filed over injuries or deaths.
One case, filed on Oct. 22 against Takeda and Nissan's U.S.
headquarters, seeks $2 million for a Puerto Rican woman who claims
to have suffered hearing loss.  A Florida woman sued Takata and
Honda's U.S. subsidiary on Oct. 23 over injuries caused by
shrapnel that pierced the air bag of her 2001 Civic on July 7.

The first two class actions were filed on Oct. 27 by Dallas-based
Baron & Budd, New York's Labaton Sucharow and Podhurst Orseck of
Miami.  One complaint, in the Southern District of Florida, names
Takata, Bayerische Motoren Werke A.G. (BMW), Ford Motor Co., Honda
and Toyota on behalf of consumers in six states and Puerto Rico.
"That complaint is largely addressing the Southern states and
those with high humidity," said Roland Tellis of Baron & Budd's
Los Angeles office.

The other case names Takata, BMW, Honda, Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and
Toyota, and was filed on behalf of a nationwide class in the
Central District of California, where Honda's U.S. subsidiary is
headquartered, he said.

A Honda representative did not return a call for comment.
Representatives of BMW of North America LLC, Toyota and Ford
declined to comment.  Nissan North America Inc. spokesman Steve
Yaeger wrote in an email: "Our primary focus right now is getting
our customers with vehicles affected by the Takata recall to bring
their vehicles into a dealership for remedy as soon as possible."

These suits focus primarily on the equipment manufacturer, said
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of
Law.  "I don't think, from what we know about Takata, that GM or
Toyota or anybody else ordered certain specifications that led
these air bags to be more dangerous than they should be," he said.
But at least one carmaker, Honda, could have played a larger role.

All three class actions allege Takata knew of the defect as early
as 2001.  But they also say Honda has known about the problems for
years, citing a 2004 Alabama accident.

Regulators learned of the defect in 2008, according to the
complaints, when Honda recalled 4,000 Accords and Civics.  The
next year, following two more accidents, Honda expanded its recall
to about 400,000 cars.

Two more accidents occurred this year, both involving Hondas, the
complaints say.  One was first investigated as a homicide after
the driver was found dead with apparent stab wounds. The class
actions seek economic damages.

"If Takata and vehicle manufacturers aren't able to timely address
this problem, consumers will have to do it themselves, park their
vehicles, rent cars and pay for it themselves," Mr. Tellis said.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Actos Jury Verdict Still High, Judge Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge reduced a $9 billion jury verdict in the
first federal trial over diabetes drug Actos by 99 percent, but
what's left still would rank among the largest punitive damages
awards on record when compared to compensatory damages in the
case.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty of the Western District of
Louisiana on Oct. 27 dropped the jury's award to $27.6 million
against Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and $9.2 million against
Eli Lilly and Co., while rejecting a motion for a new trial on
punitive damages.  Both defendants had argued the original award
violated their due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
They have vowed to appeal even the reduced award.

Despite the substantial reduction, Judge Doherty spent most of her
101-page opinion outlining why her revised award -- 25 times the
amount the jury gave in compensatory damages -- was reasonable
given the facts.

"She's trying to justify having a 25-to-1 ratio at the end of the
day, which is actually really, really high," said Miriam Nemetz, a
partner in the Washington office of Mayer Brown who contributes to
the firm's punitive damages blog and who has been following the
case.  "It's an outlier even as reduced.  The Supreme Court has
been very clear in a number of cases that a double-digit ratio,
like the one we have here, is presumptively unconstitutional."
Judge Doherty called on the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to provide better guidance on
punitive damages.  "This case highlights many of those unresolved
aspects of the due process substantive review of the excessiveness
doctrine and demonstrates the need for further comment and
guidance by the courts who review this court's decisions," she
wrote.

Neither Richard Arsenault -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- a
partner at Neblett, Beard & Arsenault in Alexandria, Va., nor Paul
Pennock, chairman of the drug and medical device litigation
practice at New York's Weitz & Luxenberg, the lead plaintiffs
attorneys in the case, returned calls for comment.  Nor did lead
defense counsel Sara Gourley -- sgourley@sidley.com -- a partner
at Sidley Austin in Chicago.

On April 7, the jury found that Takeda and Eli Lilly had failed to
provide adequate warnings that Actos, used to treat Type 2
diabetes, increased a patient's risk of developing bladder cancer
and awarded $1.475 million in compensatory damages to New York
couple Terrence and Susan Allen.  The jurors held Takeda
responsible for 75 percent of the amount, Lilly 25 percent.
Finding that both companies had acted with "wanton and reckless
disregard," the jury also approved punitive damages of $6 billion
against Takeda and $3 billion against Lilly.

The $9 billion verdict -- about 6,000 times the jury's original
compensatory damages amount -- was never expected to stand. But
Doherty sought to differentiate the case from others in which the
U.S. Supreme Court has attempted to reign in punitive damages to
less than 10 times the compensatory awards.

"When, as here, two defendants have been found to have engaged in
conduct of a high degree of reprehensibility and put not only the
plaintiffs, but the public health and welfare at risk, all in
order to generate tens of billions of dollars in sales, an award
large enough to sufficiently punish in order to effectively deter
such conduct would seem to be warranted," she wrote.

Judge Doherty complained the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions were
far from clear, including its 2003 holding in State Farm v.
Campbell, which provided guideposts for apportioning punitive
damages that include the ratio to compensatory damages.  She even
raised questions about the court's use of the ratio, which
compared what she called two "dissonant" types of awards --
punitive, designed to punish defendants; and compensatory, which
provide relief to plaintiffs for actual costs.

Mr. Nemetz predicted there would be much additional debate on
appeal.  "There's a lot of work for the court of appeals to do
here," she said.  The defendants, she said, have a strong case for
a new trial on punitive damages.  "They also have a very strong
argument that under the Supreme Court's case law, as to this
verdict, she didn't reduce it enough."


TARGET CORP: Symantec Fights Subpoena in Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Symantec Corp.
is fighting a request for documents about its relationship with
Target Corp. from lawyers suing the retailer over its massive data
breach last year.

Plaintiffs claim hackers stole personal and financial information
of as many as 110 million Target customers late last year.  In the
suit pending before U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson of
Minnesota, they claim that Symantec's antivirus software
identified suspicious behavior on the retailer's network in late
November 2013.

Three weeks after filing their amended complaint against Target,
plaintiffs asked the Mountain View-based computer storage and
security company for information and documents related to its
relationship with Target.  Symantec is not a party to the
underlying multidistrict litigation.

In a motion to quash filed on Oct. 30 in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Symantec's lawyers at Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati point out that Symantec warranted just
one mention in the plaintiff's 355-paragraph, 123-page complaint.
Calling the subpoena "badly misguided," Symantec's lawyers claim
that it was served before plaintiffs received discovery from
Target or even finalized a discovery plan.  The company claims it
would cost more than $25,000 to comply with the subpoena and it
will cost about $25,000 more to litigate its motion fighting it.
"Plaintiffs in the underlying action have simply ignored their
obligation to minimize the burden and expense of discovery on a
nonparty," wrote Wilson Sonsini's David Kramer -- dkramer@wsgr.com
-- and Anthony Weibell -- aweibell@wsgr.com --  "Instead,
immediately at the outset of their case, they have demanded that
Symantec, a nonparty, produce a host of information that
plaintiffs can readily obtain and must therefore seek first from
their litigation adversary."

Symantec is asking for attorney fees if its motion is granted. In
the event that the subpoena survives the motion, Symantec asked
that it be narrowed and that plaintiffs foot the bill for the
company's compliance.

Girard Gibbs partner Matthew George -- mbg@GirardGibbs.com -- who
signed off on the subpoena for the plaintiffs, declined to comment
on Symantec's motion.


TD BANK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bean" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Deangelo Bean, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TD Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-01252 (E.D. Wis.,
October 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for contacting
the Plaintiff and the Class members on their cellular telephones
without their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

TD Bank USA, N.A. is a foreign corporation with its primary place
of business located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TECTRON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls USB Chargers Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tectron International of Vernon, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 55,000 3-in-1 USB phone charger.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The charger can overheat while in use, posing a fire hazard.

Two incidents reported the USB charger melting.  No injuries or
property damage were reported.

The recall involves the 3-in-1 USB charging cable is used to
charge iPhone4S/4G/3GS/3G, iPhone5, iPad mini/iPad4 and android
phones.  The 10-foot white cord has a USB plug on one end.  The
other end has 3 plugs: 30-pin plug for the iPad First Generation
and iPhone 4S and earlier models; Lightning plug for the iPhone5
and later models and the iPad 2 and later models; and mini USB
plug.  The cable comes in a transparent sealed pouch.  Item No.
USB29B is printed on label on the outside of the pouch.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/ec65g8

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
distributors for school fundraisers from July 2014 to Aug. 2014
for about $3.50.


TEXTURA CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fred Kelsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Patrick J. Allin, Jillian Sheehan, and Textura
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-07837 (N.D. Ill., October 7, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Textura Corporation provides on-demand business collaboration
software solutions to the commercial construction industry in the
United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Thomas Heffner, Esq.
      SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST LLP
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1210
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-3466
      Facsimile: (312) 346-2829
      E-mail: mheffner@shhllp.com

         - and -

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


UNITED STATES: Sued for Not Limiting Travel to Ebola-Hit Places
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Klayman v. Barack Hussein Obama, acting individually and
as President of the United States of America, Dr. Anthony Fauci,
acting individually and as Director, National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases, Thomas R. Frieden, acting individually
and as Director U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Sylvia Mathews Burwell, acting individually and as Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Jeh C. Johnson, acting individually and as Secretary of U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 1:14-cv-01704 (D.D.C.,
October 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for refusing
to limit travel to the United States from Ebola outbreak countries
arguing falsely that medical personnel would be hindered from
assisting Africa.

Barack Hussein Obama is the head of the Executive Branch of the
United States Government as President.

Dr. Anthony Fauci Director of the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases at the U.S. National Institutes of Health
located in Bethesda, Maryland.

Thomas R. Frieden is the Director of the United States Center for
Disease Control and Prevention.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services located in the District of Columbia.

Jeh C. Johnson Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security located in the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry Klayman, Esq.
      FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
      2020 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 345
      Washington, D.C. 20006
      Telephone: (310) 595-0800
      E-mail: leklayman@gmail.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Illegally Reverse Plan Benefits, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Merrick, D.C. d/b/a Alive & Well Chiropractic, Joshua I.
Kantor, D.C, Jason Piken, D.C. d/b/a Innate Chiropractic of
Manhattan, and Craig Fishel, D.C, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated,
UnitedHealthcare, Inc., UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc., Optum
Inc. and OptumHealth, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08071 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 7, 2014), alleges that the Defendants were engaged in
unilateral and systematic post-payment practices in violation of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act requirements and
applicable claims regulations by reversing previously approved
benefit determinations and recouping monies the Defendants
previously paid to the Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed
classes for healthcare services on those approved benefit
determinations.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a diversified health company
with two distinct business platforms: health benefits operating
under UnitedHealthcare and health services operating under Optum.

UnitedHealthcare Inc. provides health care benefits to a full
spectrum of customers and markets through UnitedHealthcare
Employer & Individual (which serves employers, students and other
individuals, and active and retired military and their families
through the TRICARE program), UnitedHealthcare Medicare &
Retirement (for Medicare beneficiaries and retirees),
UnitedHealthcare Community & State (for state Medicaid and
community programs and their participants), and UnitedHealthcare
International.

UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc. provides benefit services to
UnitedHealthcare Inc.

Optum Inc. is a health services business serving the broad health
care marketplace, including payers, care providers, employers,
government, life sciences companies and consumers, through its
OptumHealth, Optumlnsight and OptumRx businesses.

OptumHealth, Inc. focuses on care management, integrated care
delivery, and consumer solutions, including financial services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Quadrino, Esq.
      QUADRINO LAW GROUP
      105 Maxess Road Suite 124 South
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631)574-4550
      Email: rjq@QuadrinoLawGroup.com

        - and -

      Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, W. VA 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304)342-1110
      Email: sbloch@baileyglasser.com

        - and -

      Russell D. Paul, Esq.
      Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215)875-3000
      Email: rpaul@bm.net
             pkahana@bm.net


UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs Face November 21 Deadline to Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit requested and received an extension of the deadline to
file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. The deadline
for their appeal is November 21, 2014.

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine.  The Company said, "This class action alleges that we
breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under
certain group life insurance policies when we paid life insurance
proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts
rather than by mailing checks. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that
were part of the ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and under
which we paid death benefits via retained asset accounts. The
plaintiffs' principal theories in the case are: (1) funds held in
retained asset accounts were plan assets, and the proceeds earned
by us from investing those funds belonged to the beneficiaries,
and (2) payment of claims using retained asset accounts did not
constitute payment under Maine's late payment statute, requiring
us to pay interest on the undrawn retained asset account funds at
an annual rate of 18 percent."

"In February 2012, the District Court issued an opinion rejecting
both of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering judgment for
us. At the same time, however, the District Court held that we
breached a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries by failing to pay
rates comparable to the best rates available in the market for
demand deposits. The District Court also certified a class of
people who, during a certain period of time, were beneficiaries
under certain group life insurance contracts that were part of
ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and were paid death benefits
using retained asset accounts.

"A bench trial was held on the issue of damages in June and July
of 2013. In September 2013, the District Court awarded damages
based on a benchmark it created by averaging the interest rates
paid on money market mutual funds and money market checking
accounts. Based on these averages, the District Court found that
for certain periods of the class we should have paid additional
interest and awarded damages of $12.1 million and prejudgment
interest of $1.3 million.

"Subsequent to this judgment, in September 2013 we filed an appeal
to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and plaintiffs filed a
cross appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held oral
argument in May 2014 and on July 2, 2014, issued its decision
overturning the District Court's judgment against us, finding our
payment of benefits by retained asset account was in full
compliance with the policy terms and therefore ERISA. In September
2014, the plaintiffs requested and received an extension of the
deadline to file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court.
The deadline for their appeal is November 21, 2014."

Unum Group is the largest provider of disability insurance
products in the United States and the United Kingdom.


UNUM GROUP: Files Asnwer to 2nd Amended Complaint in "Don" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company has filed an
answer to the second amended complaint in the class action filed
by Ruben Don.

In May 2013, a purported class action complaint entitled Ruben Don
v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Wedner Insurance Group,
Inc. dba The Morton Wedner Insurance Agency, and Does 1-30, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California insureds
who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation
protection feature.

The Company said, "The plaintiff alleges we incorrectly administer
the inflation protection feature, resulting in an underpayment of
benefits.  The complaint makes allegations against us for breach
of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business and
Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief. In June 2013, we
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  In March 2014, we filed a motion
to dismiss the case. Rather than oppose the motion, plaintiff
filed an amended purported class action complaint in April 2014
entitled Ruben Don v. Unum Group and Unum Life Insurance Company
of America in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class and a California class of insureds who were
issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection
feature. Similar to the original complaint, the plaintiff alleges
we incorrectly administer the inflation protection feature,
resulting in an underpayment of benefits. The complaint makes
allegations of breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of
Business and Professions Code 17200, and declaratory and
injunctive relief."

"In May 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
In August 2014, the District Court dismissed the fraud claim as
well as plaintiff's requests for injunctive and declaratory
relief, but granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

"In August 2014, the plaintiff filed a second amended purported
class action complaint entitled Michael Don, Executor of The
Estate of Ruben Don v. Unum Group, and Unum Life Insurance Company
of America in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint alleges breach of contract,
bad faith, fraud, and violation of Business and Professions Code
17200 on behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were issued
long-term care policies containing an inflation protection
feature. In October 2014, we answered the second amended
complaint."

Unum Group is the largest provider of disability insurance
products in the United States and the United Kingdom.


VISONIC LTD: Recalls Amber Personal Emergency Response Pendants
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Visonic Inc., of Westford, Mass., announced a voluntary recall of
about 29,200 Visonic Amber Pendants and Visonic Amber Kits.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

An accelerated circuit drain of the pendant battery can result in
a decreased battery life and shorter than expected "low battery"
warning period, from 30 days down to a nine day warning period.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Visonic Amber Pendants MCT-212 GS LA S (315)
ENR and Visonic Amber Kits GS LA (315) KIT2.  The kits contain the
pendant and a base station.  The Visonic Amber personal miniature
transmitter pendant enables the consumer to remotely signal their
personal emergency response system to send a request for
assistance.  The pendant is off-white with a red oval-shaped
button on the face.  It measures about 1 1/2 inches long by 1 1/2
inches wide by 5/8 of an inch deep.  The white, plastic base
station measures 8 inches wide by 2 inches deep by 11 inches high,
and has an emergency, call and status check button.  A label on
the back of the pendant lists the part number and serial number.
Recalled pendants sold separately have part number 0-102511 and
serial numbers 0114147681 through 2015044165, 2513325212 through
4313226157 and 4513346942 through 5113063274.  Pendants sold as
part of the kit have model number 0-102371 and serial numbers
0114147759 through 1713321693, 1913433218 through 3313297879 and
3713561718 through 5113063339.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/TFrMZ3

The recalled products were manufactured in Israel and sold
exclusively at Leased by Life Alert Emergency Response to
consumers who subscribed for alarm monitoring services from about
May 2013 through July 2014.  Retail price for the products are
about $50 for the pendant, and between $220 and $240 for the kit.

Consumers should immediately contact Visonic or their alarm
service provider for instructions on receiving a replacement
pendant.  Until a new pendant is received, consumers should
manually test their pendant regularly for low battery status.


WELLS FARGO: Must Face $203-Mil. Overdraft Judgment
---------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that it took two
rounds of appeals, but lawyers for Wells Fargo customers succeeded
on Oct. 29 in sticking the bank with a $203 million judgment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the sum
awarded by U.S. District Judge William Alsup is based on
"substantial evidence" that Wells Fargo & Co. made misleading
statements about its policies for charging overdraft fees.
"The record is replete with examples of Wells Fargo's false and
misleading statements," Judges M. Margaret McKeown, Sidney Thomas
and William Fletcher wrote in a six-page unpublished opinion.
"The district court's calculation of the restitution award was
based on factual findings that are not clearly erroneous."

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein partner Michael Sobol, who
argued the case for plaintiffs in early October, said the Oct. 29
order means more than 1 million California customers are entitled
to relief.

"For seven years, Wells Fargo has sought to defend its
misrepresentations as to how it imposed overdraft fees on debit
card purchases," he said in a release, "all for the purpose of
boosting its bottom line."

Filed in 2007, Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo alleged that the bank
rearranged customer charges, deducting larger purchases first,
solely to accrue more overdraft fees.

Finding the business practice violated California law, Judge Alsup
ordered $203 million in restitution following a 2010 bench trial.
The Ninth Circuit vacated his judgment in 2012, ruling the
National Banking Act allows banks to choose the order in which
they process overdrafts.  However, the panel agreed with Judge
Alsup that Wells Fargo misled customers and violated California's
unfair competition law by suggesting charges would be processed
chronologically.

The panel invited Judge Alsup to reconsider restitution based
solely on the unfair competition claim, and Judge Alsup reinstated
the full judgment of $203 million last year.

That brought both sides back before the Ninth Circuit earlier in
October.

Representing Wells Fargo, Covington & Burling partner Sonya Winner
-- swinner@cov.com -- argued Judge Alsup had failed to correct his
error. But the appellate judges disagreed.

"The restitution award was based on Wells Fargo 'affirmatively
misleading the class,' a state law claim, not on a 'practice
protected by federal preemption,'" the judges wrote.

Their decision took issue with Judge Alsup's characterization that
Wells Fargo's misrepresentations were so "intertwined with other
elements of the scheme" that they could not be separated for the
purposes of awarding restitution, but deemed the mistake
"harmless."

The appellate judges also vacated an injunction that prohibited
the bank from making false or misleading representations relating
to the posting order of certain transactions and ordered Judge
Alsup to replace it with a narrower prohibition.

Wells Fargo spokeswoman Richele Messick said in an email that the
bank is disappointed with the court's ruling and is considering
its options.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Washer Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Triedman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that two
federal appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have all refused
to block consumer class actions over allegedly mold-prone
Whirlpool Corp. washing machines.  Whirlpool's lawyers at Bartlit
Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott fared much better at trial,
persuading a Cleveland federal jury on Oct. 30 to reject claims
that the company is liable for selling the machines.

The Oct. 30 verdict, which followed just two hours of
deliberation, came in the first bellwether trial in a dozen
statewide class actions against the Benton Harbor, Mich.-based
company.  Whirlpool sold millions of the front-loading washers
across the country.  The plaintiffs say the machines are
defective, accumulating mold and requiring expensive maintenance
to reduce its smelly effects.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko in Cleveland is overseeing
multidistrict litigation against Whirlpool, in which the Ohio
plaintiffs are seeking about $66 million in classwide damages
under state breach-of-warranty laws.  Nationally, the company
faces liability "in the single-digit billions," according to
Bartlit Beck's Eric Olson -- eric.olson@bartlit-beck.com -- who
helped lead the defense at trial.

Bartlit Beck's Philip Beck and Rebecca Bacons also represented the
company at trial, along with longtime Whirlpool counsel Michael
Williams of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell.  Whirlpool tapped Bartlit
Beck in early 2014 after its lead lawyer, Stephen Morrison of
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, passed away last year.
Wheeler Trigg led in managing discovery, briefing, and in trial
preparations, Olson said.  Whirpool was also represented at trial
by James Irvin III -- jim.irvin@nelsonmullins.com -- and Robert
Brunson -- robert.brunson@nelsonmullins.com -- of Nelson Mullins
and Dan Balmert -- fdbalmert@vorys.com -- of Vorys Sater.

"For the first time, we had a decision maker -- the jury --
evaluate the facts," Olson said following the verdict.  "I give
Whirlpool a ton of credit for believing in their product and in
the jury system, and feeling confident that the facts would speak
for themselves."

During the three-and-a-half week trial, Mr. Olson said, the team
undermined the credibility of the plaintiffs' chief expert, a
former Whirlpool employee.  Equally important, he said, Whirlpool
demonstrated a culture of constant improvements to its products,
and showed that "just because the company was able to make
products better doesn't mean the old one was defective."
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Haverford, Penn.-based
Chimicles & Tikellis led the plaintiffs' case at trial.  Lieff
Cabraser's trial team included Richard Heimann, Mark Chalos and
Jason Lichtman.  Chimicles' Alison Gushue --
AlisonGushue@chimicles.com -- and Steven Schwartz --
SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- were cocounsel along with Robert
Glickman -- rtg@mccarthylebit.com -- of McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal &
Liffman.

Lieff Cabraser's Jonathan Selbin is court-appointed lead counsel
for the class.  He said on Oct. 30 that the firm will appeal on
the grounds that the judge improperly barred jurors from learning
about Whirlpool internal communications in which executives voiced
concerns about the health risks of mold in the washers.

"We're very disappointed that we lost," Mr. Selbin said.  "But
we've been in this litigation for six years and up to the Supreme
Court twice. . .  We're confident none of the jury's findings
apply to cases involving other states."

Meanwhile, Lieff Cabraser is looking ahead to a trial next July in
federal district court in Chicago in another consumer class action
against Sears Holdings Corporation.  That case involves allegedly
mold-prone Kenmore washers that were also manufactured by
Whirlpool.

Whether more of the Whirlpool state class actions are now
certified is up to Judge Boyko, who has handled the Ohio case
since the complaint was filed in 2008.  Judge Boyko certified an
Ohio consumer class two years later, and the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit upheld the decision in July 2013.  Sears,
meanwhile, struck out in a parallel appeal to the Seventh Circuit
the following month.  In each of the cases, the defendants have
argued that the plaintiffs' claims are too individualized for
class treatment, especially since most customers never complained
about mold in their machines.

The companies took their losing arguments to the Supreme Court
last year, but in February the justices declined to hear either
case.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Recalls Pumpkin Seed Pesto
-------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Williams-Sonoma
Distribution:             Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, British
                          Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Williams-Sonoma is recalling Williams-Sonoma brand Pumpkin Seed
Pesto from the marketplace because it may permit the growth of
Clostridium botulinum.  Consumers should not consume the recalled
product described.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis.  In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

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

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

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

Affected products: 227 g. Williams-Sonoma Pumpkin Seed Pesto with
best before date of Jan. 2016


                             *********

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  * * *