CAR_Public/141107.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 7, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 222

                             Headlines

AETNA LIFE: Removes "Mattson" Suit to New Jersey District Court
AGAPE SENIOR: Policy Not Void Ab Initio, District Court Says
AK LAWNCARE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALTAIR OH XIII: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
ALWAYS READY: Faces "Dobbinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Removes "Loughlin" Class Suit to N.D. Georgia
ANTALIA TURKISH: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
APPLE INC: Takes Texting Suit Into Alternative Dispute Resolution
AR STRAT: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Class Suit Claims
ARGUELLO DELIVERY: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Castillo" Suit Claims

ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Jaisingh" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
ASTRAZENECA AB: Insurance Firms' Suit Goes Back to State Court
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Live Cattle Export Ban
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Illegal Collection of Overdraft Fees
BARNEY'S WORLDWIDE: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK

BERNARD L. MADOFF: Solus & SPV Not Entitled to Settlement Refund
BLUE BUFFALO: Four Suits Consolidated in Pet Food Sales MDL
BLUFISH SUSHI: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BUMBLE BEE: Mislabeling Class Action Remanded to Superior Court
CALIBER HOME: Sued in Iowa Over Illegal Use of Credit Reports

CARE IMPROVEMENT: Faces "Ringel" Class Suit in South Carolina
CBD ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CALIFORNIA CHARCOAL: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $2.4 Mil.
CHEN MEDICAL: Refuses to Pay OT Wages, Ex-Medical Assistant Says
COOK MEDICAL: "Brady" Suit Transferred From California to Indiana

CREDIT SUISSE: ECD Suit Transferred From California to New York
DERBY ON PARK: "Bush" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
DUKE'S EAST: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DYNEGY INC: 2nd Cir. Dismissed Lead Plaintiff's Appeal
EXPEDIA: City of Rome Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action

FAMILY DOLLAR: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Glenville Suit Moved From Kansas to Missouri
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Face Ashville Suit Over Propane-Price Fixing
FIRST DATA: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Refund Interchange Fees
FMS INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.

FULLBAR LLC: Falsely Sells Products as "100% Natural," Suit Says
HERBALIFE LTD: Confident About Business Model Despite FTC Probe
HERITAGE MANAGEMENT: Misclassified Exotic Dancers, Suit Claims
HITACHI-LG: Class Cert. Bids in Optical Disk Drive Suit Denied
HOME DEPOT: Removes "Farr" Class Suit to Georgia District Court

IL VAGABONDO: "Guaman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
IL-MARE PIZZERIA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Removes "Podolskaya" Suit to D. Massachusetts
JEXET TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Falsely Marketed Medical Gowns, Action Claims

KKR & CO: Shareholder Litigation Dismissed with Prejudice
LA GUADALUPANA: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LANDS' END: Falsely Marketed Apparel Products, "Oxina" Suit Says
LEADING EDGE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
LEE PUBLICATIONS: Settles Newspapers Carriers' Class Action

LITTON LOAN: Southwest Business Dismissed From "Perryman" Case
LORD & COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
MACY'S INC: Overcharged Buyers for Payment Protection, Suit Says
MANATEE COUNTY, FL: Sued Over Red Light Camera Program
MICHAEL HARRISON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

MORGAN TIRE: Brown et al. Cannot be Forced to Waive PAGA Claims
MXCO CAFE: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NATIONAL BEEF: Court Rejects FLSA Settlement, Bid for Legal Fees
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Partial Summary Judgment Entered in "Ibe" Case
NCO FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ramos" Action Claims

NEW YORK: Needs Broader Funding After Indigent Defense Settlement
NEW YORK, NY: Pretrial Detainees Challenge Solitary Confinement
NEW YORK MEDIA: Sued in N.Y. for Changing Subscription Status
NORTH STAR: "Monzon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OLIVER ADJUSTMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

OTRUPONCOSO PROTECTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PANORAMA SERVICES: Faces "Torrijos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PAYCHEX INC: Sued for Damages in California Over TCPA Violations
PC RICHARD: Faces "Burke" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PEMBERTON, NJ: Police Officers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Faces Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PHILIPS ORAL: Judge Dismisses Defective Toothbrush Class Action
PIZANO'S PIZZA: Faces "Navarro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Stratton" Case Reversed

PREMIER ENTERPRISES: Injunction Entered in Antitrust Case
QUANTUM3 GROUP: Faces Suit in Florida Over Violations of FDCPA
RAINERI CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
REAL TIME: "Garcia" Suit Moved to Central District of California
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA

RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Sued in Pa. Over Defective Paint Products
SALCIDO LAWN: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SAMMY'S FISHBOX: Accused by Employees of Misappropriating Tips
SAN FRANCISCO: "Corea" Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
SAVIT COLLECTION: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act

SEA STAR: Faces "Zouai" Suit in Florida Over FLSA Violations
SEIU LOCAL 99: Los Angeles Workers Files Class Action
STELLAR RECOVERY: Motion to Stay Knapp-Ellis' TCPA Suit Denied
SUBURBAN GAS: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act in Fla.
SYNGENTA CORP: Accused of Trademark Infringement in Minnesota

SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "McClain" Over Viptera Corn
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Sondgeroth" Over Sale of Viptera Corn
TAKATA CORP: Sutts Strosberg Launches Class Action Over Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Faulty Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Honda, Toyota Among Defendants in Airbag Class Action

TALL PINES: Fails to Pay OT Wages for Hours Above 40, Suit Says
TRIUMPH MOTORCYCLES: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Defective Motorcycles
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Calderon" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Linchpins of Liberty Case
US BANCORP: Removes "Reed" Suit to California District Court

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Overbilling Class Suit for $6.4MM
VERMONT: Disabled Woman Files Another Suit Over Medicare Coverage
WAX SPA: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WILLBROS GROUP: Faces "Walters" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report

* Class Actions on Rise in Western New York Over Past Years


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Major" Suit vs. Lorillard Unit Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 61 Filter Cases Remain Pending vs. Lorillard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Subsidiary Has 3,096 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Continues to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,700 Claims as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Had $22.6-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 14 Pending Talc Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has 13 Pending Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Recommends Remand of 14 PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Gallagher" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Flips Ruling in Hennessy Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Summary Judgment in NYCAL Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Strikes Dismissal Stipulations in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Limits Expert Testimony in PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Flips Ruling in Colgate Insurance Suit


                             *********


AETNA LIFE: Removes "Mattson" Suit to New Jersey District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mattson, et al. v. Aetna Life
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. L-1217-14, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, to
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-06809-JBS-KMW
to the proceeding.

The Complaint asserts that letters sent by Defendant The Rawlings
Company, LLC, violate New Jersey's collateral source civil
procedure statute, and New Jersey's statute concerning priority of
claims against certain insured tortfeasors as between certain
insurers, HMOs and governmental agencies and injured parties.
Rawlings, which provides Aetna with insurance claims recovery
services, sent letters notifying the Plaintiffs of their
conditional reimbursement obligations under the terms of the
health benefits plan administered by Aetna.

The Plaintiffs seek refunds of all reimbursements paid to Rawlings
and Aetna by all members of the putative class, treble damages for
those amounts under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and
injunctive relief that would bar collection of outstanding and
future subrogation and reimbursement claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
          26 Newton Avenue
          Woodbury, NJ 08096
          Telephone: (856) 845-1968
          E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net

Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company is represented by:

          Richard W. Cohen, Esq.
          Gerald Lawrence, Esq.
          Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601-2310
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: rcohen@lowey.com
                  glawrence@lowey.com
                  urabinovitz@lowey.com


AGAPE SENIOR: Policy Not Void Ab Initio, District Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Evanston Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v.
Vickie Watts, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorothy
Jones; Meredith Wofford; Estate of Dora Elizabeth B. Hanna, by and
through her Personal Representative, King C. Hanna, Jr., and on
behalf of a class of individuals similarly situated; LaFay Walker,
as Personal Representative of the Estate of Martha Sellers
Blackwelder; Amanda Curtis; Preston Wayne Chandler, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Mildred Louise Chandler; Patty
Larimore, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Annie
Larimore; the Estate of Clarice Potter; Agape Senior, LLC; Agape
Senior Primary Care, Inc.; Agape Nursing & Rehabilitation, Inc.;
Agape Community Hospice, Inc.; Carolinas Community Hospice, Inc.;
Scott Middleton; Floyd Cribbs; Kezia Nixon; and Jackson & Coker
Locum Tenes, LLC d/b/a Jackson and Coker, Defendants, NO. 3:13-CV-
00655-JFA, (D. S.C.) is before the court on cross motions for
summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Evanston and Defendants Agape
Senior Primary Care (ASPC), Floyd Cribbs, Kezia Nixon, and Scott
Middleton.

In 2013, Evanston brought this declaratory judgment action seeking
a determination as to whether it has a duty to defend and/or
indemnify the parties who have been named in underlying lawsuits
(both filed and unfiled) against the Agape Defendants.  Evanston
seeks a summary judgment ruling that the policy does not afford
coverage for the underlying suits and that it is not required to
defend or indemnify. Conversely, the Agape Defendants seek a
ruling that the policy does afford coverage for the claims made in
the underlying actions.

Agape is a business that employs and deploys physicians and nurse
practitioners to nursing homes, rehabilitation centers,
freestanding offices, and assisted living facilities.  Prior to
issuing the policy involved in the current suit, Evanston provided
ASPC with a policy of professional liability insurance, policy
number MM-820866.  While this policy was in place Earnest Addo
assumed the identity of Dr. Arthur Kennedy, obtained employment
with Agape, and sought insurance coverage with Evanston under
ASPC's existing policy.

Under the policy, Coverage A provides individual professional
liability insurance coverage for claims alleging malpractice and
personal injury.

Endorsement 6, Schedule of Additional Coverage A Named Insureds
lists 12 individual physicians who qualify as Named Insureds for
purposes of Coverage A. One of these individuals is listed as
"Arthur K. Kennedy, M.D."  Coverage B provides the "Association,
Corporation or Partnership" liability coverage for claims due to
"Malpractice or Personal Injury, sustained by a patient and
committed by any person for whom the Coverage B Named Insured is
legally responsible, arising out of the practice of medicine."
Additionally, the policy contains two endorsements related to
Coverage B.  Endorsement 7 (Amendment of Definition of Insured-
Coverage B) of the policy amends the definition of a Coverage B
Named Insured to include both (1) any employee or volunteer worker
of the Coverage B Named Insured and (2) each person listed on the
schedule incorporated in the Endorsement itself.

Endorsement 5 (Restriction of Coverage B - Specified Coverage A
Named Insureds) of the policy places a restriction on Coverage B
and states, "the coverage provided under Coverage B, Association,
Corporation, or Partnership Liability applies solely to Claims
arising from professional services rendered or that should have
been rendered by Coverage A Named Insured Physicians while acting
within the scope of that person's duties on behalf of the Coverage
B Named Insured."

On October 2, 2014, District Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. held
that:

     * The policy is not void ab initio;

     * Earnest Addo is not a named insured under the policy;

     * Exclusion A and Exclusion B are moot as applied to
       Addo/ Dr. Arthur Kennedy;

     * Coverage A provides coverage to each individual doctor
       listed on Endorsement 6;

     * Coverage B provides coverage to each individual nurse
       practitioner or other medical professional listed on
       Endorsement 7;

     * Endorsement 5 only creates a limitation on coverage
       provided to ASPC for the vicarious liability of other
       Coverage A Named Insureds;

     * Coverage exists for ASPC for the acts and omissions of
       all Coverage A Named Insureds and Coverage B Named
       Insureds, to the extent those individuals were acting
       within the scope of their duties on behalf of ASPC; and

     * The Medical Director Exclusion bars coverage for claims
       alleging ASPC or another named insured under the policy
       was acting as medical director for West Columbia Nursing
       Home, Agape Hospice, or AMS when the acts were performed.

"The Court intends to schedule a status conference with all
parties to this action, as well as all pending related cases, for
explanation and review of this Order and the Court's rulings on
the applicable coverages contained in the policy," ruled Judge
Anderson.  "A notice of the status conference will be set by the
Clerk in due course," he added.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/dwCnU0
from Leagle.com.

Kezia Nixon, Defendant, represented by Jenkins McMillan Mann --
jmann@rogerslewis.com -- Rogers Lewis Jackson Mann and Quinn &
Kevin Hayne Sitnik, Rogers Lewis Jackson Mann and Quinn.


AK LAWNCARE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Brown, Nathaneal Blackburn, and Timothy Miner, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. AK Lawncare, Inc,
and Adam Karoub, Case No. 2:14-cv-14158 (E.D. Mich., October 28,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants provides landscaping and similar services
throughout Southeastern Michigan, including lawn care and snow
removal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Hardesty, Esq.
      GOLD STAR LAW
      2701 Troy Center Dr, Suite 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Telephone: (248) 275-5200
      Facsimile: (248) 817-2765
      E-mail: dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com


ALTAIR OH XIII: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis J. Fogell, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Altair OH XIII, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01299-TJC-PDB
(M.D. Fla., October 23, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan K. Mickler, Esq.
          MICKLER & MICKLER
          5452 Arlington Expy.
          Jacksonville, FL 32211
          Telephone: (904) 725-0822
          Facsimile: (904) 725-0855
          E-mail: bkmickler@planlaw.com

               - and -

          Max H. Story, Esq.
          COLLINS & STORY, P.A.
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758-5333
          E-mail: max@collinsstorylaw.com


ALWAYS READY: Faces "Dobbinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Dobbinson, Kevin Hodge, Khalil Islam, Bruce Lee, Valerie
Lewis, and Preston Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Always Ready & Reliable Security
Inc., Allan Parham, Shawn Parham, and Mark King, Case No. 1:14-cv-
08620 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.

Always Ready & Reliable Security Inc. provides security services
at residential and industrial premises in the City of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam P. Slater, Esq.
      SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
      445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631)420-9300


AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Removes "Loughlin" Class Suit to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Loughlin v. Amerisave Mortgage
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2014CV251307, was removed from the
Superior Court of Fulton County to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03497-ODE-LTW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims related to real estate
kickbacks/unearned fees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773
          Facsimile: (770) 444-0271
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com
                  flemond@webbllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Knox Withers, Esq.
          Robert Leonard Rothman, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN & GREGORY
          171 17th Street, NW, Suite 2100
          Atlanta, GA 30363-1031
          Telephone: (404) 873-8129
          E-mail: knox.withers@agg.com
                  robert.rothman@agg.com


ANTALIA TURKISH: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Efrain Gonzalez and Eric Garcia, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC (d/b/a
Antalia), Ozan Ekmel Anda, Homayoun Payami, and David Kocak, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08580 (S.D.N.Y., October 28, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a Turkish restaurant
located at 17 W. 45th Street, New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Takes Texting Suit Into Alternative Dispute Resolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney and Andrew Westney, writing for Law360, report that
the plaintiff who launched a class action alleging Apple Inc.
didn't forward text messages sent using its iMessage service after
users switched away from their iPhones agreed to take the suit
into alternative dispute resolution, according to an order signed
by a California federal judge on Oct. 27.

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh agreed to move the case into ADR,
signing off on an order that showed the parties would meet and
confer about a mediation date after the pleadings were settled,
court records show.

Plaintiff Adrienne Moore claimed in a suit in May that Apple kept
her from receiving messages from her contacts after she switched
from her iPhone 4S to a Samsung Galaxy S5, according to the suit.

The Oct. 27 order shows the parties agreed to take their dispute
private, but includes little further information.

Apple's iMessage service and app let Apple device users send and
receive texts, documents, photos, videos, contact information and
group messages over wireless networks to other Apple devices
running Apple's iOS 5 operating system or later, as an alternative
to standard Short Message Service or Multimedia Message Service
text messaging, according to the complaint.

There is no SMS charge for a text sent through iMessage; rather,
it is treated as just an additional data transfer, Moore said in
the suit.

Ms. Moore used iMessage on her iPhone 4 to text with other Apple
device users through a cell phone service contract with Verizon
Wireless, she said.  But when she stopped using her iPhone in
favor of the Samsung phone, which doesn't support iMessage, she
didn't receive many texts she expected to from other Apple users
as standard text messages, despite having the same phone number
and wireless service provider, she alleged.

Apple's own help page tells users this glitch in service could
continue as long as 45 days.

Apple tortiously interfered with Ms. Moore's contract with Verizon
by not allowing the texts to go through, actually leading to a
breach of contract, Ms. Moore alleged.

The plaintiff is represented by Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel Law
Firm.

Apple is represented by David M. Walsh -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- of
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The case is Adrienne Moore v. Apple Inc., case number 5:14-cv-
02269, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


AR STRAT: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AR Strat and Arstrat, and Does, 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-02232 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2014)
seeks damages and other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the alleged illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

AR Strat and Arstrat are engaged in buying consumer debts and
collecting thereon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 N. Fischer Ave., Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@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


ARGUELLO DELIVERY: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Castillo" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio A. Castillo and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Arguello Delivery and Cargo Corporation, Gustavo
A. Arguello, Case No. 1:14-cv-24031 (S.D. Fla., October 29, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Defendants own and operate a freight shipping and trucking
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Jaisingh" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Jaisingh v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
06307 (E.D.N.Y., October 28, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.

ARS National Services, Inc. is engaged in the business of
collecting debts with their main office at201West Grand Avenue,
Escondido, CA 92025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      M. HARVEY REPHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      Facsimile: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


ASTRAZENECA AB: Insurance Firms' Suit Goes Back to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gerald Austin McHugh granted the plaintiffs' motion
to remand the case captioned TIME INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. v.
ASTRAZENECA AB, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-4149, (E.D. Penn.).

This is an antitrust action brought under a variety of state
statutes. Plaintiffs are health insurance companies who ultimately
paid for Nexium prescriptions purchased by individuals who
maintained insurance coverage. Defendants are Astrazeneca, the
patent-holding pharmaceutical company that produces name-brand
Nexium, as well as three generic drug manufacturers who sought to
produce generic Nexium.  Plaintiffs allege that after three
generic manufacturers challenged the Nexium patents, and were
subsequently sued for patent infringement in the District of New
Jersey, Astrazeneca entered into reverse payment settlement
agreements with them through which Astrazeneca provided
compensation in exchange for stipulations that the Nexium patents
were valid and promises not to enter the market until the
expiration of those patents. The generic companies did not receive
direct payments, but allegedly received compensation in the form
of outsized payments for other services and nullification of
potential liabilities to Astrazeneca.

Currently, other suits based on these same agreements have been
aggregated as multi-district litigation within the District of
Massachusetts. The Plaintiffs filed this action in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas based entirely on state law
antitrust claims. The Defendants removed the action on the basis
that: (1) resolution of the state law antitrust claims will
necessarily involve litigation of the validity of the Nexium
patents; (2) any such litigation will involve a collateral attack
on the federal consent judgments entered by the District of New
Jersey; and (3) The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) requires that
this action be combined with a related action filed in state court
and removed in the United States District Court, E.D.
Pennsylvania, Cariten v. Astranzeneca, as a "mass action" capable
of conferring federal jurisdiction.

Judge McHugh ruled that the case will be remanded to the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas saying "this action should not
be considered a 'mass action' under CAFA."  A copy of the Court's
October 1, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/St2eoCfrom
Leagle.com.

RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, represented by DANIELLE
R. FOLEY -- drfoley@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, J. DOUGLAS
BALDRIDGE -- jbaldridge@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, LISA JOSE
FALES -- ljfales@Venable.com -- VENABLE, LLP & NEILL C. KLING --
nkling@harkinscunningham.com -- HARKINS CUNNINGHAM LLP.


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Live Cattle Export Ban
---------------------------------------------------------
Sara Everingham and Kristy O'Brien, writing for ABC News, report
that industries involved in the live cattle trade have launched a
class action against the Federal Government that will likely seek
hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation.

The class action filed in the Federal Court on Oct. 26 will be
open to anyone who suffered losses because of the Government's
suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia in 2011.

The industry said the suit, which will be fought by law firm
Minter Ellison, was being launched after three years of trying
unsuccessfully to negotiate its claim with the Federal Government.

Lead applicant Emily Brett from Waterloo Station, near the West
Australian and Northern Territory border, said while the ban
lasted a month, the impact for the industry lasted much longer.

"It's still going now," she said.

"We lost so much money and incurred so many costs because of that
one decision.

"They're not costs that we've been able to recoup, they're not
costs that we've been able to get back."

Following Four Corners' revelations of shocking animal cruelty in
12 Indonesian abattoirs in June 2011, the Federal Government
ordered a shutdown of the live export trade to Indonesia.

As a result, the once booming trade was brought to a halt.

Ms. Brett said it was a knee-jerk reaction with devastating
consequences for businesses across northern Australia.

"It was just such a quick decision made to try and look as though
the government was doing something," she said.

"But in effect it just had a crippling effect on anyone involved
in the industry and people involved in businesses that supply
products to the industry . . . everyone was affected by it."

Action likely to involve a range of industries

Now the industry is taking its case for compensation to the
Federal Court in an open class action that is likely to include
the full breadth of industry players, from major corporates to
smaller family-run pastoral stations.

In Queensland, Federal Member for Kennedy Bob Katter says he
believes the previous government failed its 'duty of care' and has
a clear case to answer, while AgForce has described the ban as
'reckless'.

Minter Ellison's existing group of clients covers a range of
industries that support the live export trade and the class action
will be open to anyone affected by the ban.

Businesses such as Road Trains of Australia -- one of the largest
trucking companies involved in the live export trade -- may also
be eligible to join.

Road Trains of Australia managing director David Jones said his
business was still recovering.

"Financially it was very tough . . . all the banks hated us,"
Mr. Jones said.

"We were a business at risk . . . there was a lot of people that
sort of left the industry, managers and drivers, so we had to
tighten our belt very quickly and try and survive."

It is even possible businesses in Indonesia affected by the ban
could be eligible to join the class action.

While it is still not clear how many parties will join, the claim
against the Federal Government could go into hundreds of millions
of dollars.

Australia's largest cattle company, Australian Agricultural
Company, has already put its damages from the live export ban at
more than $50 million.

At Waterloo Station, the Brett family felt the costs of the ban
almost immediately.

Ms. Brett said the ban hit just before the station was due to
finalize a major cattle sale they had been counting on to cover
items they had already had to buy for the property.

"We didn't know when we wouldn't be able to pay those bills," she
said.

"I can't explain how stressful it was on all of us, on the whole
family, not knowing . . . that we'd have to go through all of that
and tell those companies that we wouldn't be able to pay those
bills and we didn't know when."

Evaluation finds Ludwig went beyond recommendations

Minter Ellison has sought advice on the case from retired Judge
Roger Gyles QC.

In his evaluation of the draft statement of claim filed to the
Federal Court, he said the action had a "meaningful prospect of
liability being established".  His report traced the events from
when the then agriculture minister Joe Ludwig, made his first
order on June 2 banning the trade to 12 Indonesian abattoirs, to
his blanket ban on all live exports to Indonesia five days later.

Mr. Gyles stated the "fundamental difficulty" with the minister's
second decision was that he departed from the first order "without
any apparent basis" and "with extreme urgency and secrecy without
explanation".  He said Mr. Ludwig also apparently made the
decision "regardless of the extraordinary adverse consequences
that would follow" and went "beyond anything recommended by the
Department [of Agriculture]."

He wrote that there was a "substantial chance" that Mr. Ludwig's
blanket ban on the trade would be considered unreasonable.

Ms. Brett hopes her family would be able to recoup some of the
losses from the live export ban but said she was disappointed the
matter had ended up in court.

"I think it would have been much better to sort this out privately
and we certainly didn't want it to go down this path," she said.

"It's a shame that it's had to happen but that's the way it is."

Mr. Gyles indicated a judge assessing the case may order the
parties to mediate.

Fighting fund backs court case

Chairman of the Australian Farmers Fighting Fund (AFFF), Hugh
Nivision, supported legal action against the Government.

"I think these are the sort of cases that the AFFF was set up for,
individual farmers who by themselves are unable to try and take on
the likes of government who've made a bad decision," Mr. Nivision
said.

"So the AFFF can step in with funding and help them progress these
cases and fight for compensation for when they've been wronged,"
he said.

The AFFF, set up in 1985 originally to fight industrial disputes,
has allocated $800,000 towards the cattle farmers' case.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Illegal Collection of Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Stanionis and Lee E. Stanionis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, National
Association, Case No. 5:14-cv-02222 (C.D. Cal., October 29, 2014),
arises from the Defendant's assessment and collection of improper
and excessive overdraft fees.

Bank of America, National Association is an international bank
that provides a broad suite of financial services to its
membership.

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


BARNEY'S WORLDWIDE: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
California Superior Court Judge Kenneth Freeman on Oct. 23 granted
final approval to the settlement of a consumer class action filed
against Barney's, now a restaurant chain, by consumers alleging
Barney's Worldwide Inc. violated California's False Advertising
Act and Unfair Business Practices Act by falsely portraying its
"Kobe beef" sliders and burgers as made with the world-renowned,
Japan-bred meat.

One of the most zealously guarded brands on the planet, the only
beef certified to be called Kobe comes from the Wagyu breed of
cattle, carefully raised and slaughtered in Kobe, in Japan's Hyogo
Prefecture.  Kobe beef is marketed as a delicacy that is
especially tender and flavorful due to its fatty, well-marbled
texture.  A true Kobe beef hamburger can cost $50 or more in
restaurants.

Even so, according to the complaint, Nalbantian v. Barney's, filed
in 2012 by plaintiff Krikor Nalbantian with the help of Lawyers
for Justice, Barney's Beanery fraudulently advertised "Kobe beef"
dishes in its marketing and on its menus from October 2008 until
January.  During part of that span-from April 2010 until August
2012-the U.S. Department of Agriculture had banned Kobe and other
imported Japanese beef during mad cow and hoof-and-mouth disease
outbreaks.

Under the settlement, Barney's has agreed to put up $220,000 from
which patrons who dined between those dates are eligible to
receive a $10 Barney's gift card if they have no receipt but
attest they were "exposed" to the menus, or a $15 card if they
have proof they bought something.  Plaintiffs' attorneys are
slated to receive $86,500 for fees and costs.

Barney's, which denies any wrongdoing, agreed not to use the "Kobe
beef" designation, but was thrown a bone in the form of permission
to describe a menu item as being "Kobe American beef," a product
of cross-breeding Wagyu and American Angus cattle.

Barney's was one of three California restaurant groups targeted in
Kobe beef proposed class actions since September 2013.  McCormick
& Schmicks Seafood Restaurants Inc. and the Innovative Dining
Group, owner of the BOA Steakhouse and Sushi Roku chains, reached
similar settlements.

Along with Lawyers for Justice, plaintiffs are represented by the
firm Shenkman & Hughes.  Barney's is represented by Lathrop &
Gage.


BERNARD L. MADOFF: Solus & SPV Not Entitled to Settlement Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein issued post-trial findings of
fact and conclusions of law denying an application for partial
refund of prior settlement payments in In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF
INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Debtor. IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee for
the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC,
Plaintiff, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN, CHASE BANK, N.A.,
JPMORGAN, SECURITIES LLC, and JPMORGAN, SECURITIES LTD.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 08-99000 (SMB), ADV. PROC. NO. 08-01789
(SMB)., 10-04932 (SMB), (S.D. N.Y.).

At an early stage in this liquidation under the Securities
Investor Protection Act (SIPA), Irving H. Picard, SIPA trustee of
the estate of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS),
entered into a settlement agreement with Optimal Strategic U.S.
Equity Ltd. (SUS) and Optimal Arbitrage Ltd. (Arbitrage) under
which they paid the Trustee the aggregate sum of $233,750,000 (the
Optimal Settlement).  The settlement represented 85% of the amount
of the preference claims asserted against them by the Trustee. The
Optimal Settlement included an equal treatment provision, or most
favored nations (MFN) clause, which required the Trustee to refund
a portion of the settlement payment if he entered into similar
future settlements with other defendants for a lower percentage of
the claimed amount.

SPV Optimal SUS Ltd. (SPV) acquired SUS's rights and Solus
Recovery Fund LP -- Applicants -- acquired Arbitrage's rights
under the Optimal Settlement.

The Trustee subsequently settled avoidance claims he brought
against the defendants. JPMorgan paid the estate $325 million, or
slightly more than 76% of the amounts sought (the JPMorgan
Settlement).  Solus and SPV contend that the JPMorgan Settlement
triggered the MFN clause, and the Trustee owes each a refund.

Finding the Optimal Settlement ambiguous on this point, the Court
conducted a trial on July 30, 2014.

In his order dated October 10, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/zlAirCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bernstein concluded
that the Applicants are not entitled to the refunds they seek.

Gary Svirsky, Esq. -- gsvirsky@omm.com -- Emily Chepiga, Esq. --
echepiga@omm.com -- Of Counsel O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, New York,
NY, Attorneys for Solus Recovery Fund L.P.


BLUE BUFFALO: Four Suits Consolidated in Pet Food Sales MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
These lawsuits are transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri and assigned to the Honorable Rodney
W. Sippel:

   (1) from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
       New York: Andacky, et al. v. The Blue Buffalo Company,
       Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-02938.  The new case number is
       4:14-cv-01792-RWS;

   (2) from the U.S. District Court for the District of
       Connecticut: Delre v. Blue Buffalo Co., Ltd.,
       Case No. 3:14-cv-00768.  The new case number is
       4:14-cv-01793-RWS;

   (3) from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
       Illinois: Stone v. Blue Buffalo Company LTD.,
       Case No. 3:14-cv-00520.  The new case number is
       4:14-cv-01790-RWS; and

   (4) from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
       Florida: Mackenzie v. The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd.,
       Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-80634.  The new case number is
       4:14-cv-01791-RWS.

The cases are included in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, Case No. 4:14-md-02562-RWS, for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The actions primarily involve allegations by consumers that Blue
Buffalo made false and misleading representations about the
ingredients in its pet food products, as allegedly indicated by
laboratory testing commissioned by the Nestle Purina PetCare
Company.  Two related actions involving Nestle Purina, which are
not included on the request for consolidation, are pending in the
Eastern District of Missouri.

The Andacky Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Frederick John Klorczyk, III, Esq.
          Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7165
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com

The Delre Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: avozzolo@faruqilaw.com
                  cmaccarone@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Karen Leser Grenon, Esq.
          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main St.
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (860) 526-1120
          E-mail: kleser@sfmslaw.com
                  jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

The Stone Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
          E-mail: rkeane@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Sean K. Cronin, Esq.
          BECKER AND PAULSON
          5111 W. Main Street
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 235-0020
          Facsimile: (618) 235-8558

The Mackenzie Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

               - and -

          Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN, LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 646-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com

               - and -

          Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
          THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Martin Flumenbaum, Esq.
          Robert A. Atkins, Esq.
          PAUL AND WEISS
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373-3191
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0191
          E-mail: mflumenbaum@paulweiss.com
                  ratkins@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
          PATTERSON AND BELKNAP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2110
          Facsimile: (212) 336-2111
          E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com

               - and -

          Joseph DaSilva, Jr., Esq.
          Marc J. Grenier, Esq.
          DEPANFILIS & VALLERIE LLC
          25 Belden Ave., PO Box 699
          Norwalk, CT 06852-0699
          Telephone: (203) 846-9585
          Facsimile: (203) 847-2849
          E-mail: jdasilvajr@dandvlaw.com
                  mgrenier@dandvlaw.com

               - and -

          David H. Luce, Esq.
          Gerard T. Carmody, Esq.
          Sarah J. Bettag, Esq.
          CARMODY MACDONALD P.C.
          120 South Central, Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 854-8605
          Facsimile: (314) 854-8660
          E-mail: dhl@carmodymacdonald.com
                  gtc@carmodymacdonald.com
                  sjb@carmodymacdonald.com

               - and -

          Lisa Monica Schiller, Esq.
          RICE PUGATCH ROBINSON & SCHILLER
          101 NE 3 Avenue, Suite 1800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 462-8000
          Facsimile: (954) 462-4300
          E-mail: lschiller.ecf@rprslaw.com


BLUFISH SUSHI: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Doroteo Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Blufish Sushi Bistro, Inc., and Chul H.
Choi, Case No. 1:14-cv-08555 (N.D. Ill., October 29, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUMBLE BEE: Mislabeling Class Action Remanded to Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
FIS reports that a class-action suit filed in 2012 accusing Bumble
Bee Foods of mislabeling tuna and related products was not
dismissed at federal court but the lawsuit was remanded to
Superior Court.

The firm had been sued by Lead plaintiff Tricia Ogden, claiming
the company's seafood products, labeled "rich in natural Omega-3"
or "excellent source Omega-3," were misbranded, The Courthouse
News Service reported.

"Several of the products sported a logo or seal with the allegedly
bogus claims, which conveyed to consumers the net impression that
a food makes only positive contributions to a diet, or does not
contain any nutrients at levels that raise the risk of a diet-
related disease or health-related condition," Ms. Ogden stated.

The plaintiff considered that apart from breaching labeling law by
the Food and Drug Administration, Bumble Bee made food label
claims that were prohibited by federal and California law.

Last January, the court granted summary judgment on Ms. Ogden's
claims for damages, finding that she failed to provide sufficient
evidence that she was entitled to restitution under the Unfair
Competition Law, Fair Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, or disgorgement under the unfair competition and fair
advertising laws.

However, the court ruled that Ms. Ogden was entitled to pursue
injunctive relief.

The new 9-page ruling reads: "With no federal statutory hook to
maintain jurisdiction here, the court finds that the
'congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities' tips in favor of remanding."

Bumble Bee sells canned and pouched tuna, salmon, shrimp, crabs,
clams, oysters, sardines, mackerel, and chicken.


CALIBER HOME: Sued in Iowa Over Illegal Use of Credit Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elsa Conradie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00430 (S.D.
Iowa, October 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
illegal acquisition and use of credit reports in violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Caliber Home Loans, Inc. offers home loans mortgage solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel Z. Marks, Esq.
      L. Ashley Zubal, Esq.
      MARKS LAW FIRM, P.C.
      4225 University Ave.
      Des Moines, IA 50311
      Telephone: (515) 276-7211
      Facsimile: (515) 276-6280
      Email: samuel@markslawdm.com
             Ashley@markslawdm.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. Lyons Jr., Esq.
      367 Commerce Ct.
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Telephone: (651)770-9707
      Facsimile: (651)704-0907
      Email: tommycjc@aol.com


CARE IMPROVEMENT: Faces "Ringel" Class Suit in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ringel, MD, individually and for the benefit and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Care Improvement Plus Group
Management LLC, Care Improvement Plus Practitioners LLC and United
Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 7:14-cv-04232-GRA (D.S.C.,
October 30, 2014) arises from contract dispute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brady Ryan Thomas, Esq.
          Terry Edward Richardson, Jr., Esq.
          RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK AND BRICKMAN
          PO Box 1368
          Barnwell, SC 29812
          Telephone: (803) 541-7838
          Facsimile: (803) 541-9625
          E-mail: bthomas@rpwb.com
                  trichardson@rpwb.com

               - and -

          Michael Eugene Spears, Esq.
          122 S Liberty Street
          Spartanburg, SC 29306
          Telephone: (864) 583-3535
          E-mail: attyspears@charter.net


CBD ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Oct. 27 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of CBD Energy Limited
common stock during the period from June 12, 2014 through
October 24, 2014.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for CBD
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the CBD class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-411.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, CBD issued materially false financial
statements during the Class Period.  On October 24, 2014, CBD
Energy announced that its previously issued audited financial
statements for the fiscal years 2012 and 2013 and interim
financial statements for the six months ended December 31, 2013
cannot be relied upon by investors.  According to CBD Energy,
certain related-party transactions involving its Executive
Chairman and Managing Director, Mr. McGowan, were not accurately
disclosed in its financial statements.  The Company also disclosed
that revisions to the financial statements are due to doubts
about: (i) any expectation of realizing full (or any) value of a
deposit of approximately $680,000; (ii) the adequacy of
disclosures regarding goodwill and the possibility of recognizing
an impairment; (iii) the capitalization of certain payments
related to the costs of issuing retail bonds in the United
Kingdom; and (iv) classification of certain expenses.  On this
news, shares of CBD Energy fell sharply on October 24, 2014,
damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 26, 2014.  If you wish to join the litigation go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-411.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827


CALIFORNIA CHARCOAL: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $2.4 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham, writing for Law360, reports that Charcoal
providers California Charcoal and Firewood Inc. and Lazzari Fuel
Company LLC agreed in California federal court on Oct. 24 to fork
over a combined total of roughly $2.4 million in a certified class
action brought by restaurant companies over an alleged ten-year
scheme to allocate customers for mesquite lump charcoal.

In their preliminary settlement motion, a certified class of
mesquite charcoal purchasers asked the court to approve a $1.55
million settlement with California Charcoal and owner Marvin Ring,
as well as an $825,000 deal with Lazzari Fuel and two of its
shareholders, Robert Colbert and Richard Morgen.

The combined settlement of $2,375,000 was "vigorously negotiated,
the plaintiffs said, and represents about 29 percent of the
roughly $8.9 million in potential class damages before trebling,
according to their class certification economist.

Co-defendant Chef's Choice Mesquite Charcoal and its owner,
William Lord, will continue to litigate the case, the plaintiffs
said.  The settling plaintiffs have also agreed to assist the
plaintiffs in prosecuting their case against Chef's Choice, the
deal said.

Lead plaintiffs Il Fornaio Corp., Oliveto Partners Ltd. and The
Famous Enterprise Fish Company of Santa Monica Inc., all of which
are restaurant companies, launched their class action against
Lazzari, California Charcoal and Chef's Choice in November 2013,
approximately a year and a half after Lord pled guilty to his role
in the customer allocation conspiracy.

In their amended complaint filed in May, the plaintiffs accused
the defendant companies of engaging in a scheme to fix prices and
allocate the U.S. market for mesquite lump charcoal, which is
often used by restaurants.

According to the plaintiffs, Lazzari, California Charcoal and
Chef's Choice conspired to stabilize the price of mesquite lump
charcoal from January 2000 to at least September 2010, with Lord
acting as the scheme's "king pin."

The plaintiffs won class certification on Oct. 3, with U.S.
District Judge William Alsup noting that the proposed class
consists of roughly 1,500 direct purchasers of mesquite lump
charcoal.  The certified class consists of all persons and
entities in the U.S. who bought the mesquite from the defendants
from Jan. 1, 2000, to Sept. 30, 2011.

Although Lazzari and its named shareholders had previously struck
a deal with the plaintiffs in July, their portion of the Oct. 24
settlement is $25,000 more than their agreement this summer.

As part of the deal, the plaintiffs have agreed to release their
asserted claims against Lazzari and California Charcoal, the
motion said.  They argued that the settlement was reasonable,
especially considering that the defendants might not be able to
pay a greater amount, given Lazzari's "precarious" financial
situation and the fact that Marvin Ring is a small business owner.

A hearing on the settling has been set for Dec. 4, according to
court records.

An attorney for the plaintiffs declined to comment on Oct. 27,
while attorneys for California Charcoal, Lazzari and Chef's Choice
did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by class counsel Elizabeth C.
Pritzker -- ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- and Bethany L. Caracuzzo --
bc@pritzkerlevine.com -- of Pritzker Levine LLP.

Lazzari is represented by David Brownstein -- dbrownstein@fbj-
law.com --of Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP.  California Charcoal is
represented by Jean Pierre Nogues of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp
LLP.  Chef's Choice is represented by Robert M. Sanger and Jeffrey
S. Sanger of Sanger Swysen & Dunkle.

The case is IL Fornaio (America) Corp. et al. v. Lazzari Fuel
Company LLC et al., case number 3:13-cv-05197, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


CHEN MEDICAL: Refuses to Pay OT Wages, Ex-Medical Assistant Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hasmin Kareli Nettlenton and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Chen Medical Associates, P.A.; Chen Medical
North Miami Beach, Inc.; Chen Medical Aventura, Inc.; Chen Medical
Hallandale, Inc.; Chen Medical Lauderhill, Inc.; Chen Neighborhood
Medical; North Miami Beach, LLC; Chen Neighborhood Medical Centers
of South Florida, LLC; James Chen; and Mary Chen, Case No. 1:14-
cv-24057-UU (S.D. Fla., October 30, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a medical assistant
from May 2009 through October 24, 2014.

Chen Medical Associates, P.A.; Chen Medical North Miami Beach,
Inc.; Chen Medical Aventura, Inc.; Chen Neighborhood Medical North
Miami Beach, LLC; and Chen Neighborhood Medical Centers of South
Florida, LLC are companies that regularly transact business within
Miami-Dade County.  Chen Medical Hallandale, Inc. and Chen Medical
Lauderhill, Inc. are companies that regularly transact business
within Broward County.  The Individual Defendants are corporate
officers, owners or managers of the Defendant Companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COOK MEDICAL: "Brady" Suit Transferred From California to Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Robert Brady, et al. v. Cook
Medical Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-04725, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana (Indianapolis).  The Indiana District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-06000-RLY-TAB to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Robert Brady alleges that the Cook Celect Inferior Vena
Cava Filter implanted on him failed and, among others, was found
to be perforating the vena cava in at least three places.  The
Plaintiff was caused to undergo extensive medical care and
treatment, including an invasive and complex retrieval of the
filter, as a result of the failure of the Celect Filter.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramon R. Lopez, Esq.
          Troy A. Brenes, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
          North Tower
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 737-1501
          Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
          E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
                  tbrenes@lopezmchugh.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Frank J. D'Oro, Jr., Esq.
          Ryne W. Osborne, Esq.
          WESIERSKI AND ZUREK LLP
          1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 627-2300
          Facsimile: (213) 629-2725
          E-mail: fdoro@wzllp.com
                  rosborne@wzllp.com

               - and -

          Kyle E. Rowen, Esq.
          WESIERSKI AND ZUREK LLP
          One Corporate Park, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (949) 975-1000
          Facsimile: (949) 756-0517
          E-mail: KRowen@wzllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas B. King, Esq.
          Kip S. M. McDonald, Esq.
          WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1800
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2019
          Telephone: (317) 639-6151
          Facsimile: (317) 639-6444
          E-mail: dking@woodmclaw.com
                  kmcdonald@woodmclaw.com


CREDIT SUISSE: ECD Suit Transferred From California to New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled ECD Investor Group, et al. v.
Credit Suisse International, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-02783, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-08486-VM to the proceeding.

The case arises out of an alleged fraudulent scheme perpetrated by
Credit Suisse and a group of predatory hedge funds to mislead
investors and artificially drive down the price of ECD common
stock.  The scheme allegedly caused ECD investors astronomical
losses and contributed to ECD's bankruptcy in February 2012.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: hcunningham@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Deborah-Clark Weintraub, Esq.
          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Thomas L. Laughlin IV, 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: dweintraub@scott-scott.com
                  jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  tlaughlin@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Gary V. Mauney, Esq.
          LEWIS & ROBERTS, PLLC
          One Southpark Center
          6060 Piedmont Row Drive South, Suite 140
          Charlotte, NC 28287
          Telephone: (704) 347-8990
          Facsimile: (704) 347-8929
          E-mail: garymauney@lewis-roberts.com

               - and -

          James A. Robert III, Esq.
          LEWIS AND ROBERTS PLLC
          3700 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 410
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Tel: (866) 322-9873
          Fax: (919) 981-0199
          E-mail: JimRoberts@lewis-roberts.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq.
          Allison S. Davidson, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          140 Scott Drive
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 328-4600
          Facsimile: (650) 463-2600
          E-mail: patrick.gibbs@lw.com
                  allison.davidson@lw.com


DERBY ON PARK: "Bush" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bush, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Derby on Park, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Michael A.
Williams, and Zack Nettles-Williams, individually, Case No. 3:14-
cv-01321 (M.D. Fla., October 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, an additional amount as liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Duval County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda E. Kayfus, Esq.
      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: akayfus@forthepeople.com
              afrisch@forthepeople.com


DUKE'S EAST: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaudencio de los Santos, Silvio Romero, and Celio Suarez, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Duke's
East 19th Restaurant Ltd. d/b/a Duke's Gramercy Park, 560 Third
Avenue Grocery Corp. d/b/a Duke's Murray Hill, and Michael
Schatzberg, Case No. 1:14-cv-08622 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Duke's Gramercy Park and Duke's
Murray Hill restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Yesenia Francisco, Esq.
      BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com
              francisco@bwp-law.com


DYNEGY INC: 2nd Cir. Dismissed Lead Plaintiff's Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Koeltl, J.), dismissing a bankruptcy appeal by
Stephen Lucas related to the Chapter 11 case of Dynegy Inc.

The district court concluded that Lucas lacked standing to opt out
of or object to the joint reorganization plan of Dynegy Inc. and
its subsidiary on behalf of a putative class in a separate
securities class action against Dynegy Inc.  Because Lucas had
opted out in his individual capacity, the district court also
found he was not affected by the bankruptcy court's order and thus
lacked standing to pursue his personal objection to the plan on
appeal.

Lucas is the lead plaintiff in Silsby v. Icahn, the securities
class action litigation.

A copy of the Court's October 31, 2014 decision is available at
http://bit.ly/1A8jGWTfrom Leagle.com.

                          About Dynegy

Through its subsidiaries, Houston, Texas-based Dynegy Inc.
(NYSE: DYN) -- http://www.dynegy.com/-- produces and sells
electric energy, capacity and ancillary services in key U.S.
markets.  The power generation portfolio consists of approximately
12,200 megawatts of baseload, intermediate and peaking power
plants fueled by a mix of natural gas, coal and fuel oil.

Dynegy Holdings LLC and four other affiliates of Dynegy Inc.
sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case
No. 11-38111) on Nov. 7, 2011, to implement an agreement with a
group of investors holding more than $1.4 billion of senior notes
issued by Dynegy's direct wholly-owned subsidiary, Dynegy
Holdings, regarding a framework for the consensual restructuring
of more than $4.0 billion of obligations owed by DH.  If this
restructuring support agreement is successfully implemented, it
will significantly reduce the amount of debt on the Company's
consolidated balance sheet.  Dynegy Holdings disclosed assets of
$13.77 billion and debt of $6.18 billion.

Dynegy Inc. on July 6, 2012, filed a voluntary petition to
reorganize under Chapter 11 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 12-36728) to
effectuate a merger with Dynegy Holdings, pursuant to Holdings'
Chapter 11 plan.

Dynegy Holdings and its parent, Dynegy Inc., completed their
Chapter 11 reorganization and emerged from bankruptcy Oct. 1,
2012.  Under the terms of the DH/Dynegy Plan, DH merged with and
into Dynegy, with Dynegy, Inc., remaining as the surviving entity.

Dynegy Northeast Generation, Inc., Hudson Power, L.L.C., Dynegy
Danskammer, L.L.C. and Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C., won confirmation of
their plan of liquidation in March 2013, allowing the former
operating units of Dynegy to consummate a settlement agreement
resolving some lease trustee claims and sell their facilities.


EXPEDIA: City of Rome Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rome News-Tribune reports that it took the city of Rome and more
than 200 other local governments in Georgia more than seven years
to win a favorable ruling in a class action legal battle against
web-based hotel booking companies.

U.S. District Court Judge Harold L. Murphy ruled online companies
like Expedia and Hotels.com are responsible for paying taxes based
on the retail rates of rooms and not discounted rates they
negotiate.  To date, that has not been a big windfall for Rome.

Rome has received nine payments totaling $10,967.99 since the suit
was settled said City Clerk Joe Smith.  The first check was
received Dec. 5, 2012, Mr. Smith said.

Mr. Smith said that thus far this year, Best Western had reported
68 online bookings, Claremont House bed and Breakfast had reported
65 bookings, and Day's Inn 1,043 bookings and Hawthorn Suites had
listed 173 online reservations.

J. Anderson Davis, one of the attorneys for the city of Rome,
serves as administrator for the municipal plaintiffs.

He said the online travel companies submit payments through his
office by the 20th day of each month.  Once a quarter, those
figures are sent to accountants who determine how much each local
government is due.  Payments are then distributed to the local
communities on a quarterly basis.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon J. Costa, for himself and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Family Dollar Stores Of Virginia, Inc. and
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00731 (E.D. Va.,
October 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to provide the Plaintiff with copies of the consumer report and a
written summary of his Fair Credit Reporting Act rights prior to
discharging him based in whole or in part on the results of the
consumer report.

The Defendants own and operate a discount retail store doing
business throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Colt North, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C.
      751-A Thimble Shoals Boulevard
      Newport News, VA 23606
      Telephone: (757) 873-1010
      Facsimile: (757)873-8375
      E-mail: cnorthlaw@aol.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Glenville Suit Moved From Kansas to Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Glenville Shell LLC v. Ferrellgas,
L.P., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02306, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  The Missouri
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00918-GAF to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that two largest distributors of propane
exchange tanks, known to customers as Blue Rhino and AmeriGas,
conspired to reduce the amount of propane they would put in their
tanks and, thereby, raise the per-pound price of propane across
the country.  Propane exchange tanks are portable cylinders
storing propane gas, primarily used to power outdoor grills, as
well as other outdoor uses, like patio heaters and mosquito
magnets.

The Defendants supply propane in propane exchange tanks to
thousands of gas stations, convenience stores, hardware stores,
grocery stores, and big box retailers, including the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
          SHARP McQUEEN, P.A.
          6900 College Blvd., Suite 285
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 661-9931
          E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
                  kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  elevens@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          1835 Market Street, 28th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  dperelman@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
          FREEDMAN BOYD DANIELS HOLLANDER & GOLDBERG, PA
          20 First Plaza, Suite 700
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 842-9960
          E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com

               - and -

          Anne E. Gepford Smith, Esq.
          Jennifer J. Price, Esq.
          Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
          SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN PC
          911 Main Street, Suite 2000
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 931-0500
          Facsimile: (816) 931-5775
          E-mail: asmith@sls-law.com
                  jprice@sls-law.com
                  rlombardo@sls-law.com

Defendants Ferrellgas, L.P., and Ferrellgas Partners L.P. are
represented by:

          Catesby Ann Major, Esq.
          Craig S. O'Dear, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE, LLP
          1200 Main Street, Suite 3800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 374-3200
          Facsimile: (816) 374-3300
          E-mail: catesby.major@bryancave.com
                  csodear@bryancave.com

Defendants Amerigas Partners, L.P., AmeriGas Propane, Inc., UGI
Corporation and Amerigas Propane, L.P., are represented by:

          Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
          ROUSE, HENDRICKS, GERMAN, MAY, PC
          1201 Walnut St., 20th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 471-7700
          Facsimile: (816) 471-2221
          E-mail: brandonb@rhgm.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Face Ashville Suit Over Propane-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashville General Store, Inc., individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P., a limited partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited
partnership, also doing business as Blue Rhino, Amerigas Partners,
L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Amerigas
Cylinder Exchange, and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case No.
2:14-cv-04285 (W.D. Mo., October 29, 2014), arises out of a
conspiracy to fix the price of propane sold in exchangeable
portable steel tanks commonly referred to as propane exchange
tanks.

The Defendants sell propane, stored in propane exchange tanks,
directly to retailers across the United States, including grocery
stores, convenience stores, and gas stations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C
      2500 City Center Square, 1100 Main
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 421-6620
      Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
      E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

         - and -

      Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
      ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
      155 Montgomery Street
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 986-1400
      Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
      E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com


FIRST DATA: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Refund Interchange Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benex LC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
First Data Merchant Services Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-06393
(E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to refund interchange fees, certain markups and surcharges
added to interchange fees, dues and assessments and network access
fees, and additional payment processor fees as part of the
discount rate charged to merchants for Visa U.S.A. Inc. and
MasterCard Incorporated credit and debit card payment processing
services and for DFS Services LLC credit card payment processing
services.

First Data Merchant Services Corporation serves as a credit and
debit card payment processor for card payment transactions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A
      825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 683-3516
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              tjm@rl-legal.com


FMS INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nava Laniado, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FMS Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-06594-
FLW-DEA (D.N.J., October 23, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


FULLBAR LLC: Falsely Sells Products as "100% Natural," Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Livingston, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fullbar, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company, Case No. 0:14-cv-62430-WPD (S.D. Fla., October 23, 2014)
alleges that the Defendant has unlawfully, negligently, unfairly,
misleadingly, and deceptively represented that its Fullbar
appetite regulator bars, sold in a variety of flavors, are "100%
Natural" or "All Natural," despite containing unnatural,
synthetic, and artificial ingredients like maltodextrin, potato
maltodextrin, soy protein concentrate, soy protein isolate, or soy
lecithin.

Fullbar, LLC is a Colorado Limited Liability Company with its
principal place of business located in Denver, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com
                  MPascucci@EggnatzLaw.com


HERBALIFE LTD: Confident About Business Model Despite FTC Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Cramer, writing for Bidness Etc, reports that Herbalife Ltd.,
the global nutrition company with a multi-level marketing
strategy, is confident about its business model.  Herbalife
expects to be vindicated from the accusations regarding its
business model, after the Federal Trade Commission completes its
investigation.  CFO John DeSimone has stated that he has complete
faith in the legitimacy of Herbalife's business model.

The FTC launched a probe on the business model of the global
nutrition company after the activist investor Bill Ackman alleged
the company of operating a pyramid scheme, misleading
distributors, selling products at inflated prices, and
misrepresenting sales figures.

Some former distributors of Herbalife also filed a class-action
lawsuit against the company, alleging it runs under a pyramid
scheme, which has led them to endure persistent losses since they
became a member of Herbalife's distribution network.  Recently,
Herbalife appealed for a deadline extension in the lawsuit and
requested for more time to complete the settlement process and the
mediation talks with the distributors to reach a settlement
agreement.

Few Latino non-governmental organizations, working for civil
rights, also blamed the company of "unfairly targeting minority
groups and luring them into losing a business deal", and of
operating under "predatory business practices".  Apart from the
FTC, several Attorney Generals in different states and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are also looking into the
accusations against Herbalife.

Nonetheless, the company remains adamant regarding the legitimacy
of its business model and repudiates any claims made against it.
In a recent interview, Mr. DeSimone stated that he along with his
team and other departments have complete faith in the company's
business model and in Herbalife's community members.

The company's management is fully cooperating with the regulators
and will continue to respect the integrity of the investigation.
Mr. DeSimone has assured that by the end of the FTC investigation,
the company will be vindicated from any allegations put forth
against the business model.

Herbalife has also appointed former FTC commissioner, Pamela Jones
Harbour, to join as the Compliance Chief. Her appointment has come
at a time when the nutritional supplement company is facing FTC
investigation.  Ms. Harbour's appointment will add some
credibility to the business model as she shows her relentless
support for the company.  She is a Herbalife community member and
has been using its products for over a decade now.  She has
visited several automated distribution centers and company's
nutrition clubs to assert the legitimacy of the company's
operations.

In an interview, Ms. Harbour stated that she is willing to risk
her reputation for the company.  She strongly believes that
Herbalife's products are legitimate and that its executives and
management team is fully dedicated and committed to compliance.

Herbalife's biggest bull, Timothy Ramey, returned with an
optimistic view and initiated coverage on the stock for the
Pivotal Research Group.  Mr. Ramey has been optimistic more than
ever, suggesting that the company is expected to strike a deal
with the Commission, which he believes will be so impressive that
the stock will surge over 50%.

The management is confident that there will be no enforcement
action against Herbalife after the probe and is certain that the
Commission will not shut down operations, which activist investors
want to happen.  Nevertheless, some level of penalties, sanctions,
and disciplinary actions are expected to be imposed over
Herbalife's past activities.

The latest allegation against Herbalife is by a Pershing Square
Capital researcher, who states that the company has created an
illusion of sustainable and strong operations in Venezuela by
overvaluing the sales, profits, and assets in the country.  Amid
currency devaluations, companies operating in Venezuela suffer
from recurrent losses.  According to the researcher, Herbalife
artificially inflates sales and earnings by overvaluing Venezuelan
bolivar to an exchange rate of 10.7 bolivars against the US
dollar, when a dollar actually trades for 6.29 bolivars.
Herbalife has a policy of paying incentives in US dollars, which
motivated the Venezuelan distributors to buy more of Herbalife's
products.

However, Mr. DeSimone responded to the claims by calling them
inaccurate in many aspects.  He stated that circumstances, facts,
and accounting rules led to the company using the aforementioned
exchange rate, and that a majority of the companies in Venezuela
use the same rate of 10.7 bolivars.  Mr. DeSimone added that
profit which researcher claims Herbalife to make in Venezuela is
substantially overstated.

Herbalife continues to defend itself and the authenticity of its
operations since Bill Ackman presented his allegations.  The
global nutrition company pursues numerous initiatives which depict
real demand from consumers and help to negate the accusations made
by activist investors and rights organizations about the business
model.  From celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month to conducting
Wellness Tours around the world and inaugurating Nutrition Days,
the company is resilient in its efforts to drive real demand from
consumers and directly interact with athletes, customers, and
Herbalife community members.


HERITAGE MANAGEMENT: Misclassified Exotic Dancers, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Roe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Heritage Management Services, Inc.; and Does 1-200, Case No.
3:14-cv-04840-LB (N.D. Cal., October 30, 2014) is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all individuals who, during the
class period, worked as exotic dancers for the Defendant in
California, including the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has misclassified her and
all other class members as independent contractors, as opposed to
employees, at all times when they worked as exotic dancers.  As a
result, the Defendant has failed to pay her and all other class
members the minimum wages and other benefits to which they were
entitled under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Ms. Roe
argues.

Heritage Management Services, Inc. maintains ownership,
recruitment, and operational interests in nightclub business
operations in California featuring nude or semi-nude dancing,
including the nightclub doing business as the Crazy Horse
Gentlemen's Club.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven G. Tidrick, Esq.
          Joel B. Young, Esq.
          THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
          2039 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 308
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 788-5100
          Facsimile: (510) 291-3226
          E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com
                  jby@tidricklaw.com


HITACHI-LG: Class Cert. Bids in Optical Disk Drive Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg denied motions for class
certification filed in IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 3:10-MD-2143 RS, (N.D. Cal.).

This Multi-District Litigation alleges a conspiracy among
defendants to fix the prices of optical disc drives between 2004
and 2009. Two groups of plaintiffs -- "direct purchasers" and
"indirect purchasers," who are separately represented and
proceeding under separate complaints -- seek class certification.
The central dispute in both certification motions is whether
plaintiffs' experts have presented a viable methodology for
establishing class-wide antitrust injury and damages.

"Because neither group of plaintiffs has made a persuasive showing
that the expert analyses they proffer sufficiently address the
relevant question, the motions must be denied," wrote Judge
Seeborg in his order dated October 3, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/zuM4Ep from Leagle.com.

"[T]he parties shall submit jointly a report as to their
respective positions on how the litigation should proceed from
this juncture," Judge Seeborg added.

Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, Intervenor,
represented by Karl Olson -- kolson@rocklawcal.com -- Ram, Olson,
Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP & Susan S. Brown --
sbrown@rocklawcal.com -- Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.


HOME DEPOT: Removes "Farr" Class Suit to Georgia District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Farr, et al. v. The Home Depot
USA, Inc., Case No. 2014-CV-0253-C, was removed from the Superior
Court of Rabun County, State of Georgia, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Gainesville).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00248-WCO to the
proceeding.

In their First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs purport to seek
damages on behalf of an alleged class including "all Georgia
citizens residing in the State of Georgia whose confidential
information was lost, stolen, compromised, and/or disclosed as a
result of the events surrounding the loss of confidential customer
financial information by Home Depot between April 2014 to the
present."

Although Home Depot has not yet identified which specific
transactions were exposed to the cyber-attack on its payment data
system, in excess of 400,000 distinct credit or debit cards were
used to make purchases in Home Depot stores in the State of
Georgia from April 1, 2014, to September 17, 2014, according to
the Company's notice of removal.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Brent Irby, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, HOAGLUND, COOK & IRBY, LLP
          905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 824-7767
          Facsimile: (205) 824-7768
          E-mail: birby@mhcilaw.com

               - and -

          Todd L. Lord, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD L. LORD
          P.O. Box 901
          4 Courthouse Square
          Cleveland, GA 30528
          Telephone: (706) 219-2239
          E-mail: attytllord@windstream.net

               - and -

          William Gregory Dobson, Esq.
          LOBER, DOBSON & DESAI, LLC
          830 Mulberry Street, Suite 201
          Macon, GA 31201
          Telephone: (478) 745-7700
          Facsimile: (478) 745-4888
          E-mail: admcbride@lddlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Andrew Pratt, Esq.
          Phyllis Buchen Sumner, Esq.
          Sidney Stewart Haskins, II, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, 40th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5138
          E-mail: apratt@kslaw.com
                  psumner@kslaw.com
                  shaskins@kslaw.com


IL VAGABONDO: "Guaman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Guaman, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. IL Vagabondo Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a IL Vagabondo
and Ernest Vogliano, Case No. 1:14-cv-08595 (S.D.N.Y., October 28,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Il Vagabondo restaurant, located at
351 East 62nd Street, New York, New York 10065.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IL-MARE PIZZERIA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Il-Mare Pizzeria Corp. d/b/a NY Pizza Suprema, and
Joseph Riggio, Case No. 1:14-cv-08599 (S.D.N.Y., October 28,
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 NY Pizza Suprema restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI& COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile:  (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Removes "Podolskaya" Suit to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Podolskaya, Individually and on
Behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, was removed to the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-14046 to the proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lauren J. Coppola, Esq.
          PARTRIDGE SNOW & HAHN
          30 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 292-7900
          E-mail: lcoppola@psh.com


JEXET TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco R. Lopez, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Jexet Technologies LLC,
and Xiaodong Wang a/k/a Daniel Wang, individually, Case No. 1:14-
cv-08572 (N.D. Ill., October 29, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours in a workweek.

Jexet Technologies LLC and Xiaodong Wang operate an IT service
company which provides IT services to small and medium sized
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
      Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
      332 South Michigan, Suite 1020
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312)957-9005
      Facsimile: (773)890-7780
      Email: cbecerra@law-rb.com
             pgonzalez@law-rb.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Falsely Marketed Medical Gowns, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hrayr Shahinian, M.D., F.A.C.S., an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-08390 (C.D.
Cal., October 29, 2014), is brought for marketing and seeling
medical gowns represented to provide highest level of liquid
barriers protection from the transfer of bodily fluids, bacteria,
and infection between a patient and health care professional when,
in fact these gowns failed industry standard tests, are unsafe and
do not  meet relevant standards.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation describes itself as a global company
focusing on leading the world in essentials for a better life
through product innovation and building its personal care consumer
tissue, K-C Professional, and health care brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ahmed I. Ibrahim, Esq.
      Michael J. Avenatti, Esq.
      EAGAN AVENATTI LLP
      450 Newport Ctr Dr 2nd Fl
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-7000
      Facsimile: (949) 706-7050
      E-mail: aibrahim@eaganavenatti.com
              mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com


KKR & CO: Shareholder Litigation Dismissed with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware dismissed with prejudice In re
KKR FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LLC SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, CONSOL. C.A.
NO. 9210-CB.

In April 2004, KKR & Co. L.P. (KKR) acquired KKR Financial
Holdings LLC (KFN) in a stock-for-stock merger involving two
widely-held, publicly-traded companies. Seeking to overcome the
presumption that business judgment review would apply to such a
transaction, plaintiffs argued that entire fairness should apply
because KKR was a controlling stockholder of KFN despite its less
than one percent ownership and because a majority of the 12
members of the KFN board that approved the merger was beholden to
and not independent from KKR.

Plaintiffs' controlling stockholder theory is based on the terms
of a management agreement whereby an affiliate of KKR managed the
day-to-day business of KFN, making KFN operationally dependent on
KKR. Since KFN's inception, however, the ultimate authority for
managing its business and affairs, including the decision whether
to approve a merger with KKR, was in the hands of a board of
directors subject to annual stockholder election.

In its October 14, 2014 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/8b3cmWfrom Leagle.com, the Delaware Chancery Court
concluded that, although the allegations of the complaint
demonstrate that KKR's affiliate managed the day-to-day operations
of KFN, they do not support a reasonable inference that KKR
controlled the board of KFN when it approved the merger, which is
the operative question under Delaware law for determining whether
a stockholder is controlling in this case. For this reason, the
Chancery Court dismissed plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claim against
KKR premised on the theory that KKR was a controlling stockholder
of KFN.

The Court also concluded that plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claim
against the directors of KFN fails to state a claim for relief
because the board's approval of the merger is subject to business
judgment review for two independent reasons. First, plaintiffs
have failed to allege facts from which it is reasonably inferable
that a majority of the KFN board was not disinterested in the
transaction or independent from KKR. Second, even if plaintiffs
had alleged sufficient facts to reasonably support such an
inference, business judgment review still would apply because the
merger was approved by a majority of disinterested stockholders in
a fully-informed vote.

Collins J. Seitz, Jr. -- cseitz@seitzross.com -- Garrett B. Moritz
-- gmoritz@seitzross.com -- and Eric D. Selden --
eselden@seitzross.com -- of Seitz Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; William Savitt -- WDSavitt@wlrk.com -- Ryan
A. McLeod -- RAMcLeod@wlrk.com -- and David Zhou -- DZhou@wlrk.com
-- of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, New York,
Attorneys for Defendants Tracy Collins, Robert L. Edwards, Craig
J. Farr, Vincent Paul Finigan, Jr., Paul M. Hazen, R. Glenn
Hubbard, Ross J. Kari, Ely L. Licht, Deborah H. McAneny, Scott C.
Nuttall, Scott Ryles, Willy Strothotte, and KKR Financial Holdings
LLC.


LA GUADALUPANA: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lourdes Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. La Guadalupana Bakery and Cafe, Trancito
Diaz, and Robert Diaz, Case No. 4:14-cv-03099 (S.D. Tex., October
29, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Harris
County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin A. Shellist, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: mshellist@eeoc.net


LANDS' END: Falsely Marketed Apparel Products, "Oxina" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Oxina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lands' End, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02577 (S.D. Cal.,
October 29, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful labeling
of apparel products with the false designation and representation
that the apparel was Made in the U.S.A.

Lands' End, Inc. is an American clothing retailer that conducts
business through mail order and internet sales, at numerous retail
stores in the United States, and distributed through a large
number of Sears department stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, 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
              mona@kazlg.com


LEADING EDGE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Morello, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, LLC, and John Does
1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-06817-AET-LHG (D.N.J., October 30, 2014)
seeks relief for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEE PUBLICATIONS: Settles Newspapers Carriers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
carriers for San Diego's now-defunct North County News newspaper
have reached a $3.2 million settlement with Lee Publications Inc.
to end a proposed class action that alleged they were
misclassified and undercompensated as independent contractors, and
unfairly dinged for missed or wet papers.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel gave preliminary approval on
Oct. 17 to Dalton v. Lee Publications, a complaint filed in 2008
by plaintiffs seeking to represent some 800 home-delivery carriers
who alleged the publisher treated them like employees but paid
them like contractors.

The case largely survived a vigorous challenge by the newspaper's
owners, who cited Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Duke, the 2011 landmark
decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court directed courts to
rigorously analyze whether plaintiffs share enough common elements
to qualify for class certification.

In 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California knocked out two elements of the class complaint,
finding that questions of liability and damages were of too
individual a nature, but certified claims that the company failed
to reimburse expenses and engaged in unfair business practices.

The carriers alleged that Lee personnel supervised, trained and
otherwise treated them like employees but, in violation of
California labor laws, denied them overtime, meal and rest breaks,
and other employee benefits, according to their complaint.

The company also docked carriers up to $5 for each customer
complaint about damaged, wet or "allegedly undelivered" papers,
the complaint alleged, branding those deductions an attempt by Lee
to make the plaintiffs unlawful insurers of the company's
merchandise.  The company allegedly gave carriers more papers than
they had customers on their delivery route and then deducted their
compensation for each extra paper.

In the settlement, the class members will be eligible to receive
shares in the $3.2 million fund, minus $850,000 for plaintiffs
attorneys' fees and costs, as much as $40,000 in settlement
administrative costs and $36,000 total for eight lead plaintiffs.

Defendants' counsel are attorneys with Seyfarth Shaw.  Plaintiffs
are represented by Greer & Associates and the Law Offices of Marcy
Kaye.


LITTON LOAN: Southwest Business Dismissed From "Perryman" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted in part and denied in part
motions to dismiss the case captioned MARGO PERRYMAN, Plaintiff,
v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-
02261-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

In this proposed class action challenging Defendants' practices of
instituting lender-placed insurance (LPI), the four named
defendants -- Southwest Business Corporation (Southwest), Litton
Loan Servicing, LP (Litton), Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen),
and American Security Insurance Company (ASIC) -- have filed three
separate motions to dismiss.

Judge Tigar granted Southwest's motion to dismiss. All causes of
action are dismissed without prejudice to the extent they are pled
against Defendant Southwest, he added.

Litton & Ocwen's motion, and ASIC's motion, are granted in part
and denied in part, Judge Tigar ruled.  The tenth claim for
relief, for unjust enrichment, is dismissed with prejudice, since
the Court concludes that it fails as a matter of law. The first,
second, seventh, eighth, and eleventh claims for relief are
dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has leave to re-assert
those claims for relief in an amended complaint if she can allege
additional facts not pled in the operative complaint which remedy
the deficiencies identified in this order, held Judge Tigar.

A copy of the Court's October 1, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/cn7ROn from Leagle.com.

American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Frank G. Burt -- fburt@cfjblaw.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt,
P.A., Dawn B. Williams -- dwilliams@cfjblaw.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A., Mark A. Neubauer -- mneubauer@cfjblaw.com --
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, LLP & William Glenn Merten --
gmerten@cfjblaw.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.


LORD & COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Sanocki, Ronald Rolan, Jonathan Delgado, Patrick Murphy &
Carolyn Karen Smith v. Lord & Company Technologies, Inc., William
"Bill" Cabrera and Lee Ann W. Cabrera, Case No. 1:14-cv-01414
(E.D. Va., October 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime for all hours worked
in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lord & Company Technologies, Inc. installs in-building, in-tunnel,
and in-ship wireless communications systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Steven Cabana, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW CABANA PC
      2121 Eisenhower Ave, Suite 200
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Telephone: (703) 518-7930
      Facsimile: (703) 684-3620
      E-mail: andrew@acabanalaw.com


MACY'S INC: Overcharged Buyers for Payment Protection, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Edwards and Brenda Edwards, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Macy's Inc. and Department Stores National
Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv-08616 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014), arises
out of the Defendants' unfair and deceptive practices with regard
to Payment Protection specifically by charging consumers without
their express permission and consent, enrolling consumers into and
charging consumers for a product with little or no value, and
overcharging consumers for Payment Protection.

Macy's Inc. is the world's largest fashion goods retailer, owns
and operates approximately 838 stores throughout the U.S., and
owns websites, including macysinc.com, and Macys.com.

Department Stores National Bank is a credit card issuer of retail
private label accounts for Citibank's relationship with Macy's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angela M. Edwards, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ANGELA EDWARDS
      72 Canterbury Circle
      East Longmeadow, MA 01028
      Telephone: (413) 214-8870
      E-mail: angelaedwards@charter.net

         - and -

      Lance A. Raphael, Esq.
      Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER
      25 East Washington, Suite 1805
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 782-5808
      E-mail: Lance@caclawyers.com
              stacy@caclawyers.com

         - and -

      Lee Scott Shalov, Esq.
      MCLAUGHLIN AND STERN, LLP
      260 Madison Ave
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 448-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 448-0066
      E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com


MANATEE COUNTY, FL: Sued Over Red Light Camera Program
------------------------------------------------------
Noah Pransky, writing for WTSP, reports that drivers who received
questionable red light camera violations may finally see refunds
if a class-action effort on behalf of drivers ticketed in Manatee
County is successful.

Attorney Luke Lirot filed a six-month Notice of Claim and Intent
to Sue -- a requirement to sue a municipality in Florida --
claiming Manatee County's red light camera contract is
"unlawful/illegal" based on the findings of a 10 Investigates
report.

Manatee County's contract with camera company Associated Computer
Systems states the county cannot ease enforcement of "rolling
right" violations or it will owe ACS a $75 fee for every violation
it chooses not to write. However, state law prohibits "a fee or
remuneration based upon the number of violations detected through
the use of a traffic infraction detector."

10 Investigates started looking into Manatee County's red light
camera program after numerous viewers complained about over-
aggressive right-turn-on-red enforcement.  The county took a near-
zero tolerance approach on "rolling rights," even though the
state's red light camera law seems to encourage leniency.

"This contract has such an egregious conflict of interest it's
unlawful," Mr. Lirot said. "Even if (drivers) are not breaking the
law, the government's not going let them off the hook, because
that's going to cost the government money."
Lawsuit challenges red-light enforcement

Mr. Lirot sent the notice to both Manatee County and the State of
Florida since the two parties split proceeds from each $158 red
light camera ticket.  He also noticed the Manatee County Sheriff's
Office, which writes the tickets.  He expects to sue ACS as well,
but suing a private company does not require six-month notice.

Mr. Lirot will have to first file the lawsuit on behalf of his
client, Edward Wallace of Brandon, but he will seek a judge's
permission to file the suit as a class action, on behalf of all
drivers who have ever received red light camera tickets in Manatee
County.

"It should mean refunds," he continued.  "If the government is
taking your money away, and they don't have a legal basis to do
it, they should give that money back."

Mr. Lirot adds that he expects to file additional class action
suits in other Tampa Bay municipalities where 10 Investigates
identified tickets issued for short yellow lights and questionable
"rolling right" maneuvers.

And he will also use a recent 4th District Court of Appeals ruling
to argue Uniform Traffic Citations issued by for-profit companies
on behalf of public municipalities violate the state's
constitution.

10 Investigates reached out to Manatee County on Oct. 27, but
county spokesperson Nick Azzara wrote, "County staff are not at
liberty to discuss pending legal claims." An email to the county
attorney has not yet been returned. And Manatee sheriff
spokesperson Dave Bristow told 10 Investigates his agency had not
yet received the notice.


MICHAEL HARRISON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Michael Harrison, Attorney at Law, and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:14-cv-06811-KM-SCM (D.N.J., October 30, 2014) seeks
relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


MORGAN TIRE: Brown et al. Cannot be Forced to Waive PAGA Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON BROWN et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA
CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; MORGAN TIRE & AUTO, LLC, Real Party in
Interest, NO. H037271 has been transferred to the Court of Appeals
of California, Sixth District from the Supreme Court with
directions to vacate its previous decision (Brown v. Superior
Court (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1302) and to reconsider the cause in
light of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014)
59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian). Like Iskanian, this case concerns the
enforceability of class action waivers of employees' right to
bring a representative action under the Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, Section 2698 et seq.). In the
Appeals Court's earlier opinion, it held that such class action
waivers are unenforceable because they prevent "the exercise of a
statutory right intended for a predominantly public purpose" and
because no case "has held that the FAA1 requires enforcement of"
such agreements. In Iskanian, the Supreme Court likewise concluded
that "an arbitration agreement requiring an employee as a
condition of employment to give up the right to bring
representative PAGA actions in any forum is contrary to public
policy" and that "the FAA does not preempt a state law that
prohibits waiver of PAGA representative actions in an employment
contract."

On October 24, 2014, the Calif. Appeals Court vacated its previous
decision. Having reconsidered the cause in light of Iskanian, the
Appeals Court again concludes that plaintiffs cannot be compelled
to waive their PAGA claim.  A copy of the Appeals Court's ruling
is available at http://is.gd/VTiKpZfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Milton Brown and Lee Moncada were employed by defendant
Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC, doing business as Wheel Works. Both
plaintiffs were nonexempt hourly employees.  The Plaintiffs filed
their putative class action lawsuit against defendant on July 29,
2010, alleging violation of California's wage and hour laws.


MXCO CAFE: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Ramirez, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
Class members v. Mxco Cafe, LLC d/b/a Mxco, Mxco Cantina Corp.
d/b/a Mxco, Steve Abreu, Satyen Shah, Shyamal K. Sarkar, Syed
Masood Ali, Chirag Shah and Yue Wah Chao, Case No. 1:14-cv-08596
(S.D.N.Y., October 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
minimum wages, unpaid compensation caused by time shaving,
liquidated damages and statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Mxco restaurant within the State of
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL BEEF: Court Rejects FLSA Settlement, Bid for Legal Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valente Sandoval Barbosa and Carolina Gaytan, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, brought suit against
National Beef Packing Company, LLC, seeking unpaid straight time,
overtime premiums and related penalties and damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.

The matter is before the Court on the parties' joint motion for
approval of Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action Settlement
and plaintiffs' unopposed motion for approval of attorneys' fees
and costs, both filed October 14, 2013.

District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil, in a memorandum and order
dated October 10, 2014, overruled both motions. The parties may
file a renewed motion to approve a proposed settlement, he added.
A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/t69o4c
from Leagle.com.

The case is VALENTE SANDOVAL BARBOSA and CAROLINA GAYTAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2311-KHV, (D. Kan.).

National Beef Packing Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Craig S. O'Dear -- csodear@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP - KC,
Jennifer L Berhorst -- jennifer.berhorst@bryancave.com -- Bryan
Cave LLP - KC, Sara Kay Butler, Mariner Holdings, LLC & Tonya B.
Braun -- tbraun@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Partial Summary Judgment Entered in "Ibe" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn granted in part and denied in
part motions for partial summary judgment and for partial
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed in the
case captioned BRUCE IBE, CONSTANCE YOUNG, JASON MCLEAR, ROBERT
FORTUNE, DEAN HOFFMAN, KEN LAFFIN, DAVID WANTA, and REBECCA
BURGWIN, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-248-M, (N.D. Tex.).

Defendant National Football filed both motions.

In conclusion, wrote Judge Lynn in her September 30, 2014
memorandum opinion and order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/nTYX4x from Leagle.com, the Court "denies the
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to
the Displaced Plaintiffs' and Relocated Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claims. The Court grants Defendant's Motion with respect
to Constance Young's breach of contract claim based on a delay in
getting to her seats and on a claim that her view of the video
board was obstructed. The Court also grants Defendant's Motion
with respect to Rebecca Burgwin's breach of contract claim based
on her and her husband's delay in the ticket-exchange process. All
other parts of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and to
Dismiss are denied."

Populous Inc, Interested Party, represented by Daniel H Gold --
daniel.gold@haynesboone.com -- Haynes & Boone LLP, George W
Bramblett, Jr -- george.bramblett@haynesboone.com -- Haynes &
Boone LLP & R Thaddeus Behrens -- thad.behrens@haynesboone.com --
Haynes & Boone LLP.


NCO FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ramos" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-06765 (D.N.J., October 29, 2014), seeks to redress the
Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to
collect debt.

NCO Financial Systems, Inc. is a collection agency with its
principal office located at 3507 Prudential Road, Horsham,
Pennsylvania 19044.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


NEW YORK: Needs Broader Funding After Indigent Defense Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to The New York Times, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a
lawyer for all criminal defendants, whether or not they can afford
one.  But that promise is often broken as states continue to cut
spending on indigent defense, leaving the poorest people without
proper legal assistance.

However, New York State -- which has shirked this Sixth Amendment
obligation for half a century -- at last agreed to start
protecting this core but neglected constitutional right when it
entered into a landmark settlement to provide lawyers for the
indigent.

The settlement, which resolved a seven-year-long class-action
lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the law
firm Schulte Roth & Zabel, focused on five upstate counties that
had a near-total failure of public defender services.  Though the
conditions in those counties were inexcusable, they were not out
of the ordinary.

Across the state, many poor people get no legal assistance at all;
the lucky ones get an overworked, undertrained lawyer.  Often,
there is no investigation or money to pay for expert witnesses.
Overburdened lawyers frequently have no more than a few minutes
with a client before advising him or her to plead guilty.

The broken system is largely a result of a 1965 decision by state
officials to pass off the costly job of providing public defense
to county governments.  The settlement properly returns that
responsibility to the state and its much deeper pockets.

Among other things, the settlement requires that every defendant
be represented by a lawyer at his or her first court appearance,
the arraignment, where the judge takes a plea and sets bail.  It
mandates extensive training and supervision of public defenders,
as well as new and enforceable standards for how many cases they
can handle.  It gives crucial oversight power to the independent
Office of Indigent Legal Services, which was created in 2010 but
has been severely underfunded ever since.  And it commits the
state to set new, uniform guidelines for who is eligible to get
free legal representation -- in some counties, people with incomes
barely above the poverty line can be disqualified.

For now, the reforms apply only in the five counties involved in
the lawsuit, but the failure of public defense in New York is
statewide. Fourteen counties have already passed resolutions
pleading with the state to take over their public defense systems.
The crisis is so bad that the Department of Justice filed a rare
statement of interest in the case to remind state officials of the
seriousness of neglecting their constitutional duty.

How much will it all cost? According to the Office of Indigent
Legal Services, bringing soaring attorney caseloads to a
manageable level -- upstate lawyers now handle as many as 700
cases a year, nearly double the recommended maximum -- would
require an extra $105 million each year statewide.  That's a
bargain in a state with an annual budget of $90 billion.

It is also a reminder that money, or the lack of it, is at the
root of public-defense crises nationwide -- a fact accepted by a
growing bipartisan consensus.  On the same day as the New York
settlement, it was announced that the Koch brothers had made a
six-figure grant to the National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers to help train public defenders and fund research aimed at
improving public defense.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo was right to stop fighting the lawsuit, which
settled only on the eve of trial.  New York had faced the
embarrassment of being the first state to stand trial over its
inability to provide public defense.

Now, Mr. Cuomo and state lawmakers should act quickly to provide
the broader funding and other resources that public defenders
throughout the state so clearly need and that the Constitution
demands.


NEW YORK, NY: Pretrial Detainees Challenge Solitary Confinement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ahlijah Bryant, Dontay Clark, Michael Davila, Ruben Hamilton,
Quandell Hickman, Devante James, Rudolph Kaval, Shymil Mcbee-
Miles, Elijah Selman, and Jamon Sutton, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. City of New York, Commissioner
Joseph Ponte, Commissioner Mark J. Cranston, Commissioner Dora B.
Schriro, Chief of Department William P. Clemons, Chief of
Department Evelyn A. Mirabal, and Chief of Department Michael
Hourihane, Case No. 1:14-cv-08672 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014)
alleges claims under the Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' policy and practice of
confining pretrial detainees in solitary confinement, without
notice or a hearing, to punish detainees for conduct that occurred
during a previous detention.  They contend that solitary
confinement is a dangerous practice, designed to cause severe pain
and suffering.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation, which, through
its Department of Correction ("DOC"), operates a number of
detention facilities for pretrial detainees.  The City and senior
officials at the central DOC office, in each DOC facility, and in
specialized DOC units, promulgate and implement policies,
including those with respect to the confinement of pretrial
detainees in Punitive Segregation.  The City is also responsible
for the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all DOC
personnel, including the Individual Defendants.  The Individual
Defendants are present and former officers of the DOC.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Gibney, Esq.
          Marlen S. Bodden, Esq.
          Barbara P. Hamilton, Esq.
          THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
          199 Water Street
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212)577-3300
          E-mail: wdgibney@legal-aid.org
                  mbodden@legal-aid.org
                  bphamilton@legal-aid.org

               - and -

          Christopher Terranova, Esq.
          Rafael L. Guthartz, Esq.
          Anthony Mozzi, Esq.
          Julian Radzinschi, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          E-mail: cterranova@paulweiss.com
                  rguthartz@paulweiss.com
                  amozzi@paulweiss.com
                  jradzinschi@paulweiss.com


NEW YORK MEDIA: Sued in N.Y. for Changing Subscription Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rochelle Berliner and Neil Zipkin, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated V. New York Media LLC, New
York Media LLC d/b/a New York Magazine, Case No. 1:14-cv-08598
(S.D.N.Y., October 28, 2014), alleges that the Defendant changed
the subscription status of the Plaintiffs' accounts without their
consent or knowledge.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of publishing magazines
including, but not limited to, New York Magazine, with subscribers
to the magazine throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212)545-1199
      Facsimile: (212)532-3801
      E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
              cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
              droth@hgrlawyers.com

         - and -

      Eric J. Gottfried, Esq.
      LEFKOWICZ & GOTTFRIED, LLP
      40 Broad Street - 4th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 766-5665
      Facsimile: (212) 608-5201
      E-mail: ejg@lglawyers.com


NORTH STAR: "Monzon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mauro Monzon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Ricky Valenti and North Star Collision, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-06383 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and related damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an auto body and car repair shops
located at 75 Whitehall Street, Lynbrook New York, 11563 and33
Clinton Avenue, Valley Stream, NY 11580.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
      THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
      11 Broadway, Suite 960
      New York, NY 10004
      Facsimile: (212) 344-0301
      Telephone: (212) 344-9022


OLIVER ADJUSTMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Safdieh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. OAC a/k/a Oliver Adjustment Company and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:14-cv-06593-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., October 23, 2014)
seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


OTRUPONCOSO PROTECTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Iturmendi, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Otruponcoso Protection Services Corp. d/b/a OTPS Protection
Services Corp and Alexis Fuentes, Case No. 1:14-cv-24020 (S.D.
Fla., October 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
straight wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Otruponcoso Protection Services Corp. is a Florida Profit
corporation doing business in Miami Dade, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


PANORAMA SERVICES: Faces "Torrijos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nilded Torrijos, and others similarly-situated v. Panorama
Services and Travel Corp., Panorama Services and Cargo Corp., both
Florida corporations and Norman A. Uriarte, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-24035 (S.D. Fla., October 29, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a travel agency in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
     1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 448-9292
     Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
     E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


PAYCHEX INC: Sued for Damages in California Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Paychex, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01736 (C.D. Cal.,
October 30, 2014) is brought for damages, injunctive relief, and
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Paychex, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in Rochester, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PC RICHARD: Faces "Burke" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Burke and Joseph Romeo, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated employees v. P.C. Richard & Son LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-06392 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime premium wages under The Fair Labor Standards Act.

P.C. Richard & Son LLC owns and operates a warehouse at 150 Price
Parkway, Farmingdale, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda M. Fugazy, Esq.
      ELLENOFF GROSSMAN & SCHOLE LLP
      1345 Avenue of the Americas, 11th floor
      New York, NY 10105
      Telephone: (516) 584-1642
      E-mail: afugazy@egsllp.com


PEMBERTON, NJ: Police Officers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Stewart II, Peter DeLaGraza, Gregory Hale, Michael Geibel,
Shannon Fallen, Robert A. Shinn, Jason Luis, Arthur H. Shinn, John
Hall, Daniel Matthews, Anthony Luster, Wayne Davis, Vincent
Cestare, Jason M. Gant, Michael C. Brewer, Bruce Phillips, Sean
Smith, Shannon Lagaff, Thomas Lucas, Edward N. White, Andre Boyd,
David Geibel, Perry J. Doyle, Robert Hood, Kenneth M. Volk, John
P. Laffan, Johnathan R. Glass, Shaun Meyers, Michael Bennett,
David Sawyer, Charles Bennett, Stephen Price, Justin Kreig v.
Pemberton Township, Mayor David A. Patriarca, in his official
capacity only, Case No. 1:14-cv-06810-RBK-AMD (D.N.J.,
October 30, 2014) is brought to address alleged intentional
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiffs are sworn law enforcement officers, working in the
patrol division, or who have worked in the patrol division over
the past three years, and are employed by the Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs are all members of the Policeman's Benevolent
Association Local 260.  The PBA is the exclusive bargaining unit
for the patrolmen of the Pemberton Township Police Department.

Pemberton Township is an incorporated municipal entity, with a
primary address of 500 Pemberton Browns Mills Road, in Pemberton,
New Jersey.  Mayor David Patriacra is the elected head of the
municipal government and a former police officer in Pemberton
Township.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher A. Gray, Esq.
          SCIARRA & CATRAMBONE, L.L.C.
          100 Horizon Center Blvd.
          Hamilton, NJ 08619
          Telephone: (856) 888-7066
          Facsimile: (973) 242-3118
          E-mail: cgray@sciarralaw.com


PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Faces Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
C.H., a minor, by and through his parent; Kimberly Williams,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
E.W., a minor, by an through his parent; Nina Williams,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
J.F., a minor, by and through his parents; Natalie Wieters; and
Larry Freedman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The School District of Philadelphia and Kim
Caputo, in her official capacity as Deputy Chief of the Office of
Specialized Services for the School District of Philadelphia, Case
No. 2:14-cv-06210-MSG (E.D. Pa., October 30, 2014) is brought for
claims under the Civil Rights of Handicapped Child.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sonja D. Kerr, Esq.
          THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA
          1709 Benjamin Franklin Pkwy., 2nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 627-7100
          E-mail: skerr@pilcop.org


PHILIPS ORAL: Judge Dismisses Defective Toothbrush Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson and Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, report that
a Washington federal judge on Oct. 24 struck the final blow to a
failed class action alleging that Philips Oral Healthcare Inc.'s
Sonicare electric toothbrushes are defective, punting claims
brought under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act after she found
that the named plaintiff couldn't prove she had suffered a loss.

Chief U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman dismissed plaintiff
Amy Coe's claims that Philips had misled consumers to believe that
the toothbrushes would last longer than they actually did, finding
that she could only prove she had relied on Philips' advertising
when it came to the brush's effectiveness, not its expected life
span.  Neither had Ms. Coe shown that Philips had told consumers
the brushes would last five years, a figure she had pegged as
Philips' internal life expectancy for the product, according to
Judge Pechman's order

Ms. Coe had argued under the CFA that she hadn't invoked Philips'
two-year warranty on the toothbrush because she thought doing so
would have been futile.  But the argument wasn't enough to fend
off Philips' summary judgment motion, Judge Pechman said, noting
testimony from Ms. Coe that she hadn't invoked the warranty
because it wasn't her practice to complain.

"Instead, Coe testified that she believed the defect in her first
toothbrush was a fluke (a 'lemon'), and that she decided to
purchase the second brush exactly because she thought failure was
not due to an inherent defect but rather due to bad luck in
selecting a 'lemon' toothbrush," Judge Pechman wrote. "Coe's
decision not to invoke the warranty, absent evidence of futility,
forecloses the showing of loss required to bring a private claim
under CFA."

The order put the final nail in the coffin of the onetime proposed
class action.  Earlier this month, Judge Pechman denied
certification of a nationwide class after ruling that the
sometimes conflicting consumer protection laws of the plaintiffs'
home states applied to the suit.  At the same time, she trimmed
several specific claims from the suit from other named plaintiffs,
which had left only Ms. Coe's claims remaining.

Earlier this year, Judge Pechman had pared down the complaint when
she found that the consumers had a right to sue over the defect,
but that they couldn't claim breach of warranty when they didn't
utilize the two-year warranty Philips offers on the toothbrushes.

The complaint was initially filed in March 2013, alleging that
Philips' Sonicare Diamond Clean, FlexCare, FlexCare+, Healthy
White, Easyclean, and Sonicare for Kids powered toothbrushes were
defective because they eventually stopped vibrating properly.  The
suit claimed that a part within the toothbrush responsible for
causing the vibrations eventually becomes loose, making it unable
to transmit the vibrations to the brush head or bristles and
rendering the toothbrush useless.

Ms. Coe's complaint claimed that Philips knew about the problem
but concealed it from consumers, telling them instead that if the
brush seemed less powerful over time they probably needed to
replace their brush head.

Ms. Coe is represented by Robert I. Lax and Cliff Cantor of Lax
LLP and Lori G. Feldman -- lfeldman@milberg.com -- of Milberg LLP.

Philips is represented by Michael H. Steinberg --
steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- Brian R. England --
englandb@sullcrom.com -- and Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva --
stamenovaa@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Jeffrey
I. Tilden and Jeffrey M. Thomas -- jthomas@gordontilden.com -- of
Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP.

The case is Coe et al. v. Philips Oral Healthcare Inc. et al.,
case number 2:13-cv-00518, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.


PIZANO'S PIZZA: Faces "Navarro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Humberto Navarro, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Pizano's Pizza & Pasta, Inc., and Rudy
Malnati, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08515 (N.D. Ill., October
28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Bannister and Wendy Bannister, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates,
LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01300-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla., October 23, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan K. Mickler, Esq.
          MICKLER & MICKLER
          5452 Arlington Expy.
          Jacksonville, FL 32211
          Telephone: (904) 725-0822
          Facsimile: (904) 725-0855
          E-mail: bkmickler@planlaw.com

               - and -

          Max H. Story, Esq.
          COLLINS & STORY, P.A.
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758-5333
          E-mail: max@collinsstorylaw.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Stratton" Case Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 19, 2008, after Dede Stratton stopped making payments
on her credit card, GE Money Bank "charged off" Stratton's
$2,630.95 debt -- GE determined that the debt was uncollectible
and at least partially worthless. GE also stopped charging
Stratton interest on her debt. A little more than a year later, in
an increasingly common practice, GE assigned its interest in
Stratton's charged-off debt to Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
PRA is a "debt buyer." Two years after buying Stratton's debt, PRA
filed suit against her in Kentucky state court. The complaint
alleged that Stratton "owes [PRA] $2,630.95, with interest thereon
at the rate of 8% per annum from December 19, 2008[,] until the
date of judgment with 12% per annum thereafter until paid, plus
court costs."  Stratton then filed a putative class action against
PRA in the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging that PRA's
attempt to collect 8% interest for the period between the date GE
charged off Stratton's debt and the date it sold that debt to PRA
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The district
court dismissed Stratton's case. The court held that section
360.010 gave PRA a right to "prejudgment interest" and that,
consequently, PRA could not have violated section 1692f(1) of the
FDCPA.  Stratton appealed.

In an opinion dated October 24, 2014, the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit reversed the district court ruling saying
under Kentucky law, a party has no right to statutory interest if
it has waived the right to collect contractual interest. And any
attempt to collect statutory interest when it is "not permitted by
law" violates the FDCPA.  The district court held otherwise; the
Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the case.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/R00hxk
from Leagle.com.

The case is DEDE STRATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-6574.

Joseph N. Tucker -- joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com -- DINSMORE &
SHOHL, LLP, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.


PREMIER ENTERPRISES: Injunction Entered in Antitrust Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In a letter dated November 14, 2013, Berger & Montague, P.C.,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, as co-lead counsel for the plaintiff class (Class
Counsel) in the antitrust action captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD
INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION, NO.
05-MD-1720 (JG), (E.D. N.Y.), notified the Court that misleading
solicitations were being made to class members to induce them to
sign up with a third-party claims filing company.  Class Counsel
sought injunctive relief that would protect class members'
interest in the settlement funds.

The application concerned Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (SRG), a
third-party claims filing company, and Premier Enterprises Group,
Inc. (Premier). Pursuant to a referral agreement with SRG, Premier
made misleading solicitations to class members on SRG's behalf.

District Judge John Gleeson, in a memorandum and order entered
October 3, 2014, ruled that Premier is permanently enjoined from
engaging, directly or indirectly, in claims filing services in
relation to any settlement in this case. As for SRG, he said, the
conduct alleged by Class Counsel is sufficiently egregious to
trigger such a permanent injunction.  However, evidentiary issues
that arose at the hearing, taken together with remedial steps SRG
took in the immediate aftermath of its improper conduct, counsel
against the issuance of a permanent injunction against SRG.
Finally, the other claims filing companies whose conduct has been
the subject of evidentiary hearings -- Managed Care Advisory
Group, Spectrum Settlement Recovery, Financial Recovery Services,
Inc., and Refund Recovery Services LLC -- have shown cause why
injunctive relief against them should not be ordered, Judge
Gleeson added.

A copy of the Court's order is available at http://is.gd/MeWN6a
from Leagle.com.

Daniel L. Brown, Esq. -- dbrown@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD,
MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, New York, NY, Attorneys for Premier
Enterprises Group, Inc.


QUANTUM3 GROUP: Faces Suit in Florida Over Violations of FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Townsend, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Quantum3 Group, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01301-
HES-PDB (M.D. Fla., October 23, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan K. Mickler, Esq.
          MICKLER & MICKLER
          5452 Arlington Expy.
          Jacksonville, FL 32211
          Telephone: (904) 725-0822
          Facsimile: (904) 725-0855
          E-mail: bkmickler@planlaw.com

               - and -

          Max H. Story, Esq.
          COLLINS & STORY, P.A.
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758-5333
          E-mail: max@collinsstorylaw.com


RAINERI CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie King, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Raineri Construction, LLC, Anthony Raineri and Ashley
Raineri, Case No. 4:14-cv-01828 (E.D. Mo., October 28, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay construction
employees overtime compensation.

The Defendants operate a general contracting business in the
Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Corwin, Esq.
      SHER CORWIN LLC
      190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 721-5200
      Facsimile: (314) 721-5201
      E-mail: dcorwin@scwstl.com


REAL TIME: "Garcia" Suit Moved to Central District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Aerotek, Inc., removed the class action lawsuit
captioned Garcia v. Real Time Staffing Services, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 30-2014-00742230, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01706 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

Defendant Aerotek, Inc. is represented by:

          Michael S. Kun, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
          E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com


REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Weiss, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
consumers v. The Regional Adjustment Bureau, Incorporated, Case
No. 1:14-cv-06425 (E.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Sued in Pa. Over Defective Paint Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Cady, Gina Cady, Scott Reinhart, and John Riello,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Rust-
Oleum Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-06156 (E.D. Pa., October 28,
2014), alleges that the Defendant's paint products contain serious
design and manufacturing defects, making them susceptible to
separating, cracking, bubbling, flaking, chipping and general
degradation after application.

Rust-Oleum Corporation makes protective paints and coatings for
home and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com

         - and -

      Williams M. Audet, Esq.
      Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
      Theodore H. Chase, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main St., Ste. 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 568-2555
      Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: waude@audetlaw.com
              jezrin@audetlaw.com
              tchase@audetlaw.com


SALCIDO LAWN: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Gonzalez, Ricardo Hermosillo and David Carrizales,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated V.
Marvin Salcido, Jr. and Salcido Lawn & Landscape, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-01002 (E.D. Tex., October 28, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours
in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants provide landscaping work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S Hommel Jr., Esq.
      WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR. PC
      1404 Rice Road, Ste 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 596-7100
      Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
      E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


SAMMY'S FISHBOX: Accused by Employees of Misappropriating Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gualberto Victorio, Pascual Rojas, Dany Cerna, Francisco Cortez,
Juan Salas, Rodrigo Garcia, Lazaro Romano, Idelfonso Gil
Rodriguez, Keith Quinonez and Selvin Mendez Veliz, and other
similarly situated current and former bussers, food runners, prep
cooks and dishwashers employed by Defendants v. Sammy's Fishbox
Realty Co., LLC, Bridge Street Restaurant Corp., City Island
Seafood Co. Inc., Fishbox Restaurant Corporation, Sea Shore
Restaurant Corp., Lobster House Realty Co. LLC, Crab Shanty Realty
Co., LLC, and Samuel Chernin, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08678
(S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014) is brought to recover minimum wages,
overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, misappropriated tips,
unlawful deductions and other wages for the Plaintiffs and their
similarly situated co-workers: bussers, food runners, prep cooks
and dishwashers.

The name 'Samuel Chernin' is synonymous with seafood dining in the
renowned tourist destination of City Island.  Mr. Chernin
maintains control, oversight and the direction of these five
restaurants in City Island: the Seashore Restaurant, the Fish Box,
the Shrimp Box, the Lobster House, the Crab Shanty.  He is engaged
in business in Bronx County, and is sued individually in his
capacity as an owner, officer or agent of the Corporate
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vincent Bauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT BAUER
          Vincent Bauer
          112 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212)575-1517
          E-mail: vbauer@vbauerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          David Schaffer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, Suite 307
          New York, NY 100017
          Telephone: (212)323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


SAN FRANCISCO: "Corea" Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five
issued an order on October 24, 2014 modifying an opinion to
signify change in judgment in the case captioned WILFREDO COREA et
al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Appellants, NO. A136950.

According to the Calif. Appeals Court, the opinion filed on
September 26, 2014, is modified as follows:

1. On page 27, the first full paragraph, beginning "Because we
conclude" is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in
its place:

"Because we conclude Petitioners lack standing, there is no actual
or justiciable controversy. (Clifford S. v. Superior Court (1995)
38 Cal.App.4th 747, 751.) Since Petitioners' standing was first
directly challenged on appeal, however, we conclude it is
appropriate to vacate the judgment and remand the matter to the
trial court to permit Petitioners the opportunity to seek leave to
amend their petition to name a petitioner or petitioners with a
beneficial interest.25 (See Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn.
(2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 239-240, 242-243 (Branick) [where
plaintiffs were deprived of standing by passage of voter
initiative, remand to permit plaintiffs to amend complaint to
satisfy standing requirements was proper]; Benson v. Kwikset Corp.
(2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1284 [vacating judgment and remanding
to permit plaintiffs to seek leave to amend].) At this stage, we
can express no view on "whether any possible amendment would
impermissibly change the nature of the action[.]" (Branick, supra,
at p. 244.) On remand, "the superior court should decide the
motion by applying the established rules governing leave to
amend[.]" (Id. at p. 239.)"

2. No change to footnote 25.

3. On page 27, the paragraph entitled "DISPOSITION" is deleted and
the following paragraph is inserted in its place:

"The judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded to the
superior court with directions to afford Petitioners an
opportunity to move for leave to file an amended petition naming a
petitioner or petitioners who possess a beneficial interest within
the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1086."

This modification changes the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/8yYlTd
from Leagle.com.


SAVIT COLLECTION: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Sultan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Savit Collection Agency and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:14-cv-06595-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., October 23, 2014) is brought over
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


SEA STAR: Faces "Zouai" Suit in Florida Over FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Rym Zouai, all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v.
Celia Evans d/b/a Sea Star Films, an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-
23936-FAM (S.D. Fla., October 23, 2014) is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Paul Gros-Dubois, Esq.
          EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A.
          2701 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 202
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 837-6787
          Facsimile: (786) 837-6787
          E-mail: eric@epgdlaw.com


SEIU LOCAL 99: Los Angeles Workers Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that four
Los Angeles Unified School District workers have filed a class
action lawsuit against Service Employees International Union Local
99 for allegedly violating their constitutional rights.

Douglas Kennedy, Eduardo Berumen, Griselda Moran and Magi Sahagian
claim SEIU refused to accept their resignations and/or requests to
pay only a reduced agency fee amount that does not include
political, ideological and other non-chargeable expenses,
according to a complaint filed Oct. 9 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The National Right to Work Foundation is providing free legal
assistance to the plaintiffs in their lawsuit against the union,
the Los Angeles Unified School District and Megan K. Reilly, the
chief financial officer of LAUSD.

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

The plaintiffs claim the defendant continued to collect the non-
chargeable dues and fees from them despite their resignations from
Local 99 memberships and/or their objections to paying for Local
99's political, ideological and non-chargeable activities.

The agreements have a "Union Security and Dues Deduction" article
and the agreements have no restriction on when and how a union
member may resign his or her union membership, according to the
suit.  The plaintiffs claim the agreements contain a provision
that limits bargaining unit employees' ability to revoke their
dues deduction authorizations to a specified window period.

The defendant denied the plaintiffs' several requests to refrain
from full dues paying union membership, according to the suit.
The plaintiffs claim because California does not have Right to
Work protections for workers, workers can be forced to pay union
dues and fees to an unwanted union as a condition of employment.

Despite the workers' requests to refrain from union membership and
full union dues payments, the Los Angeles Unified School District
continues to confiscate full union dues from the workers'
paychecks, they claim.

The plaintiffs claim they are also challenging Local 99's
agreement provision with the school district that restricts
workers' ability to resign union membership and dues payments to a
period of 30 days over the life of an agreement, which is often
for a period of three years.

As a result of the defendants' unlawful actions, the plaintiffs
were deprived of their rights and suffered monetary damages, the
complaint claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, a preliminary
injunction ordering the defendants to cease the enforcement of
Article VIII of the agreements and compensatory damages.  They are
represented by Thomas Myers -- myers@smithmyerslaw.com -- of Smith
& Myers LLP; and Nathan J. McGrath and Milton L. Chappell of
Defense Foundation Inc.

The case is assigned to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number: 2:14-cv-07855


STELLAR RECOVERY: Motion to Stay Knapp-Ellis' TCPA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez denied a motion to stay the
case entitled AMANDA KNAPP-ELLIS and ROBERT SORIANO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
STELLAR RECOVERY, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, NO.
2:13-CV-01967-RSM, (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiff Amanda Knapp-Ellis filed this putative class action on
October 30, 2013.  The Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed on
April 2, 2014, added Robert Soriano as a named Plaintiff and
alleges negligent, as well as knowing and/or willful, violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227
(TCPA) by Stellar. Defendant Stellar Recovery, Inc. filed a motion
to stay the case.

The Court determined that it is neither necessary nor appropriate
to stay this action at this time under the primary jurisdiction
doctrine. Accordingly, Judge Martinez denied the motion without
prejudice to renewal.

A copy of the Court's October 7, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/p7uoBofrom Leagle.com.

Stellar Recovery, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin N
Hutnick -- bhutnick@bermanrabin.com -- BERMAN & RABIN PA & Andrew
David Shafer -- ashafer@sksp.com -- SIMBURG, KETTER, SHEPPARD &
PURDY, LLP.


SUBURBAN GAS: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Wirtz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Suburban Gas Propane Partners, LLC d/b/a Thompson Gas-Smokies,
LLC, a Maryland limited liability company, Case No. 2:14-cv-00638-
JES-DNF (M.D. Fla., October 30, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Floyd S. Yarnell, Esq.
          PARRISH, WHITE & YARNELL, P.A.
          3431 Pine Ridge Rd., Suite 101
          Naples, FL 34109
          Telephone: (239) 566-2013
          Facsimile: (239) 566-9561
          E-mail: floydyarnell@napleslaw.us


SYNGENTA CORP: Accused of Trademark Infringement in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orville Guth, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC and Syngenta
Seeds, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-04464-RHK-SER (D. Minn., Oct. 23,
2014) alleges claims of trademark infringement under the Lanham
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  etaubel@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "McClain" Over Viptera Corn
------------------------------------------------
David McClain, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others
similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00133
(E.D. Ark., October 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain
elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the
dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or
otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tom Thompson, Esq.
      Casey Castleberry, Esq.
      MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
      Post Office Box 2595
      Batesville, AR 72503
      Telephone: (870)793-3821
      Facsimile: (870)793-3815
      E-mail: aftomt200l@yahoo.com
              caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com

         - and -

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      Scott E. Brady, Esq.
      BOHRER LAW FIRM, LLC
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com
              scott@bohrerlaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Sondgeroth" Over Sale of Viptera Corn
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Sondgeroth, George Naylor, William Gregory Davis, Randi
Handwerk, Ness Enterprises, Inc., and Randy Wiersma, individually
and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated v.
Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta
Seeds, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08556 (N.D. Ill., October 29, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an
adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and
the general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing,
harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the
time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
      Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: 312-214-0000
      E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
              earonowitz@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
      James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
      Mindy B. Pava, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K St. N.W. Suite 650
      Washington, D.C. 20006
      Telephone: 202-540-7200
      E-mail: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com
              jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
              mpava@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER, STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
      2500 City Center Square, 1100 Main Street, P.O. Box 26188
      Kansas City, MO 64196
      Telephone: (816) 421-6620
      E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

         - and -

      Klint Bruno, Esq.
      THE BRUNO FIRM
      134 North LaSalle Street, Suite 425
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: 312-286-4915
      E-mail: kb@brunolawchicago.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      David J. Hodge, Esq.
      MORRIS, KING & HODGE
      200 Pratt Avenue
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Telephone: (256) 536-0588
      Facsimile: (256) 533-1504
      E-mail: dhodge@mkhlawyers.com

         - and -

      George A. Kimbrell, Esq.
      Donna F. Solen, Esq.
      KIMBRELL KIMBRELL & SOLEN LLC
      660 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 302
      Washington, DC 20003
      Telephone: 202-810-1999
      Facsimile: 202-547-9429
      E-mail: gkimbrell@kkslegal.com
              dsolen@kkslegal.com


TAKATA CORP: Sutts Strosberg Launches Class Action Over Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Sacheli, writing for The Windsor Star, reports that a
Windsor law firm is launching a class action lawsuit over faulty
airbags that have led to the recall of more than 30 vehicle
models.

"We expect to file early next week," said Jacqueline Horvat, a
lawyer at Sutts, Strosberg, of the action against Japanese
manufacturer Takata Corporation.

Ms. Horvat said her firm has been in contact with several
prospective plaintiffs in the case.  The firm is partnering with
London firm McKenzie Lake, but the statement of claim will be
filed in Windsor.

The defective air bags can deploy with too much force, spraying
shrapnel at car occupants.  According to U.S. safety reports, four
people have died and many more have been injured because of the
faulty air bags.

This class action follows another against General Motors related
to a faulty ignition switch.  It's among half a dozen class-action
lawsuits related to automobiles ongoing at the Windsor law firm.


TAKATA CORP: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Faulty Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that Takata Corp, the
Japanese company whose potentially defective airbags have led to
the recall of millions of vehicles, was sued on Oct. 27 by
consumers who claimed Takata and several car manufacturers
defrauded them by concealing crucial information.

The lawsuit filed with a U.S. District Court in Florida, is
believed to be the first in the United States to seek class-action
status on behalf of consumers nationwide.


TAKATA CORP: Honda, Toyota Among Defendants in Airbag Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine and Jonathan Stempel, writing for The Columbus
Dispatch, report that Honda and Toyota are among automakers named
as defendants in a lawsuit brought on Oct. 27 by consumers against
Takata Corp., the Japanese company whose potentially defective air
bags have led to the recall of millions of vehicles.

The lawsuit, filed with a U.S. District Court in Florida, is
believed to be the first in the United States to seek class-action
status on behalf of consumers nationwide.  If that status is
granted, it could subject Takata and the automakers to a larger
payout in a trial or settlement than if vehicle owners were forced
to sue individually.

The federal lawsuit is at least the third filed against Takata in
the last week over alleged air-bag defects. The other lawsuits
were brought on behalf of individual owners.

The consumers claim Takata and the car manufacturers defrauded
them by concealing crucial information about the air bags.

A Takata representative in the U.S. could not immediately be
reached last night, nor could representatives of Honda and Toyota.

U.S. safety regulators are investigating whether Takata air-bag
inflators made from 2000 to 2007 were improperly sealed or subject
to other defects.

At least four deaths and dozens of injuries have been linked to
faulty Takata airbags, and their potential to rupture and spray
metal shrapnel at vehicle occupants.

Takata "had a duty to disclose these safety issues because they
consistently marketed their vehicles as reliable and safe," the
lawsuit said.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has urged
owners of an estimated 7.8 million Chrysler, Ford, General Motors,
BMW, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Fuji Heavy's Subaru
and Toyota vehicles to replace their air bags.


TALL PINES: Fails to Pay OT Wages for Hours Above 40, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Lezama on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tall Pines Painting, Inc. and Bryan Kelly,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02953-KMT (D. Colo., October 30, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff, and all their
other employees, overtime wages for hours they worked beyond 40
each workweek.

Tall Pines Painting, Inc. is a registered Colorado corporation
doing business in Golden, Colorado.  Bryan Kelly is the owner and
manager of Tall Pines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
          595 Canyon Boulevard
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 440-8782
          Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


TRIUMPH MOTORCYCLES: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Defective Motorcycles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig R. Duttweiler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Triumph Motorcycles (America) Ltd, a Georgia
corporation, Does 1-100, Case No. 3:14-cv-04809 (N.D. Cal.,
October 29, 2014), alleges that the Defendant actively concealed
and failed to disclose the suspension defect of Triumph's 2006,
2007, 2008, and certain 2009 Triumph Daytona 675 and Street Triple
675 motorcycles.

Triumph Motorcycles (America) Ltd is the US sales, marketing, and
distribution subsidiary of its British parent company, Triumph
Motorcycles Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael F. Ram, Esq.
      Susan S. Brown, Esq.
      RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-4949
      Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
      Email: mram@rocklawcal.com
             sbrown@rocklawcal.com

        - and -

      Richard Alexander, Esq.
      Annie Wu, Esq.
      ALEXANDER LAW GROUP
      111 W. Saint John Street, Suite 700
      San Jose, CA 95113
      Telephone: (408) 289-1776
      Facsimile: (408) 287-1776
      Email: info@alexanderlaw.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Calderon" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Calderon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08393
(C.D. Cal., October 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Linchpins of Liberty Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Reggie B. Walton granted a motion to dismiss
certain claims in the case captioned LINCHPINS OF LIBERTY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
13-777 (RBW), (D.D.C.).

The plaintiffs, 41 organizations that sought or are still seeking
tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), filed
this civil action against the United States of America, the IRS,
and several known and unknown IRS officials in both their official
and individual capacities, alleging violations of the First
Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. Sections 702, 706 (2012), the Internal Revenue
Code, 26 U.S.C. Section 6103 (2012), as well as seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief, and monetary damages.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss counts IV, V, VI, VII,
IX, and Part of VIII of the Complaint.  The Court granted all of
the defendants' motions to dismiss.

A copy of the Court's ruling entered October 22, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/b6jGSWfrom Leagle.com.

STATE OF OHIO, ALABAMA AND SOUTH CAROLINA, Amicus, represented by
Frederick Dickson Nelson, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL.


US BANCORP: Removes "Reed" Suit to California District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Reed v. US Bancorp, et al., Case
No. C14-01603, was removed from the Contra Costa County Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:14-cv-04715-JSC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Reed, Esq.
          Richard K. Veres, Esq.
          NICHOLS CATTERTON DOWNING & REED
          P.O. Box 857
          Fall River Mills, CA 96028
          Telephone: (530) 336-5050
          Facsimile: (530) 446-5366
          E-mail: ncdr@pacbell.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew James Brady, Esq.
          Donald Paul Rubenstein, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 2nd St., Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          E-mail: mbrady@reedsmith.com
                  drubenstein@reedsmith.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Overbilling Class Suit for $6.4MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that Verizon
Communications Inc. has agreed to pay $64.2 million to settle a
class action claiming it improperly billed Family SharePlan
participants for overtime minutes and in-network and in-family
calls, according to a motion filed on Oct. 24 by the plaintiffs
asking a New Jersey federal judge to approve the deal.

The motion asks U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares to sign off on
the agreement, which would include a $36.7 million cash payment
from Verizon in addition to $27.5 million in "calling units" that
will be accessible via personal identification number.  Class
counsel from Hellring Lindeman Goldstein & Siegal LLP and Foley
Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP will receive $19.26 million to be paid
from the total settlement amount, according to the motion.

The proposed settlement -- which was reached after multiple
mediation sessions facilitated by retired U.S. District Judge Layn
Phillips, currently a partner with Irell & Manella LLP -- calls
for the certification of over 2 million settlement class members.
Class members can obtain PINs allowing them to make free phone
calls in an amount to be determined by a court-appointed claims
administrator, according to the motion.

Potential settlement class members will be notified via Facebook,
Internet banner ads and an ad in People Magazine as part of a
notice plan developed by Kurtzman Carson Consultants, according to
the motion.

The litigation goes all the way back to 2006 and involves
Verizon's alleged undisclosed billing practice of charging Family
SharePlan customers for overtime minutes resulting from calls made
on the primary line at a higher rate applicable to calls made on
the secondary line, as well as the company's allegedly improper
practice of charging customers for in-network or in-family calls
it had promised would be free.

The suit claims that Verizon initiated a nationwide marketing plan
in 2001 to promote its Family SharePlan, which advertised a
monthly allotment of minutes that could be shared among up to four
phones for a single fixed monthly charge.

But the company did not disclose that it would charge overtime
minutes at a higher rate associated with the plan's secondary
phones, as opposed to the additional minute rate associated with
the primary phones, even if the overtime minutes were made on the
primary and not on a secondary phone, the suit contends.

Verizon was aware that its overtime minutes billing practice is
inadequately disclosed to and not well understood by Family
SharePlan customers, the suit alleges.

The plaintiffs motion requests a deadline of Feb. 27, 2015, to
file objections to the proposed settlement and a final approval
hearing on March 20.

The plaintiffs are represented by Stephen L. Dreyfuss --
sldreyfuss@hlgslaw.com -- and Matthew E. Moloshok --
mmoloshok@hlgslaw.com -- of Hellring Lindeman Goldstein & Siegal
LLP and Peter J. Bezek -- rcurtis@foleybezek.com -- and Robert A.
Curtis of Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP.

Cellco is represented by Philip R. Sellinger --
sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- and Todd L. Schleifstien --
schleifsteint@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Ralph Demmick and Donald Barth v. Cellco Partnership
d/b/a Verizon Wireless, case number 2:06-cv-02163, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.


VERMONT: Disabled Woman Files Another Suit Over Medicare Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Jaffe, writing for WMRA, reports that a 78-year-old Vermont
mother of four who helped change Medicare coverage for millions of
other seniors is still fighting to persuade the government to pay
for her own care.

Glenda Jimmo, who is legally blind and has a partially amputated
leg due to complications from diabetes, was the lead plaintiff in
a 2011 class-action lawsuit seeking to broaden Medicare's criteria
for covering physical therapy and other care delivered by skilled
professionals. In 2012, the government agreed to settle the case,
saying that people cannot be denied coverage solely because they
have reached a plateau and are not getting better.

The landmark settlement was a victory for Medicare beneficiaries
with chronic conditions and disabilities who had been denied
coverage under what is known as "the improvement standard" == a
judgment about whether they are likely to improve if they get
additional treatment. It also gave seniors a second chance to
appeal for coverage if their claims had been denied because they
were not improving.

Ms. Jimmo was one of the first seniors to appeal her original
claim for home health care under the settlement that bears her
name.  But in April, the Medicare Appeals Council, the highest
appeals level, upheld the denial. The judges said they agreed with
the original ruling that her condition was not improving --
criteria the settlement was supposed to eliminate.

After running out of options appealing to Medicare, her lawyers
filed a second federal lawsuit in June to compel the government to
keep its promise not to use the improvement standard as a
criterion for coverage. They are asking Medicare to pay for the
home health care that Jimmo received for about a year beginning in
January 2007.

"There was really no expectation that she would improve - she was
getting skilled nursing and home health care to maintain her
condition and reduce complications," said Michael Benvenuto,
director of Vermont Legal Aid's Medicare Advocacy Project, who has
filed review requests for 13 other seniors. "It shows there may be
real problems with implementing the settlement at the very highest
level."

In the settlement, officials had agreed to rewrite Medicare's
policy manuals to clarify that as long as patients otherwise
qualify for coverage -- for instance, they have a doctor's order
for skilled care to preserve their health or to prevent or slow
deterioration --Medicare must pay for therapy and other care at
home, in a nursing home or office.  They also agreed to educate
providers, billing contractors and appeals judges about the
change.

The council's decision on Ms. Jimmo makes no sense to Judith
Stein, executive director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy,
which filed the original class action lawsuit with Vermont Legal
Aid, and helped negotiate the Jimmo settlement.

"People shouldn't have to decline in order to get the care they
need," Stein said.

She recommended that seniors or their families get the center's
self-help packet and contact her if they still have problems at
improvement@medicareadvocacy.org.

The Parkinson's Action Network, one of the seven advocacy groups
that had joined the original Jimmo lawsuit, still receives several
calls a week from patients who are told Medicare won't cover their
care because they aren't improving. But Parkinson's disease is an
incurable chronic degenerative neurological condition.

"Just maintaining function is a victory," said Ted Thompson, chief
executive of the Parkinson's group.

Gabe Quintanilla, a lawyer for the city of San Antonio, refused to
sign the noncoverage forms when he was told at least seven times
this year that his 92-year-old mother's physical and speech
therapy would end because she wasn't improving following her
hospitalization for a stroke. One doctor suggested hospice care.

"The only reason I was able to keep my mother's therapy going is
because I sent a copy of [the] Jimmo [settlement] to her doctor,
her insurance company and the home care agency," he said.  His
mother has a Medicare Advantage plan, a private health insurance
program that must also comply with the settlement. He discovered
it "by accident," he said, while researching legal options on the
Internet.

His mother eventually left the hospital and received follow-up
care at a nursing home before returning home. Despite the dire
predictions, what began as maintenance therapy has led to
unexpected, if slight, improvements.

In a video he posted on YouTube, he leans in close to share his
prediction that the Spurs are going to beat Portland. And she
smiles, pleased that her favorite basketball team won't let her
down.

"The Jimmo settlement saved my mother's life," he said.


WAX SPA: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maxamilia Flores, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wax Spa, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company and Boris Kobrinsky, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24018
(S.D. Fla., October 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full body waxing spa in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 727-8570
      Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


WILLBROS GROUP: Faces "Walters" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Walters, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Willbros Group, Inc., Robert R. Harl, and
Van A. Welch, Case No. 4:14-cv-03084 (S.D. Tex., October 28,
2014), alleges that the Defendants materially false and misleading
second quarter financial statements.

Willbros Group, Inc. operates an infrastructure contractor
business serving oil, gas, refinery, petrochemical, and power
industries worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
      THE PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP
      2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 252-1888
      Facsimile: (214) 252-1889
      E-mail: dean@paynemithcell.com

         - and -

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


* Class Actions on Rise in Western New York Over Past Years
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Manning, Esq. and Joanna Chen, Esq. of Phillips Lytle LLP,
in an article for Buffalo Law Journal,  reports that legal
professionals and headline-watchers likely have noticed that class
action lawsuits have become increasingly prevalent over the past
several years.  Consumer class actions concerning staples in
grocery stores, such as fruit juice, yogurt, cereal and ice cream,
allege that plaintiffs were misled by the "all-natural" or untrue
"health" benefits touted on product labels.

A rise in nursing home class actions has created a cottage
industry of law firms devoted to those class actions.  Wage-and-
hour class action lawsuits also are brought with increasing
frequency, with claimants ranging from unpaid interns to NFL
cheerleaders.  The increasing frequency of these class actions
generated headlines in September, with the New York Times
reporting "More workers are claiming 'wage theft' " and the New
York State Attorney General alluding to "the crime wave of 'wage
theft' that is going on all over the United States."

The growth in class action lawsuits also has hit home in Western
New York. A recent survey of decisions from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York demonstrates that
decisions referencing "class actions" or "collective actions" have
nearly tripled since 2004.  The annual report of the Judicial
Business of the United States Courts confirms that merely three
labor lawsuits were commenced in the Western District of New York
in 2004, as compared to the 79 labor lawsuits commenced in 2014.
Despite media attention, a few features of class action lawsuits
may come as a surprise to some.

First, the prevalence of consumer and labor and employment
lawsuits does not seem to be motivated by large settlement
recoveries.  A recent study conducted by Brian Fitzpatrick,
published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, reported that
the amount of money awarded in consumer and labor and employment
lawsuits comprised merely 1 percent and 2 percent, respectively,
of the total amount of money awarded in federal class action
settlements for the studied period.

In contrast, settlements in securities class action lawsuits
received 76 percent of the total amount of money awarded.  Median
recoveries in labor and employment and consumer class actions were
$1.8 million and $2.9 million, respectively.

Second, the study reported that the type of relief awarded in
settlement is affected by the type of lawsuit.  For example,
settlements in consumer lawsuits, much more than in any other type
of class action, often consist of a cash reward combined with in-
kind relief, such as product replacements, vouchers or coupons.
Finally, where you choose to bring the class action lawsuit
impacts the outcome of the case.  The Second Circuit, along with
the First, Seventh and Ninth, approved a much larger share of
class action settlements out of the class action lawsuits resolved
in their jurisdictions than the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and
Eleventh circuits.

The prevalence of smaller-claim class action lawsuits underscores
the growing demand for both plaintiffs and defense attorneys to be
conversant with class action law.  Class action attorneys
recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court has created its fair share
of headlines with recent decisions in the practice area.

Class action litigation will likely continue to be active for
years to come.  Just look at recent decisions such as American
Express Co. et al. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304
(2013), and Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064
(2013).  They follow the Supreme Court's upholding of express
class arbitration waivers in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131
S. Ct. 1740 (2011), Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 133 S.
Ct. 1345 (2013), which concerns class certification under the
Class Action Fairness Act, and Genesis Healthcare Corp. v.
Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), regarding offers of judgment in
the class context.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Major" Suit vs. Lorillard Unit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed against one of
Lorillard, Inc.'s subsidiaries remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On July 30, 2014, a verdict was returned in Major v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, et al. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles
County), a case in which plaintiff alleged that the smoker's
injuries were caused by asbestos fiber and tobacco smoke
inhalation. Lorillard Tobacco was the sole defendant at trial. The
jury awarded plaintiff $2,736,700 in economic compensatory damages
and $15,000,000 in non-economic compensatory damages, for a total
compensatory damages award of $17,736,700. Punitive damages were
not at issue in this trial. The jury apportioned 50% of the fault
for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 17% to Lorillard Tobacco,
and 33% to exposure to cigarettes manufactured by companies other
than Lorillard Tobacco. The jury found that exposure to asbestos
was not a substantial factor in the smoker's injuries. On August
25, 2014, the Court entered judgment awarding plaintiff $2,550,000
in non-economic damages (which represents Lorillard Tobacco's 17%
share as found by the jury) and the amount of $1,368,350 in
economic damages (under California law, Lorillard Tobacco is
responsible for the amount of non-economic damages that the jury
found was the fault of anyone other than plaintiff, not just its
17% share), for a total award against Lorillard Tobacco of
$3,918,350. On September 17, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a
motion for a new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict. As of October 20, 2014, the Court had not ruled on
these motions.

Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), through its subsidiaries, is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and electronic
cigarettes. The Company has two segments: Cigarettes and
Electronic Cigarettes. The Cigarettes segment consists principally
of the operations of Lorillard Tobacco Company and related
entities. The Electronic Cigarettes segment consists of the
operations of LOEC, Inc. (doing business as blu eCigs), and Cygnet
UK Trading Limited (trading as SKYCIG) and related entities.
Newport, the Company's flagship premium cigarette brand, includes
both menthol and non-menthol product offerings. In addition to the
Newport brand, its product line has four additional brand families
marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, and Old Gold brand names.
These five brands include 43 different product offerings, which
vary in price, taste, flavor, length and packaging. Lorillard
markets electronic cigarettes under the blu eCigs and SKYCIG
brands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 61 Filter Cases Remain Pending vs. Lorillard
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 61 cases pending alleging exposure to asbestos
incorporated in filter materials used in one brand of cigarette
manufactured by Lorillard, Inc., according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of October 20, 2014, Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant in 61 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name
Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has
paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately
$35.6 million in settlements to finally resolve 140 claims. Since
January 1, 2012, verdicts have been returned in the following
three Filter Cases: McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and
Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division
Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky; Couscouris v. Hatch Grinding
Wheels, et al., tried in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Los Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton Company,
et al., tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in
and for Broward County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952
agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co.,
Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco
is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees,
expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging
injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that
contained the filter material. The jury in the McGuire case
returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose,
and the Court entered final judgment in May 2012. On February 14,
2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in
favor of Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose and on April
3, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for
rehearing. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff moved for discretionary
review in the Kentucky Supreme Court. Lorillard Tobacco filed its
responsive brief on May 30, 2014. On October 4, 2012, the jury in
the Couscouris case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose, and the court entered final judgment on
November 1, 2012. On June 17, 2013, the California Court of Appeal
for the Second Appellate District entered an order dismissing the
appeal of the final judgment pursuant to plaintiffs' request, but
plaintiffs' appeal of the cost judgment remained pending. However,
plaintiffs abandoned their appeal on June 2, 2014, and on June 4,
2014, the appeal was dismissed. On September 13, 2013, the jury in
the DeLisle case found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their
claims for negligence and strict liability, and awarded $8
million. Lorillard Tobacco Company is responsible for 44%, or
$3.52 million. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard
Tobacco Company filed its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013.
As of October 20, 2014, 24 Filter Cases were scheduled for trial
or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are
subject to change.

Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), through its subsidiaries, is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and electronic
cigarettes. The Company has two segments: Cigarettes and
Electronic Cigarettes. The Cigarettes segment consists principally
of the operations of Lorillard Tobacco Company and related
entities. The Electronic Cigarettes segment consists of the
operations of LOEC, Inc. (doing business as blu eCigs), and Cygnet
UK Trading Limited (trading as SKYCIG) and related entities.
Newport, the Company's flagship premium cigarette brand, includes
both menthol and non-menthol product offerings. In addition to the
Newport brand, its product line has four additional brand families
marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, and Old Gold brand names.
These five brands include 43 different product offerings, which
vary in price, taste, flavor, length and packaging. Lorillard
markets electronic cigarettes under the blu eCigs and SKYCIG
brands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 PI Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had 25,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "As part of our reorganization in 2008, assets
and liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims
were retained in Dana Corporation which was then merged into Dana
Companies, LLC (DCLLC), a consolidated wholly-owned limited
liability company. The assets of DCLLC include insurance rights
relating to coverage against these liabilities, marketable
securities and other assets which are considered sufficient to
satisfy its liabilities. DCLLC had approximately 25,000 active
pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at both
September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. DCLLC had accrued $80
for indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future
claims at September 30, 2014, compared to $88 at December 31,
2013. A fifteen-year time horizon was used to estimate the value
of this liability.

"At September 30, 2014, DCLLC had recorded $50 million as an asset
for probable recovery from insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $55 million
recorded at December 31, 2013. The recorded asset represents our
assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to
provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs
for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition
of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to
recover under the respective contracts and on the financial
strength of the insurers. DCLLC has coverage agreements in place
with insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage
and payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial
strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the
assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent
the limits of the insurance coverage, but rather the amount DCLLC
would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and defense costs
were paid in full.

"DCLLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the
normal course of business, is separately managed and has an
independent board member. The independent board member is required
to approve certain transactions including dividends or other
transfers of $1 million or more of value to Dana. Dana Holding
Corporation has no obligation to increase its investment in or
otherwise support DCLLC.

"We had accrued $1 million for non-asbestos product liability
costs at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, with no
recovery expected from third parties at either date. We estimate
these liabilities based on assumptions about the value of the
claims and about the likelihood of recoveries against us derived
from our historical experience and current information."

Dana Holding Corporation is global provider of technology
driveline, sealing and thermal-management products for vehicle
manufacturer in the on-highway and off-highway markets. The
Company operates in four business units: Light Vehicle Driveline
Technologies (Light Vehicle Driveline (LVD)), Commercial Vehicle
Driveline Technologies (Commercial Vehicle), Off-Highway Driveline
Technologies (Off-Highway) and Power Technologies. The Company's
LVD segment includes front and rear axles, driveshafts,
differentials, torque couplings and modular assemblies. The
Company's commercial vehicle segment includes axles, driveshafts,
steering shafts, suspensions and tire management systems. The
Company's off-highway segment includes axles, driveshafts and end-
fittings, transmissions, torque converters and electronic
controls. Power Technologies includes gaskets, cover modules, heat
shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat transfer
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Subsidiary Has 3,096 Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of MSA Safety Inc. is named a defendant in 3,096
lawsuits alleging exposure to harmful substances, including
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to
harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that
occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods
of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis. MSA LLC, a subsidiary of MSA Safety, Inc.
(formerly Mine Safety Appliances Company), is presently named as a
defendant in 3,096 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have
contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure
to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly
involve respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and
sold by MSA LLC or its predecessors. MSA LLC are unable to
estimate total damages sought in these lawsuits as they generally
do not specify the injuries alleged or the amount of damages
sought, and potentially involve multiple defendants.

MSA Safety Inc., formerly Mine Safety Appliances Company, is
engaged in the development, manufacture and supply of products
that protect people's health and safety. The Company's line of
safety products is used by workers worldwide in the fire service,
homeland security, oil and gas, construction and other industries,
as well as the military. Its product offering includes self-
contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs), gas masks, gas detection
instruments, head protection, respirators, thermal imaging
cameras, fall protection and ballistic helmets. The Company also
offers consumer and contractor safety products through retail
channels. Its safety products integrate any combination of
electronics, mechanical systems and advanced materials to protect
users against hazardous or life threatening situations. Its Safety
Works, LLC joint venture provides a range of safety products and
gloves to the North American do-it-yourself and independent
contractor market through various channels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Continues to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation continues to defend itself against
numerous asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $7,000,000 and $12,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from
September 30, 2014. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-
related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
approximates $8,514,000, which has been reflected as a liability
in the consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2014.
The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any
potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will
fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims
that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may
be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
settlement payments and legal defense costs of approximately
$2,000,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of these costs
is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the
potential additional costs for claims will not have a material
effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity,
although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be
material to earnings in a future period.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a range of commercial and
industrial end user markets. The products include a range of
electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys,
winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib
cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged
attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps,
logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as
mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions;
below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light-
rail systems. The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of
hoists, alloy and high strength carbon steel chain and
attachments, and actuators in North America. In March 2014,
Columbus McKinnon Corp acquired privately-owned Unified
Industries, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,700 Claims as of Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., had 1,700 pending asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through September 30, 2014, we have been named
a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,700 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,700 claims were pending and 4,000 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through September 30, 2014, the claims alleging exposure to
asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled
for an average settlement amount of approximately two thousand
dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make
accruals based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of
the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not
believe that any unresolved asserted claims will have a material
adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial
position or cash flow, and at September 30, 2014, we had
approximately $5,100 accrued for liability and related expenses.
With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a
population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to
determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable
estimate of liability, if any. While we continue to pursue
recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through
insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are
unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to
recover because of the variability in coverage amounts,
limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with
respect to our insurance policies for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an energy infrastructure
focused company and provider of government services. The Company
operates in four segments: Engineering, Construction and
Maintenance, which offers engineering, procurement, and
construction for energy infrastructure facilities; Fabrication
Services, which provides fabrication of piping systems, process
and nuclear modules, fabrication and erection of steel plate
storage tanks and pressure vessels for oil and gas and power
generation industries; Technology, which offers licensed process
technologies, specialized equipment, and engineered products for
use in petrochemical facilities, oil refineries, and gas
processing plants and provides process planning and project
development services, and Government Solutions, which undertakes
programs and projects, including design-build infrastructure
projects for federal, state and local governments, as well as
offers environmental services for government and private sector
customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Had $22.6-Mil. Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation had $22.6 million liabilities for legal actions
that include alleged asbestos-related proceedings, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

The Company states: "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business
activities. As of September 30, 2014, December 31, 2013 and
September 30, 2013, our condensed balance sheets included
liabilities for these legal actions of $22.6 million, $19.3
million and $16.7 million, respectively. These liabilities do not
include costs associated with legal representation. Based on our
analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated
with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible
that these legal actions will materially adversely affect our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations."

Olin Corporation is a manufacturer focused in three business
segments: Chlor Alkali Products, Chemical Distribution and
Winchester. Chlor Alkali Products manufactures and sells chlorine
and caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and
potassium hydroxide. Chemical Distribution manufactures bleach
products and distributes caustic soda, bleach products, potassium
hydroxide and hydrochloric acid. Winchester products include
sporting ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military
ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges. The
Company's subsidiary, Olin Canada ULC, operates one chlor alkali
facility in Becancour, Quebec, which sells chlor alkali-related
products within Canada and to the United States and also sells and
distributes ammunition within Canada. On August 22, 2012, the
Company acquired K. A. Steel Chemicals Inc. (KA Steel). KA Steel
is a distributor of caustic soda in North America and manufactures
and sells bleach in the Midwest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 14 Pending Talc Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company has 14 pending cases alleging that
certain talc products it sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

The Company is a defendant in a number of civil actions alleging
that certain talc products it sold prior to 1996 were contaminated
with asbestos. Since 2008, the Company has challenged, and will
continue to challenge, these cases vigorously, and although there
can be no assurances, it believes, based on the advice of its
legal counsel, that they are without merit and the Company should
ultimately prevail. Currently, there are 14 single plaintiff cases
pending against the Company in state courts in California,
Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and New York and one case pending
in federal court in North Carolina. 17 similar cases previously
filed against the Company have been dismissed and final judgment
entered in favor of the Company. To date, there have been no
findings of liability against the Company in any of these cases.
Since the amount of any potential losses from these cases at trial
currently cannot be estimated, the range of reasonably possible
losses in excess of accrued liabilities for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014, does not include any amount relating to
these cases.

Colgate-Palmolive Company (Colgate) is a consumer products company
whose products are marketed in over 200 countries and territories
throughout the world. It operates in two segments: Oral, Personal
and Home Care and Pet Nutrition. Oral Care business products
include Colgate Total, Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief, Colgate Max
Fresh, Colgate Optic White and Colgate Luminous White toothpastes,
Colgate 360ΓΈ manual toothbrushes and Colgate and Colgate Plax
mouth rinses. Colgate's Oral Care business also includes dental
floss and pharmaceutical products for dentists and oral health
professionals. Its Personal Care products also include Palmolive,
Softsoap and Sanex brand shower gels, Palmolive, Irish Spring and
Protex bar soaps and Speed Stick, Lady Speed Stick and Sanex
deodorants and antiperspirants. It sells liquid hand soap under
the Palmolive, Protex and Softsoap brands. Colgate, through its
Hill's Pet Nutrition segment (Hill's), manufactures pet nutrition
products for dogs and cats.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has 13 Pending Fibro Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., has 13 pending asbestos cases, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently
has 102 pending silica cases and 13 pending asbestos cases. These
totals include 30 silica cases and one asbestos case against AMCOL
International Corporation and/or its subsidiary, American Colloid
Company, that were pending on the date we acquired AMCOL. As of
September 30, 2014, 1,394 silica cases and 37 asbestos cases have
been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or
American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of
AMCOL. No new asbestos or silica cases were filed in the third
quarter of 2014.

Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess
their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found
liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional
claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its
subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount
of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such
claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position
or results of operations.

The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date (not including any that may have been settled by AMCOL prior
to completion of the acquisition). We are unable to state an
amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because
state court pleading practices do not require identifying the
amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company
for the legal defense of these cases since inception continues to
be insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense for these
cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are
reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992. Of the 12 pending asbestos cases
excluding the case against AMCOL / American Colloid, all allege
liability based on products sold largely or entirely prior to the
initial public offering, and for which the Company is therefore
entitled to indemnification pursuant to such agreements. Our
experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs
in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay
any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits.

PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) is a global supplier of protective and
decorative coatings. Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings and
Architectural Coatings- EMEA segments supply protective and
decorative finishes for customers in a range of end use markets,
including industrial equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-
finished aluminum extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine
and aircraft equipment; automotive original equipment; and other
industrial and consumer products. The Optical and Specialty
Materials segment consist of the optical products and silicas
businesses. PPG is a producer and supplier of basic chemicals.
Glass segment produces flat glass and continuous-strand fiber
glass. In July 2014, PPG acquired Masterwork Paint Co. In July
2014, the Company announced that its North American architectural
coatings business has completed acquisition of The Homax Group,
Inc., supplier of decorative wall and ceiling texture repair
products, from Olympus Partners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Recommends Remand of 14 PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued reports and
recommendations recommending the remand to the 19th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, of
14 lawsuits filed by William E. Bartel, as personal representative
of the estates of individuals who contracted and died of asbestos-
related diseases as a result of asbestos exposure while working on
vessels owned or operated by certain company-defendants.

In support of his decision to remand the lawsuits, Magistrate
Bourgeois pointed out that the Plaintiff has alleged non-removable
Jones Act claims in each of the lawsuits, which claims are not
removable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1445(a), which provides that
"[a] civil action in any State court against a railroad or its
receivers or trustees, arising under sections 1-4 and 5-10 of the
Act of April 22, 1908 (45 U.S.C. 51-54, 55-60), may not be removed
to any district court of the United States."

The cases are:

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF PAUL E. OWEN v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., ET AL., CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-286-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Oct. 1, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/GOXtuO
from Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF ROY R. LEE v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., ET AL., CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-293-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Oct. 1, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/KaOj2v
from Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF RAMON FERRERA v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., ET AL., CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-301-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Oct. 1, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/dfVbvK
from Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF GEORGE A. PERDREAUVILLE v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., ET
AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-303-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision dated Oct. 1, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/J1n1Xmfrom Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF EUGENIO GARCIA v. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., individually and/or
as successor-in-interest to Central Gulf Stream Corporation, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-294-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Oct. 1, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/3XJVrs
from Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF RUBEL R. DODD v. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., ET AL., CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-315-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of the Decision
dated Oct. 1, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/kKMh8Ofrom
Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF HAROLD E. BRUNO, JR. v. CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC., ET AL., CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-292-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Oct. 1, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/H2bM0b
from Leagle.com.

   * WILLARD E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF EDWARD ROGERS, JR. v. CHAS. KURZ & CO., INC., ET AL., CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-280-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Oct. 1, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/RBu1tJ
from Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF RONALD L. KARNS v. CROWLEY MARINE SERVICES, INC., as successor
by merger to DELTA STEAMSHIP LINES, INC. f/k/a MISSISSIPPI
SHIPPING COMPANY, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-306-JJB-RLB (M.D.
La.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated Oct. 1, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/NRJ52Mfrom Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF GILBERT J. DANTIN, JR. v. CROWLEY MARINE SERVICES, INC., ET
AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-300-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision dated Oct. 1, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/AQ6RHSfrom Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF MALCOLM S. ESQUERRE v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-318-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision dated Oct. 2, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/6jNgRifrom Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF JOSEPH TAGUE v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., ET AL., CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-326-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Oct. 2, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/rK3h8H
from Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF DEWEY B. JORDAN v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., ET AL., CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-327-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Oct. 2, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/NfOFMs
from Leagle.com.

   * WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE
OF JOSEPH M. EITMANN v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-328-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision dated Oct. 2, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/AIrNV7from Leagle.com.

Apex Oil Company Inc, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles,
Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar - B.R., Kevin
Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar
& Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP,
Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar, Robert J. Barbier, Phelps
Dunbar & Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar.

Charles Kurz & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Crowley Marine Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Marine Transport Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP,
Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar, Robert J. Barbier, Phelps
Dunbar & Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar.

Waterman Steamship Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Gallagher" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Gallagher, Executrix for the Estate of Dennis Gallagher,
by her agent, The Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust,
filed asbestos-related negligence claims against a number of
defendants, including Turner & Newell.  T&N moved for summary
judgment pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 56 (Rule 56).

In a decision dated Oct. 24, 2014, the Superior Court of Rhode
Island denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, after
finding that the Plaintiff has demonstrated that there exist
material questions of fact precluding the granting of summary
judgment.  The Superior Court noted that Section 4.5 of Federal-
Mogul's reorganization plan specifically conditioned the
Defendant's discharge upon the exhaustion of the Hercules Policy.
At this point in time, the Hercules Policy has yet to be
exhausted, the Superior Court said.  Accordingly, the Defendant
has not been provided with a discharge, the automatic stay has not
lifted, and the statute of limitations has not begun to run, the
Superior Court held.

The case is MAUREEN GALLAGHER, Executor for the ESTATE of DENNIS
GALLAGHER, by her agent, THE FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL
INJURY TRUST Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSULATED WIRE CORP., T&N
LIMITED, f/k/a T&N plc, TURNER & NEWALL PLC, and TURNER & NEWALL
LIMITED, TAF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, f/k/a TURNERS ASBESTOS FIBRES
LIMITED and RAW ASBESTOS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED, and JOHN DOE
Defendants, C.A. NO. PC 11-5269 (R.I. Super.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/DT07RBfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Flips Ruling in Hennessy Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hennessy Industries, a large manufacturer of car parts that has
been beset by asbestos-related personal injury claims, has been
seeking coverage by National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA, of asbestos claims against Hennessy that date from
the 1980s.  The companies entered into a confidential Cost Sharing
Agreement in 2008, and as claims against Hennessy by asbestos
victims came rolling in, Hennessy asked National Union to
indemnify it for settlement and defense costs, as provided in the
agreement.  But the two parties couldn't agree over what was owed.
According to Hennessy, National Union withheld payments due
Hennessy under the agreement and violated it in other ways.  To
resolve their differences Hennessy demanded arbitration in
accordance with a provision of the agreement that provides for
arbitration of disputes between the parties and instructs the
arbitrators to apply Illinois law.

In 2013, Hennessy filed a lawsuit against National Union, claiming
that National Union's delays in providing coverage of the asbestos
claims had been vexatious and unreasonable.  National Union,
contending that the arbitration clause in the cost-sharing
agreement required arbitration of Hennessy's section 155 claim as
well as of the parties' other disputes, moved the district court
to order arbitration and dismiss Hennessy's suit.  The district
judge denied the motion on the basis both of a statement in the
arbitration clause that "the arbitrators shall not be empowered or
have jurisdiction to award punitive damages, fines or penalties,"
and the judge's belief that Hennessy's claim arose under Illinois
statutory law rather than under the cost-sharing agreement.
National Union appeals the denial.

A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit issued an opinion dated Oct. 28, 2014, reversing the
district court's order, after finding that National Union is
correct that Hennessy in the agreement indeed waived any right to
ask the arbitrator to award punitive damages, fines, or penalties
for National Union's allegedly unreasonable delay in honoring
Hennessy's claims.  Having submitted a dispute to arbitration that
explicitly excludes a particular remedy, a party can't sue in
court for the excluded remedy, the Seventh Circuit held.

The appeals case is HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA,
Defendant-Appellant, NO. 14-1277 (7th Cir.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/kObA9Rfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Summary Judgment in NYCAL Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In one of the New York City Asbestos Litigation cases, The William
Powell Company moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
and all cross-claims asserted against it.  Powell argues that that
it owed no duty to warn plaintiff Bryan Hockler of the hazards
associated with asbestos since he was not a foreseeable user of
its products, that it had no duty to warn of the dangers
associated with asbestos components manufactured by third parties,
and that the Plaintiff's activities were not a foreseeable use or
foreseeable misuse of its products.

In a decision and order dated Oct. 20, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Powell's
motion, after determining that the evidence presented points to
the fact that Powell sold asbestos-containing valves, that Powell
knew those valves would have to be maintained and would eventually
be removed at the end of their life cycle, and that the removal
process would have caused the release of asbestos-laden dust.
Given these facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that Powell
breached its duty to Mr. Hockler to warn him of the hazards
associated with asbestos, Judge Heitler concluded.

The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
BRYAN HOCKLER, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al, (WILLIAM POWELL
CO.), Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190235/13, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/0YXltPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Strikes Dismissal Stipulations in PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois issued a memorandum and order dated Oct. 29,
2014, striking stipulations of dismissal filed by the plaintiffs
of an asbestos-related personal injury action, after finding that
the stipulations were only signed by the plaintiffs and not by
both plaintiffs and defendants as required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The case is JEROME KNASINSKI and JANET KNASINSKI, Plaintiffs, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a/k/a BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et.
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-00399-JPG-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/s4exfl
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Limits Expert Testimony in PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury case styled CHARLES KRIK,
Plaintiff, v. CRANE CO.; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; OWENS-
ILLINOIS, INC.; and THE MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY, Defendants, CASE
NO. 10-CV-7435 (N.D. Ill.), defendants Crane Co., ExxonMobil Oil
Corporation, and Owens-Illinois, Inc., have variously moved to bar
Plaintiff Charles Krik from calling certain expert witnesses at
trial.  The Defendants also filed multiple motions to preclude the
testimony of Dr. Barry Castleman and to bar evidence and testimony
of certain videotaped experiments conducted by Dr. William Longo
and his company, Materials Analytical Services.

Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, applying the guiding
principles of Rule 702 of the Federal Rule of Evidence and Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), granted in part
and denied in part the Defendants' motions.  Judge Lee ruled that
Dr. Castleman will be permitted to testify at trial on the limited
basis, while the Defendants' motions to bar the Longo/MAS
Videotaped Experiments and Related Testimony are granted.

A full-text copy of Judge Lee's memorandum opinion and order dated
Oct. 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/omwWfxfrom
Leagle.com.

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Fischer,
Esq. -- mfischer@schiffhardin.com -- Brian O'Connor Watson, Esq. -
- bwatson@schiffhardin.com -- Edward M Casmere, Esq. --
ecasmere@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP; and Peter A
Moir, Esq., at Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Juan Leon-Lara, who is confined in the Maricopa County
Durango Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint, which, among
other things, allege that asbestos is present in many parts of the
jail.  In an order dated Oct. 29, 2014, Judge David G. Campbell of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the
plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, after
determining that the Plaintiff has not stated a claim against any
named Defendant for which relief could be granted.

The case is Juan Leon-Lara, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et
al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-1008-PHX-DGC (DKD)(D. Ariz.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/uBXP4Ifrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Flips Ruling in Colgate Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the dispute between plaintiff OneBeacon America Insurance
Company and its insured, defendant counterclaim plaintiff Colgate-
Palmolive Company, counterclaim defendant National Indemnity
Company, OneBeacon's reinsurer, and its affiliated claims
adjuster, counterclaim defendant Resolute Management, Inc., appeal
from an order partially denying their motion to dismiss all of the
counterclaims asserted against them.

The underlying dispute between Colgate and OneBeacon arose over
OneBeacon's right, under the more than 50 primary and excess
liability policies it issued to Colgate to control Colgate's
defense against more than 20 lawsuits alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to Colgate's talc products, which allegedly
contained asbestos.  OneBeacon alleges that Colgate has not
allowed it to control the defense of these cases, rejected the
defense counsel and strategy that OneBeacon selected, and insisted
on selecting its own independent counsel.

Based on the total absence of a contractual relationship between
Colgate and the counterclaim defendants, the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, reversed the
lower court's decision and dismissed the remaining counterclaims.

The case is OneBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
COMPANY, Counterclaim Plaintiff-Respondent, OneBEACON AMERICA
INSURANCE COMPANY, Counterclaim Defendant, NATIONAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY, ET AL., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants, 651193/11,
12637 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the opinion dated
Oct. 28, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/EPW5OIfrom
Leagle.com.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *