CAR_Public/141110.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 223

                             Headlines

AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Barbecue Flavor Potato Chips
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Sued by Women Alleging Sexual Harassment
ALBERTA GAMING: Recalls Mogen David "Red Wine - Concord"
ALOHA POOLS: Faces "Vickers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALPHA CARWASH: "Manzanarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Priever" Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Patron" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Rubinstein" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Ciarulu" Suit Over Misleading Statements
AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Misleading Statements

AMGEN INC: Precedent Does Not Impede With Claims, 9th Cir. Rules
AMITABH BACHCHAN: Accused of Inciting Genocide of Sikhs in 1984
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over 2011 Macbook Pro Graphics Issue
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Sued Over Red-Light Camera Traffic Citations
ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Possible Salmonella

AUSTRALIA: CPC to Join Class Action Over Live Cattle Export Ban
B JAYS USA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Lizardo" Suit Says
B. H. KOSHER: Recalls Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix
BALTIMORE GAS: Plaintiffs Abandon Environmental Lawsuit v. Cotter
BALTIMORE GAS: ComEd Fails to Dismiss Customers' Suit

BALTIMORE GAS: Final Approval Sought in PHI-Exelon Merger Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of RESPA Class Action
BARTLETT MILLING: Recalls Certain Horse Feeds
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Investor Suit in Ill. in Discovery Stage
BLUE EARTH: To Vigorously Defend Class Action

BUTTERBALL LLC: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CARLTON FOODS: Recalls 25,764 Pounds of Fresh Boudin Products
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settlement of "Leathermon" Litigation Ongoing
CAVIRTEX: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Share Price
COOPERSURGICAL INC: Recalls Radius Loop Electrodes

CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Removes "Frank" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
CRUNCH SAN DIEGO: California Court Dismisses TCPA Class Action
DAKOTA GROWERS: Court OKs $7.9MM Settlement in Healthy Pasta Suit
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces Suit Over Defective Pinnacle Device
DIGITAL RISK: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

DINGSHING TRADING: Recalls Sesame Paste Due to Undeclared Peanut
DR GOODROOF: "Kirk" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY" Accused of Bias by Islamic Law Professor
DYNTEK SERVICES: Fired Worker Over Criminal Conviction, Suit Says
E.&B.'S NATURAL: Recalls 27,948 Pounds of Raw Lamb Products

EDDY COTO: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EEL LAKE: Recalls Eel Lake Oyster Farm Due to Salmonella
EL TUMI: Accused of Not Paying Proper OT Rate for Hours Above 40
EVOLUTION LIGHTING: Recalls Tensor Brand Desk Lamp
EXTREME NETWORKS: Accused of Violating Kentucky's Wage, Hour Laws

FANNIE MAE: To Pay $170-Mil. to Settle Securities Class Suit
FMA ALLIANCE: has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abouriche" Suit Says
FUN WORLD: Recalls Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings
GABRIEL RUFFOLO: Faces "Mena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GARMIN LTD: Utah Court Refuses to Transfer Venue of Consumer Suit

GARMIN LTD: Kan. Court Partially Dismisses Suit Over Batteries
GENERAL NUTRITION: Fluctuating Workweek Violates Pa. Wage Law
GERBER PRODUCTS: Sued by FTC Over Claims of Allergy Prevention
GO GREEN: Sued Over Breach of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces "Walsh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

GT ADVANCED: Faces "Glassman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
HOME DEPOT: Removes "Henry" Suit to California District Court
HOUSE OF SPICES: Recalls 200 gms. Packages of "Golden Raisin"
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Settles Hip Implant Suits for More Than $1BB
IKO MANUFACTURING: "Machuzak" Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois

INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces $500-Mil. Suit Over Ebola-Protective Gowns
LIFE CARE: Faces Wage and Hour Collective Suit in S.D. California
LIFE TIME FITNESS: "Chrispens" Suit Moved From Cal. to Illinois
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: January Hearing in Employees' Suit

MCDONALD'S USA: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces "Pecic" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces "Pelletier" Suit Over FLSA Violation
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Sued for Not Paying Sales Agents' Overtime

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wage
MIKE MCMURRIN: Faces "Lucas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MONSANTO CO: Suit by Glyphosate Retailer in Texas Remains Dormant
MONSANTO CO: Accord in Suit Over Dioxin Contamination Proceeds
MOODY'S CORP: "Cheyne SIV" Suit Plaintiffs Want Rulings Reversed

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former UT Football Player Files Class Action
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Nearly 200 Former Players Opt Out of Settlement
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Court Wants to Hear From Union in Doping Suit
NCO FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

NEW BRITAIN, CT: Female Officers File Sexual Harassment Suit
NYSA CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lawson" Suit Says
OGDEN, UT: Faces Class Action Gang Restraining Orders
OWENS-ILLINOIS: Judge Approves $9.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
PINOLANDIA CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Hines" Class Suit in North Carolina
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Principal Life Faces ERISA Suit in Iowa
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Upholds Class Certification Ruling
PUBLIX SUPER: Settles Background Check Class Action for $6.8-Mil.
RUST-OLEUM: Faces Class Action Over False Paint Product Claims

SEARS HOLDINGS: Sued by Visa Over Disputes in Antitrust/Fee Suits
SP BEACH: Removes "Derweduwen" Suit to Middle District of Florida
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Second Oil Consumption Class Action
SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Illegally Sells Corn, "Hostler" Suit Says
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Archer" Suit Over Defective Airbags

TAMPA, FL: Must Pay Over $1MM in Legal Fees Under Settlement
TD AMERITRADE: Faces "Sarbacker" Suit in Nebraska District Court
TITAN INDEMNITY: Removes "Jackson" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
TRUE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Gallusi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TWININGS OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Misleading Tea Labels

VEMMA NUTRITION: Faces "Horanzy" Class Suit in N.D. New York
VIKING CLIENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ordonez" Suit Claims
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Wipes
WALGREEN CO: Appeals Court Refuses to Reinstate Class Action
WILLBROS GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

XEROX EDUCATION: Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid


                             *********


AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Barbecue Flavor Potato Chips
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Mustard,
                          Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           AFOD Ltd., APO Products Ltd., Corinthian
                          Distributors Ltd., UNO Foods Ltd., Wilby
                          Commercial Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9370

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 22, 2014, has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling Jack 'N Jill brand barbecue flavor potato
chip products from the marketplace because they contain mustard
and wheat which are not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to mustard or wheat or sensitivity to gluten should not
consume the recalled products described below.

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

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

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

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

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


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Sued by Women Alleging Sexual Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------
In a federal class action, four civil rights activists claim they
were sexually harassed and subjected to filthy conditions in the
Alameda County jail, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiff Anne Weills, an attorney, sued Alameda County,
Sheriff Gregory Ahern and seven named law enforcement officers,
claiming the officers ordered the group to remove their shirts in
front of male deputies and prisoners, among other things.

When some of the women refused to disrobe, a female deputy
"threatened and assaulted them, pushed, shoved and twisted their
arms, groped their bodies, took away their shoes, forced them to
walk barefooted on filthy floors, and then locked them in
isolation closets for long periods of time without access to
toilet facilities, water or food," the Oct. 27 complaint says.

The plaintiffs also say they were denied medical treatment.

The four named plaintiffs say they have been arrested a total of
at least 13 times.  Weills says she was first arrested in 1963 and
has been arrested seven times in the past five decades.

The women were arrested on Feb. 13 for minor trespass while
protesting the California attorney general's failure to prosecute
police officers who shoot and kill young black men.

The plaintiffs say defendant Deputy Karla Varela ordered them to
strip off their shirts in a hallway that had a glass window from
which male inmates could see.

"Weills stated that at her age, she was not going to disrobe in
front of strange males," the complaint states.

The women say Varela and male deputies screamed: "You must take
off your shirt; you have no rights."

The women said the jail had an overcrowded cell with a toilet and
floor that were covered in menstrual blood and feces.

They plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
and compensatory and punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yolanda Huang, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE YOLANDA HUANG
          PO Box 5475
          Berkeley, CA 94705
          Telephone: (510) 329-2140
          Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
          E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com


ALBERTA GAMING: Recalls Mogen David "Red Wine - Concord"
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9298


ALOHA POOLS: Faces "Vickers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip E. Vickers, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Aloha Pools & Spas of Jackson, Union City, and
Paducah, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, Dennis Cook,
in his individual capacity, John Doe1, and John Doe2, Case No.
1:14-cv-02863 (W.D. Tenn., October 30, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of installing
residential leisure products such as swimming pools, spas, saunas,
tanning beds, and other outdoor living amenities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan G. Crone, Esq.
      CRONE & McEVOY, PLC
      5583 Murray Road, Suite 120
      Memphis, TN 38119
      Telephone: (901) 737-7740
      Facsimile: (901) 737-7558
      E-mail: acrone@thecmfirm.com


ALPHA CARWASH: "Manzanarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Manzanarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Alpha Carwash, LLC, and K.H. Kim, Case No. 1:14-cv-
08674 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as Alpha
Carwash located at 625 11th Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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: pcpoper@jcpclaw.com


AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Priever" Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Priever, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Realty Capital Properties Inc.,
Lisa P. McAlister, and Brian S. Block, Case No. 1:14-cv-08668
(S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. is a real estate
investment trust that owns and acquires commercial real estate,
which then it leases, for both mid-term and long-term leases, to
creditworthy tenants and passes a percentage of the taxable income
it receives to shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER, LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212)759-4600
      Facsimile: (212)486-2093
      E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
              fqian@wolfpopper.com


AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Patron" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Patton, individually and on behalf of all others persons
similarly situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.,
David S. Kay, Nicholas S. Schorsch, Brian S. Block, and Lisa P.
McAlister, Case No. 1:14-cv-08671 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. is a real estate
investment trust that owns and acquires commercial real estate,
which then it leases, for both mid-term and long-term leases, to
creditworthy tenants and passes a percentage of the taxable income
it receives to shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Rubinstein" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Rubinstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.,
Brian S. Block, Lisa McAlister and Nicholas S. Schorsch, Case No.
1:14-cv-08669 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. is a real estate
investment trust that owns and acquires commercial real estate,
which then it leases, for both mid-term and long-term leases, to
creditworthy tenants and passes a percentage of the taxable income
it receives to shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212)545-4600
      Facsimile: (212)545-4653
      E-mail: Nespole@whafh.com

         - and -

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


AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Ciarulu" Suit Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Ciraulu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., Nicholas S.
Schorsch, David S. Kay, Brian Block, and Lisa McAlister, Case No.
1:14-cv-08659 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. owns and acquires single
tenant, freestanding commercial real estate that is net leased on
a medium-term basis, primarily to investment grade credit rated
and other creditworthy tenants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
James W. Edwards, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.,
Nicholas S. Schorsch, David S. Kay, Brian S. Block and Lisa
Pavelka McAlister, Case No. 1:14-cv-08721 (S.D.N.Y., October 31,
2014) alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial results.

New York-based American Realty a real estate investment trust.
The Company owns and acquires single-tenant, freestanding
commercial real estate primarily subject to medium-term net leases
with credit quality tenants.  The Company principally invests in
retail and office properties.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.


          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          Nathan Hamler, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          110 West A Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com
                  NathanH@JohnsonandWeaver.com

               - and -

          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486
          Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
          E-mail: ScottH@JohnsonandWeaver.com


AMGEN INC: Precedent Does Not Impede With Claims, 9th Cir. Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court precedent does not interfere with claims related to
a drop in Amgen share prices amid safety concerns over anemia
drugs, reports Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service, citing
a 9th Circuit ruling entered on October 30.

A three-judge panel issued its second opinion on the case after
the Supreme Court vacated its 2013 holding in light of Fifth Third
Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.

For the 9th Circuit panel, Fifth Third did not alter its previous
holding.

Amgen employees had brought the suit in question under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.  They said
Amgen should have yanked the company stock option when its
executives knew or should have known that the stock was being sold
at an artificially inflated price.

Amgen's problems first came to light in the late 1990s and early
2000s, when several clinical trials raised safety concerns about
the drugs Epogen and Aranesp, used to treat anemia caused by
cancer chemotherapy and chronic liver failure.  In 2006 the two
drugs made up about half of Amgen's $14.3 billion revenue.

One study showed higher rates of blood clotting.  Others showed
lower survival rates for head, neck and breast cancer patients.

A Danish clinical trial was permanently halted after investigators
concluded that tumor growth was worse for patients who took
Aranesp than for those who did not.

Amgen stood by its drugs in public statements, calling them
"effective and safe medicines when administered according to the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label."

It conducted its own clinical trial, but those results were not
exonerating.  The FDA said Amgen's study revealed "significantly
shorter" survival rates in cancer patients receiving the drugs
than in those receiving transfusions.

All the studies prompted the FDA in 2007 to issue a rare "black
box" warning -- the strongest warning the agency can require --
for off-label use of Aranesp and Epogen.

As the safety concerns became public, the price of Amgen stock
tanked by one third.

While one group of investors accused Amgen of violating its
fiduciary duty under ERISA, another alleged violations of federal
securities law in artificial inflation of the company's stock
price.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld class certification in the
securities-law case, but U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez
dismissed Amgen from the ERISA lawsuit on the basis that the
company was not a fiduciary.

Gutierrez rejected the remaining claims in light of the
"presumption of prudence," but the original 9th Circuit reversal
found that the presumption does not shield Amgen because the
company's pension plans did not require or encourage employees to
invest in company stock.

The Supreme Court weighed in on the presumption of prudence while
assessing similar claims by Fifth Third Bancorp workers this year.

Though both a federal judge and the 6th Circuit found that the
plan fiduciaries enjoy that presumption, the unanimous Supreme
Court rejected Fifth Third's claim "that the presumption at issue
here is an appropriate way to weed out meritless lawsuits or to
provide the requisite 'balancing.'"

"The proposed presumption makes it impossible for a plaintiff to
state a duty-of-prudence claim, no matter how meritorious, unless
the employer is in very bad economic circumstances," Justice
Stephen Breyer wrote for the court.  "Such a rule does not readily
divide the plausible sheep from the meritless goats. That
important task can be better accomplished through careful,
context-sensitive scrutiny of a complaint's allegations. We
consequently stand by our conclusion that the law does not create
a special presumption of prudence for [certain] fiduciaries."

The 9th Circuit took this holding into account while reviewing the
Amgen case for the second time this year but found no reason to
affirm dismissal of the investors' case.

"We therefore conclude that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that defendants have violated the duty of care they owe as
fiduciaries under ERISA," the 41-page ruling states.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          Garry T. Stevens, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Fishback, Esq.
          Daniel L. Keller, Esq.
          KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP
          28720 Canwood Street, Suite 200
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 342-7442
          Facsimile: (818) 342-7616
          E-mail: sfishback@kfjlegal.com
                  dkeller@kfjlegal.com

               - and -

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          Symphony Towers
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4762
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com

               - and -

          Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Emily Seymour Costin, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100
          Washington, DC 20006-6801
          Telephone: (202) 747-1900
          Facsimile: (202) 747-1901

               - and -

          Steven Oliver Kramer, Esq.
          Jonathan David Moss, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: skramer@sheppardmullin.com
                  jmoss@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Rose, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          The Atlantic Building
          950 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1404
          Telephone: (202) 239-3300
          Facsimile: (202) 239-3333
          E-mail: jonathan.rose@alston.com

               - and -

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Brian David Netter, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
          E-mail: bnetter@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Davis, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1675 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019-5820
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          Facsimile: (212) 262-1910
          E-mail: rdavis@mayerbrown.com

The case is Steve Harris, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-56014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


AMITABH BACHCHAN: Accused of Inciting Genocide of Sikhs in 1984
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
legendary Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan incited the 1984
genocide of thousands of Sikhs to avenge the assassination of
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, a human rights group claims in a
federal class action.

Sikhs for Justice on October 27 sued Bachchan, 72, alleging crimes
against humanity; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment; extrajudicial killing; wrongful death; negligence and
other counts.

Sikhs for Justice says it chose Los Angeles as the forum because
Bachchan appeared almost three decades after the genocide in Baz
Luhrmann's 2013 film "The Great Gatsby."

Bachchan denied the allegations in a 2011 letter to a Sikh
religious leader, The Times of India reported in a Dec. 2, 2011
article.

Human Rights Watch says that several independent reports have
confirmed that police and leaders of Gandhi's Congress Party were
complicit in the murder of thousands of Sikhs in the riots.

On Oct. 31, 1984, after Indira Gandhi was declared dead at the All
India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bachchan "raised the slogans
. . . 'Sikhs have killed Indira' . . . 'Kill these bastards, they
are traitors' . . . 'the blood stains should reach the households
of Sikhs" and "'blood for blood," according to the 35-page
lawsuit.

Sikhs for Justice claims that the actor's statements spread like
the "'Ebola virus'" after a state-owned television broadcast them,
leading to four days of attacks on Sikhs in 1984, from November 1
to November 4.

Human Rights Watch says at least 2,733 were killed in Delhi during
the massacre.  Sikhs for Justice says the nationwide death toll
was 30,000.

The group says that thousands of others were "maimed, wounded,
raped and burnt" and that more than 300,000 Sikhs were forced to
flee from their homes after days of looting and vandalism.

"Defendant's words and anti-Sikh propaganda were like venom being
spit out of a cobra, poisoning the minds and hearts of all they
touched," the complaint states.

The group says Bachchan used his "super star status" to incite the
genocide, and was nominated to a seat for the Parliament of India
to "reward his role in avenging the death of Ms. Gandhi."

Bachchan won the election by a wide margin.

In a report released October 29, Human Rights Watch said the
Indian government to this day refuses to acknowledge its role in
the massacre, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Only 30 people, "mostly low-ranking Congress Party supporters,"
have been convicted, and not one police officer was jailed, Human
Rights Watch says.

"India's failure to prosecute those most responsible for the anti-
Sikh violence in 1984 has not only denied justice to Sikhs, but
has made all Indians more vulnerable to communal violence," said
Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

"The authorities repeatedly blocked investigations to protect the
perpetrators of atrocities against Sikhs, deepening public
distrust in India's justice system."

According to Human Rights Watch, Sikh bodyguards assassinated
Indira Gandhi after a military operation to remove Sikh militants
from the Golden Temple in the northwestern city of Amritsar left
hundreds dead and damaged the holy shrine.

After he succeeded his mother as Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi said
of the 1984 massacre: "When a big tree falls, the earth shakes."

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh apologized for the atrocities in
2005 but stopped short of acknowledging government complicity.

"I have no hesitation in apologizing not only to the Sikh
community but the whole Indian nation, because what took place in
1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood and what is
enshrined in our Constitution," Singh said.  "So, I am not
standing on any false prestige.  On behalf of our government, on
behalf of the entire people of this country, I bow my head in
shame that such a thing took place."

But Singh added a disclaimer while speaking in Parliament about a
probe into the violence.

"The report is before us, and one thing it conclusively states is
that there is no evidence, whatsoever, against the top leadership
of the Congress Party," Singh said.  Sikhs for Justice seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, a declaration that Bachchan
violated the law of nations, and declaratory judgment that the
violence against Sikhs was genocide under U.S. and International
law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq.
          PANNUN THE LAW FIRM
          75-20 Astoria Blvd., Suite 170
          Jackson Heights, NY 11370
          Telephone: (718) 672-8000
          Facsimile: (718) 672-4728
          E-mail: bpourtavoosi@pannunfirm.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over 2011 Macbook Pro Graphics Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Rossignol, writing for 9to5mac.com, reports that following a
petition with thousands of signatures related to GPU complaints,
Apple has been named a defendant in a new class-action lawsuit
filed against the Cupertino-based company in the United States
District Court for Northern California over system failures and
graphical issues affecting 2011 MacBook Pros.

The class-action lawsuit was filed by Kentucky-based law firm
Whitfield Bryson & Mason on behalf of plaintiffs Zachary Book,
Donald Cowart, and John Manners, a trio of individuals that accuse
Apple of failing to rectify the graphical issues that have
affected both 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro models released in
2011.

The lawsuit covers California and Florida residents that purchased
an affected MacBook Pro model between approximately February 2011
and May 2012.  According to court documents, the issue stems from
a defective AMD GPU that did not function correctly because of
lead-free soldering that caused short circuiting among other
problems.

MacBook Pro models that were affected by this problem would often
have visual banding or malfunctions on the screen, especially when
users were performing highly intensive tasks like watching high-
resolution videos or using multimedia programs like the Adobe
Creative Suite, Final Cut Pro and similar software.

Apple did offer a free video card replacement on some mid-2011
iMacs exhibiting similar symptoms, though the cards in the MacBook
Pro are different, and recalls as a whole are rare.  The most
recent was in August, when Apple offered free battery replacements
for some iPhone 5 models that were deemed to have defective
batteries.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple has failed to reimburse customers
that were forced to pay for out-of-warranty repairs that could
cost between $350 and $600 to fix the GPU issues.  The legal
filing also accuses Apple of largely ignoring customers that have
complained, even those that attempted to reach out directly to CEO
Tim Cook.

Apple has yet to comment on this lawsuit and, given that it
generally remains tight lipped on matters such as these, it might
not ever provide any official word regarding the case.

Whitfield Bryson & Mason is examining this issue further and there
is a possibility that legal action could extend beyond the
jurisdictions of California and Florida.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Sued Over Red-Light Camera Traffic Citations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Commercial and The Associated Press report that a national
law firm with offices in Palm Beach Gardens filed a class-action
lawsuit on Oct. 27 to toss out red-light camera citations issued
across the state by American Traffic Solutions, the company
contracted by the city of Clermont.

"The law mandates that qualified officers must determine who has
violated our traffic laws and issue traffic citations, keeping the
authority to enforce the law in the hands of law enforcement,"
attorney Theodore J. Leopold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll said
in a press release issued on Oct. 28.

The class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida in Miami alleges ATS
improperly "stepped into the shoes of law enforcement" in
administering Florida's red-light program by issuing violations
and citations, the press release states.

A state statute says only traffic infraction enforcement officers,
who are government employees, can issue citations.  On Oct. 15,
the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed that ATS's practices
contravene the statute in city of Hollywood vs. Arem, No.
4D12-1312.

"Such outsourcing to a third-party for-profit vendor of a city's
statutorily mandated obligation to issue uniform traffic citations
for red-light camera violations is contrary to the plain wording
of the Florida Statutes," the court ruling said.

When contacted after the court ruling, Clermont officials issued a
brief, prepared statement, saying they were studying their
options.

"Our city attorney, Daniel Mantzaris, and I are reviewing the
court's decision," City Manager Darren Gray said.  "We will adjust
our process, as necessary to comply with applicable, emerging
law."

The lawsuit was filed by Florida residents Christopher L. Parker
and Marwa Moussa, on behalf of all individuals who received
citations from red-light cameras administered by ATS from July 1,
2010, through the present, the release states.

"ATS, acting as a contractor to and agent for various Florida
municipalities and counties, under color of state law, violated
plaintiffs' right to due process of law under the U.S.
Constitution," the 140-page lawsuit states.

At stake are hundreds of thousands of citations in 70 Florida
cities and counties, according to the release.

The lawsuit is seeking more than $5 million and seeks to include
anyone who was issued a ticket and paid fines from cases handled
by the company.

Company spokesman Charles Territo says the company complies with
the law and doesn't decide what is a violation.


ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Possible Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Foods Division of Koch Meats, a Chicago, Ill., based
establishment, is recalling 28,980 pounds of chicken products that
may be contaminated with a particular strain of Salmonella
Enteritidis, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  FSIS requested Aspen Foods
conduct this recall because this product is known to be associated
with a specific illness cluster.

The recalled product includes partially prepared chicken products
sold by retailers under the Antioch Farms brand name, with "sell
by" dates of Oct. 1, 2015 and Oct. 7, 2015.  The products subject
to recall bear the establishment number "P-1358" inside the USDA
mark of inspection.  The chicken products were produced on July 2,
2014 and July 8, 2014.  These products were shipped to retail
stores and distribution centers in Minnesota.

The product is identified as:

Single 5 once plastic packets of Raw Stuffed Chicken Breast
Breaded, Boneless Breast of Chicken with Rib Meat "A La Kiev"

FSIS was notified of an investigation of Salmonella Enteritidis
illnesses on Oct. 9, 2014.  Working in conjunction with Minnesota
Department of Health, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FSIS determined
that there is a link between the Chicken Kiev from Aspen Foods
Division of Koch Foods and this illness cluster.  Based on
epidemiologic investigation, 6 case-patients have been identified
in Minnesota with illness onset dates ranging from Aug. 17, 2014
to Sept. 27, 2014.  Among the 6 case-patients with available
information, 1 case-patient was hospitalized; 0 deaths have been
reported.  All 6 case-patients reported chicken Kiev consumption
prior to illness onset.  Samples of product collected during the
course of this investigation by Minnesota Department of
Agriculture tested positive for Salmonella Enteritidis with the
outbreak strain.  It is not known at this time if this outbreak
strain has any drug resistance.  On Oct. 17, 2014, FSIS received
evidence that linked the illnesses associated with this outbreak
to a specific product or production lot.  Evidence that is
required for a recall includes obtaining case-patient product that
tests positive for the same particular strain of Salmonella that
caused the illness, and packaging on product that clearly links
the product to a specific facility and a specific production date,
which were all met.  FSIS is continuing to work with its public
health partners on this investigation and will provide updated
information as it becomes available.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses.  The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are
diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after
eating the contaminated product.  The illness usually lasts 4 to 7
days.  Most people recover without treatment.  In some persons,
however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to
be hospitalized.  Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened
immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.
Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health
care provider.

FSIS reminds consumers to properly handle raw poultry in a manner
to prevent contamination from spreading to other foods and food
contact surfaces.

FSIS further reminds consumers of the critical importance of
following package cooking instructions for frozen or fresh chicken
products and general food safety guidelines when handling and
preparing any raw meat or poultry.  In particular, while cooking
instructions may give a specific number of minutes of cooking for
each side of the product in order to attain an 165F internal
temperature, consumers should be aware that actual time may vary
depending on the cooking method (broiling, frying or grilling) and
the temperature of the product (chilled versus frozen), so it is
important that the final temperature of 165F must be reached for
safety.  Do not rely on the cooking time for each side of the
product, but use a food thermometer.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Media with questions regarding the recall can contact David
Mehlman, Vice President, Aspen Foods Division of Koch Meats Co.,
at (847) 384-5940.  Consumers with questions regarding the recall
can contact the company's Consumer Affairs hotline at (844) 765-
7463 and on weekends (601) 732-3366.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


AUSTRALIA: CPC to Join Class Action Over Live Cattle Export Ban
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Zonca, writing for ABC Rural, reports that Australia's
largest private cattle business, Consolidated Pastoral Company
(CPC), will seek more than AU$80 million in compensation as part
of the class action against the Federal Government's live cattle
export suspension in 2011.

CPC is one of the country's biggest live cattle exporters and owns
19 properties across Queensland, the Northern Territory and
Western Australia.

The company's chief executive, Troy Setter, says he's hoping for a
"quick and equitable settlement" of the claim lodged in the
Federal Court.

"We were right in the middle of delivering cattle to Indonesia and
there was substantial operational cost.

"It caused the market for beef cattle in Australia to collapse.

"It also impacted our two feedlots that we have as part of a joint
venture in Indonesia," he said.

"The flow-on impacts have been long-lasting with a fall in land
values across much of the beef sector in northern Australia and
the ongoing effects of a lack of confidence [in the industry]."

While record numbers of live cattle were exported from Australia
in the past financial year, Mr. Setter says CPC is yet to reach
the levels seen before the trade suspension.

"We'll send around 40,000 head of live cattle this year to
Indonesia.

"We still haven't recovered to the full amount -- we're probably
about 10,000 head of cattle shy of where we were in 2011."

The country's largest cattle producer, the Australian Agricultural
Company, has also confirmed it's a party to the class action, with
a spokesman saying the business is standing 'shoulder to shoulder'
with the wider industry in a bid to win compensation.

CPC is owned by the European-based private equity firm Terra
Firma.

According to The West Australian's Brad Thompson and Nick
Butterly, a veteran pastoralist who lost everything in the fallout
from the ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia says a damages
claim against the Federal Government has come too late to bring
back her beloved Kimberley station.

Ruth Webb-Smith said she would like to join the class action but
wasn't sure how much fight she had left after her leading role in
protests to have the 2011 ban overturned.

The 71-year-old and her son Nathan's financial stocks never
recovered from the ban and it ultimately cost them the Yakka Munga
station.

"We wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't for the ban," Mrs.
Webb-Smith said.

Pastoralists and associated businesses in WA are considering
joining an action launched in the Federal Court with the backing
of cattle producers in the Northern Territory, according to The
West Australian.

The cattle producers are seeking damages over the snap ban imposed
by the-then Gillard government in response to animal welfare
concerns. They also want former agriculture minister Joe Ludwig's
order suspending the trade declared invalid.

WA cattle producers were offered the chance to join the class
action soon after the ban was lifted, but many could not afford
the initial cost of about AU$20,000.

Kalyeeda station owner Peter Camp said the industry was still
recovering from the ban, which put Australia's biggest live cattle
export market off limits at a peak time for producers in the
Kimberley and Pilbara.

Mr. Camp estimated the average family-run stations had lost
AU$250,000 to AU$500,000 as a result.

During a meeting of coalition MPs in Canberra on Oct. 28, Liberal
National Party Senator Ian Macdonald questioned why the Government
was not simply paying out cattle producers.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the Government had a
responsibility to ensure that all claimants were deserving.

"We have to serve the interests of justice but also we have to
protect the interests of taxpayers," Mr. Abbott said.


B JAYS USA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Lizardo" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Lizardo, Sameh M. Abdelraham, Jose A. Castillo, Juan Baez,
and Rafael Lopez, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly
situated v. B Jays USA, Inc., and American B Jay's, Inc., d/b/s B
Jay's, and Youssef Haidar, a/k/a Joseph Haidar, and Kamel Youssef,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08675 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay non-exempt
employees overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate shoe stores in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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: pcpoper@jcpclaw.com


B. H. KOSHER: Recalls Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           B. H. Kosher Products
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9378

Affected products: 35.4 g. Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix


BALTIMORE GAS: Plaintiffs Abandon Environmental Lawsuit v. Cotter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a case against Cotter Corporation by individuals
living in the North St. Louis area, voluntarily dismissed the case
without prejudice, according to Baltimore Gas And Electric
Company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On April 11, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against Cotter
Corporation and six additional defendants. The complaint alleges
that individuals living in the North St. Louis area within a
three-mile radius of the West Lake Landfill suffered damage to
property or loss of use of property due to the defendants'
negligent handling of radioactive materials. On August 22, 2014,
the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.


BALTIMORE GAS: ComEd Fails to Dismiss Customers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Edison Company failed to have a lawsuit filed by
customers enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program
dismissed by the court, according to Baltimore Gas And Electric
Company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and
a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd
enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint
alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to
customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such
messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd
from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages
could range from $500 to $1,500 per text. ComEd intends to contest
the allegations of this suit. In February 2014, ComEd filed a
motion to dismiss this class action complaint, which was denied in
June 2014. As of September 30, 2014, ComEd has a reserve, which is
not material, representing its best estimate of probable loss
associated with this class action complaint.


BALTIMORE GAS: Final Approval Sought in PHI-Exelon Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final court approval is being sought in a settlement reached in a
suit over the merger between Pepco Holdings, Inc. and Exelon
Corp., according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2014.

PHI and its directors have been named as defendants in purported
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of named plaintiffs and
other public stockholders challenging the proposed Merger and
seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
consummating the Merger on the agreed-upon terms. Exelon has been
named as a defendant in these lawsuits. Exelon has also been named
in a federal court case with similar claims. In September 2014,
the parties reached a proposed settlement which is subject to
court approval. Final court approval of the proposed settlement is
not expected to occur until the second quarter of 2015, at the
earliest.


BANK OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of RESPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by BuckleySandler LLP at JDSupra
Business Advisor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a class action lawsuit
against a large financial institution for allegedly violating
Section 8 of RESPA. Riddle v. Bank of America Corp., No. 13-4543
(3rd Cir. Oct. 15, 2014).  The complaint, originally filed in
2012, alleged that, between 2005 and 2007, the defendant profited
hundreds of millions of dollars from illegal referrals from
private insurance companies.  The plaintiffs failed to prove that
the defendant engaged in fraudulent concealment that the
plaintiffs relied upon.  As a result, the Third Circuit dismissed
the plaintiffs' claim, citing the expiration of the one-year
statute of limitations.  The court noted, "the clock has run on
the plaintiffs' RESPA claims, and despite ample opportunity, they
are unable to create a triable fact that they are entitled to
equitable tolling."


BARTLETT MILLING: Recalls Certain Horse Feeds
---------------------------------------------
Bartlett Milling Company has initiated a limited recall of certain
horse feeds due to potential Rumensin contamination.  The products
were distributed to customers and retailers in North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

Rumensin contamination can result in health problems, including
mortality, in horses.  The products and lot number in the recall
includes:

   -- 50 lb. bags of Bartlett Pasture Horse 10 Feed - Lot 288

   -- 50 lb. bags of Cleveland Carolina Champion Horse Feed - Lot
      288

The recalled products were packaged in typical brand-specific feed
bags.  Lot numbers are printed on the front and back of each bag.

Retailers have been contacted and instructed to immediately
withdraw from sale the recalled product and to notify customers
who purchased the product.  Customers should discontinue feeding
the product immediately.  Customers who purchased this product
should return remaining bags to their retailer.

For more information on the product recall, contact Bartlett
Milling at 1-800-438-6016 from 8AM to 5PM Monday through Friday.
Contact Bartlett at 1-336-655-1840 outside of regular business
hours.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services and the
United States Food and Drug Administration.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Investor Suit in Ill. in Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a consolidated lawsuit pending against
Baxter International Inc. in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern
District of Illinois, seeking to recover the lost value of
investors' stock, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain
of the company's current and former executive officers and its
board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of
the company and issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the
company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin
product, and other quality issues. Plaintiffs allege these actions
damaged the company and its shareholders by resulting in a decline
in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of excess
compensation to the board of directors and certain of the
company's current and former executive officers, and other damage
to the company. In January 2014, an independent special litigation
committee was established by the company's board of directors to
determine whether it was in the best interests of the company and
its shareholders to pursue or otherwise resolve the claims raised
in and arising from this matter. The company and the plaintiffs in
the consolidated derivative suit filed in the U.S.D.C. for the
Northern District of Illinois have entered into a revised
memorandum of understanding outlining the terms of a settlement of
that suit, including the establishment of a Regulatory Council for
the Medical Products business, $12 million to be spent on quality
and regulatory compliance initiatives over the next three years,
and the payment of legal fees (which have been reserved). The
settlement has been approved by the board of directors and
separately by its special litigation committee, and has been
preliminarily approved by the court.  Two other derivative actions
were previously filed in state courts, one in Lake County,
Illinois and one in the Delaware Chancery Court, and both matters
have been stayed pending the resolution of the federal action. In
addition, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the
U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the company
and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover
the lost value of investors' stock and the parties are currently
proceeding with discovery. In April 2013, the company filed its
opposition to the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action.
The company was a defendant, along with others, in a number of
lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for
the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain
of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially
increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003. The
company settled with the direct purchaser plaintiffs for $64
million, which was paid during the first quarter of 2014.


BLUE EARTH: To Vigorously Defend Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Blue Earth, Inc., a renewable/alternative energy and energy
efficiency services company, on Oct. 28 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit, captioned "Jordan Cianci, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Earth, Inc.,
Johnny R. Thomas (an executive officer), Brett Woodard (an
executive officer) and John Francis (a non-executive officer),"
was filed on October 24, 2014 in United States District Court
Central District of California (case no. 2:14-cv-08263) against
Blue Earth, Inc. and the aforementioned officers of the Company.
The complaint is based, in large part, on the allegations
contained in an anonymous article posted on October 21, 2014 on
the website "SeekingAlpha.com."  The Company has previously
responded to the "SeekingAlpha" allegations in a press release
dated October 21, 2014 and refuted the veracity of the claims made
in the article.  The Company believes the claims contained in the
complaint are without merit and will vigorously defend this
matter.


BUTTERBALL LLC: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisette Cardenas, Armando Ortiz, Bertha Contreras-Torres, Eva
Rojas, Mauricio Rosiquez Perez, individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs
v. Butterball, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08589 (N.D. Ill., October 30,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Butterball, LLC operates a meat processing facility, located at
2125 Rochester Road, Montgomery, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez , Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (877) 509-6422
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


CARLTON FOODS: Recalls 25,764 Pounds of Fresh Boudin Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlton Foods, a New Braunfels, Texas establishment, is recalling
approximately 25,764 pounds of fresh Boudin products, which were
produced with pre-cooked rice that may have experienced
temperature abuse and may contain an emetic toxin produced by
Bacillus cereus, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The Boudin (sausage-like) products were produced on Aug. 22, 2014,
through Oct. 17, 2014.  The products subject to recall include:

12-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "RICHARD'S HICKORY SMOKED BOUDIN"
12-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "RICHARD'S PREMIUM BOUDIN"
12-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "RICHARD'S 'HOT' PREMIUM BOUDIN"
16-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "RICHARD'S PREMIUM BOUDIN"
32-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "RICHARD'S CAJUN GRILLERS BOUDIN"

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
1943" or "EST. 961" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  Products
with the EST. 961 inside the mark of inspection would also have NB
printed on the label.  "Sell By" dates for the recalled products
range from Oct. 28, 2014, to Dec. 16, 2014.  The products were
shipped to retail locations in Louisiana and Texas.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a Food Safety
Assessment.  During production, FSIS personnel observed pre-cooked
rice, a component of the Boudin, being held at unsafe temperatures
which could result in the products containing an emetic toxin
produced by Bacillus cereus.

Bacillus cereus is a type of bacteria that can be found in a
variety of foods, particularly rice that has been stored too long
at room temperature.  Emetic toxins produced by Bacillus cereus
are characterized by nausea and vomiting occurring within 30
minutes to six hours after consumption of contaminated foods.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Individuals concerned about
an illness should contact a health care provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website.

Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Tim Bruer,
Chief Executive Officer, at (818) 415-7333.  Consumers with
questions regarding the recall can contact Randy Rust, President,
at (830) 625-7583 ext. 109.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settlement of "Leathermon" Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens,
Inc., et al., pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Indiana (Case No. 4:07-cv-137) are
administering the settlement of the case in accordance with its
terms, according to Carriage Services, Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including the company's subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary
damages and claim that the cemetery owners performed burials
negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. The Plaintiffs also
allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after the
company owned the cemetery. On October 15, 2007, the case was
removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the
Southern District of Indiana.

On April 24, 2009, shortly before the Defendants had been
scheduled to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint
to add new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to
abandon other claims. The company , as well as several other
Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint
and add parties. In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify
Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this
action. On June 30, 2010, the court granted Defendants' motion to
disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel.

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus
with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the
trial court's order of disqualification of counsel. On May 19,
2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus. On
July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for
writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order,
Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain
new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf. Plaintiffs
retained new counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel moved for leave to
amend both the class representatives and the allegations stated
within the complaint. Defendants filed oppositions to such
amendments. The court issued an order permitting the Plaintiffs to
proceed with amending the class representatives and a portion of
their claims; however, certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been
dismissed. The parties reached a proposed class settlement and the
court granted its preliminary approval of such settlement by order
dated March 19, 2014. Notice of the class settlement was provided
pursuant to the Preliminary Order Approving Class Action
Settlement and no settlement class members opted out of the class
nor objected to the terms of the settlement. The court issued its
final approval of the settlement on June 23, 2014. The parties are
administering the settlement in accordance with its terms.


CAVIRTEX: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Share Price
----------------------------------------------------
Carter Graydon, writing for CryptoCoinsNews, reports that
CAVirtex, Canada's largest and oldest Bitcoin online exchange, is
facing a potential class action lawsuit to the tune of C$884,880.
The alleged losses were incurred by the lawsuit-bringers after the
company offered 10% of its shares for sale on the cryptocurrency-
based asset exchange, Havelock Investments then stopped listing
the stock by the end of 2013.

A total of 10,000 shares were sold on March 23, 2013 and continued
to be traded until the end of 2013.  At that time, CAVirtex
announced that they would no longer be listing stock from Havelock
and that they would offer to buy back their shares at an "adjusted
exit price" of C$30 a share.  At the time of the announcement, the
stock was trading around C$120 a share.

Not only was the exit price unfair but the process for selling the
shares was made complex, and many investors were left stock and as
a result of this became permanent shareholders in CAVirtex.  The
class-action lawsuit against CAVirtex is based on the market cap
at the time of the incident and takes into account the adjusted
exit price offered.  Those who feel they have been wronged by
CAVirtex had until Nov. 1 to submit a claim by contacting
claim@cavirtexlawsuit.com with your name, phone number, number of
shares you held, and any other relevant information.  After
Nov. 1, more details will be revealed; including, the name of the
firm behind this.

This is the second time CaVirtex has been in the news in October.
On Oct. 6, they disabled Bitcoin withdraws citing an increase in
volume that lead their "hot wallet running dry." The likelihood of
CAVirtex's actions being related to recent SEC actions increases
as more news comes to light.


COOPERSURGICAL INC: Recalls Radius Loop Electrodes
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 28, 2014
Posting date:             November 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42017

Recalled Products: Radius Loop Electrodes (P/N R2010)

Coopersurgical is recalling a single lot of the Radius Loop
Electrodes (P/N R2010, lot 159621) because the product may have
been packaged with an incorrectly labelled package type (radius
loop electrode P/N R1010).

Companies:

   Manufacturer:     Coopersurgical Inc.
                     95 Corporate Drive
                     Trumbull 06611
                     Connecticut
                     United States


CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Removes "Frank" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Frank v. Crawley Petroleum
Corporation, Case No. CJ-2014-00065, was removed from the District
Court of Kingfisher County to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City).  The Oklahoma
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01193-R to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          GUNDERSON SHARP LLP
          5301 W 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0500
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick L. Stein, Esq.
          Philip D. Hart, Esq.
          Robert W. Dace, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          211 N Robinson Ave., 10th Floor
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-9621
          Facsimile: (405) 235-0439
          E-mail: patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com
                  philip.hart@mcafeetaft.com
                  bob.dace@mcafeetaft.com


CRUNCH SAN DIEGO: California Court Dismisses TCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein
Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California recently dismissed a putative class action filed
against Crunch San Diego, LLC under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), ruling that Crunch did not use an
autodialer to send text messages to the named plaintiff.

The TCPA Putative Class Action Lawsuit

In Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-348 (S.D. Cal.),
Crunch, which operates gyms in California and in other states,
allegedly sent unwanted promotional text messages to the plaintiff
in violation of the TCPA.

Crunch filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that it does
not use an "automated telephone dialing system," or autodialer, to
transmit promotional text messages to its members or prospective
members.  It maintained that it uses a third-party web-based
platform to send promotional text messages, but that phone numbers
are only inputted into the platform manually by human hand.

Crunch argued that because the platform it uses to send text
messages "lacks the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers
. . . using a random or sequential number generator," it cannot --
by definition -- be an autodialer under the TCPA and, therefore,
the TCPA does not apply.

In rendering its decision, the Court analyzed commentary published
by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), which broadly
interpreted the definition of autodialer and focused on the
equipment's capacity to generate numbers and dial them without
human intervention.  The Court held that the FCC analysis is not
binding on courts, as the FCC does not have the statutory
authority to change the TCPA's definition of an autodialer
(contrary to the rulemaking authority granted to the FCC under
different provisions of the TCPA).

The Court analyzed other courts' interpretations of "capacity"
under the TCPA which have determined that it is the system's
present, not potential, capacity to store, produce or call
randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers that matters
for purposes of falling within the scope of the TCPA's autodialer
definition.  Of course, if a broader interpretation of the
autodialer definition was adopted, all smart phones could
potentially fall within the scope of the TCPA.

The Court noted that because the platform used by Crunch requires
"human curation and intervention" for number entry, it could not
reasonably be considered a random or sequential number generator
within the purview of the TCPA.  Accordingly, because Crunch's
platform is not an autodialer within the meaning of the statute,
the Court found that Crunch did not violate the TCPA.

Crushing TCPA Actions

It is important to understand the nuances of the TCPA to ensure
telemarketing compliance, particularly because there are numerous
plaintiffs-in-waiting who are seeking to commence suit against
potential violators.  Companies involved in telemarketing and text
message marketing should take caution when deciding what
technology to use to increase efficiency, or face potential
liability under the TCPA.


DAKOTA GROWERS: Court OKs $7.9MM Settlement in Healthy Pasta Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations that Dreamfields pasta was falsely advertised as a
healthy alternative to traditional pasta will cost a Post Foods
subsidiary $7.9 million to settle, reports Rose Bouboushian at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Joseph Mirakay, Louis Messina, Michael Elefterakis and John
Gembinski filed the class action against Dakota Growers Pasta Co.
Inc. last year in New Jersey.

In addition to claiming that Dakota deceptively markets,
advertises and sells Dreamfields pasta as a healthy alternative,
the class said Dakota misstated that the product has a lower
glycemic index than traditional pasta, and that it contains only 5
grams of digestible carbohydrates.

The parties went to mediation in December, along with Jesse Weiss
who filed a similar suit in Minnesota, and ultimately reached a $5
million settlement.

U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano gave the class action settlement
final approval October 20.

The deal entitles class members to $1.99 for each Dreamfields box
bought online, or reimbursement for up to 15 boxes bought in
store.

If the claims submitted amount to less than $5 million, however,
each class member will receive as much as 50 percent more than his
or her purchase price.

Rather than have residual funds revert to Dakota, moreover, the
settlement calls for them to be donated on a cy pres basis to the
American Diabetes Association.

Dakota also agreed -- for one year from the date of the final
order -- to remove all packaging claiming Dreamfields has a lower
glycemic index than traditional pastas, the ability to reduce
spikes in blood glucose levels and only 5 grams of digestible
carbs.

The company must also pay an additional $2.9 million in attorneys'
fees and costs, and an aggregate incentive award of $20,000 to the
class representatives.

Judge Pisano noted that class members received notice of the
settlement website via nearly 339,000 emails; Better Homes &
Gardens, People, and Good Housekeeping; 350 million ads on AOL,
Facebook and Twitter; and a press release to more than 5,000 news
outlets.

Plus, the Diabetes Association notified more than 234,000 members,
the ruling states.

"As of Sept. 9, 2014, this website had been visited approximately
213,311 times," the unpublished ruling states.  "This notice
program has fully informed members of their rights and benefits
under the settlement, and all required information has been fully
and clearly presented to class members.  Accordingly, this
widespread and comprehensive campaign provides sufficient notice
under the circumstances."

Objections that Dakota's website and product boxes should have
contained the notice failed to sway the judge. Pisano also
rejected calls for supermarkets, drug stores, heart associations
and diabetic associations to disseminate notice.

In denying a motion to file a sur-reply, Pisano said the mere 12
objections "from the class is a strong indication of the reaction
of the class which favors settlement."

The ruling calls the requested attorneys' fee figure "comparable
to fees typically awarded in analogous cases and is fair and
reasonable in relation to the settlement amount, particularly when
the value of the injunctive relief is taken into consideration."

Post Holdings Inc., which bought Dakota from former defendant
Viterra Inc. in January 2014, reported net sales of $633.0
million, including $394.8 million from acquisitions, for the
fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The case is Joseph Mirakay, et al. v. Dakota Growers Pasta
Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-4429 (JAP), in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces Suit Over Defective Pinnacle Device
-------------------------------------------------------------
Williamena R. Bare v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.; Depuy Products,
Inc.; Depuy International, Limited; Johnson & Johnson Services,
Inc.; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-03885-K (N.D.
Tex., October 31, 2014) arises from the alleged injuries and
complications suffered by the Plaintiff due to the defective
design, warnings, construction and unreasonably dangerous
character of the Pinnacle Device that was implanted in the
Plaintiff.

The Defendants manufactured the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System,
and launched it in 2001.  The Pinnacle Device was designed,
developed, and sold for human hip joints damaged or diseased due
to fracture, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and avascular
necrosis.  The Pinnacle Device is designed to be fastened to human
bone with surgical screws.

Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and Depuy Products, Inc. are Indiana
Corporations with their principal place of business located in
Warsaw, Indiana.  Depuy International, Limited, is a United
Kingdom entity headquartered in West Yorkshire, UK.

Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. is a New Jersey Corporation
headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  The Plaintiff is
unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Diamond, Esq.
          D. Greg Sakall, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & OSBORNE
          698 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 200
          Tucson, AZ 85705
          Telephone: (520) 620-3975
          Facsimile: (520) 620-3991
          E-mail: ddiamond@goldbergandosborne.com
                  gsakall@goldbergandosborne.com


DIGITAL RISK: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Guzman, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Digital Risk, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Digital
Risk Mortgage Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 9:14-cv-81331 (S.D. Fla., October 30, 2014), seeks to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs
and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Digital Risk, LLC is an independent provider of quality control,
valuation & fulfillment solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq.
      THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


DINGSHING TRADING: Recalls Sesame Paste Due to Undeclared Peanut
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Dingshing Trading Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Possibly National, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9381

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 24, 2014 has been updated
to include additional distribution information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affected products: 400 g. Sesame paste product with all codes
where peanut is not declared on the label


DR GOODROOF: "Kirk" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Kirk, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Dr. Goodroof, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Ian
McLellan, Case No. 2:14-cv-00639 (M.D. Fla., October 30, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Dr. Goodroof, Inc. offers roof tile manufacturing and
installations of concrete tiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
      E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY" Accused of Bias by Islamic Law Professor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Hascall, 1 Forbes Terrace, Pittsburgh, PA 15217 v. Duquesne
University of the Holy Spirit, t/d/b/a Duquesne University School
of Law, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, and Dean Kenneth
G. Gormley, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, Case No.
2:14-cv-01489-TFM (W.D. Pa., October 31, 2014) is seeking justice
against the Defendants for the alleged systemic and vicious
discrimination the Plaintiff suffered on the basis of her age,
gender and religious scholarship as it relates to Islamic Law,
along with other violations of Pennsylvania law.

Over time, the Defendants have willfully, purposefully and
maliciously sought to destroy and sabotage Professor Hascall's
outstanding academic reputation in every way conceivable causing
her irreparable professional damage and significant emotional
distress, according to the complaint.

Professor Hascall is an assistant professor of law, who received
her J.D. magna cum laude from Washburn University School of Law.
She also holds a master's degree in anthropology from Wichita
State University, and received her B.A. in political science from
Texas A&M University.  Professor Hascall's scholarship focuses
primarily on Islamic law and legal pluralism.  She also teaches
courses in civil procedure, sales, banking law, Islamic law and
emerging legal systems.

Duquesne University School of Law is a private Catholic law
school, created and existing pursuant to the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  Kenneth G. Gormley is an attorney
licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, and serves as the Dean
of Duquesne University School of Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy M. Kolman, Esq.
          Wayne A. Ely, Esq.
          W. Charles Sipio, Esq.
          KOLMAN ELY, P.C.
          414 Hulmeville Avenue
          Penndel, PA 19047
          Telephone: (215) 750-3134
          Facsimile: (215) 750-3138
          E-mail: tkolman@kolmanlaw.net


DYNTEK SERVICES: Fired Worker Over Criminal Conviction, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Scott Goe v. Dyntek Services, Inc., Dyntek, Inc., and Alan
Gottesman, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08693 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 31, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff has suffered as a
result of being discriminated against and terminated by his
employer solely on the basis of his criminal convictions from over
20 years earlier.

Dyntek Services, Inc., and Dyntek, Inc. are Delaware business
corporations headquartered in Newport Beach, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Umansky, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          E-mail: aumansky@tpglaws.com


E.&B.'S NATURAL: Recalls 27,948 Pounds of Raw Lamb Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
E.&B.'s Natural Way, a Frederick, Md. establishment, is recalling
approximately 27,948 pounds of raw lamb products because they were
not presented at the border for USDA-FSIS Import Inspection, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.  Without the benefit of full inspection,
a possibility of adverse health consequences exists.

The lamb products were packaged on Oct. 21, 2013, Sept. 2, 20, 21
and 22, 2014.  The products subject to recall include:

Lamb Packs
Lamb Bone-In Legs
Lamb Boneless Legs
Lamb Saddles
Lamb Racks
Lamb Loins
Lamb Shoulders
Lamb Shanks
Lamb Trim
Lamb for Stew

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "IS
A022 EFTA" and include a label indicating "Product of Iceland."
These products were shipped to retail establishments in Washington
and Oregon where the products would have been repackaged.

The problem was discovered during a routine review using the
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) database.  ACE is a web-
based portal for the collection and use of international trade
data maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  The
failure-to-present was the result of the importing establishment
not following appropriate procedures.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS issues a Public Health Alert for an imported product when the
country of origin recalls the product.  FSIS issues a recall for
imported product when the product is not presented for inspection
at the U.S. border.

A failure-to-present (FTP) occurs when importers fail to present a
shipment to FSIS for import inspection prior to the product
entering U.S. commerce.  Failure-to-present will result in the
recall of the product.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Blair Gordon, Owner, at (301) 471-5615.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website.


EDDY COTO: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Manuel Panchame Martinez and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Eddy Coto Produce, Inc. and Edvardo
Coto, Case No. 1:14-cv-24054 (S.D. Fla., October 30, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EEL LAKE: Recalls Eel Lake Oyster Farm Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Eel Lake Oyster Farm Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9392

Affected products: 250 count Eel Lake Oyster Farm Live Oysters


EL TUMI: Accused of Not Paying Proper OT Rate for Hours Above 40
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniela Dassori and other similarly-situated individuals v. El
Tumi De Oro, Inc. a Florida profit corporation, and Juan Mariano
Mayorga, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24085-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
October 31, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was not paid at the
proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

El Tumi De Oro, Inc. is a Florida profit corporation headquartered
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  Juan Mariano Mayorga is a
corporate officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EVOLUTION LIGHTING: Recalls Tensor Brand Desk Lamp
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 30, 2014
Posting date:             October 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41967
Affected products: Tensor Brand Desk Lamp

The recall involves black 60 watt incandescent Tensor brand desk
lamps with an adjustable gooseneck, a funnel shaped metal shade,
and an off/off rocker switch located on the top of a round base.
The model number 17341-000 is printed at the top left of a white
label located on the underside of the base.  These three lot
numbers are affected:  C10132822, C10132830 and C11132862.  The
lot number can be found at the lower left of the same label
bearing the model number on the underside of the lamp base.

The on/off rocker switch is wired incorrectly and poses an
electrical shock and fire hazard to consumers.

Evolution Lighting LLC has received two reports of incidents in
which the product failed to illuminate and electrical panel
circuit breakers tripped when the rocker switch was turned on.
Sparking at the electrical outlet was reported in one of those
incidents.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these lamps.

Approximately 1,305 of the recalled lamps were distributed to
Staples stores across Canada.  The number of units sold to
consumers is unknown.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
Nov. 29, 2013 through Feb. 14, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Huizhou City Create Success Industry Co. Ltd.
                    Huizhou City
                    China

   Distributor      Evolution Lighting LLC
                    Miami
                    Florida
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
lamps.  Recalled lamps can be returned to the place of purchase
for a free replacement.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Accused of Violating Kentucky's Wage, Hour Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc. is facing an amended labor complaint in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, according to the company's Oct. 29,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and
two other defendants.  The complaint alleges that Enterasys and
its subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a.
Unbridled Information Technologies ("Subcontractor"), violated
Kentucky's wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing
wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the
"Act") on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky
government agencies since January 2010.  Plaintiffs also allege
common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and
they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees,
although there was no quantified amount identified.  One of the
defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC ("IFS"), has also
filed a cross-claim against Enterasys.  The Company denies the
claims and filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on
April 16, 2014.  In addition, the Company filed a cross-claim for
indemnity against IFS.

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 26, 2014,
in which they named Commonwealth of Kentucky's Office of
Technology under the State's Finance and Administration Cabinet
("COT") as a defendant.  The Company filed an answer to the
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint on October 10, 2014 and is
considering filing a cross-claim against COT.  This litigation is
in the early stages of discovery.


FANNIE MAE: To Pay $170-Mil. to Settle Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) will pay
$170 million to settle a class action alleging that its statements
caused investor losses.

The Boston Retirement System, one of the court-appointed lead
plaintiffs for a proposed common-shareholder class, heralded the
case for achieving what a similar lawsuit against Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corp., better known as Freddie Mac.

"Unlike the plaintiffs in the Freddie Mac case, we were able to
successfully allege that investors' losses were caused by Fannie
Mae's statements and actions rather than by the financial crisis,"
Boston Retirement chairman Daniel Green said in a statement.

In addition to Boston Retirement, the Southern District of New
York had appointed the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment
Management for the proposed common-shareholder class.  It had
appointed the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System as lead
plaintiff for a proposed preferred-shareholder class.

Together these classes claimed that Fannie Mae and two of its
former officers made false and misleading statements about Fannie
Mae's internal controls and its exposure to subprime- and other
risky mortgage-loan products, between Nov. 8, 2006, and Sept. 5,
2008.

Fannie Mae's true exposure to these risky assets finally came to
light the Sept. 7, 2008, announcement by the company's regulator,
the Federal Housing and Finance Agency (FHFA), that it had placed
the company into conservatorship, capped off several partial
disclosures.

Attorneys at Labaton Sucharow say the proposed $170 million
settlement will benefit thousands of class members, if the court
approves it.

Lead partner Thomas Dubbs noted in a statement that the "risks
were indeed substantial."

The action is captioned as In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-7831.


FMA ALLIANCE: has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abouriche" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nabil Abouriche, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FMA Alliance, Ltd., Case No. 8:14-cv-01742
(C.D. Cal., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

FMA Alliance, Ltd. is a leader in consumer debt buying and
recovery or collection.

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


FUN WORLD: Recalls Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 30, 2014
Posting date:             October 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41801

Affected products: Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings

The recall involves the "Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings" adult
Halloween costume accessory.  This costume consists of burgundy
and black, white or black feathered wings with a lace shoulder
strap.  The products can be identified by item number 90443 and
UPC numbers 071765010214 (burgundy and black), 071765002714
(white) and 071765002660 (black).

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program determined that
the feathered wings of the "Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings" adult
costume accessories do not meet the requirements for textile
flammability under Canadian law.

If exposed to flame such as from candles, matches, or lighters,
the "Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings" adult costume accessories
could catch fire and possibly cause burns to consumers.

Neither Fun World, Division of Easter Unlimited, Inc. nor Health
Canada has received any reports of consumer incident or injuries
to Canadians related to the use of these costumes.

For tips to help consumers celebrate Halloween safely, see the
following Health Canada's publication: Halloween Safety and
Reminding Canadians to have a safe Halloween.

Approximately 972 units of the recalled costumes were sold at
retail across Canada.

The recalled costumes were manufactured in China and sold from
Sept. 2008 to Oct. 2014 at various retail locations across Canada.

Companies:

   Importer:     Fun World Div. (Easter Unlimited Inc.)
                 Carle Place
                 New York
                 United States

Consumers should return the recalled costume to the place of
purchase for a full refund.


GABRIEL RUFFOLO: Faces "Mena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynaldo Mena, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Gabriel Ruffolo Landscaping, Inc. and John
Popiolek, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08593 (N.D. Ill., October
30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping company, doing
business 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


GARMIN LTD: Utah Court Refuses to Transfer Venue of Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied
Garmin Ltd.'s motion to transfer the venue for the case filed by
Andrea Katz against Garmin Ltd. and Garmin International, Inc.,
according to the Garmin Ltd.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 27, 2014.

On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The lead
plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated.  The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz
purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any
model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United
States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory
law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an
unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch.
Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. On
January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without
prejudice.

On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the lawsuit with the
same claims for relief as the earlier action and adding an
additional claim for unjust enrichment.  On February 4, 2014, the
court ordered the case to be transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Utah.  The plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the case filed in Illinois and, on March 6,
2014, she refiled the lawsuit in the District Court for the
District of Utah with the same claims, but with additional claims
for violations of the Utah Consumers Sales Practice Act, Lanham
Act, and Utah Truth in Advertising Act.  The relief she requested
is the same.  On March 31, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to transfer
the venue of the Utah action back to the Northern District of
Illinois.  On October 21, 2014, the United States District Court
for the District of Utah denied Garmin's motion to transfer venue.


GARMIN LTD: Kan. Court Partially Dismisses Suit Over Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas partly
dismissed a suit filed by Brian Meyers against Garmin
International, Inc. Garmin USA, Inc. and Garmin Ltd., according to
the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

On August 13, 2013, Brian Meyers filed a putative class action
complaint against Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. and
Garmin Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas. Meyers alleges that lithium-ion batteries in certain
Garmin products are defective and alleges violations of the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act, breach of an implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty and also requests declaratory relief that the
batteries are defective and must be covered by Garmin's
warranties. The complaint seeks an order for class certification,
a declaration that the batteries are defective, an order of
injunctive relief, payment of damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of certain Garmin
products, and an award of attorneys' fees. On September 18, 2013
the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Garmin Ltd. as a defendant
without prejudice. On October 18, 2013 the plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint. On November 1, 2013 the remaining
Garmin defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the
complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted. On January 24, 2014, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the count for
declaratory relief and the prayer for a declaration that the
batteries are defective, but allowing the case to proceed on other
substantive counts. No class has been certified at this time.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Fluctuating Workweek Violates Pa. Wage Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
basing the calculation for overtime pay on the fluctuating total
number of hours worked each week, as opposed to the 40-hour
standard workweek, violates the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, a
judge has ruled.

In an issue of apparent first impression for state courts,
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick
Jr. ruled Oct. 20 in Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers that
using a fluctuating workweek as the basis to calculate overtime
for salaried employees went against the intent of the state's
minimum-wage law.

"I find that these goals of the PMWA are furthered by construing
the PMWA to bar the use of the fluctuating workweek for
compensating salaried employees who work overtime.  The
fluctuating workweek method of compensating salaried employees
provides very little financial incentive to expand the workforce
rather than pay substantial hours of overtime to existing
employees at lower rates per hour," Judge Wettick said.  "A
reading of the PMWA that reduces the hourly overtime compensation
as the amount of overtime increases clashes with the goals of the
PMWA."

According to Judge Wettick's opinion, the dispute in the case
centers around the calculation of the "regular rate" that an
employer is supposed to use to calculate overtime pay.  State law
requires that an employee receives at least one-and-one-half of
his or her regular rate for each hour worked in excess of 40
hours; however, the law does not define the term "regular rate."

GNC, according to Judge Wettick, paid salaried managers, assistant
managers and senior managers a fixed sum that they received each
week regardless of the number of hours they worked.  Whenever an
employee worked more than 40 hours, the company used the total
number of hours worked each week to calculate the regular rate,
which was then used to calculate the overtime pay.

Judge Wettick gave an example of an employee who earns $1,000 each
week.  If that employee worked a 50-hour week, overtime pay would
be based on a $20-per-hour regular rate.  However, if that same
employee had worked a 70-hour week, overtime would be based on the
smaller $14.28 regular rate, and if the employee worked an 80-hour
week, the employee would receive overtime pay based on a $12.50
regular rate.

Plaintiffs in the case, all of whom were managers at GNC between
2009 and 2011, had been paid based on this fluctuating workweek
model, according to Judge Wettick.

The plaintiffs filed a class action suit contending that GNC's use
of the fluctuating model violated the state law.  The plaintiffs
argued that the regular rate should be calculated based on the
fixed sum that an employee receives each week.

Judge Wettick said both parties agreed the question of whether
GNC's method of calculating overtime is allowed under the PMWA was
governed by 43 P.S. Section 333.104(c).  But that section does not
define "regular rate" and only authorizes the secretary to
"promulgate" regulations that could define the term.

The defendants, according to Judge Wettick, argued that the
language of the PMWA indicated that the General Assembly intended
to adopt the federal scheme outlined in the Fair Labor Standards
Act, which allows the use of the fluctuating workweek.

The plaintiffs, however, argued that because portions of the state
law had used language from the federal statute, the legislature
had intentionally not adopted the federal scheme in sections where
the language differed.

Judge Wettick disagreed with both sides.

"The secretary would have been very aware of the common practice
of salaried employees being required to work overtime," he said.
"I believe that the most reasonable explanation as to why the
secretary did not promulgate a regulation governing salaried
employees is that there was not sufficient support for a
regulation answering, one way or the other, the question of
whether an employer may use the fluctuating workweek for salaried
employees."

Judge Wettick turned to the intent behind the law to make his
decision.  He said the purpose of the act was to "increase
employment, reduce overtime and adequately compensate employees
who must work more than a standard 40-hour workweek."
With the fluctuating scale, he said, "for each extra hour of
overtime the employee works, the hourly rate declines.
Consequently, the fluctuating workweek creates an incentive to
increase the hours of overtime, rather than expanding the
workforce."

Plaintiffs attorney Michael D. Simon of Monroeville, Pa., said the
case is still "a long way from being over," and the decision could
be appealed, or could move on to address class certification, or
damages issues.  He said the fluctuating workweek is a hot topic
in both state and federal courts, and that many employers across
the state use the model for calculating overtime.

"We're pleased with" the decision, Simon said. "We think it goes
where it needed to go."

Neither Pittsburgh attorney Adrian N. Roe, who also represented
the plaintiffs, nor counsel for GNC, Brad A. Funari --
bfunari@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuire Woods in Pittsburgh,
returned a call seeking comment.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Sued by FTC Over Claims of Allergy Prevention
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the makers
of Gerber Good Start Gentle formula cannot substantiate claims
that the product prevents infants from developing allergies,
federal regulators say.

On the heels of class actions advancing similar claims across the
county, the Federal Trade Commission sued Gerber Products Co. on
October 29 for a permanent injunction and disgorgement of ill-
gotten money.

Gerber and its Nestle subsidiary have marketed the baby formula at
issue since 2011, according to the complaint.

The FTC called it "false or misleading" for Gerber to say that the
Food and Drug Administration has already approved Gerber Good
Start Gentle "for a health claim," or to say that the formula
qualified for such approval.

Gerber has no basis to purport that its Good Start formula
prevents or reduces the risk of allergies in infants with a family
history, the complaint states.

The baby-food giant called the FTC's complaint disappointing.

"We are defending our position because we believe we have met, and
will continue to meet, all legal requirements to make these
product claims," Gerber said in a statement.

Though the company bases its claim on its product's "partially
hydrolyzed whey protein" content, the FTC noted that the FDA
refused back in 2005 to give Gerber "a health claim explaining the
relationship between partially hydrolyzed whey protein ('PHWP')
infant formula and reduced risk of food allergies in infants."

The FDA said there was "no credible" evidence for the assertion,
and it also rejected a 2009 petition to let Gerber "use a
qualified health claim describing the relationship between PWHP
infant formula and reduced risk of atopic dermatitis in infants,"
according to the complaint.

Gerber countered October 30 that "extensive, peer-reviewed
scientific evidence supports the role of 100% whey partially
hydrolyzed infant formula in reducing the risk of atopic
dermatitis, commonly known as baby eczema, in infants with a
family history of allergy."

"Further, Gerber has been authorized by the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration (FDA) to feature a qualified health claim based on
this evidence," the company added.

But the FTC says that the FDA warned that "enforcement" action
could follow to let Gerber "make a highly qualified health claim
that 'the relationship between 100% Whey-Protein Partially
Hydrolyzed infant formulas and the reduced risk of atopic
dermatitis is uncertain, because there is little scientific
evidence for the relationship."

"Notwithstanding the FDA's letter of enforcement discretion,
defendant advertises its Gerber Good Start Gentle infant formula
with, among other things, a circular gold seal or badge emblazoned
with '1st and Only' in the center, 'Meets FDA' in the top
perimeter, and 'Qualified Health Claim' in the bottom perimeter,"
the FTC says.

In addition to those badges and seals, the 14-page complaint
recites a series of print advertisements and television spots that
advance Gerber's claims about the supposed benefits of Good Start
formula.

Gerber sells its powdered Good Start formula in a 23.2-ounce
container for $24, and bills it as "easier to digest than formula
made with intact cow's milk protein," the FTC notes.

Both the "false FDA approval claim," and the "false or
unsubstantiated allergy claim" violate the FTC Act, according to
the complaint.

FTC attorney Victor DeFrancis of Washington, D.C., signed the
action.

In the same court, U.S. District Judge Jose Linares is presiding
over a consolidated class action over Gerber probiotic formula.


GO GREEN: Sued Over Breach of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Pfening, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Go Green Education, Case No. 2:14-cv-08422 (C.D. Cal.,
October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Go Green Education is an advocacy group organized to distribute
free information about the importance of switching to solar and
also to provide the assistance to each and every homeowner by
connecting each homeowner with a reputable Solar company within
their community.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces "Walsh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Walsh, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-08643 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. conduct
business in New York by providing banking, securities and
investment management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212)977-4005

         - and -

      Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 638-8800
      Facsimile: (415)638-8810

         - and -

      Galvin B. Kennedy, esq.
      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, Texas 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116


GT ADVANCED: Faces "Glassman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Glassman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Kanwardev Raja Singh Bal
and Richard J. Gaynor, Case No. 1:14-cv-00485 (D.N.H., October 30,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that there were significant
risks that the Company would be unable to fulfill the requirements
of the Apple Agreement to supply sapphire material, that the
Company's sapphire material would not be used in the Apple iPhone
6 devices, that, as a result of the Apple Agreement problems, the
Company was facing a liquidity crisis.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


HOME DEPOT: Removes "Henry" Suit to California District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Henry v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
Case No. RG14741264, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-04858-JCS to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Neil Michael Larsen, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  neil@setarehlaw.com
                  tuvia@setarehlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donna Marie Mezias, Esq.
          Liz Kathryn Bertko, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
          E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
                  lbertko@akingump.com


HOUSE OF SPICES: Recalls 200 gms. Packages of "Golden Raisin"
-------------------------------------------------------------
House of Spices of Flushing, NY is recalling its 200 gms packages
of "Laxmi Nutkhhat Golden Raisin" food treats because they
contained undeclared sulfites.  Consumers who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The product comes in a 200 gms, clear plastic package marked with
lot# ABA20A2014 on the top.  The recalled "Laxmi Nutkhhat Golden
Raisins" were distributed in New York & New Jersey retail stores.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of sulfites in the 200 gms packages of "Laxmi Nutkhhat
Golden Raisin" which were not declared on the label.  The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.
Analysis of the "Laxmi Nutkhhat Golden Raisin" revealed they
contained 30 grams per serving.

No illnesses or allergic reactions involving this product have
been reported to date.  Consumers who have purchased 200 gms
packages of "Laxmi Nutkhhat Golden Raisin" with lot# ABA20A2014
are urged to return them to the place of purchase for full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-718-507-
4900.


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Settles Hip Implant Suits for More Than $1BB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that thousands of plaintiffs in New Jersey and around the country
who had surgery to remove failed hip implants settled their claims
Nov. 3 in a deal that is expected to pay out more than $1 billion.

The global settlement with Howmedica Osteonics Corporation, a
Mahwah, N.J., corporation that does business as Stryker
Orthopaedics, resolves the claims of about 3,000 individuals who
were implanted with Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular hip
stems.

New Jersey alone has more than 2,100 cases and there are another
1,700 or so federal suits centralized in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, as well as cases scattered among
other state courts.

The agreement, announced in the Bergen County courthouse by
Superior Court Judge Brian Martinotti will pay a base award of
$300,000 per failed implant, with additional compensation for
those who suffered complications as a result of surgery to remove
the implant, a procedure known as revision.

Stryker voluntarily recalled the hip stems on July 3, 2012, and
since then, lawsuits have been mounting.

Those filed in New Jersey state court were centralized in Bergen
County before Judge Martinotti, in January 2013.  Five months
later, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
consolidated the federal actions before U.S. District Judge David
Frank in Minnesota, the home state of parent company Stryker Corp.

On the morning of Nov. 3, Judge Martinotti scheduled an emergent
conference for 4 p.m., and ordered liaison counsel and other
interested lawyers to show up in his courtroom, where the
settlement was announced and signed.

A similar order from Frank summoned lawyers to his St. Paul
courtroom at the same hour, 3 p.m., central time, for a parallel
proceeding.

Lawyers for both sides appeared and laid out the terms of the
settlement, including a time line that requires claimants to
register by Dec. 14 and enroll by Jan. 16, 2015, and should see
the first payouts in the summer of 2015.

To qualify for payment, claimants must be U.S. citizens or
residents and must have had both surgeries -- first to implant and
then to take out the failed device -- at a hospital in the U.S. or
a U.S. military hospital.  The revision surgery had to occur at
least 180 days after the implant process and before the Nov. 3
date of settlement.

The failure of the implant must be shown by evidence such as a
blood test showing elevated cobalt or an abnormal diagnostic scan.

People who take out an implant because of an auto accident or
other trauma do not qualify, while those with failed implants who
need a revision but cannot have one for medical reasons are
eligible.

The $300,000 base amount is subject to a 15 percent reduction --
$45,000 -- if the Rejuvenate or ABG II was put in after a
preexisting total hip replacement and is also adjusted downward
five percent for those over the age of 70 on the date they got the
implant, increasing by five percent increments until the age of
85, where the reduction is 20 percent.

For patients who died before the settlement's Nov. 4 execution
date, the base award shrinks by 30 percent, to $210,000.

Enhanced payments are available for a variety of complications.

For example, those who require additional revisions following
removal of an implant will get an added $175,000, while those
whose bones must be cut to remove the implant -- an osteotomy --
are entitled to $75,000 more, which rises to $100,0000 if cabling
is required to secure the femur.

More serious complications -- foot drop, heart attack, stroke and
death -- can result in enhancements as high as $288,000, $360,000,
$516,000 and $600,000, respectively.

Smaller enhancements are also available for some nonsurgical
complications, such as infections.

There is no fixed fund for the settlement nor a cap on Stryker's
liability.

Stryker's press release about the settlement said it had "recorded
charges to earnings totaling $1.425 billion representing the
actuarially determined low end of the range of probable loss to
resolve these matters and no additional charge to earnings is
being recorded in connection with entering into the settlement
agreement.  The ultimate cost to entirely resolve these matters
will depend on many factors that are difficult to predict and may
be materially different than the amounts accrued to date.  Further
charges to earnings may need to be recorded in the future as
additional information related to patient enrollment in the
settlement program becomes available."

The release quoted Bill Huffnagle, president of Stryker's
Reconstructive Division as stating "Following our voluntary recall
and our patient support program for recall-related care, this
settlement program provides patients compensation in a fair,
timely and efficient manner."

There is no sum set aside for legal fees, which are to be paid
case-by-case in accordance with the retainer agreements and state
law.

Claimants will have to kick in to fund the process, including lien
administration expenses, costs associated with the special masters
and claims administrator and reimbursement of counsel costs.
Those who sued in New Jersey will have to pay 0.5 percent, while
those in the MDL will have to pay 4 percent -- one percent towards
costs and three percent toward fees.

The Garden City Group, based in Lake Success, N.Y., will
administer the settlement.

Appeals from awards will be heard by three special masters: C.
Judson Hamlin, a retired N.J. state court judge, now with Keefe
Bartels in Red Bank, N.J.; Arthur Boylan, who was the chief
Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota until his
retirement earlier this year; and Edgar Gentle, of Gentle Turner
Sexton Debrosse & Harbison in Hoover, Ala.

Their determinations will be subject to final review by
Diane Welsh, a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania from 1994 to 2005, now with JAMS in Philadelphia.

Judge Welsh mediated the settlement, in a series of sessions that
began in July.

Judge Martinotti and counsel credited Judge Welsh for the
agreement, along with an early mediation program that facilitated
it by establishing a framework for valuing the claims and a
groundwork of trust among the attorneys.

Ellen Relkin -- erelkin@weitzlux.com -- of Weitz & Luxenberg in
New York, liaison counsel in New Jersey, said it's "virtually
unprecedented to globally resolve a litigation less than one-and-
a-half years from the formation of  mass tort litigation."

Ms. Relkin said the individual mediations allowed the parties "to
recognize specific damage endpoints which  became the building
blocks for the matrix used for the  numerous enhancements in the
settlement program."

Of the 21 bellwether cases selected for mediation, 20 settled.

Judge Martinotti lauded the process that led to the settlement as
"historic" and "unprecedented," without a single case going to
trial.  The first trial in New Jersey was scheduled for June 2015.

In recalling the implants, Stryker referred to the potential risk
of "fretting and/or corrosion" of the metal components of the
implants, deterioration that can allegedly produce metal debris
and metal ions leading to such symptoms as pain, swelling and the
death of tissue and bone.

The Plaintiff Steering Committee for the New Jersey litigation
consisted of chairwoman Relkin, Thomas Anapol --
tanapol@anapolschwartz.com -- of Anapol Schwartz in Philadelphia,
C. Calvin Warriner III -- CCW@searcylaw.com -- of Searcy, Denney,
Scarola Barnhart & Shipley in West Palm Beach, Fla., Tara Sutton
-- tdsutton@rkmc.com -- of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in
Minneapolis, David Buchanan -- dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com -- of
Seeger Weiss in New York, and Tobias Millrood --
tmillrood@pbmattorneys.com -- of Pogust, Braslow & Millrood in
Conshohocken, Pa.

The MDL had a separate Plaintiff Steering Committee.

Stryker is represented by Kim Catullo and other lawyers from the
Gibbons firm in New York and Newark.  Also present at the New
Jersey conference was Stryker in-house counsel Ethan York.


IKO MANUFACTURING: "Machuzak" Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Machuzak v. IKO Manufacturing, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-01895, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Urbana).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02270-HAB
to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Michael Machuzak and the Class are owners of organic-
based or matted shingles manufactured and distributed under
various trade names by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff alleges that
the IKO Shingles are uniformly defective such that the Plaintiff's
and Class members' Shingles are failing before the time periods
advertised, marketed, and guaranteed by IKO or otherwise expected
by ordinary consumers purchasing Shingles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Silverman, Esq.
          KANE AND SILVERMAN P.C.
          2401 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 1A5
          Philadelphia, PA 19130
          Telephone: (215) 232-1000
          E-mail: HGS@PaLegalAdvice.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          2500 Gulf Tower
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  scott@wbmllp.com


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
MediaPost.com reports that the Interpublic Group of Companies has
been slapped with a lawsuit from a former planning associate who
claims the company illegally classified her as a type of employee
not entitled to overtime pay.

The former employee, Heather Freireich, claims she regularly
worked more than 40 hours a week, and that it wasn't unusual for
her to work close to or more than 50 hours a week without overtime
pay, in violation of Federal and New York City and State
employment laws.  She filed her lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
in Manhattan on Oct. 22.

The suit comes at a time when the ad industry is facing what many
believe is a talent crisis as many of the country's best and
brightest college graduates pursue careers in more lucrative
professions.  In a commentary this summer, 4As President Nancy
Hill noted that the group's most recent survey (2014) found that
entry-level salaries (Assistant Account Executive and Assistant
Media Planner) are between $25,000 and $28,000.

"Those numbers haven't changed significantly in a decade,"
Ms. Hill wrote in The Wall Street Journal's CMO Today column.
"There is something terribly wrong with this equation."  She noted
that starting salaries in other industries, like technology and
consulting, are three times or more what Adland pays.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Freireich said that she was paid a salary of
$33,000 as an associate working on an integrated planning team at
J3 -- part of Universal McCann, which was established a few years
back as a dedicated unit to the Johnson & Johnson business.

Ms. Freireich held the position from March to August of this year
and said she accrued about 160 hours of overtime that was not
paid. She calculated in her lawsuit that her regular rate of pay
was $15.87 per hour and that her overtime pay should have been
$23.81 per hour.

If Ms. Freireich were to prevail in the legal battle, the numbers
could add up pretty quickly for IPG.  The plaintiff is seeking
class-action status, potentially covering every associate-level
employee at the company over the past three years.  Under the laws
she cited in her suit, a ruling in her favor could also add
putative damages equal to the amount of the unpaid overtime plus
interest.

Attempting to make a case that she was not exempt from overtime
pay status, Ms. Freireich presented her role at the firm as
essentially that of a low-level minion who obeyed orders and
nothing more.  "Plaintiff's work, including emails, was reviewed
by senior team members, and at no time did Plaintiff exercise any
discretion and independent judgment," the suit contends.  Nor did
her duties "involve work that required invention, imagination,
originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or
creative endeavor."

IPG has not yet filed a response with the court to the lawsuit.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces $500-Mil. Suit Over Ebola-Protective Gowns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds,writing for Courthouse News Service, report that in
a $500 million class action, a surgeon claims Kimberly-Clark
recommends its medical gowns for healthcare workers treating Ebola
patients, though it knows they do not protect against the virus.

Kimberly-Clark's "recklessness and indifference to the prospect
that it is responsible for placing patients and health care
professionals at great and unnecessary risk of infection and
bodily harm is nothing short of astonishing and, more to the
point, utterly reprehensible," Dr. Hrayr Shahinian claims in the
lawsuit filed on October 29 in Federal Court.

A spokeswoman for Shahinian's law firm told Courthouse News that
the gowns had been supplied to medical workers in West Africa.

Shahinian claims Kimberly-Clark has known since 2013 that its
MicroCool Breathable High Performance Surgical Gowns do not
provide adequate protection, but remained silent on the issue and
failed to recall the product.

Kimberly-Clark, which makes Kleenex, Huggies and other famous
brands, enjoys a 50 percent share of surgical gown market,
according to the lawsuit.

In a submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the
corporation claimed that during testing the gowns resisted
exposure to synthetic blood and blood-borne pathogens, Shahinian
says.

But the surgeon claims the gowns experienced "catastrophic
failures," though Kimberly-Clark claims they offer the highest
level of protection against liquids, under Association for the
Advancement of Medical Instrumentation's Level 4 Liquid Barrier
Standards.

Kimberly-Clark still recommends the protective gowns as healthcare
professionals around the world work to prevent the spread of the
deadly Ebola virus in the West African nations Guinea, Liberia and
Sierra Leone, according to the complaint.

According to Shahinian, a statement at the Kimberly-Clark website
links to a guide that recommends the high-performance gown to
workers treating Ebola.

Kimberly Clark "together with certain of its employees,
executives, agents, distributors, and others have been silent in
disclosing the truth," the lawsuit states.

In addition to $500 million in damages, Shahinian wants a judge to
order Kimberly-Clark to make clear on its website and packaging
that the gowns are unsafe and do not meet industry standards.

"Kimberly-Clark needs to immediately recall these gowns and come
clean with the FDA, CDC [Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention], healthcare professionals and the general public,"
Avenatti said in a statement. "The risks associated with continued
concealment of the truth are far too great."

Eagan Avenatti spokeswoman Suzy Quinn told Courthouse News that
the gowns had been supplied to healthcare workers in West Africa.

Kimberly-Clark spokesman Bob Brand said he could not comment on
pending litigation.

"The company does stand behind the efficacy and safety of its
products," Brand said.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Avenatti, Esq.
          EAGAN AVENATTI LLP
          450 Newport Center Dr., 2nd Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 706-7050
          E-mail: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com


LIFE CARE: Faces Wage and Hour Collective Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; J Carole Cherry, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; Nicole Senesac, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Life Care Centers of
America, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02611-
JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal., October 31, 2014) is brought to recover for,
among other things, failure to pay wages and overtime
compensation, failure to pay timely wages due at the end of
employment and failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.

Life Care Centers of America, Inc., is in the healthcare business
and owns and operates 11 healthcare facilities in California
primarily caring for the aged, who are unable to care for
themselves, who also reside at the facilities, two of which are
located in San Diego County.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
          Tyler J. Belong, Esq.
          Bryce A. Dodds, Esq.
          HOGUE & BELONG
          430 Nutmeg Street, Second Floor
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone No: (619) 238-4720
          Facsimile No: (619) 270-9856
          E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  bdodds@hoguebelonglaw.com


LIFE TIME FITNESS: "Chrispens" Suit Moved From Cal. to Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned John Chrispens, et al. v. Life
Time Fitness Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-01280 , was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-08706 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
other wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Branigan Andrew Robertson, Esq.
          BRANIGAN ROBERTSON, INC.
          9891 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 667-3025
          E-mail: branigan@brobertsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Jerusalem Beligan, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE, LLP
          1301 Dove St., Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92656
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  jbeligan@bisnarchase.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andranik Tsarukyan, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: andy.tsarukyan@jacksonlewis.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: January Hearing in Employees' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A January 12, 2015 hearing is set in a lawsuit filed by former
employees of Marriott International, Inc., according to the
company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees (the
"plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against the
company and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"), alleging that
certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock granted to the
plaintiffs and other current and former employees for fiscal years
1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting requirements under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more rapid than those
set forth in the awards. The plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys'
fees and interest, with no amounts specified. The action is
proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland (Greenbelt Division) and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and
Michael P. Steigman are the remaining named plaintiffs. The
parties completed limited discovery concerning Marriott's defense
of statute of limitations with respect to Mr. Bond and Mr.
Steigman and concerning class certification. The company opposed
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and sought summary
judgment on the issue of statute of limitations in 2012. On August
9, 2013, the court denied the company's motion for summary
judgment on the issue of statute of limitations and deferred its
ruling on class certification. The company moved to amend the
court's judgment on the company's motion for summary judgment in
order to certify an interlocutory appeal, which was denied. On
January 7, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and issued a Scheduling Order for full discovery of
the remaining issues in this case. The parties completed full
discovery and filed cross motions for summary judgment, with a
final reply brief to be filed by plaintiffs by December 8, 2014,
and a hearing on all motions scheduled for January 12, 2015.


MCDONALD'S USA: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dasmine Bell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. McDonald's USA, LLC and McDonald's
Restaurants of Florida, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-02742 (M.D. Fla.,
October 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conduct an illegal
background check on the Plaintiff in violation of Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

McDonald's USA, LLC is the global food service retailer with more
than 35,000 local restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces "Pecic" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jelena Pecic v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance
Company, a Rhode Island corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02426-GMS
(D. Ariz., October 31, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged
unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

MetLife is a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business
in Arizona.  MetLife sells insurance and related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  tfrankel@bffb.com


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces "Pelletier" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Pelletier v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance
Company, a Rhode Island corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00476-ML-PAS
(D.R.I., October 31, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and statutory penalties resulting
from MetLife's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MetLife is a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business
in 48 of the United States, including Rhode Island and Arizona.
MetLife sells insurance and related products in Rhode Island and
throughout the United States, with its principal place of business
in Rhode Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Schreck, Esq.
          99 Wayland Avenue, Suite 200
          Providence, RI 02906-4314
          Telephone: (401) 421-9600
          Facsimile: (866) 587-1527
          E-mail: JSchreck@msn.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  tfrankel@bffb.com


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bao Quoc N. Le v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance
Company, a Rhode Island corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02427-MEA
(D. Ariz., October 31, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was not
paid proper overtime wages at a rate of one and one half times his
regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a work week in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MetLife is a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business
in Arizona.  MetLife sells insurance and related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  tfrankel@bffb.com


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Sued for Not Paying Sales Agents' Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Bailey v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance
Company, a Rhode Island corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00477-S-LDA
(D.R.I., October 31, 2014) is brought against the Defendant
regarding its alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in
direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed during his tenure for MetLife as a
MetLife Property and Casualty Specialist, also known as Sales
Agent.

MetLife is a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business
in 48 of the United States, including Rhode Island and Arizona.
MetLife sells insurance and related products in Rhode Island and
throughout the United States, with its principal place of business
in Rhode Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Schreck, Esq.
          99 Wayland Avenue, Suite 200
          Providence, RI 02906-4314
          Telephone: (401) 421-9600
          Facsimile: (866) 587-1527
          E-mail: JSchreck@msn.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  tfrankel@bffb.com


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Vlahandreas v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, a Rhode Island corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02429-NVW (D. Ariz., October 31, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages and statutory penalties
resulting from MetLife's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

MetLife is a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business
in Arizona.  MetLife sells insurance and related products through
its Sales Agents like the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  tfrankel@bffb.com


MIKE MCMURRIN: Faces "Lucas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Lucas, Alex Sherrill, and all others similarly situated v.
Mike McMurrin Trucking, Inc. and Mike McMurrin, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00116 (N.D. Iowa, October 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mike McMurrin Trucking, Inc. is engaged in the business of hauling
debris, waste and other materials within the state of Iowa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan T. Willems, Esq.
      RUSH & NICHOLSON, PLC
      101 Second Street SE, Suite 100, PO Box 637
      Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0637
      Telephone: (319) 363-5209
      Facsimile: (319) 363-6664
      E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com


MONSANTO CO: Suit by Glyphosate Retailer in Texas Remains Dormant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed in federal court in San Antonio, Texas against
Monsanto Company on behalf of a retailer of glyphosate named Texas
Grain remains dormant, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2014.

Two purported class action suits were filed against the company on
Sept. 26, 2006, supposedly on behalf of all farmers who purchased
the company's Roundup brand herbicides in the United States for
commercial agricultural purposes since Sept. 26, 2002. Plaintiffs
essentially allege that the company monopolized the market for
glyphosate for commercial agricultural purposes. Plaintiffs seek
an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief. In late
February 2007, three additional suits were filed, alleging similar
claims. All of these suits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware. On July 18, 2007, the court ruled
that any such suit had to be filed in federal or state court in
Missouri; the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
two original cases. On Aug. 8, 2007, plaintiffs in the remaining
three cases voluntarily dismissed their complaints, which have not
been re-filed. On Aug. 10, 2007, the same set of counsel filed a
parallel action in federal court in San Antonio, Texas, on behalf
of a retailer of glyphosate named Texas Grain. Plaintiffs seek to
certify a national class of all entities that purchased glyphosate
directly from the company since August 2003. The magistrate judge
issued his recommendation to the District Court on Aug. 7, 2009,
denying class certification and the litigation has remained
dormant since that event.


MONSANTO CO: Accord in Suit Over Dioxin Contamination Proceeds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company is now executing the terms of the settlement of a
suit filed by persons allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans
contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia after
an objection to the settlement was quelled, according to the
company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2014.

On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the
Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto,
Pharmacia and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named as the
successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged
class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and
students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed
to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro,
West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the
contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and
operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture
between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo Nobel). Akzo
Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia
was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit
seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate
value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to
test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The
complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination
and punitive damages. Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend
Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011,
the judge dismissed both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case. The
class action certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007. On
Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen
(now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced
Allen as class representative) case as a class action for property
damage and for medical monitoring. On Nov. 2, 2011, the court, in
response to defense motions, entered an order decertifying the
property class. After the trial for the Bibb medical monitoring
class action began on Jan. 3, 2012, the parties reached a
settlement in principle as to both the medical monitoring and the
property class claims. The proposed settlement provides for a 30
year medical monitoring program consisting of a primary fund of up
to $21 million and an additional fund of up to $63 million over
the life of the program, and a three year property remediation
plan with funding up to $9 million. On Feb. 24, 2012, the court
preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement. A
fairness hearing was held June 18, 2012, resulting in the trial
court's final approval of the settlement. Certain plaintiffs
objected to the approval of the settlement and appealed to the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On Nov. 22, 2013, the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and upheld
the fairness of the class action settlements. The objector filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which
was denied. The settlement is final and the parties have commenced
performance of the terms of the settlement.


MOODY'S CORP: "Cheyne SIV" Suit Plaintiffs Want Rulings Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, seeking reversal of a
dismissal of their claims and also seeking reversal of a denial of
class certification of a suit against Moody's Corp. related to a
structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance, according to
the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory
and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In
early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were
subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating
agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the
fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012,
in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously
dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding
and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating
agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the
reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation
claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the
court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. On
August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud
and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in
part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but
allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims
of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11
plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's
for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose
claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on
November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions,
reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously
dismissed.

On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one
additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April
24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14
plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated
to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as
against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that stipulation
on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of
two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed by the Court. On May
23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their claims
and also seeking reversal of the Court's denial of class
certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in
earlier proceedings, they seek approximately $76 million in total
compensatory damages in connection with the two claims at issue on
the appeal.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former UT Football Player Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Silverstein, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that Julius
Whittier, a former Texas football player who was diagnosed with
early onset Alzheimer's disease in August 2012, is the lead
plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA that could
max out at $50 million in damages.

Mr. Whittier, 64, is seeking a minimum of $5 million in
restitution while leading the charge for a yet-to-be-determined
class of players meeting the following criteria, according to the
lawsuit filed on his behalf by his sister, Mildred Whittier, in
United States District Court on Oct. 27.

"All former NCAA football players residing in the U.S. who played
from 1960 - 2014 who did not go on to play professional football
in the NFL and who have been diagnosed with a latent brain injury
or disease."

The lawsuit alleges that the NCAA failed to do enough to protect
its student-athletes from head injuries despite the organization's
constitution (article 2, 2.2.3) requiring that each member school
"protect the health of, and provide a safe environment for" its
players.

"The NCAA has breached its duty to protect college football
players in the face of long-standing and overwhelming evidence
regarding the need to do so.  The NCAA has ignored this duty and
profited immensely from its inaction and denial, all to the
detriment of the players."

It also mentions that the NCAA has failed in other areas, such as
educating football players about the "long term, life-altering
risks and consequences of head impacts" and establishing "known
protocols to prevent, mitigate, monitor, diagnose and treat brain
injuries."

Julius Whittier, an offensive lineman and tight end who was the
first African-American player to suit up for the Longhorns (1969-
72), filed his case as somewhat of a response to the NCAA
proposing a $75 million concussion settlement in August that would
not have provided immediate care to many former players in need.

Speaking in opposition to that proposed deal was Whittier's
attorney, Dwight E. Jefferson, who told Law360.com that his client
is now "totally disabled".


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nichole Tucker and Erica Wright, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2007-2, a Delaware statutory trust; The National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2007-4, a Delaware statutory trust; Weinstein,
Pinson & Riley, P.S., a foreign corporation; and Anthony D.
Colunga, an individual, Case No. 8:14-cv-02756-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
October 31, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Charles Nash, Esq.
          Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA
          3900 First St N, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
          Telephone: (727) 347-7828
          Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
          E-mail: cnash@leavenlaw.com
                  ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
                  ameyer@leavenlaw.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Nearly 200 Former Players Opt Out of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, The Legal Intelligencer, reports that nearly
200 former football players have opted out of the settlement for
the class action suit over concussions against the NFL.

Of the roughly 25,000 former players who are eligible to take part
in the settlement, 196 decided to opt out by the Oct. 14 deadline,
according to the report from BrownGreer, the claims administrator
for the case, that was filed with the court late on Nov. 3.

A total of nearly 34,000 people are eligible to take part in the
settlement, including family members of former players, and a
total of 220 people opted out by the deadline.

U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted preliminary approval in early July to a
settlement agreed to by the National Football League and co-lead
counsel for the plaintiffs.  The judge had rejected the first deal
in January because she was troubled by the lack of empirical
support for the total amount of the settlement -- which was $760
million -- and that she was unsure that there would be enough
money to cover all of the players with potential claims because
the portion of the settlement from which injured players could
draw was capped at $675 million.

The agreement she gave preliminary approval to doesn't include a
cap, but it does limit the concussion-related ailments that can
qualify for claims, according to critics of the deal.  The primary
concern among critics is that the deal doesn't sufficiently
compensate players who suffer from chronic traumatic
encephalopathy, or CTE.

Some members of the class had asked the court to move back the
opt-out date past the fairness hearing, which is scheduled for
Nov. 19, but Judge Brody denied the request.

Several lawyers representing former players in the case have been
at odds with the co-lead counsel for the class, arguing that
they've been left in the dark about the information underlying the
settlement agreement, so they can't properly advise their clients
as to whether they should take part in the class settlement or opt
out and pursue their own case against the NFL.

Chris Seeger and Sol Weiss, the co-lead counsel for the class, saw
the report as an affirmation of the settlement, saying in a
prepared statement, "With over 99 percent participation, it is
clear the retired player community resoundingly supports this
settlement.  Over the last several months, we have heard from
countless retired players who are in dire need of these benefits,
as well as those who take comfort in the long-term protections the
settlement provides.  If the settlement receives final approval,
former NFL players will be able to take advantage of its benefits
within months, unless appeals are filed that will indefinitely
delay the start of these programs."

Thomas Demetrio -- TAD@CorboyDemetrio.com -- of Corboy & Demetrio
in Chicago was one of the lawyers concerned about the structure of
the settlement and argued during a telephone conference with the
court for pushing back the opt-out deadline. Demetrio's primary
concern about the settlement is that it doesn't sufficiently
compensate for CTE.

That's an argument to be raised at the fairness hearing,
Judge Brody had told Mr. Demetrio.  The issue she was deciding
during that conference was the length of the opt-out period, which
was set to be 90 days from when she granted preliminary approval
to the settlement in July.

"We believe that at the end of the day, you are going to see that
CTE must be included in the settlement going forward,"
Mr. Demetrio had said.

His firm is representing Tregg Duerson, who is handling his father
Dave Duerson's estate.  He did not opt out of the settlement.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Court Wants to Hear From Union in Doping Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The federal judge overseeing a class action that accuses the NFL
of providing football players with dangerous painkillers to mask
their injuries wants to hear from the NFL players' union before
deciding whether to allow the case to go forward, reports Maria
Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service.

"The plaintiffs' lawyer is a buttinsky, to borrow an old phrase,"
U.S. District Judge William Alsup said at an October 30 hearing.
"The union is supposed to be looking out for the plaintiffs.  The
labor union is the one that is supposed to be doing this."

"But that's exactly my point," the former players' attorney Steve
Silverman said.  "The union doesn't represent the former players."

Lead plaintiff Richard Dent, a former Chicago Bear, accuses the
league of treating players' injuries on the field for decades with
nonprescription opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and
local anesthetics, with little regard for the side effects or the
players' medical histories.

Among the medications handed out, the players say, were Percodan,
Vicodin, Percocet, Prednisone, Toradol, Ambien and Celebrex.

Toradol's complications include renal failure and increased risk
of bleeding, but the drug is increasingly used on athletes,
according to the lawsuit.

Jeremy Newbery, Roy Green, J.D. Hill, Keith Van Horne, Ron Stone,
Ron Pritchard and James McMahon are also named as plaintiffs in
the May 2014 complaint.

The NFL claims that it bears no legal responsibility because the
collective bargaining agreements that govern the terms and
conditions of the players' medical care places the teams' medical
staff in charge of players' diagnoses and treatments.

At the October 30 hearing on its motion to dismiss, NFL attorney
Dan Nash said the players "are making allegations based on medical
care provided while they were covered under the CBAs.  These
rights don't go away because they retire."

Nash said the league was under no obligation to question the
medical opinions of team doctors and trainers.

"They're suggesting we had a duty to second-guess the doctors'
expert judgment," Nash said.

But the players argued that not only has their coverage under
those agreements expired, the CBAs do not actually cover the
issues raised in their class action, such as whether the NFL
breached its duty to inform the players about the controlled
substances injected into their bodies.

Alsup, who said, "I don't follow fantasy football. I go to a game
every ten years," asked Silverman what team Dent played for.

"I think it's the Bears, but I don't really follow football
either," Silverman said.

During the hour-long hearing, Silverman argued that the NFL could
have foreseen the harm the drugs were causing the players, and
that the league knew the players were stuck with needles full of
drugs before being sent back to the field.

"So what if they knew? Where does it say the NFL is supposed to
swoop down and intervene? I question whether the NFL has a duty to
intervene and stop the clubs from mistreating a player," Alsup
said.

The case hinges partly upon whether the former players are bound
to arbitrate their grievances under the collective bargaining
agreements they signed as players.

"I would like to get the views of the union," Alsup said.  "If a
retiree goes to the union and says, 'I want to grieve the type of
injury in the complaint,' would the union be obligated to pursue
that grievance?  Or is it true that the retiree has no rights to
grieve anything?  If it were to be grieved, would the CBA cover
the types of claims that are being asserted?"

The union had until Nov. 5 to reply with a letter to the court on
whether it will answer Alsup's questions.


NCO FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Mazzucco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-06867-JAP-LHG (D.N.J., October 31, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com

               - and -

          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


NEW BRITAIN, CT: Female Officers File Sexual Harassment Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Stapleton, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that a New Britain police sergeant is accused of repeatedly
massaging the shoulders of a female officer without her permission
and making vulgar comments about her body.  While in the police
department's conference room, the sergeant allegedly shared his
thoughts on her uniform and how it fit her, sometimes in front of
fellow officers.

And so Jennifer Raspardo became one of three former New Britain
female officers to file a federal lawsuit against the sergeant and
the New Britain Police Department, complaining of sexual
harassment and gender discrimination between 2007 and 2009.  With
a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, portions of the lawsuit will proceed, focusing on claims
that Sgt. John Carlone created a hostile work environment by
sexually harassing two of the female officers with inappropriate
jokes, comments and unwanted physical contact.

The New Britain case is hardly the only current or recent case
alleging discrimination against female officers in Connecticut
police departments.  Decades after sexual harassment and gender
discrimination became hot-button issues, women in law enforcement
and firefighting frequently complain that they are poorly treated
by male counterparts and supervisors.

"We're in the 21st century, and you'd figure we would have
advanced beyond this type of thing," said Thomas Bucci --
tbucci@wwblaw.com -- of Willinger, Willinger & Bucci in
Bridgeport, who is representing a female firefighter in a
discrimination claim against Bridgeport.

Why all the lawsuits? One reason is simply the increased number of
women in law enforcement. In the 1970s, according to the U.S.
Department of Justice, they accounted for roughly 2 percent of
sworn officers.  Now that percentage has increased to 13 percent,
which is still well below what one might expect in a society with
nearly a 50/50 gender split.

"Women in law enforcement are often inexplicitly resented by their
male counterparts and many face harassment," stated a July 2013
post on the Justice Department website.  "Additionally, many women
encounter a 'brass' ceiling and are unable to rise to supervisory
positions despite their qualifications. Many women do not even try
to reach these positions because of fear of oppression from male
coworkers."

In Connecticut, in 2008, the Wolcott Police Department's only
female police officer won a $300,000 settlement in a
discrimination case against the town.  Officer Doreen Spiotti
alleged that her superiors harassed and discriminated against her
based on her gender and status as a mother.  Similar claims have
been brought more recently in cities such as Norwalk and New
Haven, and have either settled or been dismissed.

In July, the Greenwich Police Department's first female captain
filed a discrimination complaint against the police department and
its chief with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Details of her pending complaint have not been made
public. But the police department's top brass have called the
allegations brought by Capt. Pamela Gustovich "baseless."
"The town has responded to the complaints, denying that there was
any discrimination or other illegal actions by the police
department or the town," Police Chief James Heavey said in a
statement.  "We also participated in a mediation with the EEOC in
an attempt to resolve the matter, but unfortunately there was no
resolution.  An outside investigative agency was hired by the town
to look into the matter and no actionable issues were discovered."
Capt. Gustovich is being represented by Deborah McKenna of
Stamford, whose practice focuses on women's rights and labor law.
McKenna did not respond to a request for comment.

"We get those all the time," said CHRO spokesman James O'Neill,
referring to bias claims filed by women in law enforcement.  While
no statistics on such claims are available, O'Neill said the CHRO
investigates all gender discrimination and workplace bias
complaints, with the vast majority being sent to mediation early
on so the parties can work out a resolution.

"We get good results that way, before the complaints fester and
everyone gets their hackles up," he said.  If administrative
remedies are exhausted without an agreement, which could include a
financial award, the complaints will often go to court.  "Everyone
thinks they have a million-dollar lawsuit," Mr. O'Neill said.  But
state and federal law regarding gender discrimination tends to
limit large damage awards. The legal standard requires proof that
discrimination was intentional, as well as "severe and pervasive."

In the New Britain lawsuit, the women's complaints were not just
lodged against Sgt. Carlone, but four other male officers.

The allegations prompted a vigorous defense by lawyers for the
police department and the officers.  In 2012, Connecticut U.S.
District Judge Alvin Thompson refused a request by the city to
grant the officers full immunity from the claims, which prompted
an appeal from Sgt. Carlone and the other defendants.

On Oct. 6, the Second Circuit affirmed that decision in part and
reversed it in part. In a 97-page decision, the court dismissed
some of the claims, finding that there was no evidence that female
officers' equal protection rights were violated. The decision did,
however, allow two of the women to proceed with their claims
against Sgt. Carlone.

Lawyers for the police department, Sgt. Carlone and the women did
not respond to calls seeking comment.

In 2012, New Haven settled a federal gender discrimination lawsuit
filed by a female officer.  Officer Jodianne Novella had claimed
she was the target of "outrageously degrading remarks" made by
other patrol officers while members of the department were
gathered for duty assignments.

She settled for $20,000 on the eve of trial. "The standard to
prove these types of cases at trial is very high, you have to show
they acted intentionally," said Bridgeport's Bucci, who was
Novella's lawyer.  "She immediately complained [to superiors]
about degrading comments that were made to her, and the case was
really more about retaliation that happened to her after that.
The officer had a really tough time."

Although women have been rising through the ranks to become
supervisors and top administrators at many police departments for
many years, Mr. Bucci said behavior by male officers to create
hostile work environments continues to be "all too common."  He
and other employment lawyers said similar complaints are brought
by female firefighters.

The civil rights lawsuit Mr. Bucci filed on behalf of the
Bridgeport firefighter on Sept. 29 claims the city's handling of
her pregnancy violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the
Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.

In her complaint, Regina Scates argues that the city unfairly
disciplined her last year for taking pregnancy-related sick days
and then forced her to take an unpaid maternity leave despite
providing unlimited paid sick leave for nonpregnancy-related
physical disabilities.

Ms. Scates alleges that she was still capable of working when she
was placed on leave.  "The reaction of the city to her pregnancy,
it would be comical if it wasn't so illegal," Mr. Bucci said.

Robert Mitchell, an employment lawyer with Mitchell & Sheehan in
Stratford, said the high standard required under state and federal
employment and civil rights law can make gender discrimination
claims challenging for plaintiffs.

"Often, one horrible act is not enough" to allow a plaintiff to
prevail, he said. "You have to have a lot of it and that has to
have an impact on the plaintiff.  The fact that a plaintiff may
have heard about a cop or firefighter [making a sexually explicit
comment or viewing pornography] isn't enough.  The plaintiff has
to see it."

Such behavior "has been going on for years" at police departments,
he said.

In 2011, Norwalk succeed in fending off a gender discrimination
lawsuit that was filed by a retired female police lieutenant,
Angela Walsh. U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Martinez found there was
no evidence to show that a male officer was given preferential
treatment over Walsh.

M. Jeffry Spahr, Norwalk's deputy corporation counsel, said he
takes any complaint of gender discrimination seriously.  "I'm an
in-house lawyer with the city, and we all have to work together
here," he said. "You don't want to take a scorched-earth policy
and start lobbing grenades at either the accusers or the accused,
because you have to live with the aftermath."

The facts alleged in each case have to be looked at very closely,
before deciding what course of action the city might take. "I'm
not saying this is the case in Norwalk, but in general there are
times when people are mistreated," he said. "At the same time, you
want to aggressively defend against" unwarranted allegations.


NYSA CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lawson" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tavia Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nysa Corporation d/b/a The Bill Coach, Case No. 2:14-
cv-08401 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Nysa Corporation is a debt relief company that purportedly offers
consumers counseling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, 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
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


OGDEN, UT: Faces Class Action Gang Restraining Orders
-----------------------------------------------------
Ben Winslow, writing for Fox13, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed over Ogden's gang restraining orders.

In a petition filed on Oct. 28, the ACLU of Utah asked the courts
to vacate the convictions of any alleged gang member picked up
under Ogden's controversial restraining orders.  The injunctions
were declared unconstitutional by the Utah Supreme Court.

"In this case, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled that the district
court lacked jurisdiction to issue the Ogden gang injunction.
Since the court was without power to issue that order, no one can
be lawfully punished for violating it," ACLU of Utah Legal
Director John Mejia said in a statement to FOX 13.

In an effort to crack down on gangs, the Ogden Police Department
served members of the Ogden Trece gang with restraining orders,
prohibiting them from associating with each other in public within
city limits.  It also established curfews and other restrictions.

Ogden police insisted the restraining orders cut crime within the
city.  The ACLU of Utah estimates at least 50 people were arrested
for violating the injunction, which carried with it a six month
jail term and a $500 fine.

Alleged members of the gang sued, arguing that the injunctions
violated their First Amendment right to free association.  The
Utah Supreme Court ruled the injunctions were unconstitutional.
Because it is unconstitutional, the ACLU seeks to have those
convictions overturned.


OWENS-ILLINOIS: Judge Approves $9.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Robert D. Mariani on October 23, 2014,
approved a $9.5 million class settlement of a decade-long dispute
between former Owens-Illinois (O-I) employees and the company.
Carol Mager and Susan Saint-Antoine of Console Law Offices LLC,
and Sidney Gold of Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C. respectively
represented 100 long-service terminated employees who were denied
subsidized retirement benefits when the business they worked for
was sold by O-I.  In 2010 the case was certified as a class action
and had proceeded through full pre-trial discovery.  The
settlement provides a lump sum tax-deferred payment to each of the
100 class members from the pension plan, in addition to the
regular retirement benefit.  It also represents the successful
conclusion of seven years of hard fought litigation over the
entitlement to the special retirement benefit.

               About Console Law Offices, LLC

Console Law Offices LLC -- http://www.consolelaw.com-- is an
employment rights law firm with offices in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and Moorestown, New Jersey. Since its inception in
1990, the firm has specialized in the representation of current,
former and potential employees concerning work-related matters.
The lawyers at Console Law Offices LLC counsel whistleblower-
employees who have been retaliated against and individuals who
have been victimized by illegal employment discrimination and
retaliation, including harassment at work.  They also represent
employees concerning medical leaves, disability benefits, wage and
hour claims, employment contracts, severance agreements, stock
option plans, and class action lawsuits.


PINOLANDIA CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evert Jose Carvajal Juarez and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Pinolandia Corporation, Julia Leon, Jacqueline
Leon, Case No. 1:14-cv-24050 (S.D. Fla., October 30, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Pinolandia Corporation owns and operates a restaurant in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Hines" Class Suit in North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joann Hines, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-
00752-F (E.D.N.C., November 1, 2014) asserts claims related to
consumer credit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchel Erik Luxenburg, Esq.
          LUXENBURG & LEVIN, LLC
          23875 Commerce Park, Suite 105
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 452-9301
          Facsimile: (866) 551-7791
          E-mail: mitch@luxenburglevin.com


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Principal Life Faces ERISA Suit in Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------
On March 18, 2014, McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement
Program ("McCaffree") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
against Principal Life, according to Principal Financial Group,
Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The complaint alleged, among other things, breach of duty of
loyalty, breach of duty of prudence and prohibited transactions
under ERISA. McCaffree seeks a nationwide class action on behalf
of all participants and beneficiaries of defined contribution
retirement plans that invested in any Principal Separate Account
in the last six years. McCaffree seeks disgorgement of all fees it
alleges Principal Life improperly retained in addition to other
general claims for relief. Principal Life has filed a motion to
dismiss the case and is aggressively defending the case.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Upholds Class Certification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request for
permission to appeal the denial of class certification in In re
Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation, according to Principal
Financial Group, Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against us; Principal Life; Principal Global Investors, LLC;
Principal Management Corporation; and Principal Real Estate
Investors, LLC (the "Cruise/Mullaney Defendants"). The lawsuits
alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to manage the
Principal U.S. Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in the best
interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze"
on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to
honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became
available. The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed
complaints asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and
are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation.
Plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of class
certification was denied by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals on December 31, 2013. The Cruise/Mullaney Defendants are
aggressively defending the lawsuit.


PUBLIX SUPER: Settles Background Check Class Action for $6.8-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Kennedy, writing for the Ledger, reports that Publix Super
Markets Inc. is scheduled to pay nearly $6.8 million in a class-
action lawsuit settlement over background checks.

The lawsuit, being handled in Tennessee federal court, alleges
that Lakeland-based Publix violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) by not making legally required disclosures about background
checks to job applicants.

Publix has denied any wrongdoing and was not found liable in
court, but agreed to the settlement "because of the substantial
expense of litigation . . . and the disruption to its business
operations," according to legal documents filed in July.

The settlement class totals 90,633 people who would receive $75
apiece -- amounting to roughly $48 each after lawyers' expenses.

A Publix spokesman declined to discuss the case with The Ledger.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment on
Oct. 28.

The settlement includes people who applied for work at Publix
stores and were subjected to background checks during the period
March 12, 2012, to May 13, 2014.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Erin Knights, applied for a job
with Publix in early 2013 through an electronic kiosk at a store
in Hendersonville, Tenn.  The lawsuit says Publix's application
process included an authorization for a background check, but says
it "blatantly violated" an FCRA rule that requires businesses
obtaining a consumer report for employment purposes to notify the
applicant "in a document consisting solely of the disclosure."


RUST-OLEUM: Faces Class Action Over False Paint Product Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
paint manufacturers' claim that one of its products creates long-
lasting coats outside restore surfaces with minimal maintenance is
completely false, according to a class action suit filed at the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by
five plaintiffs from Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against
Rust-Oleum, headquartered in Vernon Hills, Ill., and the makers of
the Restore line of paint products.  According to the claim, all
the plaintiffs experienced significant damage to their outdoor
decking as a result of the paint's cracking, bubbling and peeling
away.

The complaint was filed on behalf of any consumers in Pennsylvania
and New Jersey who purchased the Restore paint, seeking damages in
excess of $5 million on violations of the Magnusson-Moss Act,
which protects the public from deceptive warranty practices, plus
counts of unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and
breach of warranty.

According to the complaint, Rust-Oleum made several claims about
the high quality of Restore, including advertisements that said
the product had a durable coating "formulated to resurface most
wooden and composite decks while providing lasting protection
against moisture and the damaging effects of the sun."

The plaintiffs claim that Rust-Oleum has created a product
that begins to fail on its first day of use.  Because of the paint
mixture, it takes a large amount of effort to remove the paint and
replace it, plus endangering the underlying deck materials.  The
company offers a lifetime warranty, the claim says, but it only
covers the cost of the paint, which is only a fraction of the
expense to replace the product.

For example, Steve and Gina Cady of Berks County, Pa., purchased
$230 worth of Restore in July 2013, based on conversations with
store representatives and video demonstrations.  A year after
applying the paint to their outside deck, the couple noticed
chipping and wearing away at several spots.

After contacting Rust-Oleum, they were told to fill out a warranty
card, then received a refund for the paint, but no consideration
for the substantial damage and deterioration to the deck.

It's a similar story for plaintiffs Scott Reinhart and John
Riello, who used the paint and at least six months later reached
out to the company to complain about product, receiving a refund
for the purchase and not the full cost of repairing the damage.

The complaint says that by packaging and selling Restore,
Rust-Oleum made an implicit warranty that the product would work
as promised on the label and advertisements, and the plaintiffs
relied on those warranties to purchase and use the paint.  The
defendant had a duty to disclose the foreseeable risks of using
Restore, and a duty not to put defective products on the market,
according to the claim.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Audet & Partners
in San Francisco, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia
and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca in Bethesda, Md.

The federal case ID is 5:14-cv-06156-LS.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Sued by Visa Over Disputes in Antitrust/Fee Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa Inc., and Visa International Service
Association v. Sears Holdings Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-06450-
JG-JO (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2014) is brought for declaratory
judgment to resolve a long-standing dispute with Sears.  The
dispute was the subject of class action lawsuits against Visa and
MasterCard Incorporated in 1996, captioned In re Visa
Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, 96-cv-5238 (E.D.N.Y.)

Shortly after the settlement of that lawsuit and the payment by
Visa and MasterCard of substantial sums to the plaintiff class,
including Sears, in that action, a new collection of class action
lawsuits was filed against Visa and MasterCard, captioned In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, 05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.) (Orenstein, M.J.).
In the Interchange Fee Litigation, many of the same claims and
issues that were raised in Visa Check were again asserted.

The Interchange Fee Litigation class actions also settled.  The
Interchange Settlement again provides for substantial payments to
merchants and requires Visa to make significant changes to certain
of its rules relating to all merchants.  In particular, the
Interchange Settlement modified the "no surcharge rule," a change
the Court cited as the "central piece" of the settlement and a
"critical accomplishment."

Sears, however, has publicly opposed and denigrated the
Interchange Settlement, apparently preferring to continue
litigating with Visa, the Plaintiffs say.  They assert that Sears
opted out of the Settlement Class and did so to bring a third
lawsuit for the same alleged antitrust violations against Visa,
continuing 17 years of seriatim litigation over the same issues.

Accordingly, Visa seeks a declaratory judgment in its favor and
against Sears to prevent the continuation of endless, wasteful
litigation between the parties.  To resolve the parties' disputes
expeditiously and finally, Visa seeks a declaration that from
January 1, 2004, to November 27, 2012, the time period for which
Sears may, as an opt-out, seek damages under the Interchange
Settlement, Visa's conduct in, among other things, continuing to
set its "default interchange" rates, maintaining its "honor-all-
cards" rules, enforcing its Merchant Rules, and restructuring
itself did not violate federal antitrust law or the antitrust laws
of the several States or the District of Columbia.

Visa Inc. is a global payments technology company that enables
consumers, businesses, financial institutions, and governments to
use electronic payments instead of cash and checks, and has built
one of the world's most advanced processing networks.  Visa Inc.
is incorporated in the state of Delaware and has its principal
place of business in Foster City, California.  Visa U.S.A. Inc.
and Visa International are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Visa Inc.,
incorporated in Delaware, and have their principal places of
business in Foster City.

Sears is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.  Sears owns and operates
over two-thousand retail stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard J. Holwell, Esq.
          Michael S. Shuster, Esq.
          Demian A. Ordway, Esq.
          HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP
          125 Broad Street, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 837-5151
          E-mail: rholwell@hsgllp.com
                  mshuster@hsgllp.com
                  dordway@hsgllp.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Mason, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-4690
          Telephone: (212) 715-1000
          E-mail: robert.mason@aporter.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Vizas, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Seventh Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: Robert.Vizas@aporter.com

               - and -

          Mark R. Merley, Esq.
          Matthew A. Eisenstein, Esq.
          555 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1206
          Telephone: (202) 942-5321
          Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
          E-mail: Mark.Merley@aporter.com
                  Matthew.Eisenstein@aporter.com


SP BEACH: Removes "Derweduwen" Suit to Middle District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Derweduwen v. SP Beach Hotel
Corp., Case No. 14-007382-CI, was removed from the Sixth Judicial
Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-02757-JDW-AEP to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged job discrimination due to age.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, PA
          777 Alderman Rd.
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 786-5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772-9833
          E-mail: fgo@florinroebig.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James R. Douglass, III, Esq.
          Theresa M. Gallion, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          401 E Jackson St., Suite 2300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 769-7500
          Facsimile: (813) 769-7501
          E-mail: jdouglass@laborlawyers.com
                  tgallion@laborlawyers.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Second Oil Consumption Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Flier, writing for Torque News, reports that a 2nd class-
action oil consumption lawsuit has been filed against Subaru of
America.  The popular 2014 Subaru Forester is on the list.

Which other vehicles are included?

The top-selling 2014 Subaru Forester is on the oil consumption
lawsuit as Subaru of America now has a second class-action suit
that has been filed against the Cherry Hill based automaker.  The
first lawsuit was filed in July, and this second class-action suit
was filed on October 8, 2014. The Courier-Post reports that this
second lawsuit also contends Subaru of America has failed to
address customers' concerns about excessive oil consumption in
some of the automaker's vehicles.

Is your vehicle on the list?

In an article in the New Jersey Law Journal, the first lawsuit,
filed in July on behalf of a California man, claims the 2011-14
Forester, 2013 Legacy and 2013 Outback, with 2.5-liter engines,
and 2012-13 Impreza and 2013 Crosstrek, with 2-liter engines are
having this oil consumption issue.  The suit claims the vehicles
"prematurely burn off and/or consume abnormal and excessive
amounts of engine oil."

The second lawsuit was filed in federal court on October 8,
Camden, New Jersey, on behalf of two Subaru owners from
Connecticut and New Jersey.  This second lawsuit also claims
Subaru of America has not disclosed an oil-consumption problem in
"some vehicles and has refused to cover repair bills caused by an
alleged engine defect."

The two lawfirms will work together

The Attorneys who are representing these Subaru owners in the two
oil consumption lawsuits "will work together with the common goal
of getting relief for Subaru customers," said Eric Lechtzin --
elechtzin@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague, the Philadelphia firm
that filed the second class-action suit.


SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Illegally Sells Corn, "Hostler" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travis W. Hostler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Syngenta Seeds Inc., Syngenta Corporation, and
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., Case No. 4:14-cv-04162 (D. S.D.,
October 30, 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:

      Scott Swier, Esq.
      Jake Fischer, Esq.
      SWIER LAW FIRM, PROF. LLC
      202 North Main Street
      Avon, SD 57315
      Telephone: (605) 286-3218
      Facsimile: (605) 286-3219
      E-mail: scott@swierlaw.com
              jake@swierlaw.com

         - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      McCULLEY McCLUER PLLC
      2113 Middle Street, Suite 208
      Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
      Telephone: (205) 238-6757
      Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com

         - and -

      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      McCULLEY McCLUER PLLC
      1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662) 550-4511
      Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

         - and -

      Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
      Vineet Bhatia, Esq.
      Manmeet Walia , Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 651-9366
      Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
      E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com
              vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com
              mwalia@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Joseph C. Portera, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      901 Main Street, Suite 5100
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 754-1900
      Facsimile: (214) 754-1933
      E-mail: jpotera@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3800
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 516-3880
      E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Archer" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Archer, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., Highland
Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08447 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2014),
alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured
by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants
from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel
vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and
shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              tomloeser@hbsslaw.com


TAMPA, FL: Must Pay Over $1MM in Legal Fees Under Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the city of Tampa has to pay over $1 million in legal
fees as part of a class action settlement to resolve claims by
firefighters and police officers over pension benefits, the
Florida Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision.

Florida has two statutes under which parties are entitled to be
paid fees when they prevail in suits over minimum pension benefits
owed to firefighters and police officers.  The laws also authorize
Florida municipalities to enact local pension plans.  At issue was
whether the fee-shifting provisions apply in lawsuits seeking to
enforce pension benefits under local plans.

The plaintiffs said that the Board of Trustees of the City Pension
Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the city of Tampa
failed to pay beneficiaries their 13th check for the fiscal year
ending Sept. 30, 2004.  The city settled the class action in
exchange for paying the remaining principal payments and interest
on the late payments.

While the Tampa retiree plan "is a local law plan created by
special act of the Legislature, that plan exists within and is
subject to the framework for local law plans" established in
Florida state law, the majority said in a per curiam opinion.  The
fee-shifting provisions can't be altered when localities adopt
their own pension benefit plans, the court added.

In dissent, Justice Charles T. Canady said the attorney fee
provisions in state law don't apply to a claim for local pension
plan benefits that are not required under state law.

"A particular provision of law may come into existence by
authorization of a higher law, but claims to enforce the
particular provisions are not said to be claims brought 'under or
pursuant to' the higher law," Justice Canady said.


TD AMERITRADE: Faces "Sarbacker" Suit in Nebraska District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sarbacker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD
Ameritrade Inc., TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc., Frederic J. Tomczyk
and Paul Jiganti, Case No. 8:14-cv-00341-JFB-TDT (D. Neb., October
31, 2014) arises from alleged contract dispute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES JR. PC
          YATES LAW FIRM
          Allegheny Building, Suite 519
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1649
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
          Ashley M. Price, Esq.
          Benny C. Goodman, III, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          55 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: andrewb@rgrdlaw.com
                  aprice@rgrdlaw.com
                  bennyg@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Jorde, Esq.
          DOMINA LAW GROUP
          2425 South 144th Street
          Omaha, NE 68144-3267
          Telephone: (402) 493-4100
          Facsimile: (402) 493-9782
          E-mail: bjorde@dominalaw.com


TITAN INDEMNITY: Removes "Jackson" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jackson v. Titan Indemnity
Company, Case No. 2014, No. 03271, was removed from the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-06258-LDD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that "Titan has engaged in a common course
of conduct . . . hereby it has sought to avoid paying liability
claims . . . by imposing, relying upon and enforcing the wrongful
exclusion."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          Noah Axler, Esq.
          DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 732-6067
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovanaxler.com
                  naxler@donovanaxler.com

               - and -

          Kevin P. Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & HERRON, P.C.
          1500 Market Street, Suite W3112
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 972-1500
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyherronlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charlotte E. Thomas, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 S 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
          Telephone: (215) 979-1170
          Facsimile: (215) 405-2582
          E-mail: cthomas@duanemorris.com


TRUE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Gallusi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Gallusi, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. True Communications,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08583 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

True Communications, Inc. provides a variety of tower services
including engineering, maintenance and network deployment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


TWININGS OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Misleading Tea Labels
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Norris, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Twinings of North America, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-14048 (D. Mass., October 30, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants utilize unlawful and misleading labels to market its
green, black and white tea products.

Twinings of North America, Inc. is a producer of retail tea
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
      132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580-8270
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Bonnie J. Prober, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
              bprober@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com

         - and -

      Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
      CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, PC
      120 North LaSalle, 31st Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 899-9090
      Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
      E-mail: chd@cliffordlaw.com

         - and -

      Zona Jones, Esq.
      PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, LLP
      490 Park Street
      Beaumont, TX 77701
      Telephone: (409) 835-6000
      Facsimile: (409) 813-8618
      E-mail: zjones@pulf.com

         - and -

      Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
      THE FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      565 Fifth Avenue, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: 212-880-9571
      Facsimile: 917-591-5245
      E-mail: keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
      LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
      12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
      Miramar Beach, FL 32550
      Telephone: (850) 837-6020
      Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
      E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

         - and -

       Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
       PRATT & ASSOCIATES
       1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
       San Jose, CA 95126
       Telephone: (408) 429-6506
       Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
       E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

          - and -

       J. Price Coleman, Esq.
       COLEMAN LAW FIRM
       1100 Tyler Avenue, Suite 102
       Oxford, MS 38655
       Telephone: (662) 236-0047
       Facsimile: (662) 513-0072
       E-mail: colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net


VEMMA NUTRITION: Faces "Horanzy" Class Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
John Horanzy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vemma Nutrition Company, Benson K. Boreyko and Yibing
Wang, Case No. 7:14-cv-01296-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., October 22, 2014)
seeks relief under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

In another story, Courthouse News Service reports that Vemma
Nutrition Co. pushes its products with false and unsubstantiated
claims that they contain a "clinically studied" and "doctor
formulated" formula, a class action claims in Federal Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com


VIKING CLIENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ordonez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Garcia-Ordonez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Viking Client Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08425
(C.D. Cal., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Viking Client Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency that
offers a full range of recovery solutions for large, regional and
community banks, insurance companies, debt buyers and other
financial establishments across the United States.

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


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Wipes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
an Alabama woman who says she became ill after using baby wipes
has initiated a proposed class action against Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., blaming the company for selling allegedly bacteria-
contaminated product.

Plaintiff Rochelle Endres brought the suit in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois on Oct. 24, the day before
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced the manufacturer
of the wipes -- Nutek Disposables Inc. -- was recalling all lots
of 10 brands of the pre-moistened, disposable wipes because some
packages may contain Burkholderia cepacia, or B. cepacia,
bacteria.  Also listed as defendants are McElhattan, Pa.-based
Nutek and its Long Island, N.Y.,-based parent company, First
Quality Enterprises Inc.

The FDA said in an Oct. 25 press release that this bacteria poses
little medical risk to healthy people, but those with weakened
immune systems or chronic lung diseases, particularly cystic
fibrosis, may be more susceptible to infection.

In Endres v. Wal-Mart, Ms. Endres says that she bought boxes of
900-count Simply Right wipes from June 30 until Oct. 10 at a
Wal-Mart-owned Sam's Club in Birmingham for her household's use
and for the care of her young daughter.

Ms. Endres' complaint says she suddenly became ill in September
with a bacterial infection.  She said Sam's Club informed her on
Oct. 10 about the possible contamination and advised her and other
customers to discontinue use of the product and to return any
unused wipes to the store.

Ms. Endres' complaint alleges the defendants failed to disclose
the health risks and defects of the wipes, and engaged in breaches
of warranty, violation of the federal Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,
violations of various state consumer protection laws, fraud and
unjust enrichment.  She seeks damages, restitution and injunctive
relief.

According to the FDA, after Nutek received a small number of
complaints of discoloration and odor, the company performed
microbial testing that showed the presence of B. cepacia in some
of the products.  On Oct. 3, the company initiated a voluntary
recall.  Nutek has received numerous reports of complaints about
rashes, irritation, infections, fever, gastrointestinal problems,
and respiratory effects, but none have been confirmed to be
related to the use of the wipes, the FDA release said.  The
investigation continues.

Aside from Sam's Club, the Nutek wipes were sold by Walgreen Co.;
Family Dollar Stores Inc.; Fred's Inc.; and Diapers.com, the FDA
announcement said.


WALGREEN CO: Appeals Court Refuses to Reinstate Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the submission of form declarations from plaintiffs, most of which
later were recanted, amounted to a corruption of the "pursuit of
truth," a California appeals court panel said in refusing to
reinstate a proposed class action against The Walgreen Co.

A panel of California's Second District Court of Appeal on Oct. 23
affirmed a lower court's denial of class certification for an
action brought by Walgreens employees alleging the company
violated the workers' rights to breaks for meals.

In its decision, the appeals court echoed the condemnation of
Superior Court of Los Angeles County Judge Carl West of the
submission of "mostly identical" declarations from 44 plaintiffs,
and their subsequent partial or full disavowal.

"The trial judge repeatedly said these declarations 'appalled'
him, and he told counsel, 'You know better'," according to the
appeals court opinion, written by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
John Wiley, Jr., designated by California's chief justice to serve
on the panel.

The justices found other reasons, as well, to deny certification
for In re: Walgreen Company Overtime, which alleged the company
violated the California law requiring employers to give employees
time off for meals.

The motion from lead plaintiff Darryl Collins "failed in the trial
court because Collins had no good proof," the justices wrote.  For
instance, an expert's testimony was discounted because he
misapplied California law.  And emails purporting to show
Walgreens forced workers to miss their meal periods actually
demonstrated the company viewed the breaks as important and took
pains to provide them, the order stated.

In assessing the declarations, the justices described each one as
stating that, on some occasions, "meal periods were not made
available to me" because the allegedly short-handed store required
them to work through their breaks.

"When witnesses speak exactly the same words, one wonders who put
those words there, and how accurate and reliable those words are,"
the opinion stated, noting the large number of workers who later
recanted.

"The prevalence of falsity in the declarations raised questions
about how Collins's lawyers had created these declarations in the
first place," the opinion said. "The prevalence of falsity in the
declarations raised questions about how Collins's lawyers had
created these declarations in the first place."

Justices Victoria Chaney and Jeffrey Johnson also sat on the
panel.

Plaintiffs and appellants counsel are with the firms Krutcik &
Georggin, and Westrup Klick.  Seyfarth Shaw represented Walgreen
Co.


WILLBROS GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Oct. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Willbros Group, Inc.
common stock between August 4, 2014 and October 21, 2014.  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Willbros investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Willbros class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-408.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
Southern 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, Willbros issued materially false
financial statements for the second quarter ended June 30, 2014.
On October 22, 2014, Willbros announced that it intends to restate
its financial statements for the second quarter of 2014, which
should no longer be relied upon.  The Company revealed that the
intended restatement stems from an error in the estimation of a
significant pipeline construction project and its correction would
result in the reversal of approximately $8.0 million in recognized
pre-tax income and the recognition of approximately $14.0 to $16.0
million in estimated pre-tax losses at completion.  Disclosure of
these adverse facts caused the price of Willbros stock to drop by
over 35% on October 22, 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 29, 2014. If you wish to join the litigation go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-408.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.


XEROX EDUCATION: Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a federal judge has refused to certify two class
actions in which plaintiffs alleged that their federal student
loan company failed to give them reductions in their interest
rates.

Plaintiffs allege that they were entitled to the reductions if
they made on-time payments for a certain time period or, while
enrolled in an auto-debit program, made payments in excess of
their regular installments.

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of
New York said the plaintiffs would not be able to show on a
classwide basis that defendants Xerox Education Services LLC,
NextStudent Inc. and U.S. Bank, N.A. had a common policy of
handling payments for its borrowers incorrectly.

One class pursued a claim for breach of contract only and the
other class alleged a breach of contract claim and a violation of
New York General Business Law Section 349.  There may have been
over 40,000 borrowers in one program and over 12,000 borrowers in
another program.

The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and monetary damages.
"First, individualized inquiries would be necessary to determine
which class members provided instructions regarding prepayments,
which class members sought to advance their next due date, and
which set of contract terms applied to each class member," Judge
Crotty said.  ". . . Defendants have offered a plausible argument
that some borrowers seek to advance their due date in various
circumstances, such as serving in the military, with seasonal
earnings or inconsistent income streams, or on extended travel."

The class representative and the proposed classes met the
requirements for numerosity of the class, commonality, typicality
and adequacy of class representation, Judge Crotty said.

"The claims of the entire . . . class arise from the same course
of conduct in which defendants allegedly failed to allow
prepayments without advancing monthly payments to slow repayment
of loans and increase the amount of interest paid," the judge
said.

The court also denied the motion to appoint Bragar Eagle & Squire
as counsel in the class actions.


                             *********

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  * * *