---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 11, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 224

                             Headlines

ALBEMARLE CORP: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Merger With Rockwood
ALLSTATE CORP: Lawsuit Over Claims Handling Practices Continues
ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Two Labor Lawsuits in California Court
ALLSTATE CORP: N.Y. Court Certifies Group of No-Fault Adjusters
ALLSTATE CORP: No Cert. Granted to Lawsuit Over Program Reorg.

ALLSTATE CORP: Validity of "Release" to Decide Damages Award
AMEDISYS INC: Challenges Reversal of Securities Suit's Dismissal
AMEDISYS INC: La. Court Approves ERISA Suit Deal on Final Basis
AMEDISYS INC: Opposes Motion to Amend New Wage & Hour Law Claim
AMEDISYS INC: Ill. Labor Case Still Stayed Pending Conn. Suit

AMERICAN BANKERS: Forum Selection Provision Inapplicable to Case
AMERICAN REALTY: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN REALTY: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN REALTY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN REALTY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action

ATOSSA GENETICS: Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Claimant Wants to Make Politicians Accountable
BANK OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Upholds "Scott" Class Action Dismissal
BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS: "Hathaway" Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana
BLUE BUFFALO: "Fisher" Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri

BLUE BUFFALO: "Teperson" Suit Moved From California to Missouri
BOB EVANS FARMS: Florida Class Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces Suit Over Plavix-Related Injuries
BROOKDALE HOSPITAL: Accused of Discrimination by Nigerian Worker

CACH LLC: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Florida
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Accord in Egg Antitrust Case Has Final Okay
CARRIER IQ: Settles Privacy Class Action Over Tracking Software
CINCINNATI BENGALS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cheerleader's Suit
CLOTHES DOCTOR: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages

COPENHAVER INC: Reaches Settlement With ERISA Plaintiffs
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Pondo" Suit Over Pinnacle Device Use
DES MOINES, IA: Faces Class Action Over Bedbug Infestation
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Wins Dismissal of "Kelly" Securities Action
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Loidy Tang and Illinois Bell May Finalize Deal

ETON HOME: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Oklahoma Suit Says
FLAX USA: Settles Flax Milk Deceptive Labeling Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Jacobs" Suit to E.D. North Carolina
GENERAL NUTRITION: Falsely Advertises Staminol Drug, Suit Claims
HERBALIFE LTD: Settles Class Action Over Business Structure

INTEL CORP: Settles Class Action Over Pentium 4 Processor
KEFI LLC: Court Grants Class Settlement, In Part
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Eagan Avenatti Files Securities Class Action
LAZZARI FUEL: Has Partial Charcoal Class Action Settlement
LENOVO INC: Settles Class Action Over Ultrabook Design Defect

LIQUOR CONTROL: Recalls Mogen David "Red Wine - Concord"
LORDFORD INC: Recalls Cosine Coffee Mate Due to Undeclared Milk
MANNA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products
MARATHON VENTURES: Recalls Raw Macadamia Nuts
MARRONE BIO: Deferred Deadline to Respond to Chen Case Approved

MASIMO CORP: "Unsolicited" Fax Ad Suit Stayed Pending FCC Ruling
MASIMO CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Randomized Trial in Alabama
MASTERCARD INT'L: "Chi" Suit Suit Alleging RICO Claims Dismissed
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit May be Heard Q4
MIDLAND CREDIT: Certification Bid in "Gold" Case Granted in Part

MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 4,255 Vehicles Due to Brake Booster
MURRY'S INC: Recalls 31,689 Lbs. of Gluten Free Breaded Chickens
NISSAN: Recalls 1,800+ Infiniti SUVs Over Airbag Defect
NORM CRAMER: Motion for Reconsideration in "Taylor" Case Tossed
OCWEN LOAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims

PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
PENN GLOBAL: Sued for Firing Worker for Using Benefit Plan Rights
PEARSON PLC: Professors File Class Action Over Book Royalties
PFIZER INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Zoloft Birth Defect Claims
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Corizon Must Produce Health Records, Court Says

PRICE CHOPPER: Court Refuses to Issue Emergency Protective Order
QUEBEC MAJOR: Ex-Hockey Players File Minimum Wage Class Action
RICHARDSON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Margarine Products
ROLLING ACRES: Recalls Unpasteurized Apple Cider Due to E. Coli
ROYAL BANK: Judge Settles MBS Class Action for $275 Million

S & S PETROLEUM: Removes "Figueroa" Suit to C.D. California
SARROS: Appeals Court Revives Class Action Over Junk Fax Ads
SECURITAS SECURITY: Bid for Conditional Certification Granted
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Prevails in Most Public Nuisance Litigations
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: To Receive Disbursement in Antitrust Suit Deal

SHOP PACKAGING: Recalls 115,505 Lbs. of Chicken Wing Products
SILVER AIRWAYS: Faces Suit in Florida Alleging Violations of FCRA
SM ENERGY: Okla. Court Lifts Stay on Royalty Payments Lawsuit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Suit v. Delta, Airtran Sent to Special Master
ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses "Chaflin" Class Action

TAKATA CORP: Faces "Zamora" Product Liability Suit in California
TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Signature Cafe Broccoli Kale Salad
TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls 1,510 Units of WAWA Garden Rotini Salad
TE CONNECTIVITY: Removes "Wilson" Labor Suit to N.D. California
TEPCO: Sailors' Class Action Over Radiation Exposure Can Proceed

TRENDON SHAVERS: Faces Bitcoin Securities Fraud Case
TRIUMPH MOTORCYCLES: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Suspensions
UNITED SERVICES: Removes "Turk" Suit to Washington District Court
UNUM LIFE: Removes "Davis" Suit to Eastern District of Arkansas
VOLVO: Appeals Sunroof Class Action Certification

WELCOME MARKET: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
WEST ASSET: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
WYETH: Court Narrows Claims in Effexor XR Antitrust Case
ZILLOW INC: Court Says Securities Action Fails to State Claim

* Australian Big Plaintiff Law Firms, Litigation Funders Dominate
* Background Check Forms Must Not Include Release Language


                             *********


ALBEMARLE CORP: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Merger With Rockwood
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Albemarle Corporation is facing a consolidated lawsuit in relation
to its merger with Rockwood Holdings, 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 July 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer
County relating to the merger.  On July 24, 2014, an additional
putative class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Division
of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County relating to the
merger. Both suits name the same plaintiff but were filed by
different law firms. On August 1, 2014 and August 12, 2014, three
additional putative class action complaints were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware relating to the merger.
The lawsuits filed in New Jersey, Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings
Inc., et al. (Thwaites I), Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et
al. (Thwaites II), and the lawsuits filed in Delaware, Rudman
Partners, L.P. v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., Riley v.
Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., and North Miami Beach Police
Officers & Firefighters' Retirement Plan v. Rockwood Holdings,
Inc., et al., each name Rockwood, its directors and Albemarle as
defendants. Thwaites II and the cases filed in Delaware also name
Albemarle Holdings Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Albemarle, as a defendant. The lawsuits, which contain
substantially similar allegations, include allegations that the
Rockwood board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the merger by failing to ensure that Rockwood
shareholders will receive the maximum value for their shares,
failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and putting their
own interests ahead of Rockwood shareholders. Rockwood and
Albemarle are alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged
fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits seek a variety of equitable
relief, including enjoining the Rockwood board of directors from
proceeding with the proposed merger unless and until they have
acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize
shareholder value and rescission of the merger to the extent
implemented, in addition to damages arising from the defendants'
alleged breaches and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants
intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits. On August 12, 2014, the
plaintiff in Thwaites I filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Without Prejudice as to all defendants. On August 27, 2014, the
Delaware Court of Chancery ordered the three Delaware cases
consolidated and appointed co-lead counsel. The court also ordered
that no response to the complaints shall be due until after
plaintiffs in the cases filed in Delaware file an amended
consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs in the cases filed in Delaware
have yet to file an amended consolidated complaint. On September
19, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites II filed an amended complaint
including additional allegations that the registration statement
failed to disclose material information.


ALLSTATE CORP: Lawsuit Over Claims Handling Practices Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case against Allstate Corporation, challenging aspects of its
claim handling practices, will continue in Montana state court,
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.

Allstate is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit in Montana
state court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in
Montana.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company adjusts claims
made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a manner that
unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to claimants who were
represented by attorneys.  In January 2012, the court certified a
class of Montana claimants who were not represented by attorneys
with respect to the resolution of auto accident claims.  The court
certified the class to cover an indefinite period that commences
in the mid-1990's.  The certified claims include claims for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.  Injunctive relief may include a claim process
by which unrepresented claimants could request that their claims
be readjusted.  No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of
the class.  The Company appealed the order certifying the class.
In August 2013, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, and
reversed in part, the lower court's order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification and remanded the case for trial.
The Company petitioned for rehearing of the Montana Supreme
Court's decision, which the Court denied.  In January 2014, the
Company timely filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Montana Supreme Court's
decision.  On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
petition for a writ of certiorari.  The case will continue in
Montana state court and all of the Company's various defenses
remain available to it.  To date no discovery has occurred related
to the potential value of the class members' claims.  The Company
has asserted various defenses with respect to the plaintiff's
claims, which have not been finally resolved.  In the Company's
judgment a loss is not probable.


ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Two Labor Lawsuits in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Corporation is vigorously litigating two class action
cases in California in which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock
wage and hour claims, 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.

One case, involving two classes, is pending in Los Angeles
Superior Court and was filed in December 2007.  In this case, one
class includes auto physical damage adjusters employed in the
state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final
judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-
clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior
to their first assignments.  The other class includes all non-
exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until
January 2010 who received pay statements from Allstate which
allegedly did not comply with California law.  The other case was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in September 2010.  In April 2012, the trial court
certified the class, and Allstate appealed to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  On September 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the trial court's decision to certify the class, and
Allstate filed a motion for rehearing en banc.  In addition to
off-the-clock claims, the plaintiffs in this case allege other
California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid
overtime.  The class in this case includes all adjusters in the
state of California from September 29, 2006 to final judgment.
Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.


ALLSTATE CORP: N.Y. Court Certifies Group of No-Fault Adjusters
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
certified a class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law
and refused to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-
fault adjusters who filed a suit against Allstate Corporation,
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.

In addition to the California class actions, a case was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly
classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The case was filed in April 2011, and
the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.  On September 16, 2014, the court certified a
class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused
to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault
adjusters.  In the Company's judgment a loss is not probable.


ALLSTATE CORP: No Cert. Granted to Lawsuit Over Program Reorg.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court denied class certification to a lawsuit relating to
Allstate Corporation's agency program reorganization announced in
1999, 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.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to the Company's
agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  The current
focus in these matters relates to a release of claims signed by
the vast majority of agents who were participants in the
reorganization program.  These matters include the following:

In 2001, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")
filed suit alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws
("EEOC I"), and a putative class action was filed by former
employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), breach of
contract and ERISA violations ("Romero I").  In 2004, in the
consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial court
issued a memorandum and order that, among other things, certified
classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had
signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court's
declaratory judgment that the release was voidable at the option
of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an agent who
voided the release must return to Allstate "any and all benefits
received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release."  The
court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there
is no basis for claims of age discrimination."  In June 2007, the
court vacated its prior ruling that the release was voidable and
granted the Company's motions for summary judgment on all claims.
Plaintiffs appealed and in July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit vacated the trial court's entry of summary
judgment in the Company's favor and remanded the cases to the
trial court for additional discovery, including additional
discovery related to the validity of the release.  The Third
Circuit held that if the release is held to be valid, then all of
the claims in Romero I and EEOC I are barred.  Thus, if the
release is upheld, then only the claims in Romero I asserted by
the small group of employee agents who did not sign the release
would remain for adjudication.  In January 2010, following the
remand, the cases were assigned to a new judge for further
proceedings in the trial court.  Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint in July 2010.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of a
putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee agents, seek
broad but unspecified "make whole relief," including back pay,
compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, lost
investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable
relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status with all
attendant benefits.

Discovery limited to the validity of the release was completed and
the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with respect
to the validity of the release.  On February 28, 2014, the trial
court denied plaintiffs' and Allstate's motions for summary
judgment in Romero I and held that the question of whether the
releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed under a totality of
circumstances test raised factual issues to be resolved at trial.
Among other things, the trial court also held that the release, if
valid, would bar all claims in Romero I.  On March 13, 2014, the
trial court denied EEOC's motion for summary judgment and granted
Allstate's motion for summary judgment in EEOC I and entered final
judgment in favor of Allstate.  The EEOC has appealed this
decision.  On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class as
to certain issues relating to the validity of the release.  On
October 6, 2014, the court denied class certification and stated,
among other things, that multiple individual factors must be
considered to determine whether the release was signed knowingly
and voluntarily under a totality of circumstances test.  The time
has expired for plaintiffs to seek an interlocutory appeal of the
Court's October 6, 2014 order denying class certification.  Trial
proceedings are scheduled to commence in the second quarter of
2015 for individual plaintiffs to determine the question of
whether their releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed.
Despite the length of time that these matters have been pending,
to date only limited discovery has occurred related to the damages
claimed by individual plaintiffs, and no damages discovery has
occurred related to the claims of the putative class.  Individual
damage claims are subject to variation dependent upon retirement
dates, participation in employee benefit programs, and years of
service and are also subject to reduction by amounts and benefits
received by plaintiffs and putative class members subsequent to
their employment termination.


ALLSTATE CORP: Validity of "Release" to Decide Damages Award
------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Corp. stated at its Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014 that based on a trial court's ruling, if the
validity of the release signed by mandatory class of agents is
decided in favor of the Company, that would preclude any damages
being awarded in Romero I and Romero II.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA ("Romero
II").  These plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in
Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension
Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent
contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents
Pension Plan.  Romero II was dismissed with prejudice by the trial
court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was
reversed and remanded to the trial court in 2005.  In June 2007,
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the case.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit.  In
July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the district court's
dismissal of the case and remanded the case to the trial court for
additional discovery, and directed that the case be reassigned to
another trial court judge.  In its opinion, the Third Circuit held
that if the release is held to be valid, then one of plaintiffs'
three claims asserted in Romero II is barred.  The Third Circuit
directed the district court to consider on remand whether the
other two claims asserted in Romero II are barred by the release.
In January 2010, following the remand, the case was assigned to a
new judge (the same judge for the Romero I and EEOC I cases) for
further proceedings in the trial court.  In April 2010, plaintiffs
filed their First Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs seek broad but
unspecified "make whole" or other equitable relief, including loss
of benefits as a result of their conversion to exclusive agent
independent contractor status or retirement from the Company
between November 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000.  They also seek
repeal of the challenged amendments to the Agents Pension Plan
with all attendant benefits revised and recalculated for thousands
of former employee agents, and attorney's fees and costs.  As in
Romero I and EEOC I, no discovery related to the damages of the
putative class has occurred, and discovery limited to issues
relating to the validity of the release has been completed.  The
parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with respect to
the validity of the release.  On February 28, 2014, the trial
court denied plaintiffs' and Allstate's motions for summary
judgment in Romero I and II and held that the question of whether
the releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed under a
totality of circumstances test raised factual issues to be
resolved at trial.  Among other things, the trial court also held
that the release, if valid, would bar all claims asserted in
Romero II.  On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class
as to certain issues relating to the validity of the release.  On
October 6, 2014, the court denied class certification and stated,
among other things, that multiple individual factors must be
considered to determine whether the release was signed knowingly
and voluntarily under a totality of circumstances test.  The time
has expired for plaintiffs to seek an interlocutory appeal of the
Court's October 6, 2014 order denying class certification.  Trial
proceedings are scheduled to commence in the second quarter of
2015 for individual plaintiffs to determine the question of
whether their releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed.

In these matters, the threshold issue of the validity and scope of
the release is yet to be fully decided.  Based on the trial
court's February 28, 2014 ruling, if the validity of the release
is decided in favor of the Company, that would preclude any
damages being awarded in Romero I and Romero II.


AMEDISYS INC: Challenges Reversal of Securities Suit's Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
All defendants in a consolidated securities suit against Amedisys,
Inc. filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit to review a court
ruling reversing the dismissal of the suit, 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 June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana (the "District Court") against the Company and
certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional
putative securities class actions were filed in the Court on July
14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, the District Court issued an order
consolidating the putative securities class action lawsuits and
the Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes. In the same
order, the District Court appointed the Public Employees
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers'
Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (together, the "Co-Lead
Plaintiffs") for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the
District Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit
with the putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative
Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects, particularly relating to our policies
and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare
home health prospective payment system and the related alleged
impact on the Company's business, financial condition, operations
and prospects. The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that
the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's securities between August 2,
2005 and September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.
All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June
28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District
Court denied on April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth Circuit"). On October 2, 2014, a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing
the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. On
October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the Fifth
Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc, or as
a whole court. No assurances can be given as to the timing or
outcome of the defendants' petition for en banc rehearing.


AMEDISYS INC: La. Court Approves ERISA Suit Deal on Final Basis
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana finally approved a settlement reached in a lawsuit
alleging Amedisys, Inc. violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 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 September 27, 2010 and October 22, 2010, separate putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company,
certain of our current and former senior executives and members of
the Company's 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee. The suits
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") since January 1, 2006 and July 1, 2007, respectively.

The plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and
a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) Plan. The
plaintiffs asserted that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the 401(k) Plan's participants by causing the 401(k)
Plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during the respective
class periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky and imprudent
retirement investment because of the Company's alleged improper
business practices. The complaints sought a determination that the
actions may be maintained as a class action, an award of
unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief. On
December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative ERISA class
actions with the putative securities class actions and derivative
actions for pre-trial purposes. In addition, on December 10, 2010,
the Court appointed interim lead counsel and interim liaison
counsel in the ERISA class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell
(the "Co-ERISA Plaintiffs"), filed an amended, consolidated class
action complaint (the "ERISA Complaint"), which superseded the
earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints. The ERISA Complaint
sought a determination that the action may be maintained as a
class action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated participants in our 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008
through present. All of the defendants moved to dismiss the ERISA
Complaint.

On November 5, 2013, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the ERISA class action lawsuits on a class-wide basis
under which the company would make a payment of $1.2 million
(which the company correctly anticipated would be paid by our
insurance carrier) and provide additional non-monetary benefits to
401(k) Plan participants. The company then negotiated a formal
settlement agreement with the Co-ERISA Plaintiffs and on December
13, 2013, submitted it to the Court for preliminary and final
approval. The formal settlement agreement described how the $1.2
million settlement payment would be allocated among the putative
class of 401(k) Plan participants after certain expenses and fees
were deducted. On April 14, 2014, the Court granted the motion for
preliminary approval and scheduled a final fairness hearing for
July 22, 2014.  The Company's insurance carrier funded the $1.2
million settlement pool shortly after the entry of the April 14,
2014 order.

On July 22, 2014, the Court conducted a fairness hearing. On July
24, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the settlement,
dismissing the ERISA class action lawsuits with prejudice,
certifying a settlement class and approving the release of all
claims by the settlement class that were or could have been
alleged in the matter.


AMEDISYS INC: Opposes Motion to Amend New Wage & Hour Law Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. filed an opposition to the Connecticut plaintiffs'
motion to amend their complaint to add a new claim under the
Kentucky Wage and Hour Act, 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 July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against the company in which three former employees
allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim
that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked over forty
hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. More
specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per-visit and
an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in their
misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them
overtime pay. Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing
that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous
and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and
plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held
that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the
plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week
over forty, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under
other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work,
in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based
on misclassification. On behalf of themselves and a class of
current and former employees they allege are similarly situated,
plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages
going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the
Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling requesting that the
statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs
who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the
date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for
conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this
lawsuit is issued following conditional certification. Following a
motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on December 3,
2013, the Court modified this order, holding that putative class
members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29, 2012 through the
date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs'
July 10, 2013 motion for conditional certification of their FLSA
claims and authorized issuance of notice to putative class members
to provide them an opportunity to opt in to the action. On April
17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class members. The
period within which putative class members were permitted to opt
in to the action expired on July 16, 2014.

On September 10, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut case
filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a new
claim under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA") alleging that
the Company did not pay certain home health clinicians working in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky all of the overtime wages they were
owed, either because the Company misclassified them as exempt from
overtime or, while treating them as overtime eligible, did not
properly pay them overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week.
On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former
employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back five
years before the filing of their original complaint under the
KWHA. On October 1, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion to amend. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed
a reply brief in support of their motion. The motion is still
under consideration by the Court.


AMEDISYS INC: Ill. Labor Case Still Stayed Pending Conn. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted the motion of Amedisys, Inc. to stay a labor case
pending resolution of class certification issues and dispositive
motions in an earlier-filed Connecticut case, 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 September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the company in which a
former employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former
employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly
basis, thereby misclassifying her as an exempt employee and
entitling her to overtime pay. The plaintiff alleges violations of
Federal and state law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of
similar employees who were or are employed in Illinois and seeks
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA and three years under the Illinois
statute. On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion
to stay the case pending resolution of class certification issues
and dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case.


AMERICAN BANKERS: Forum Selection Provision Inapplicable to Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In PARK PLAZA II, LTD., Cross-complainant and Appellant, v.
AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-defendant and
Respondent, NO. G048916, cross-complainant and appellant Park
Plaza II, Ltd. (Park Plaza) appeals from the trial court's order
dismissing its cross-complaint against cross-defendant and
respondent American Bankers Insurance Company (American Bankers)
based on a forum selection provision designating Pinellas County,
Florida, as the venue for "any lawsuit" between the parties over
"Blanket Bond BIC 1117" (Blanket Bond).

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
Three, found that the trial court erred by construing the forum
selection provision in isolation rather than in the context in
which it appears in the Blanket Bond. Although the forum selection
provision states it applies to "any lawsuit," the contracting
parties placed the provision at the end of a lengthy paragraph
describing their rights to examine each other's records and to
enforce those examination rights in court. This placement renders
the forum selection provision ambiguous, ruled the Appeals Court.
The clause reasonably could be interpreted as applying to any
lawsuit between the parties regardless of subject matter, but its
specific placement renders it reasonably susceptible to an
interpretation applying it only to the type of lawsuit described
in the paragraph where it appears. Based on this ambiguity and
American Bankers' failure to cite any rule of contract
interpretation or other authority supporting its interpretation,
the Appeals Court held that it must interpret the provision
against American Bankers because they created the ambiguity as the
drafting party.

The Calif. Appeals Court, therefore, concluded that the forum
selection provision does not apply to Park Plaza's cross-complaint
because Park Plaza's claims do not concern the parties' rights to
examine each other's records.

A copy of the Court's October 31, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/fbSI68from Leagle.com.

Frank J. Coughlin -- frank.coughlin@fjclaw.com -- Kim-Thao T. Le
-- kim.le@cfjblaw.com -- and Frank G. Burt -- fburt@cfjblaw.com --
at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, for Cross-defendant and Respondent.


AMERICAN REALTY: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 30 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed
under 14-cv-08659, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased American Realty securities
between February 27, 2014 and October 28, 2014, inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased American Realty securities
during the Class Period, you have until December 29, 2014 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

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 company principally invests
in retail and office properties.  As of June 20, 2012, its
portfolio consisted of 118 properties.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) American Realty's financial
statements contained errors related to the improper classification
of its adjusted funds from operations, ("AFFO"), resulting in an
overstatement of AFFO for the three months ended March 31, 2014
and an overstatement of AFFO and an understatement of the
Company's net loss for the three and six months ended June 30,
2014; (2) American Realty lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
American Realty's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 29, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed
a Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing that certain of its previously
issued financial statements contained errors and should no longer
be relied upon.  In addition, the Company announced the
resignation of its CFO and Chief Accounting Officer who had key
roles in preparing the Company's financial statements.

On this news, shares of American Realty fell as much as $4.53, or
over 36%, in intraday trading, on extremely heavy volume, to as
low as $7.85 on October 29, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


AMERICAN REALTY: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 31 announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. publicly traded
securities during the period between February 27, 2014 and
October 28, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 30, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or
619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/americanrealty/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges American Realty and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  American Realty is a real estate investment trust ("REIT").
The Company owns and acquires single-tenant, freestanding
commercial real estate primarily subject to medium-term net leases
with credit quality tenants.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial results.  Specifically, the Company failed to
properly estimate its adjusted funds from operations ("AFFO"), a
common measure of REIT performance that measures a trust's net
income, including write-downs, depreciation, and amortization, but
not including profits or losses from the sale of property,
resulting in the Company overstating its AFFO by $12 million for
the fiscal period ended March 31, 2014 ("1Q 2014") and by about
$10.9 million for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2014 ("2Q
2014").  As a result of defendants' false statements, American
Realty securities traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period, with its stock price reaching a high of $14.88
per share on March 4, 2014.  This inflation permitted American
Realty to complete an offering of 138 million shares of its stock
at $12.00 per share in May 2014.

On October 29, 2014, before the market opened, American Realty
filed a Form 8-K with the SEC and issued a press release
announcing that the Company's Form 10-K for its fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013 and its Forms 10-Q for 1Q 2014 and 2Q 2014
should no longer be relied upon, and that the Company would be
restating its audited consolidated financial results going back to
2013.  The Company further admitted that its AFFO had been
overstated for 1Q 2014 and 2Q 2014.  As a result, the Company was
re-evaluating its internal controls and procedures.  Additionally,
American Realty's Form 8-K and press release announced the
immediate resignations of its Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Accounting Officer.  As a result of these disclosures, the price
of American Realty stock fell $2.38 per share to close at $10.00
per share on October 29, 2014, a one-day decline of 19% on volume
of nearly 231 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
American Realty publicly traded securities during the Class Period
(the "Class").  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller,
which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.


AMERICAN REALTY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Oct. 30 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. securities between February 27, 2014 and October
29, 2014, inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
ARCP investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the ARCP class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-415.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 New York.

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, ARCP issued materially false financial
statements.  On October 29, 2014, ARCP announced that its annual
financial statements for the fiscal year ended on December 31,
2013 and its Quarterly Reports for the fiscal periods ended
March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 should no longer be relied upon.
On October 30, 2014 media outlets reported ARCP acknowledged that
the accounting errors were intentionally concealed and that the
SEC had begun an inquiry into ARCP's accounting.

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
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-415.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.


AMERICAN REALTY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 30 disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
American Realty Capital Properties Inc. between May 6, 2013
through October 29, 2014, inclusive, against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers, alleging securities fraud
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The litigation is styled Rubinstein v. American Realty Capital
Properties Inc., et.al.; 14-cv-8669 (SDNY).  A copy of the
Complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can
be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website
at www.whafh.com

On October 29, 2014, the accounting fraud came to light, as
American Realty disclosed that its Audit Committee had determined
that an error in accounting for adjusted funds from operations
("AFFO") had previously been identified within the Company, but
was intentionally not corrected, and other AFFO and financial
statement errors were intentionally made, resulting in an
overstatement of AFFO and an understatement of the Company's net
loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014.
The Company also announced that the previously issued financial
statements and other financial information contained in the
Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, and the Company's
earnings releases and other financial communications for these
periods, should no longer be relied upon.

As a result of this disclosure, the shares of American Capital
closed at $10.00 per share, a decline of $2.38 per share,
resulting in a market capitalization loss of over $2.2 billion.
If you purchased American Realty common stock during the Class
Period, you may move to be appointed as lead plaintiff by
December 29, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."
Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may
retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve
as your counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in
New York, Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of
this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been
repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to
major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at
(800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our
website at www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "American
Realty litigation."

CONTACT: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Gregory Nespole, Esq.
         Gregory Stone
         Email: nespole@whafh.com
                gstone@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com
         Telephone: (800) 575-0735
                    (212) 545-4774


ATOSSA GENETICS: Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Atossa Genetics Inc. on Oct. 31 announced that the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington has granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
securities class action suit filed on October 10, 2013 against
Atossa and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters in
its initial public offering.

The District Court has now dismissed with prejudice all claims
against Atossa and all other defendants. The plaintiffs have
indicated that they intend to appeal the District Court's
decision.

                      About Atossa Genetics

Atossa Genetics Inc. -- http://www.atossagenetics.com-- is
focused on improving breast health through the development of
laboratory services, medical devices and therapeutics.  The
laboratory services are being developed by its subsidiary, The
National Reference Laboratory for Breast Health, Inc.  The
laboratory services and the Company's medical devices are being
developed so they can be used as companions to therapeutics to
treat various breast health conditions.


AUSTRALIA: Claimant Wants to Make Politicians Accountable
---------------------------------------------------------
Lucie Bell, writing for ABC Rural, reports that it's about more
than the money.  That's the opinion of one Pilbara pastoralist
involved in a claim to seek compensation from the Federal
Government.

Law firm Minter Ellison has filed a class action in the federal
court on behalf of parties affected by the temporary ban on live
exports in 2011.  The trade suspension was the decision of the
then Labor Government, after vision of animal cruelty in
Indonesian abattoirs emerged.

Michael Thompson, from Mundabullagana Station south of Port
Hedland, is among the original 21 claimants, mostly from the
Northern Territory, who joined together to establish the class
action in the ban's immediate aftermath.

Mr. Thompson says, for him, being involved in the case now is
about making politicians accountable, but back then it was about
something else.

"When I started out I had one thing in mind, I wanted to get rid
of the government," he said.

"I don't think anyone can put a true value on that decision,
there's been a lot of people who've had to sell their stations and
you can't bring them poor people back.

"If anything comes out of this now . . . if it makes every
politician that gets that honor to represent our country, if we
make them accountable, it's been a win."

Mr. Thompson says the claim is not about the money and he does
feel somewhat uncomfortable about it.

"To be honest with you, it feels like shooting your own soldier in
the back," he said.

"I mean we're all Australians, we don't want to hurt the
Australian economy or the Australian people [with the claim].

"But I suppose it does open old wounds and you think back to the
pain we've all suffered over it.

"If we make a bad decision in private enterprise we're
accountable, we suffer the consequences, but these people can make
decisions, bad decisions, and are not accountable for it."

Mr. Thompson says bringing the class action to court has taken a
long time, but he's optimistic about the process.

"I'd have never believed we'd get this far, but we have.

"If this can get up and over the line in a year, that would be
great.

"It wasn't just the pastoralists of Australia that suffered, it
was the whole country that suffered over that decision."
WA sheep producer considers joining class action

While the focus of the temporary live export ban in 2011 was
largely on cattle, sheep exporters were also affected.

John Wainwright runs Nalbarra Station, 70 kilometers south of Mt
Magnet in the Mid West region.  He wants to join the class action
and says his business is still suffering now as a result of the
temporary ban.

"I'm interested in joining because what they done to the cattle
producers is exactly what they done to us," he said.

"We had export sheep in the yards ready to go . . . if we hadn't
had rain when we did, we'd have shot all those boat sheep.

"People just don't understand, you can't tell sheep to stop
breeding . . . there would have been a lack of feed and animal
cruelty comes into it.

"Politicians just don't understand, you don't shut the main road
because you have an accident on it, you go and talk about it and
sort it out."

Mr. Wainwright estimates the cost of the damage to his business at
being around $150 000 to $200 000.

"With our breeding program, because we didn't know when the ban
would end, we had to pull our rams out.

"There was no breeding and it set us back for a further 18 months,
but with some financial help we could back on our feet again.

"An apology is not going to put tucker on the table."

PGA says class action a long time coming

The former president of the WA Pastoralists and Graziers
Association (PGA) says the class action by the live export
industry has been a long time coming.

Rob Gillam was PGA president at the time of the ban and says it
was an irrational and unreasonable response that has been 'lethal'
for some businesses.

"A few times over the last year or so, I thought 'Gee it seems to
be a bit slow', but these things take time and I'm very happy it
has now been lodged," he said.

"The response was for political purposes and that is not a good
reason to have imposed that ban.

"I believe there is a very very strong possibility that this class
action will be positive in its outcome."


BANK OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Upholds "Scott" Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selena A. Scott opened a credit card account with Bank of
America/FIA Card Services, N.A. in 2005.  Bank of America
"securitized" the receivables from Scott's and other credit card
accounts, and sold them to a trust under a so-called Pooling and
Servicing Agreement. This move -- a typical one by credit card
issuers -- "provides steady liquidity for card issuers" and
"transfer[s] most downside credit risk on the card[.]"  Scott's
account became delinquent on June 30, 2009. After the default,
Bank of America "charged-off" her account (i.e., wrote the debt
off as "uncollectable"). It then sold Scott's debt to Cavalry SPV
I, LLC (Cavalry), and Cavalry in turn filed a collection action
against Scott seeking $3,936.54 (the amount Scott owed) plus
interest. Scott's counsel notified Cavalry of its belief that Bank
of America did not have an interest in Scott's account to
transfer, and Cavalry promptly withdrew its suit.

Motivated by her apparent victory, Scott filed a class-action
complaint against, among others, Bank of America and Cavalry
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit
Extension Uniformity Act, 73 PA. CONS. STAT. Section 2270.1 et
seq.  In an amendment to that complaint, she further alleged
violations of the federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et
seq., and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, 73 PA. CONS. STAT. Section 201.1 et seq.
Underlying all of Scott's allegations was her belief that Bank of
America had nothing to transfer to Cavalry once it securitized the
receivables from Scott's account. Thus, Cavalry's attempt to
collect the amount Scott owed was unlawful.

Bank of America and Cavalry moved to dismiss Scott's Amended
Complaint, arguing that the critical premise on which Scott's
claims rely -- that once a credit card company securitizes the
receivables of a credit card account, it no longer retains an
ownership interest in the account -- is incorrect. The District
Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Scott appealed
that dismissal.

The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, in an opinion
dated November 3, 2014, affirmed the District Court ruling in all
respects.  A copy of the Third Circuit's opinion is available at
http://is.gd/ofzMBjfrom Leagle.com.

The case is SELENA A. SCOTT, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA; BANK
OF AMERICA CONSUMER CREDIT; BANK OF AMERICA FUNDING, LLC; CAVALRY
SPV I, LLC; JOHN DOES 1-100, NO. 13-4689.


BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS: "Hathaway" Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Hathaway v. Biomet Orthopedics Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-03710, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana.  The Indiana District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02003-RLM-CAN to the
proceeding.

The Defendants manufactured, created, designed, tested, labeled,
packaged, supplied, marketed, sold, advertised, or otherwise
distributed in interstate commerce a hip replacement system known
as the Biomet M2a Magnum.  The lawsuit arose from injuries
allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of using the
Biomet device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James G. Marks, Esq.
          Michael G. Guajardo, Esq.
          One Galleria Tower
          GUAJARDO & MARKS LLP
          13355 Noel Rd., Suite 1370
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 774-9800
          Facsimile: (972) 774-9801
          E-mail: greg@guajardomarks.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Erin Linder Hanig, Esq.
          John David LaDue, Esq.
          LADUE CURRAN & KUEHN LLC
          200 First Bank Bldg.
          205 W Jefferson Blvd.
          South Bend, IN 46601
          Telephone: (574) 968-0760
          Facsimile: (574) 968-0761
          E-mail: ehanig@lck-law.com
                  jladue@lck-law.com

               - and -

          John D. Winter, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6710
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          E-mail: jwinter@pbwt.com


BLUE BUFFALO: "Fisher" Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jonathon Fisher v. The Blue
Buffalo Company, Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05937, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri (St. Louis).  The Missouri District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-01852-RWS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants' advertising claims on
their Pet Food Products are false and deceptive.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Allison Rachel Willett, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
                  awillett@milsteinadelman.com
                  savila@milsteinadelman.com

               - and -

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES LLP
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  wolchansky@halunenlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com

               - and -

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


BLUE BUFFALO: "Teperson" Suit Moved From California to Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Teperson v. The Blue Buffalo
Company, Ltd., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01682, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (St. Louis).  The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 4:14-cv-01851-RWS to the proceeding.

The class action arises out of the marketing and sale of Blue
Buffalo's pet food products.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Company promoted its Pet Food by issuing several materially false
claims concerning the ingredients in its Pet Food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

               - and -

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
          Edwin Kilpella, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: Bsweet@Carlsonlynch.com
                  Ekilpella@Carlsonlynch.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com


BOB EVANS FARMS: Florida Class Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily McDaniel, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability
Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-02767-CEH-EAJ (M.D. Fla., November
3, 2014) is brought for unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Bob Evans Farms, LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability Corporation
that conducts business in, among other locations, Hillsborough
County, Florida.  The Company provides food and drink to its
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis Woods, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 420-5956
          E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com


BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Lyons, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Bouchaine Vineyards, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
04869-JCS (N.D. Cal., November 3, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
          TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
          3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 744-1146
          Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
          E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces Suit Over Plavix-Related Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa A. Evans, et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Sanofi-
Aventis U.S., Inc., Sanofi Us Services Inc., and Sanofi-
Synthelabo, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08733 (S.D.N.Y., November 3,
2014) arises from injuries allegedly caused by the usage of
Plavix, an antiplatelet drug.

The Defendants designed, researched, manufactured, tested,
advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, and distributed Plavix.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' Plavix is defectively
designed, inadequately tested, dangerous to human health, and
lacked proper warnings as to the dangers associated with its use.
The Plaintiffs are composed of individuals who ingested Plavix,
spouses of the Ingesting Plaintiffs, individuals who have passed
away after ingesting Plavix and proposed administrators or
personal representatives of the Decedents.


The Plaintiffs are Theresa A. Evans; Gerald J. Arcement And
Beverly Arcement; Gerald Bibby; Hugh Bonnar and Nancy Bonnar;
Wretha Bowles, individually and as the proposed administratrix of
Glenna L. Bowles, deceased; Kenneth Bowling, Jr., individually and
as the proposed administrator of Teresa J. Bowling, deceased; Mary
R. Bozarth; Alma J. Brown, individually and as the proposed
administratrix of William E. Brown, deceased; Andrew J. Cofelice
And Carol Cofelice; Anita M. Coleman and Ul Ysee Coleman, Jr.;
Jill Crowding, individually and as the proposed administatrix of
ROBERT D. Crowding, deceased; Elizabeth M. Davidson; Raymond L.
Drahos and Allisha Drahos; John Ecker and Fanny Ecker; Vera M.
Evans and Richard Evans; Georgiana Fontenot; Danny E. Fox and
Vinyl Fox; Gaston L. Ghegan and Giov Anna Ghegan; Linda L. Gibson;
Sam J. Goldsberry and Mary Goldsberry; Shirley Goudreaul T; Ronald
R. Gutridge; Audu Hamed and Bahiy A Hamed; Ronald J. Hart; Robin
M. Hayes, individually and as the proposed administatrix of David
W. Hayes, deceased; Betty Lou S. Hoover and David A. Hoover; Avery
Q. Hovis and Tammy Hovis; Dennis Howell and Pauline Howell;
Gwendolyn D. Jackson and Ronald Jackson; Larry N. Johnson and
Dorothy Johnson; Paula L. Johnson; Brenda B. Jordan; Thomas King
and Donna King; Waverly B. Ledbetter and Joann Ledbetter; Bernice
Mayeux and Clarence Mayeux; William R. Mcluckie; Charles F.
Novitski and Marilyn E. Novitski; Lesa Scioneaux, individually and
as the proposed administratrix of Michelle R. P Arria, deceased;
Grace M. Peek; Walter A. Porterfield; Annette Seargeant,
individually and as the proposed administratrix of Ola J.
Ratledge, deceased; Hisan Richardson, individually and as the
personal representative of Mary G. Richardson, deceased; Joseph S.
Robinson and Cathey M. Robinson; Thelma Rogers, individually and
as the proposed administratrix of Roy J. Rogers, deceased; Gracie
M. Seats; Terry A. Shelton, individually and as the proposed
administrator of Clochetta S. Shelton, deceased; Evelyn M. Snell;
Harold L. Stockstill and Sachiko Stockstill; Maricela G. Suarez,
individually and as the proposed administratrix of Ricardo C.
Suarez, deceased; Carmela Taylor; Marvin L. Todd and Mary Todd;
Valerie J. Van Ry, individually and as the proposed administratrix
of Richard E. Van Ry, deceased; Wanda W. Venires; Stephen L. Wargo
individually and as the administrator of Linda K. Wargo, deceased;
Ranae Wiley, individually and as the proposed administratrix of
Francis W. Wiley, deceased; Geraldine Jackson; Anne Caffyn and
Michael Caffyn; Nancy Blaine, individually and as the proposed
administratrix of Viola Fagans, deceased; Tyrone Furman; Darria
Brown, individually and as the proposed administratrix of Bethel
C. Brown, deceased; Harry E. Greene; William Hansen and Colleen
Hansen; James Killam individually and as the proposed
administrator of Aline Killam, deceased; Larry Hatch; Geoffrey T.
Hildreth; Robert Hill and Helen Hill; Russell R. Huskey and Lorri
Huskey; Kenneth R. Keller; Warren M. Kellogg; Ernest W. Kitchen
and Theresa Kitchen; Richard L. Knight; Jerry L. Ledbetter and
Susan Ledbetter; Michael Lewandowski; Minnie Lilley; Penny C.
Livingston and Scott Livingston; La Vonna L. Mays; Melvin
Mccrosky; Everett M. McPike and Ruby McPike; Jeffry J. Mengel;
Reynold Mohammed and Clarice Mohammed; Charles G. Cheleden,
individually and as the administrator of James G. Norman,
deceased; Howard L. Phillips and Martha Phillips; Linda F.
Phillips and Darrell G. Phillips; Patricia G. Pledger; Deborah A.
Dube, individually and as the proposed administratrix of Norma M.
Richard, deceased; Miguel A. Rivas and Blanca Rivas; Amber Ramirez
individually and as the proposed administratrix of Gwendolyn
Macklin, deceased; Rose Creighton; Catherine Parson; Betty L.
Simpson; Ruth E. Slye and Thomas Slye Jr.; William Waibel,
individually and as the proposed administrator of Shirley Waibel;
Brandon C. Smith; Charles W. Sweeney; Carol Watson, individually
and as the executrix of Arbra D. Watson; Zilpha S. Touchon and
Patrick Touchton; Peggy Turner; Bobby J. Walker; Brenda L. Woolls,
individually and as the executor of Stephen J. Woolls; Preston C.
Wooten and Linda Wooton; Van R. Young and Sherry Young; Michele A.
Redmond; Marvin E. Depuy and Laureen Depuy; Michael J. Larocco and
Kathy Larocco; Bill Gilliam, , individually and as the proposed
administrator of Thomas E. Gilliam; Ruby Smith, individually and
as the proposed administratrix of Jerry Alday; Nancy A. Davie;
Karl A. Litzau and Patricia Litzau; Pamela L. Beazley; Kenneth B.
Mumaw and Gwen Mumaw; Jeremy C. Robinson, individually and as the
proposed administrator of Dennis E. Robinson; Joan Freer,
individually and as the proposed administrator of Clifford W.
Freer; Deidra Garrett, individually and as the proposed
administratrix of Joseph E. Garrett; Gloria A. Freeman,
individually and as the proposed administratrix of Doris Mae
Freeman; Andrea Mazen, individually and as the administrator of
Anthony F. Divon; Samuel D. Tolbert; Donna R. Haughton and James C
Haughton; Judy M. Martin; Montie G. Slaughter and Leetta L
Slaughter; Brian Belland; Thomas E. May; Lily An Wolberg; Carol A.
Gagne and Real Gagne; Gail Stevenson, individually and as the
proposed administratrix of Robert C. Stevenson, Deceased; Larry E.
Underkoffler and Debbie Underkoffler; Ronald H. Fletcher and
Marilyn Fletcher; Elliot Walls, individually and as the proposed
administrator of Elliot Collier, deceased; Richard Riener,
individually and as the proposed administrator of Cleone A.
Riener, deceased; Alice G. Meadors; Gene E. Taylor and Krystal M
Taylor; Judy C. Pierce; Luis Rodriguez, individually and as the
proposed administrator of Norma I. Ostolaza, deceased; James R.
Ekstrom and Joyce Ekstrom; Kimberly Scirocco and Frank Scirocco;
Richard W. Begandy and Lila V Begandy; Robert W. Kerbow and
Kimberly D Kerbow; William E. Reagan; Deborah L. Rogers; Edwin A.
Ortiz and Nitza A Viles; Samantha J. Miller; Byron O. Ricard and
Carla Ricard; Harry M. Stew Art and Barbara J Stew Art; George
Shurrush and Salimeh Shurrush; Clinton D. Ramey and Marietta S
Ramey; Terrance Parks; Philip A. Goin; Oliver L. Felton and
Dorthea Felton; Kerry L. Parker And Gregory S. Parker; Verla Mae
Claghorn; Donald W. Beene and Ellen C Beene; Wayne E. Keaten;
Lonnie B. Drexler; William Sommerville and Barbara W. Sommerville;
Todd W. Bradley and Cathy Bradley; James D. Peace and Brenda
Peace; Marilyn J. Yeager-Sewell and Gene E. Sewell; Rick W.
Haskett and Christine M. Haskett; Juan G. Martinez and Glenna U.
Martinez; Willie L. Booker; Eula J. HARRIS, individually and as
the proposed administrator of Aubrey R. Harris, deceased;
Charlotte Waller, individually and as the proposed administrator
of Paul H. Waller, deceased; Kathleen W. Register; Craig T.
Seward; Dorothy C. Andrews; George Anesgart and Judith Anesgart;
Shannon S. Brawley and Walter Brawley; James W. Kimberly and Julia
M Kimberly; Timothy Springs; Katherine Gamble, individually and as
the proposed administrator of William Gamble, Deceased; Bernadette
J. Benson; Carrie A. Williams and Ples Williams; Bernadette A.
Yarnell, individually and as the proposed administrator of Eloise
B. Wigal, deceased; Herbert R. Lusinski; Judith M. Cazzetto; John
Barbaro and Stephanie Barbaro; Ronald Miller and Tammie O. Miller;
Pamela Frost, individually and as the executor of Richard B.
Arnold, deceased; Sandra K. Koranek; Donald M. Hamilton and Norma
J. Hamilton; Jimmy R. Dearmon; Rodney D. Qualls and Juanita A.
Qualls; Katherine Pierce; Oma L. Wad Dell; Lillian R. Cotter;
Charlotte H. Grant; Joe Gutierrez, individually and as the
personal representative of Mercedes Gutierrez, deceased; John W.
Tharp, individually and as the executor of Sarah B. Tharp,
deceased; Sinola Fortenberry; William D. Womack; Jerry O. Tucker;
Jo Ann Hale; Christopher J. Derosa; Michael A. Bov A; Barbara J.
Leschander and Garald Leschander; Dianne Mullinax, individually
and as the personal representative of Earl T. Mullinax, deceased;
Bella Cuellar; Marsha L. Mick and Larryn. Mick; Deborah A. Bolden;
Donald Wireman and Mary V. Wireman; Thomas J. Miller, individually
and as the proposed administrator of Alexis M. Miller, deceased;
Steven A. Miner and Barbara Miner; Eugene G. La Borie and Doreen
A. Lica Yan; Richard L. Layton and Tracy Layton; Alfred R.
Harrison; Tom C. Johnston, individually and as the proposed
administrator of Alice E. Johnston, deceased; Randall L. Lynch and
Anne H. Lynch; Darrell D. Steiner and Karen Steiner; Roy R. Fields
and Rhonda L. Fields; Kenneth D. Korach and Shirley J. Korach;
Betty Moretto and Richard Moretto; Billy R. Calloway; Eileen C.
Hedden; Fred Sierra; Larry E. Jones and Joyce M. Jones; Jerry L.
Casey and June Casey; Theresa Ryan; Annette Iacovelli,
individually and as the proposed administratrix of Edward P.
Iacovelli, deceased; Roberta Rosen, individually and as the
proposed administratrix of Joel B. Rosen, deceased; Madeline F.
Goldstein; Craig F Asler and Kathy F Asler; Michelle Marcie,
individually and as the proposed administratrix of Charles J.
Hutcheson, Deceased; Linda F. Howton and David R. Howton; W
Altriel S. Crum; Jesse Cook; Gerald C. Short and Donna M. Short;
Larry C. Hudnall; Harvey M. Hil Vitz and Sandra K. Hil Vitz;
George M. Morris; Barbara J. Quirk and John Quirk; Jerry D. Deese
and Janie F. Deese; Herbert R. Gray; Steve Cannon and Monica
Cannon; Richardt. Conlon and Carole Conlon; James D. Rose and
Nancy Rose; Stephanie L. South; William A. Floyd and Cheryl Floyd;
Charles W. Denmead And Robin Denmead; Anthony M. Majahad and Dorry
Majahad; John C. Cole and Marilyn Cole; Dennis M. Haver; Michael
E. Dinan and Lana L. Dinan; Herbert J. Gray and Melinda H. Gray;
Curecle B. Edwards; Donna Futrell, individually and as the
proposed administratrix of James E. Futrell, deceased; Gary
Dimattia; Joseph F. Kane and Wendy Kane; Dora E. Horvat; Cecelia
A. Trotter and Donald R. Trotter; Kenneth D. Kovach and Shirley J.
Kovach; Donald R. Conner; Gaspar P. Sanchez and Carmen Perez;
Teresa J. Hudson; Janice D. Case and Chester D. Case; Patricia
Brendlen; Jimmy Jordan and Debbie Jordan; Jerry A. Hargis,
individually and as the proposed administrator of Lorri M. Hargis,
deceased; Sharon Barrett; Carolyn M. Wiley and Larry D. Wiley;
Naomi M. Cook and George Nossek; Louis Pisano and Angela Pisano.

New York-based Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a pharmaceutical
manufacturing and marketing company that partners with Sanofi-
Aventis (now Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc. and Sanofi US Services Inc.)
to manufacture and market Plavix in the United States.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc., is a subsidiary of the French
pharmaceutical company, Sanofi-Aventis, which partners with
Defendant BMS to manufacture and market Plavix in the United
States.  Sanofi US Services Inc., is a subsidiary of Sanofi-
Aventis.  Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with
its commercial headquarters in New York.  Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc.,
did business as Sanofi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and was the sponsor
for the application for Plavix.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shayna E. Sacks, Esq.
          NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK LLP
          Located at 350 5th Avenue, Suite 7413
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 267-3700
          E-mail: SSacks@NapoliBern.com


BROOKDALE HOSPITAL: Accused of Discrimination by Nigerian Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Eka v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, Case No. 1:14-cv-
06468-PKC-CLP (E.D.N.Y., November 3, 2014) seeks to recover
damages for national origin/race discrimination and retaliation in
the terms, conditions and privileges of employment under the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the New York Executive Law and the
Administrative Code of the City of New York.

The Plaintiff is a male, who was born in Nigeria, and is a
resident of New Jersey.

Brookdale Hospital Medical Center is a non-profit hospital
incorporated under the laws of New York, and is located in
Brooklyn, New York.  The Defendant is a Hospital, which provides
general and specialized medical treatment to inpatients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey Stark, Esq.
          THE DWECK LAW FIRM, LLP
          10 Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 687-8200
          Facsimile: (212) 697-2521
          E-mail: cstark@dwecklaw.com


CACH LLC: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandrina Aparicio, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Cach, LLC, a Colorado corporation, and
Squaretwo Financial Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-24108-MGC (S.D. Fla., November 3, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Benjamin Baldwin, Esq.
          DEBT DEFENSE LAW
          6915 Red Road, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 444-4323
          Facsimile: (305) 444-4107
          E-mail: bruce@debtdefenselaw.com


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Accord in Egg Antitrust Case Has Final Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter granted the motion for final
approval of the settlement in the case entitled In Re: PROCESSED
EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. MDL NO. 2002 08-MD-
02002 (E.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiffs have been categorized into two, the first being the
Direct Purchasers Plaintiffs, who bought a consolidated class
action, and the second, the Direct Action Plaintiffs, who are
pursuing individual actions.

In his Memorandum dated October 10, 2014, which is available at
http://is.gd/qpVQF4from Leagle.com, Judge Pratter granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the class action
settlement with Cal-Maine since the Class and Subclasses met the
certification requirements as enunciated in Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule
23 for settlement purposes, and concluded that the proposed
settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Sandra A. Jeskie, as Special Master -- Jeskie@duanemorris.com --
is from the law firm of Duane Morris LLP


CARRIER IQ: Settles Privacy Class Action Over Tracking Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Carrier IQ has
agreed to settle a proposed privacy class action accusing the
company's tracking software of violating the Federal Wiretap Act.
Carrier IQ's lawyers at Fenwick & West filed a joint notice of
settlement on Nov. 3 alongside interim lead plaintiffs counsel at
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Pearson Simon & Warshaw.

The brief filing states that plaintiffs and Carrier IQ "have
reached an agreement in principle that will resolve plaintiffs'
claims against Carrier IQ on a class-wide basis."

Details of the agreement weren't immediately available.  It does
not resolve claims against the mobile handset makers that included
Carrier IQ's tracking software on their phones.  However, the
Nov. 3 filing notes that a mediation between the plaintiffs and
the remaining defendants is set for Nov. 12.

Fenwick's Rodger Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- and Tyler Newby --
tnewby@fenwick.com -- didn't immediately respond to calls and
emails.  Hagens Berman's Robert Lopez -- robl@hbsslaw.com --
declined to comment.

Carrier IQ was hit with a flood of lawsuits in 2011 after Trevor
Eckhart, a 25-year-old programmer, posted a video online showing
how the company's software stored user activity such as keystrokes
and encrypted web searches without their knowledge.

After the cases were consolidated before U.S. District Judge
Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, Carrier IQ and
the handset makers argued that the disputes should be routed to
arbitration because the contracts the consumers signed with
service providers included arbitration clauses.  But Judge Chen
denied that request in March finding that the plaintiffs' claims
stood independent of their carrier contracts.  In June he declined
to stay the case while the defendants appealed that decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The defendants' joint motion to dismiss, argued before Judge Chen
in mid-September, is pending.  The line-up of defense firms
representing the handset makers includes Munger, Tolles & Olson
for HTC America; Covington & Burling for Huawei Devices USA;
Greenberg Traurig for LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A.; and
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for Samsung
Telecommunications America.


CINCINNATI BENGALS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cheerleader's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael R. Barrett denied the Defendant's Motions
to Dismiss in the case entitled ALEXA BRENNEMAN, Plaintiff, v.
CINCINNATI BENGALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-136 (S.D.
Ohio).

Plaintiff Brenneman, a cheerleader of Ben-gals brought this action
on the following claims: (1) denial of minimum wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 206, (2)
willful violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 255(a), (3)
denial of minimum wages under Article II, Section 34a of the Ohio
Constitution ("Article II, Section 34a"), (4) denial of minimum
wages under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"),
Ohio Rev. Code Section 4111.01, et seq. (asserted in the
alternative to the Article II, Section 34a minimum wage claim),
(5) unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, (6) failure to pay semi-
monthly wages due in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Section 4113.15;
and (7) failure to maintain wage and hour records in violation of
Article II, Section 34a. Plaintiff brings her FLSA claims as a
collective action on behalf of the opt-in class of all persons who
were employed by Defendant as a Cincinnati Ben-Gal cheerleader.
She also brings her Ohio law claims as a class action under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23.

The Defendant seeks to dismiss (1) the claims asserted by the
Plaintiff under Article II, Section 34a of the Ohio Constitution
in Counts Three and Seven of the First Amended Complaint, and (2)
the class action allegations asserted by the Plaintiff relating to
the payment of minimum.

Judge Barrett denied the first Motion as being moot, and the
second motion is denied on its merits. Case will proceed as
scheduled.

A copy of Judge Barrett's Opinion and Order dated October 24,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/xLIDt7from Leagle.com.


CLOTHES DOCTOR: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Mejia, on behalf of herself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. Clothes Doctor of Tarrytown, Inc., The Clothes Dr. of
Bxville, Inc., John Doe Corp. 1 d/b/a The Clothes Doctor, John Doe
Corp. 2 d/b/a A The Clothes Doctor, Hyun Shin and Chung Shin, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08752 (S.D.N.Y., November 3, 2014) alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated are entitled to recover from the Defendants:
(1) unpaid minimum wages, (2) unpaid overtime, (3) liquidated
damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Clothes Doctor of Tarrytown, Inc. is a New York domestic business
corporation headquartered in Tarrytown, New York.  The Clothes Dr.
of Bxville, Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation
headquartered in Bronxville, New York.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants operate four dry cleaners using the common trade
name "The Clothes Doctor," with various locations in New York
City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COPENHAVER INC: Reaches Settlement With ERISA Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joe Billy McDade granted preliminary
approval of a settlement in the ERISA action captioned as, JOSEPH
KOERNER and FRANK ZACHMAN, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN L. COPENHAVER,
CANDICE M. ROGERS, FREDERICK C. HARDMAN, CAROL DIETZ IN HER
CAPACITY AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF W. RONALD
DIETZ, ESTATE OF ROBERT EDDY, Deceased, ALLAN W. DEVINE, DALE S.
STRASSHEIM, COPENHAVER, INC., d/b/a W.M. PUTNAM COMPANY, and
LYNETTE EDDY, Defendants, Case No. 12-1091 (C.D. Ill.).

Judge McDade said the Settlement is sufficient to warrant the
issuance of notice to present and former participants in the
Employee Stock Option Plan, whose rights would be affected by the
Settlement.

A so-called fairness hearing is scheduled for January 12, 2015 at
1:00 pm.

Plaintiffs Joseph Koerner and Frank Zachman filed this action in
March 2012. The lawsuit alleges that the six individual Defendants
breached fiduciary duties to the W.M. Putnam Company's Employee
Stock Option Plan by engaging in or approving a prohibited
transaction.  The transaction in question concerns Defendants
Copenhaver and Dietz's sale of 60,000 shares of the Company's
common stock to the ESOP.  The shares fell in value from 2001 to
2005 and again from 2008 to 2011.

On July 23, 2008, Copenhaver and Dietz sold the block of stock to
the ESOP for $3.4 million. The transaction was financed by the
Company, which borrowed $3.4 million from a commercial bank and
loaned the cash to the ESOP, which paid the selling shareholders
the full purchase price. The ESOP then executed a promissory note
payable to the company for the full amount it borrowed plus
interest. The promissory note was secured by the 60,000 shares of
Putnam stock it purchased, and was payable over 10 years. The ESOP
made installment payments from deductible contributions to the
ESOP each year.

The Complaint primarily challenges two aspects of the transaction.
It alleges that the purchase price the ESOP paid to Defendants was
too high because it was based upon a valuation of the Company
developed using inaccurate data and unreasonable future cash flow
projections.  Second, it alleges that a subsequent amendment to
the transaction removed key provisions put in place to protect the
value of pre-July 2008 shares. The Complaint alleges that the
approved transaction originally included a put price protection
plan that was designed to protect the interests of plan
participants who held shares of employer stock prior to July 23,
2008.  Under these distribution rules, plan participants entitled
to a cash distribution for shares allocated prior to July 23, 2008
were to receive the greater of the stock's fair market value or
$51.50. However, all stock allocated after July 23, 2008 was to be
valued at the stock's fair market value at the time of
distribution. The amendment allegedly removed the floor-price of
$51.50, and the cash distribution price per share for
grandfathered participants quickly dropped below the purported
floor price.

The Plaintiffs allege five causes of action based on this
transaction.  They include claims for breach of fiduciary duty
under ERISA section 404, for violation of the prohibited
transaction statute under ERISA sections 406 and 408, for co-
fiduciary liability under ERISA section 406, and for violation of
the anti-cutback rule under ERISA section 204(g). They seek, on
behalf of the ESOP, a constructive trust and other monetary relief
against Defendants. Plaintiff Koerner brought a sixth claim
against three Defendants -- John L. Copenhaver, Carol Dietz in her
capacity as personal representative of the Estate of W. Ronald
Dietz, and the Company -- for retaliatory discharge under
section 510 of ERISA.

The Defendants have denied liability for each of Plaintiffs'
claims.  They argue that they complied with their ERISA duties
with respect to the transaction.  The Defendants hired an
independent trustee for the ESOP, Robert Eddy, and gave him
authority to both determine whether to proceed with the
transaction and negotiate the price on behalf of the ESOP. Eddy
retained an independent valuation firm and independent legal
counsel to aide him in those tasks, and concluded that the
transaction was in the best interests of and fair to the ESOP and
its participants.

The Defendants also deny that there was ever any agreement to
provide a form of fixed price protection. Finally, Defendants
Copenhaver, Dietz, and the Company deny liability for violation of
section 510 of ERISA and argue that Plaintiff Koerner's position
at the Company was eliminated.  The Defendants also brought
counterclaims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy
against Koerner.

After engaging in document discovery throughout 2012, the parties
began to engage in settlement discussions. Their first settlement
conference with former Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan in Chicago was
unsuccessful. The parties then engaged in a period of settlement
discussions with former Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore. Those
discussions were interrupted by the Company's Chapter 11
bankruptcy filing. Once the bankruptcy stay was lifted, the
parties resumed settlement discussions without the involvement of
Judge Cudmore. The proposed Settlement resulted from these
discussions.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a payment of $650,000,
inclusive of attorneys' fees for Plaintiff's Counsel, to be
deposited into a settlement account by the Defendants' Insurers
within fourteen days of final approval, on the condition that
$650,000 is available within the $1.0 million coverage limits
under the relevant insurance policy. If less than $650,000 is
available within the coverage limit, the settlement consideration
is to be the larger of $640,000 or the funds remaining within
Defendants' insurance policy.

The Plaintiffs' counsel may apply for an award of attorneys' fees
and costs from the Settlement Fund, with fees not to exceed
$197,994 and costs not to exceed $55,422. They may also apply for
an incentive award for Plaintiffs not to exceed $7,500 in the
aggregate.

The Settlement Agreement provides that Plaintiff Koerner will
receive $2,500 in settlement for his ERISA Section 510 retaliation
claim. The remainder of the settlement is to be distributed to all
participants in the ESOP whose accounts had vested as of July 23,
2008.

In exchange, the Settlement provides for general mutual releases
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, as well as their
attorneys, successors, assigns, and related parties. It is
conditioned on the Court's entry of a Bar Order, which will
dismiss all claims with prejudice and effectively prevent
Plaintiffs and other ESOP participants from bringing similar
claims against any of the Defendants in the future and Defendants
from bringing similar claims against Plaintiff Koerner in the
future.

A copy of the Court's Order and Opinion dated November 3, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/9MFLj6from Leagle.com.

Frederick Hardman, Counter Claimant, is represented by David G
Lubben, Esq., at Davis & Campbell LLC.

Copenhaver, Inc., dba W.M. Putnam Company, an office supply
store, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Case No.
13-72052) on Oct. 28, 2013, saying assets ranged from $500,001 to
$1 million; and debt ranged from $1 million to $10 million.  It is
represented by Matthew McClintock, Esq., at Goldstein &
McClintock, LLLP.  A copy of the petition is available at
http://bankrupt.com/misc/ilcb13-72052.pdf

Copenhaver describes its business as an outsourcer of premise-
related products and services for businesses, providing
furnishings, interior design, office products, brand management,
printing, and consulting services.  The Debtor is headquartered in
Bloomington, Illinois, and has provided its products and services
to a wide range of customers for more than 65 years.  A
significant loss of business from a key customer precipitated the
Debtor's bankruptcy filing.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Pondo" Suit Over Pinnacle Device Use
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald W. Pondo v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.; Depuy Products, Inc.;
Depuy International, Limited; Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc.;
and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-03893-K (N.D. Tex.,
November 3, 2014) arises from injuries relating to the Plaintiff's
use of Pinnacle Device.

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.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Hammond, Indiana.  In February
2011, the Plaintiff underwent a left total hip arthroplasty
procedure and was implanted with a Pinnacle metal on metal device.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are aware that the use
of the Pinnacle Device may result in metallosis, biologic
toxicity, and a high failure rate.  The Plaintiff adds that the
use of the Pinnacle Device results in unsafe release of toxic
metal ions into hip implant recipients' tissue and bloodstream.

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is an Indiana corporation with its
principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana.  DePuy operates as
a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson.  Johnson and Johnson
Services, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its principal
place of business in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  Johnson and
Johnson Services, Inc., operate as a subsidiary of Johnson and
Johnson.  Johnson and Johnson is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff says that presently, there is an MDL Case No. 3:11-
MD-02244 in the Northern District of Texas in front of the Hon.
James E. Kinkeade entitled In Re: Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.,
Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation.

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


DES MOINES, IA: Faces Class Action Over Bedbug Infestation
----------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Peng, writing for KCCI News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed accusing the city of Des Moines of not
properly handling an extended bedbug infestation at a housing
complex.

The Des Moines Register reports the lawsuit was filed on Oct. 29.
It claims the city's public housing agency put Royal View Manor
residents in bad living conditions by not eradicating the bugs or
warning residents about them.

The suit involves 55 current and former residents.  The apartment
complex has 200 units for low-income elderly and disabled people.
The suit says the problem was reported several times to the Des
Moines Municipal Housing Agency.

Residents that KCCI's Vanessa Peng talked to on Oct. 31 reported
they have been dealing with the problem for seven years.  They
said it's a devastating and dramatic situation.

"They had hatched. You could still see the eggs, the shell," said
Royal View Manor resident Jeanette McDowell.

Ms. McDowell said she's lost money and her sanity to the bedbugs.

"I've lost my futon. I don't have a futon anymore," said Ms.
McDowell.

"I'm leery, I'm scared," said resident Ora Tigner.

Ms. Tigner said she has scars all over her body from bedbugs.

Ms. McDowell and Ms. Tigner said heaters are regularly brought in
to kill bedbugs in apartments, but infestations still happen.

"It really, really ruins your life. It takes you through all these
emotional things. You're embarrassed to have family come over.
You don't even know how to explain it," said Ms. McDowell. "It was
the most devastating thing I've ever had to deal with."

"I wouldn't wish this on my worst memory.  This has been just a
living hell," said Ms. Tigner.

City Attorney Jeff Lester declined to comment on the case on
Oct. 31 because he said he hasn't received the lawsuit yet.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Wins Dismissal of "Kelly" Securities Action
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case entitled RYAN KELLY and LOUIS MASTRO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
C 13-05837 SI (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, who purchased EA common stocks between May 8, 2013
and December, 2013 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and corresponding SEC Rule 10b-5.

Judge Illston, in granting the Motion to Dismiss, held that the
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a primary violation of
Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 and therefore, the court grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim with leave
to amend to properly allege a primary violation under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5.  The amended complaint was due to filed no
later than November 3, 2014.

Additionally, the Court granted defendants request for judicial
notice of Exhibits A, C, F, P, and VV attached to the Defendants'
Request for Judicial Notice.

A copy of Judge Illston's Order dated October 20, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Pdxh6zfrom Leagle.com.

Lawrence F Probst, III, Defendant, represented by Alexander K
Talarides, Esq. -- atalarides@orrick.com -- and Robert P. Varian,
Esq. -- rvarian@orrick.com -- at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Loidy Tang and Illinois Bell May Finalize Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 6, 2014, the court issued an order approving the
parties' class action settlement agreement in IN RE: ENHANCED
RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 6:13-MD-2398-ORL-37GJK, (M.D. Fla.).  In the
Order, the Court dismissed all claims against Defendant Enhanced
Recovery Company, LLC and retained jurisdiction for 60 days over
the individual claims that Plaintiffs Teresa Soppet and Loidy Tang
raised against Defendant Illinois Bell Telephone Company (Illinois
Bell) in Member Case No. 6:13-cv-44 so that the parties could
finalize their settlement agreements.

On October 20, 2014, the Court ordered the parties to show cause
as to why Lead Case No. 6:13-md-2398 and Member Case No. 6:13-cv-
44 should not be dismissed and closed.  The parties responded and
indicated that Teresa Soppet's claims against Illinois Bell have
been resolved and can be dismissed with prejudice, leaving Loidy
Tang's claims against Illinois Bell as the only unresolved claims
in this action. Loidy Tang and Illinois Bell request additional
time to finalize their settlement agreement.

Upon consideration, District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., granted
Loidy Tang and Illinois Bell's request for additional time to
finalize their settlement agreement. "Those parties will be
directed to notify the Court upon finalization of the agreement,
at which time the Court will close Lead Case No. 6:13-md-2398 and
Member Case No. 6:13-cv-44," he wrote in his order dated October
31, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/mpG1YWfrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Teresa Soppet's claims against Defendant Illinois Bell
Telephone Company are dismissed with prejudice, the Court held.

"The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff Loidy Tang's claims
against Defendant Illinois Bell for an additional 30 days," Judge
Dalton added.  "Plaintiff Loidy Tang and Defendant Illinois Bell
are directed to file a joint notice apprising the Court of the
status of their settlement agreement on or before the earlier of:
(1) the date of the agreement's finalization; or (2) November 30,
2014."

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan C.
Shartle -- bshartle@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan
& Israel, LLC, David Allen Shapiro -- dshapiro@bronsonkahn.com --
Bronson & Kahan, LLC, Dayle Marie Van Hoose -- dvanhoose@sessions-
law.biz -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC, James Kevin
Schultz -- jschultz@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan
& Israel, LLC, Kimberly D. Howatt -- khowatt@gordonrees.com --
Gordon & Rees, LLP, Peter E. Nicandri -- pnicandri@milamhoward.com
-- Milam, Howard, Nicandri, Dees & Gillam, PA, Rachel A. Morris --
rmorris@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel,
LLC & Scott Stephen Gallagher -- ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com -- Smith,
Gambrell & Russell, LLP.


ETON HOME: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Oklahoma Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mattie Jordan, Tracey Mackey and Roymeka Wright, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eton Home Care,
Inc., a Domestic Not for Profit Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00660-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla., November 3, 2014) seeks relief relating
to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Christopher Vaught, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG & VAUGHT PLC
          2727 E 21st St., Suite 505
          Tulsa, OK 74114
          Telephone: (918) 582-2500
          Facsimile: (918) 583-1755
          E-mail: cvaught@a-vlaw.com


FLAX USA: Settles Flax Milk Deceptive Labeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
TopClassActions.com on Oct. 31 disclosed that Flax USA Inc. has
reached a class action lawsuit settlement over claims it
deceptively labeled its flax milk products as "All Natural."  If
you purchased flax milk sold by Flax USA in the United States
between Nov. 5, 2009 and Sept. 22, 2014, you may be eligible to
claim up to $32.50 from the Flax USA flax milk class action
settlement.

The deadline to file a claim is April 28, 2015. More information
about how to file a claim for the Flax USA flax milk class action
settlement can be found at tpcl.as/flaxmilksettlement.

Case Summary

The flax milk settlement resolves a class action lawsuit
(Madenlian v. Flax USA) that claims consumers were misled into
purchasing Flax USA flax milk products based on the misleading
statement: "All Natural Dairy Free Beverage."

Plaintiffs allege the statement is misleading because the products
contain the following artificial or synthetic ingredients:
Tricalcium Phosphate, Xanthan Gum, Vitamin A Palmitate, Vitamin
D2, and Vitamin B12.  Had they known Flax USA flax milk products
contained these allegedly artificial or synthetic ingredients,
they would not have purchased the products, the flax milk class
action lawsuit claims.

Flax USA denies the allegations and contends that the statements
"All Natural Dairy Free Beverage* / *Added Vitamins & Minerals,"
read in combination, do no not represent that the added vitamins
and minerals are "all natural."  However, the company has agreed
to establish a $260,000 class action settlement fund to avoid the
uncertainty of going to trial.

The case is Garo Madenlian, et al. v. Flax USA Inc., Case No.
SACV13-01748 JVS (JPRx), U.S. District Court, Central District of
California

Potential Award

Class Members of the Flax USA flax milk settlement include all
persons in the United States who purchased any of the following
products from Nov. 5, 2009 to Sept. 22, 2014:

- Flax USA Flax Milk Original
- Flax USA Flax Milk Unsweetened
- Flax USA Flax Milk Vanilla

The products must be aseptic (i.e., shelf-stable, non-
refrigerated) flax milk sold in 32-oz size cartons.
Class Members can claim between $2.50 and $32.50 depending on how
many eligible products they purchased and whether they can
identify the retailer and retailer's location.

Deadline

The deadline to file a claim is 4/28/2015.

File a Claim
Claim filing instructions can be found at
tpcl.as/flaxmilksettlement

                About Top Class Actions, LLC

www.TopClassActions.com is the #1 source of class action news
online, connecting consumers to the class action lawsuits and
settlements that matter to them.  Top Class Actions is based in
Phoenix, Arizona.


GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Jacobs" Suit to E.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Jacobs, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al.,
Case No. 14 CVS 557, was removed from the General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division, in Bladen County, North
Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina (Southern Division).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 7:14-cv-00257-FL to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges personal injury and wrongful death damages,
including claims for pain and suffering, medical, funeral and
burial expense, loss of Decedent's net income, services,
protection, care, assistance, society, comfort, companionship,
guidance, kindly offices and advice, as well as punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Dixon, Esq.
          MATTHEW J. DIXON, PLLC
          Post Office Box 3090
          Elizabethtown, NC 28337
          Telephone: (910) 872-0002
          Facsimile: (910) 872-0007
          E-mail: dixonlaw101@yahoo.com

The General Motors Defendants are represented by:

          Steven C. Lawrence, Esq.
          John H. Anderson, Esq.
          Stacey E. Tally, Esq.
          ANDERSON, JOHNSON, LAWRENCE & BUTLER, L.L.P.
          109 Green Street, Suite 204 (28301)
          Post Office Drawer 2737
          Fayetteville, NC 28302-2737
          Telephone: (910) 483-1171
          Facsimile: (910) 483-5005
          E-mail: slawrence@andersonjohnson.com
                  janderson@andersonjohnson.com
                  stally@andersonjohnson.com

               - and -

          Kent B. Hanson, Esq.
          Paul E. D. Darsow, Esq.
          HANSON, BOLKCOM LAW GROUP, LTD.
          527 Marquette Avenue, Suite 2300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 342-2880
          Facsimile: (612) 342-2899
          E-mail: khanson@hblawgroup.com
                 paul.darsow@hblawgroup.com

The JTEKT Defendants are represented by:

          Frederick W. Rom, Esq.
          WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP
          150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2100
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 755-8153
          Facsimile: (919) 755-2150
          E-mail: from@wcsr.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Falsely Advertises Staminol Drug, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Vigil on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. General Nutrition Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Case
No. 3:14-cv-04866-JSC (N.D. Cal., November 3, 2014) is a class
action regarding the Defendant's alleged false and misleading
advertisement of its health-supplement, Staminol, which it falsely
represents will serve to increase male sexual performance and
vitality and, additionally, will treat prostate and urinary flow
issues.

General Nutrition Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The Defendant
distributes, markets, and sells Staminol, an over the counter
dietary supplement for men which the Defendant claims, on the
product packaging and, additionally, via its nationwide marketing,
will enhance the sexual performance of its users.  The primary
ingredients in Staminol include "Horny Goat Weed."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

               - and -

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


HERBALIFE LTD: Settles Class Action Over Business Structure
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Herbalife says it has agreed to
settle a lawsuit that claimed the company's business structure and
marketing practices violated federal and state laws.

The weight loss and nutritional supplements company did not
elaborate in its statement on Oct. 31 on the terms of the proposed
settlement in the class-action case.

The lawsuit was filed in April 2013 in a California federal court
by a former salesman.

Herbalife Ltd. maintains it hasn't done anything wrong and the
lawsuit is meritless.  It says it's seeking to settle the case in
hopes of avoiding the potential cost and distraction of prolonged
litigation.

The company has also been defending itself against activist
investor Bill Ackman, who runs Pershing Square Capital Management.
Mr. Ackman has bet heavily against the company's stock, describing
Herbalife as a pyramid scheme.


INTEL CORP: Settles Class Action Over Pentium 4 Processor
---------------------------------------------------------
Lily Hay Newman, writing for Slate, reports that after 15 years,
Intel is finally paying out as part of a class action lawsuit
that alleged the company made up performance benchmarks for its
Pentium 4 processor.  Which came out in November 2000.

If you bought a PC with a Pentium 4 processor for personal or
family use between Nov. 20, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2001 you're
entitled to $15 from Intel.  Unless you live in Illinois.

Intel specifically screwed up by fudging the Pentium 4 benchmarks
to compete with the AMD Athlon Thunderbird processor, which came
out in June 2000.  Intel also has to donate $4 million to
charities focused on education.


KEFI LLC: Court Grants Class Settlement, In Part
------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a class action settlement
in the case captioned MANUEL LIZONDRO-GARCIA, LUIS CRUZ, JORGE
GARCIA, JERALDO GONZALEZ, ALEKSANDER VELIC, JAVIER TOLEDO, OSCAR
RAMIREZ, MOISES JIMENEZ, MARCO REAL, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KEFI LLC, doing business
as KEFI RESTAURANT and KOSTANTINOS DAMANIOS, Defendants, No. 12
CIV. 1906 (HBP).

The complaint alleges that plaintiffs, and members of the FLSA
collective and putative NYLL class, are or were employed by
defendants as servers, bartenders, baristas, barbacks, bussers or
runners. The Complaint is based on the Fair Labor Standards Act
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et seq., and New York Labor Law
Sections 191 et seq. to recover unpaid overtime and spread-of-
hours compensation, improperly withheld tips and statutory
damages.

Plaintiffs now ask the Court to (1) certify the final settlement
class, (2) approve the settlement agreement, and (3) award fees
and costs to class counsel.

The settlement fund is $315,000.

Magistrate Judge Pitman granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs'' Motion and ruled that:

    1. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the class is
certified for settlement purposes as all individuals who work or
worked for defendants as servers, bartenders, baristas, barbacks,
bussers and runners from December 1, 2008 to June 30, 2013.

    2. The Settlement Agreement is unconditionally approved.

    3. The "Effective Date" of the settlement shall be 30 days
after the date of Order if no party appeals. If a party appeals
from the Order and the Order is affirmed, the Effective Date of
the settlement shall be the day after the Court of Appeals'
mandate issues.

    4. Within 10 days of receipt of the first installment of the
settlement fund payment from defendants and after the Effective
Date of the Order, the claims administrator shall distribute the
funds in the settlement account by making these payments:

       i. Paying the claims administrator fee ($15,239.11);

      ii. Reimbursing class counsel for $607.00 in litigation
          costs; and

     iii. Paying service awards of $1,000.00 each to Manuel
          Lizondro-Garcia, Luis Cruz, Jorge Garcia, Jeraldo
          Gonzalez, Aleksander Velic, Javier Toledo, Oscar
          Ramirez, Moises Jimenez and Marco Real.

    5. Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees is denied without
prejudice to renewal within the next 30 days.

    6. Within 10 days of resolution of the issue of attorneys'
fees and the disbursement of any fees that may be awarded, the
claims administrator shall distribute the remaining funds in the
settlement account to collective and class members in accordance
with the allocation plan described in the Settlement Agreement.

    7. Magistrate Judge Pitman will retain jurisdiction over the
action for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement and
overseeing the distribution of settlement funds. The parties will
abide by all terms of the Settlement Agreement, which are
incorporated in the Order.

    8. Upon the Effective Date and the resolution of the issue of
attorneys' fees, the litigation shall be dismissed with prejudice,
and all settlement class members who have not excluded themselves
from the settlement or who have opted in to the lawsuit shall be
permanently enjoined from pursuing and/or seeking to reopen claims
that have been released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiffs retained Angeion Group as the claims administrator.
The Court approved the fee sought by the claims administrator in
the amount of $15,239.11, which will be paid from the settlement
fund.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Pitman's Opinion and Order dated
October 7, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/wUwNU4from
Leagle.com.

Kostantinos Damanios, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman,
Esq. -- EkelmanF@jacksonlewis.com -- and Jason A Zoldessy, Esq. --
ZoldessJ@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis LLP


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Eagan Avenatti Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eagan Avenatti, LLP, a Southern California-based law firm, filed a
class action lawsuit on Oct. 29 in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles,
alleging that Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a global healthcare
company, has committed fraud in the marketing and selling of
certain of their protective medical gowns.  In particular, the
suit states that the company has falsely represented to the FDA,
health care workers and the general public that the company's
"MICROCOOL Breathable High Performance Surgical Gowns" are
impermeable and provide protection against Ebola despite the fact
that the company has known since 2013 that these gowns failed
industry tests and do not meet relevant standards, thus placing
healthcare professionals and patients at considerable risk for
infection and serious bodily harm.

"This conduct has placed physicians, healthcare workers and
patients at risk of being unknowingly exposed to harmful bacteria,
viruses and illness, including Ebola.  This is a very serious
matter and deserves the immediate attention of regulators and the
medical community."

"These are extremely serious allegations and ones that we do not
make lightly," said lead attorney Michael Avenatti of Eagan
Avenatti, LLP, the law firm representing the Plaintiffs.
"Kimberly-Clark needs to immediately recall these gowns and come
clean with the FDA, CDC, healthcare professionals and the general
public. The risks associated with continued concealment of the
truth are far too great."

According to the Complaint, Kimberly-Clark has knowingly misled
the medical community, regulators and the general public about the
safety of the Surgical Gowns and even after learning of multiple
test failures, failed to alert the FDA, healthcare professionals
and patients.  As stated in the Complaint, tests of numerous
random samples from separate manufacturing lots showed that the
gowns failed to meet the AAMI Level 4 standards, with many of the
gowns experiencing catastrophic failures that allowed liquid,
bacterial and viral pathogens to penetrate the gowns.  Instead of
recalling the gowns and disclosing the truth, the company
concealed what it knew and continued promoting, marketing and
selling the gowns by stating they were impermeable, even going so
far as to recommend that the gowns be used when treating patients
with serious infectious diseases, including Ebola.

The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $500 million and is brought
on behalf of lead Plaintiff and well respected surgeon Hrayr
Shahinian, M.D., F.A.C.S., together with approximately 500,000
others similarly situated.  Dr. Shahinian is an experienced skull
base surgeon in California and is internationally recognized as
one of the first surgeons in the world to use and pioneer
endoscopic skull base surgery.  He received the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Innovation Award in
2008, 2011 and 2012 for his work in the field of medical
technology.

"Kimberly-Clark's actions of concealing the truth about their
Surgical Gowns and continuing to market them as impermeable is
unconscionable," said Dr. Shahinian. "This conduct has placed
physicians, healthcare workers and patients at risk of being
unknowingly exposed to harmful bacteria, viruses and illness,
including Ebola.  This is a very serious matter and deserves the
immediate attention of regulators and the medical community."

                   About Eagan Avenatti, LLP

Michael J. Avenatti, Esq. is a founding partner of Eagan Avenatti,
LLP, a firm of trial attorneys that specialize in litigating a
variety of complex civil litigation in courts throughout the
United States.  With offices in Los Angeles, Orange County and San
Francisco, Eagan Avenatti, LLP and its attorneys have obtained
hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and verdicts for
plaintiffs nationwide.


LAZZARI FUEL: Has Partial Charcoal Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
two California companies have agreed to a $2.4 million partial
settlement of a class action accusing them of engaging in a
decade-long conspiracy to corner the U.S. mesquite charcoal market
and fix prices for the fuel source used by restaurants to flavor
meat, poultry and fish.

On Oct. 24, two of the country's largest mesquite charcoal
suppliers -- Lazzari Fuel Company, LLC, and California Charcoal
and Firewood, Inc. -- signed off on the preliminary deal with the
three California restaurants that alleged the companies colluded
to prop up the price of the charcoal, allocate customers and
territories amongst them, follow a non-compete policy, and rig
bids.

The restaurant plaintiffs -- Il Fornaio (America) Corp.; Oliveto
Partners; and The Famous Enterprise Fish Co, Ltd. -- did not reach
a deal with a third supplier, co-defendants Chef's Choice Mesquite
Charcoal, and William Lord, the company's owner and the "kingpin"
of the alleged conspiracy, according to the preliminary settlement
agreement in Il Fornaio v. Lazzari.

The U.S. Department of Justice investigated the alleged charcoal
cartel, and snared Lord on criminal antitrust charges for his
role. Lord pleaded guilty to one felony on June 18, 2012.

The restaurants learned of the alleged conspiracy as a result of
Lord's court case, which included transcripts of conversations
with an undercover informant that described the scheme.  The
plaintiffs are continuing to pursue the class action against Lord,
and the two suppliers who settled have agreed to help the
plaintiffs do so, according to court documents.

Over a decade, the three companies accounted for 75 percent of the
mesquite charcoal in the U.S. market, with combined revenues of
$100 million from 2000 to Sept. 30, 2010, the span covered by the
class action.  The lawsuit accused the companies of violating the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  The suppliers who agreed to settle deny
wrongdoing or liability.

Under the terms of the settlement, an estimated 1,500 charcoal
customers -- mostly restaurants and restaurant suppliers -- will
be eligible for a piece of the $2.375 million settlement.  The
plaintiffs' attorneys will ask for nor more than 25 percent of the
settlement fund to cover their fees, according to the documents.
Mesquite charcoal, considered by some to be a smokeless barbeque
technique, is prized among cooks for grilling because it burns
slowly and emits a rich scent, and has grown in popularity among
U.S. diners. An estimated 95 percent of the charcoal comes from
trees in the Sonoran Desert of Mexico.

Plaintiffs' counsel are with Pritzker Levine; Pearson Simon &
Warshaw; and Saveri & Saveri.  Defendants are represented by
Sanger Swysen & Dunkle; Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp; and Farmer
Brownstein Jaeger.


LENOVO INC: Settles Class Action Over Ultrabook Design Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of consumers, on Oct. 31 announced that a Settlement
has been reached with Lenovo (United States) Inc. over certain
Lenovo brand Ultrabook computers containing a design defect that
impacted the Wi-Fi performance of the computers.  On September 15,
2014, the Court entered an Amended Order Granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement and
also appointed Parker Waichman LLP as Class Counsel along with co-
counsel.  The case is Garrett Kacsuta, et al. v. Lenovo (United
States) Inc., Case Number 8:13-cv-00316, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California; co-counsel are
Kiesel Law LLP; Paradis Law Group, PLLC; and Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, LLP.

U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney ruled that the proposed
settlement was "sufficiently fair and adequate" to warrant
preliminary approval and distribution of the notice to the
potential class members.

Plaintiffs allege that Lenovo knowingly sold defective Lenovo
Ideapad U310 and U410 "U Series" computers that were marketed as
"ideal for any and all mobile needs."  According to the lawsuit,
however, the alleged design defect of these Lenovo products
severely limited the ability of the devices to either connect to,
or attain, Wi-Fi networks with speeds and ranges needed to engage
in mobile computing.  The Plaintiffs allege that Lenovo's conduct
violated a number of acts and laws including the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the
District of Columbia Consumer Protection and Procedures. Breach of
express warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantability
were also cited in the lawsuit. (Garrett Kacsuta, et al. v. Lenovo
(United States) Inc., Case Number 8:13-cv-00316, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California)

Parker Waichman LLP urges all persons who purchased a Lenovo
Ideapad(R) model U310 or U410 Ultrabook computer in the United
States to visit the Lenovo Laptop Wi-Fi Settlement website for
more information about the terms of the Settlement, to view court
documents and to submit an online claim form.

The Final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for December 15, 2014.
(Garrett Kacsuta, et al. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Case
Number 8:13-cv-00316, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California)

"We are pleased that the Court has granted preliminary approval of
the Class Action Settlement and that class members are closer to
receiving the significant benefits the Settlement provides," said
Jordan L. Chaikin, a Partner at Parker Waichman LLP.

If you or someone you know has purchased a Lenovo Ultrabook
computer, you may have valuable legal rights. To discuss your case
with one of our lawyers, please view our Lenovo IdeaPad Ultrabook
Class Action Lawsuits page or call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-
4636).  To submit a claim, please visit the Lenovo Laptop Wi-Fi
Settlement website.


LIQUOR CONTROL: 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:           Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9317

Affected products: 750 ml. Mogen David Red Wine - Concord with all
codes where the level of arsenic was determined to be greater than
100 ug/L.


LORDFORD INC: Recalls Cosine Coffee Mate Due to Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Lordford Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9383

Affected products: 800 g. Cosine Coffee Mate with all codes which
do not declared milk on the label


MANNA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Manna International Trading Ltd., Pan
                          Asia Food Co. Ltd., Seoul Trading Corp.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9395

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 21, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

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

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

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

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

The recall was triggered by 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.


MARATHON VENTURES: Recalls Raw Macadamia Nuts
---------------------------------------------
Marathon Ventures, Inc. announced that it is voluntarily recalling
various retail and bulk packages containing raw macadamia nuts as
a precautionary measure because the product may be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The issue was brought to the Company's attention by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) following routine testing.

There have been no illnesses or injuries reported to-date
affiliated with these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury/illness should contact a physician immediately.  Marathon
Ventures, Inc. has informed the FDA of its actions and is
cooperating fully with the ongoing investigation.  Consumers who
have purchased the items listed below should not consume this
product and should return it to the store of purchase for a full
refund or replacement.

The items below were sold after March 11, 2014, through grocery,
food service and other retail outlets throughout the country.


MARRONE BIO: Deferred Deadline to Respond to Chen Case Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley signed on October 31, 2014, a
stipulation and order deferring deadlines to respond to the
complaint captioned SSUCHIA CHEN, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRONE BIO
INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, and
JAMES B. BOYD, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02105-TLN-EFB, (E.D.
Cal.).

The stipulation provides that:

1. Without prejudice to any parties' right to seek interim relief,
Defendants will have no obligation to answer or otherwise respond
to the complaint until after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Reform Act.

2. Defendants will meet and confer with the court-appointed lead
counsel within 20 days following the appointment of a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel to (a) confirm whether the lead
plaintiff will file a new complaint that supersedes all previously
filed complaints or deem the existing complaint operative; (b)
establish a common response date for all defendants, including a
briefing schedule on defendants' anticipated motions to dismiss
and (c) establish a date to provide the Court with the Joint
Status report as set forth in the Order of September 11, 2014.

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

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP Robert V. Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Michael Goldberg --
mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- Robert V. Prongay, Los Angeles, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ssuchia Chen.


MASIMO CORP: "Unsolicited" Fax Ad Suit Stayed Pending FCC Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted the motion and stayed the case filed by the Physicians
Healthsource, Inc. against Masimo Corp. pending a ruling by the
Federal Communications Commission, 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 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief. On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the
case pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company
with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014,
the District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending
a ruling by the FCC on the petition.


MASIMO CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Randomized Trial in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation continues to face a lawsuit filed on behalf of
two participants in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and
Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama,
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 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. A
previous version of the complaint also alleged a wrongful death
claim, which the court dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney
fees and injunctive and other relief.


MASTERCARD INT'L: "Chi" Suit Suit Alleging RICO Claims Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas W. Thrash granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude filed in the
case entitled C.Y.M. CHI and V.L. CHI, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MASTERCARD
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Civil Action File No. 1:14-CV-614-
TWT (N.D. Ga.).

The Plaintiffs brought a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations action or RICO on behalf of similarly situated
individuals who have been damage by Mastercard's fraudulent
processing transactions initiated by Vertrue, by way of getting
the credit card information without the customer's permission,
when the latter enrolls in one of Vertrue's membership clubs.

In granting the motion to dismiss filed by Mastercard, Judge Trash
held that (1) the Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to
show a RICO enterprise, (2) the Plaintiffs failed to plead
sufficient facts showing a pattern of racketeering activity, and
(3) the Plaintiffs' RICO conspiracy claims must be dismissed.
Where an underlying RICO claim fails, and the plaintiff does not
allege additional facts to support a RICO conspiracy claim, the
conspiracy claim must also fail.

The Court also denied the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the
Declaration of Gary R. Carney, filed by the Defendants.  The
Defendant offered the Carney Declaration to argue that the
Plaintiffs should not be granted leave to amend their Complaint a
second time.  Judge Trash opined that the Court has already denied
the motion for leave to amend.  The motion to exclude is therefore
moot as it applies to the motion for leave to amend.

A copy of Judge Trash's Opinion and Order dated October 6, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/FjFtP2from Leagle.com.

MasterCard International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Alexandra R. Clark, Esq. -- awalsh@paulweiss.com -- Gary R.
Carney, Esq. -- gcarney@paulweiss.com -- and Kenneth A. Gallo,
Esq. -- kgallo@paulweiss.com -- at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison, LLP; and Cheralynn M. Gregoire, Esq. --
cgregoire@tfhlegal.com -- at Taylor, Feil, Harper, Lumsden & Hess,
PC.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit May be Heard Q4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Healthcare Incorporated filed a motion to dismiss a
purported shareholder lawsuit, which it expects to be heard in the
fourth quarter of 2014, 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 16, 2014, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by Fernando Rossy, who claims to be
a Merge Healthcare stockholder, against Merge Healthcare and
certain current and former directors and officers claiming
violations of federal securities laws and asserting that a class
of our stockholders suffered damages due to the alleged
dissemination or approval of false and misleading statements by
Merge Healthcare from August 1, 2012 through January 7, 2014
related to falsified subscription backlog figures and a reluctance
amongst large health systems to make enterprise purchases, as well
as a lack of effective controls. Several other putative
shareholder class action complaints alleging materially the same
causes of action were subsequently filed. A hearing was held on
March 26, 2014 before the Court of the Northern District Illinois,
at which time the Court granted the motion of the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System ("ATRS") to consolidate the class action cases
and to appoint ATRS as lead plaintiff. ATRS filed an amended
complaint on May 28, 2014. The company filed a motion to dismiss
the purported class action lawsuit, which it expects to be heard
in the fourth quarter of 2014. On February 14, 2014, William B.
Federman, who claims to be a Merge Healthcare stockholder, filed a
derivative complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
against certain of our current and former directors and officers,
asserting breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of materially the
same conduct alleged in the securities fraud class action
complaints. Subsequently, two other derivative complaints were
filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District
of Illinois. On June 6, 2014, the judge assigned to the class
action case granted our motion to reassign the two Federal
derivative actions to her on the basis of relatedness and stayed
the Federal derivative cases until she rules on the Company's
motion to dismiss the class action case. The plaintiffs in the
class action and derivative cases have not claimed a specific
amount of damages. Merge Healthcare and the other named defendants
are actively considering all possible responses to these
complaints.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Certification Bid in "Gold" Case Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted, in part, and denied,
in part, the Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
ELLEN ANNETTE GOLD, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-02019-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Gold alleges that the Defendants' violated the provisions of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692 et
seq., and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1788 et seq., as the Defendants'
continues to send her false, deceptive, and misleading letter
concerning her past-due balance or obligation namely a consumer
credit account issued by HSBC Bank Nevada. Plaintiff seeks to
certify hybrid class under Rule 23 (b)(2) and (b)(3).

In his Order dated October 7, 2014, which is available at
http://is.gd/DqI4MRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Freeman (1) denied
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify as to Rule 23(b)(2)class, and (2)
granted Plaintiff's Motion to Certify according to Rule 23(b)(3).
Gold is appointed as class representative to proceed on behalf of
the class for violations of the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act in
connection with Defendants' mailing of the letter. This class is
subject to alteration or amendment prior to the entry of final
judgment.

Midland Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, is represented by:

     Tomio Buck Narita, Esq.
     Christopher M Spain, Esq.
     Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq.
     Liana Mayilyan, Esq.
     SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP
     E-mail: tnarita@snllp.com
        jtopor@snllp.com
        Liana@snllp.com


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 4,255 Vehicles Due to Brake Booster
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louella D. Desiderio, writing for The Philippine Star, reports
that the local unit of Japanese carmaker Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
is recalling 4,255 vehicles sold to replace the brake booster,
brake lamp switch and engine drive belt.

According to Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corp. (MMPC), the
recall affects the following models: ASX, Outlander, Lancer EX and
Lancer Evolution X.

A total of 27 ASX units sold in 2011 need to undergo the safety
recall inspection to replace the brake booster as its switch
sleeve is suspected to be improperly installed which may cause the
brake pedal not to release and the vehicle unable to restart.

The inspection procedure for the brake booster is estimated to
take 18 minutes at the most and when needed, replacement of brake
booster is estimated at 2.4 hours.

Meanwhile, 558 Outlander units sold from 2007 to 2009 need to be
checked for the brake lamp switch as the insufficient conduction
in the switch may cause the brake lamp not to illuminate and may
also result inability to move the shift lever out of park
position.

The replacement procedure for the brake lamp switch is estimated
to take 18 minutes.

A total of 2,459 Lancer EX and Ralliart units sold from 2008 to
2011, 603 Outlander units sold from 2008 to 2009, 600 ASX units
sold in 2011, and eight Lancer Evolution X units sold from 2008 to
2010 need to be checked as the pulley and auto tensioner may wear
out due to inappropriate material of the engine drive belt and may
cause the drive belt to come off.

Replacement of the engine drive belt, plus inspection and
replacement of the pulley and auto tensioner, is estimated to take
around 1 to 1.5 hours in total depending on the engine type.


MURRY'S INC: Recalls 31,689 Lbs. of Gluten Free Breaded Chickens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murry's Inc., a Lebanon, Pa. establishment, is recalling
approximately 31,689 pounds of gluten free breaded chicken
products that may be contaminated with Staphylococcal enterotoxin,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The products have a best by date of Aug. 9, 2015.  The products
subject to recall include:

   -- 12-oz. boxes of "Bell & Evans Gluten Free Breaded Chicken
      Breast Nuggets."

   -- 10.5-oz. boxes of "Bell & Evans Gluten Free Breaded Chicken
      Breast."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"P-516" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were
shipped to retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the Colorado Department of
Agriculture during a retail surveillance and sampling program
funded by the USDA at a Federal Emergency Response Network lab.
After being notified of the positive test result, FSIS conducted
traceback activities.

Staphylococcal food poisoning is a gastrointestinal illness.  It
is caused by eating foods contaminated with toxin-producing
Staphylococcus aureus.

Staphylococcus aureus is a common bacterium found on the skin and
in the noses of healthy people and animals.  Staphylococcus aureus
can produce seven different toxins that are frequently responsible
for food poisoning.

Staphylococcal enterotoxins are fast acting, sometimes causing
illness in as little as 30 minutes.  Symptoms usually develop
within one to six hours after eating contaminated food.  Patients
typically experience several of the following: nausea, vomiting,
stomach cramps, and diarrhea.  The illness is usually mild and
most patients recover after one to three days.

To prevent Staphylococcal contamination, keep kitchens and food-
serving areas clean and sanitized.  Keep hot foods hot (over
140øF) and cold foods cold (40F or under).  Make sure to wash
hands and under fingernails vigorously with soap and water before
handling and preparing food.  Do not prepare food if you have an
open sore or wound on your hands or if you have a nose or eye
infection.

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 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.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Murry's customer service, at (717) 273-9361.


NISSAN: Recalls 1,800+ Infiniti SUVs Over Airbag Defect
-------------------------------------------------------
TribLive reports that Nissan says it's recalling more than 1,800
Infiniti SUVs in the United States for an air bag problem that
could send shrapnel into the passenger compartment.  The recall
covers some QX56 SUVs from 2013 and the QX80s from 2014.
Inflators made by Takata Corp. were built with an incorrect outer
baffle part, the company said. That can cause pressure to build
up, and the inflators can rupture if driver's side air bags are
deployed.  Nissan has no reports of injuries from the problem.  It
was discovered once General Motors recalled 33,000 Cruze compact
cars for the same problem in June.  The Infiniti recall is part of
a larger global recall of 260,000 Nissans previously announced.


NORM CRAMER: Motion for Reconsideration in "Taylor" Case Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs, all civil detainees,
filed the Complaint commencing the action on June 18, 2014.  On
July 17, 2014, the court issued an order denying the Plaintiffs'
request for the case to proceed as a class action.  On September
26, 2014, the court issued an order severing the Plaintiffs'
claims and directing the Clerk's Office to open new action for the
fifteen Co-Plaintiffs.  Jason Taylor is now the sole Plaintiff in
the present case.

On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order denying the Plaintiffs'
request for the case to proceed as a class action.

Magistrate Judge Gary s. Austin denied the motion for
reconsideration saying the Plaintiffs have not set forth facts or
law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse
its prior decision.  A copy of the Court's October 31, 2014 order
is available at http://is.gd/AMc2aBfrom Leagle.com.

The case is JASON TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. NORM CRAMER, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-00939-AWI-GSA-PC, (E.D. Cal.).

Jason Taylor, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


OCWEN LOAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Cisson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01347-BJD-
PDB (M.D. Fla., November 3, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Chase Roberson, Esq.
          ERIC C. ROBERSON, P.A.
          2064 Park St.
          Jacksonville, FL 32204
          Telephone: (904) 404-8800
          Facsimile: (904) 517-8387
          E-mail: eric@robersonlawjax.com


PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 31 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, and docketed under 14-cv-06172, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Pacira securities between April 9, 2012 and September
24, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Pacira securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 2, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Pacira is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops,
commercializes, and manufactures pharmaceutical products primarily
for use in hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers worldwide.
Its product pipeline includes EXPAREL, which has completed Phase
III clinical trials for postsurgical analgesia-nerve block
administration.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company was overstating the efficacy of
its Exparel drug; (ii) the Company was improperly promoting its
Exparel drug by touting its ability to be effective for up to 72
hours, when in fact, it is only approved for 24 hours of pain
relief; (iii) the Company improperly claimed that Exparel is safe
for use in cholecystectomy and colectomy procedures, when in fact,
approved labeling does not provide instructions for, or indicate
that Exparel will be safe and effective for postsurgical pain, if
used in surgical procedures other than hemorrhoidectomy or
bunionectomy; (iv) a substantial portion of the Company's revenues
were derived from off label marketing; and (v) and as a result of
the above, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 25, 2014, the Company announced that it received a
Warning Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
("FDA") Office of Prescription Drug Promotion ("OPDP") referencing
certain promotional materials relating to Exparel (the "Warning
Letter").  In the Warning Letter, the FDA's OPDP stated that it
has evidence that Exparel has been promoted for uses for which it
does not have approval, and for which its labeling does not
provide adequate directions for use, thus rendering Exparel
"misbranded."  The FDA noted that Pacira's advertising materials
suggested that Exparel is safe and effective for use in
cholecystectomy and colectomy procedures.  However, the FDA said
that the approved labeling for Exparel does not provide
instructions for, or indicate that Exparel will be safe and
effective for postsurgical pain, if used in surgical procedures
other than a hemorrhoidectomy or bunionectomy.  Further, the
Warning Letter noted that a journal advertisement by Pacira
claimed Exparel was able to provide pain-relief for up to 72
hours, while the drug is only approved for pain-relief up to 24
hours.  The agency said these claims overstate Exparel's efficacy
and are misleading.

On the news, Pacira stock fell $11.66, or almost 11%, on unusually
heavy volume, to close at $94.62 on September 25, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


PENN GLOBAL: Sued for Firing Worker for Using Benefit Plan Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Hubbs v. Penn Global Marketing, LLC, Donald J. Fronczak, and
Stephen Gaffney, Case No. 4:14-cv-01846 (E.D. Mo.,
November 3, 2014) alleges that the Defendants harassed and
ultimately terminated the Plaintiff's employment for exercising
her rights under an employee benefit plan.

Penn Global Marketing, LLC is a limited liability company doing
business within the state of Missouri.  The Individual Defendants
are officers or agents of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          Laura Spencer Garth, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
          2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314)645-4100
          Facsimile: (314)736-6216
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com
                  laura.garth@dolleylaw.com


PEARSON PLC: Professors File Class Action Over Book Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
two college professors have brought a proposed class action
against the world's largest book publisher in which they allege
the company, Pearson PLC, uses sham sales and questionable
bookkeeping to deny them and other textbook authors the royalties
due.

Finance professors emeritus Lawrence Gitman and Michael Joehnk
allege Pearson and its subsidiaries have systematically
shortchanged them for royalties on their textbook, "Fundamentals
of Investing," and others they have written.  Mr. Gitman, of San
Diego State University, and Joehnk, of Arizona State University,
say an audit shows the companies owe them more than $470,000.

In Gitman v. Pearson Education , filed on Oct. 29 in U.S District
Court for the Southern District of New York, the authors accuse
British-based Pearson and Pearson Education Inc. have decreased
the royalties paid them despite the escalation of the retail price
of their fundamentals textbook from $108 to $260 between 2000 and
2011.

The professors allege Pearson employs a variety of improper
practices to "usurp" an ever-greater share of royalties from the
authors, including intentionally miscategorizing domestic sales as
exports to pay the lower royalty rate applicable to foreign sales.
They say the defendants also breached their contracts, which call
for royalties of 15 or 18 percent for domestic sales, by
arbitrarily classifying their books as "discounted," which
translates into a royalty rate of 10 percent.

The complaint alleges Pearson engages in "sham sales" by using one
Pearson subsidiary to sell a textbook to another subsidiary at
below-market prices, which mean smaller royalty checks.  Then, the
professors allege, the company sells the books at market price,
"allowing Pearson to reap excess profits at the expense of the
authors."

The plaintiffs accuse Pearson of engaging in breach of contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
intentional interference with contract.  They ask for injunctive
relief and damages.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are with the firms Milberg LLP and The
Sobelsohn Law Firm.


PFIZER INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Zoloft Birth Defect Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Kirk, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that after the
U.S. District judge presiding over all federal Zoloft birth defect
lawsuits excluded key expert witnesses in the cases, Pfizer has
filed a motion to dismiss all claims brought on behalf of children
injured by exposure to the antidepressant during pregnancy and
lawyers for the families are urging the Court to allow the
designation of different general causation experts.

Pfizer currently faces more than 525 product liability lawsuits
that are pending in the federal court system, all involving
similar allegations that side effects of Zoloft use during
pregnancy caused children to be born with severe birth defects and
malformations.

All of the complaints are consolidated for pretrial proceedings as
part of a federal MDL, or Multidistrict Litigation, which is
centralized before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to reduce duplicative discovery and avoid
conflicting rulings from different judges on issues that are
common to all claims.

In August, Judge Rufe issued an order restricting what some
plaintiffs' experts will be allowed to testify about regarding the
connection between Zoloft and birth defects for unborn children.
While the experts will be permitted to testify on matters other
than human causation, the ruling may leave plaintiffs without
sufficient evidence to support their claim.

On November 4, Pfizer filed a motion for summary judgment, which
urges Judge Rufe to dismiss all cases in the MDL due to the lack
of reliable testimony on general causation in humans.

The drug maker argues that the Zoloft lawsuits filed over birth
defects suffered by children of women who used the antidepressant
during pregnancy should fail as a matter of law, since the
exclusion of expert witnesses has left plaintiffs without
admissible and sufficient evidence to establish an essential
element of their claims.

In a pretrial order, Judge Rufe indicated that the plaintiffs must
file any motion for partial reconsideration of the Court's prior
ruling on the exclusion of the expert witnesses by November 12.
In addition, oral arguments have been scheduled for November 18 on
a pending motion filed by Plaintiffs requesting leave to identify
and present a new general causation expert in the cases.

An opposition to Pfizer's motion to dismiss the Zoloft birth
defect cases must be filed before December 8, with any reply
memoranda by Pfizer due by December 22, 2014.

                    Zoloft Birth Defect Risk

Zoloft (sertraline) is one of the most widely prescribed
medications in the United States, and has been used by tens of
millions of individuals.  However, several studies have suggested
that use of Zoloft by pregnant women has been linked to a
potential increased risk of serious and potentially life-
threatening birth defects and malformation for children.

In November 2006, the FDA added warnings about a potential risk of
persistent pulmonary hypertension in newborns (PPHN) from Zoloft
and other newer antidepressants when taken after the 20th week of
pregnancy.  The side effects of Zoloft and other similar
medications were linked to a six times greater risk of PPHN.

In June 2007, studies found an association between the use of
antidepressants like Zoloft early in the pregnancy and a risk of
abnormal skull development, gastrointestinal abnormality and brain
defects.

In September 2009, a study published in the British Medical
Journal (BMJ) found that SSRI antidepressants like Zoloft increase
the risk of heart defects when taken during the first trimester, a
time when many women do not even know they are pregnant.

All of the claims in the Zoloft litigation raise similar
allegations, claiming that Pfizer has known for years about the
risk of birth defects, yet withheld information from consumers and
the medical community in an attempt to avoid damaging sales of the
blockbuster antidepressant.

If the cases survive the motion for summary judgment, it is
expected that a number of Zoloft trials will be scheduled in the
MDL, to help the parties gauge how juries may respond to certain
evidence and testimony that is likely to be repeated throughout
the litigation.  Although the outcomes of these "bellwether"
trials will not be binding on other cases, they may ultimately
facilitate Zoloft settlement agreements to avoid the need for
hundreds of individual trials nationwide.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Corizon Must Produce Health Records, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge R. Barclay Surrick denied the Request for Non-
Production of Patient Mental Health Records in the case entitled
DWIGHT WILLIAMS, ET AL., v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL., Civil
Action No. 08-1979 (E.D. Pa).

A class action bought by inmates in the Philadelphia Prison System
or PPS alleges that the City of Philadelphia's policies and
practices led to the deprivation of the necessary medical and
mental health care for PPS inmates. Plaintiffs complain of
overcrowding and triple-celling.

Judge Surrick denied non-party defendant Corizon Health, Inc.'s
Request to not to produce patient mental health records requested
by plaintiffs.

A copy of Judge Surrick's October 22, 2014, memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/lAWZo9from Leagle.com.


PRICE CHOPPER: Court Refuses to Issue Emergency Protective Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni denied the Plaintiffs'
Emergency Motion for Protective Order in the case entitled SHELLY
J. DAVINE, JAMES E. WILLIAMS, JACOB E. OGDEN, BETH A. FARRAR, and
PHILIP CARDINALE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE GOLUB CORPORATION, THE PRICE CHOPPER
OPERATING CO. OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., NEIL M. GOLUB, JEREL GOLUB,
JOHN J. ENDRES, JR., CHRISTINE C. DANIELS, AND JEREL T. GOLUB,
Defendants., Civil Case No. 14-30136-MGM
(D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Protective Order is premised
on the fact that one or more Price Chopper store managers made
misleading statements about the litigation to potential class and
collective members. They argue that remedial action is required to
prevent further misleading communications and to prevent the
communications that have occurred from discouraging potential
class members from participating in the lawsuit.

Price Chopper concedes that at a meeting, one store manager
initiated communication about the lawsuit, but asserted that any
harm has already been neutralized and in fact, it sent a Human
Resource Specialist, and at the second meeting the potential class
members were told that it was their choice whether to participate
in the litigation and that they would not face any retaliation
should they choose to participate. Potential plaintiffs are under
no time pressure to decide whether to join this suit and they will
receive neutral information about this suit from the court well in
advance of any opt-in deadline.

Judge Mastroianni, in denying the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for
Protective Order, held that the communication did have the
potential to discourage participation in the suit. Though the
communication might have had a chilling effect on participation by
a limited number of individuals, Price Chopper did not intend for
the communication to occur and had taken steps (albeit
unsuccessfully) to prevent its occurrence and within a reasonable
time after learning of the misleading communication, Price Chopper
took steps to prevent the communication from discouraging
participation. In the court's view this second communication was
sufficient, given the stage of the litigation, to remedy the
potential harm caused by the initial communication.

A copy of Judge Mastroianni's Memorandum and Order dated October
24, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/x8rJRNfrom Leagle.com.

Jerel Golub, Defendant, is represented by Douglas J. Hoffman, Esq.
-- HoffmanD@jacksonlewis.com -- William J. Anthony, Esq. --
AnthonyW@jacksonlewis.com -- Peter M Torncello, Esq. --
Peter.Torncello@jacksonlewis.com -- and Stephanie L Goutos, Esq.
-- Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis P.C.


QUEBEC MAJOR: Ex-Hockey Players File Minimum Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
TSN reports that twin lawsuits were filed on Oct. 31 against the
Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and Western Hockey League by
former player Lukas Walter.

In his $50-million case against the QMJHL, Mr. Walter alleges that
the league's teams conspired to rewrite standard player contracts
last year to avoid paying players the legal minimum wage.

In a second, $60-million case filed in Calgary against the WHL,
Mr. Walter alleged that the work visa the Tri-City Americans
secured for him to play for them is proof he had an employer-
employee relationship with the team, and should be paid at least
minimum wage.

The lawsuits were both obtained by TSN.

Over the past months, the Canadian Hockey League's three major
junior leagues have come under fire by former players and union
organizers over their working conditions for players.

While few of the CHL's star players have complained, other lesser-
known players contend that they are receiving a pittance while
playing for leagues that have become big business.

A recent lawsuit showed that former Oshawa Generals president
Patricia Campbell was paid $150,000 during her first year on the
job.  Player agents say coaches and general managers of teams make
some $200,000 each per year.

"So why are players, 95 per cent of whom won't have long careers
in the NHL, expected to work for free?" asked one NHL player
agent.  "The CHL and its supporters say, 'fine, we'll pay minimum
wage and you pay for your sticks and room and board.' But that's a
ridiculous argument. Does Ford make its workers on the line pay
for tools? It's the cost of doing business."

The agent also pointed out that room and board wouldn't be
necessary if the CHL dropped its player draft and allowed players
to play for teams near their family home.

Mr. Walter, from B.C., played the 2013-14 season with the Saint
John Sea Dogs.  According to his statement of claim against the
QMJHL, Mr. Walter signed a contract as a 20-year-old player with
Saint John on Sept. 13, 2013.  He was to receive $476 per week in
compensation, and another $90 a week for accommodation, court
papers say.

Mr. Walter played 53 games as a forward for the Sea Dogs,
primarily playing the role of an enforcer.

He alleges that he was paid $8,314.29 for the six-month season,
and that a record of employment shows that he officially worked
1,048 hours over that time for the team.

"Lukas's bi-weekly pay was always the same, no matter how many
hours each week he worked for the team," his lawsuit says.  "In
some weeks, he did not receive a fee equivalent to minimum wage,
nor did he receive any vacation pay, holiday pay or overtime pay
as required under the applicable employment standards
legislation."

Mr. Walter alleged teams in the QMJHL have "unlawfully,
maliciously . . . conspired and agreed together, the one with the
other, to act in concert to demand or require that all players
sign a contract which (they) knew was unlawful."

Mr. Walter is asking that the Quebec court certify his case as a
class action lawsuit and award damages of $50 million.

Mr. Walter's allegations have not been proven and the QMJHL and
Sea Dogs have not filed a response in court.  CHL commissioner
David Branch did not respond to an email seeking comment.  A QMJHL
spokesman couldn't be reached for comment.  A Sea Dogs spokesman
referred calls to the QMJHL.

In a second lawsuit filed on Oct. 31, Mr. Walter said that he
played the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons for the Tri-City Americans,
earning (U.S.) $70 a week in his first season and (U.S.) $85 a
week during his second season.

Mr. Walter is Canadian and the Americans play in Kennewick,
Washington.  In order for him to travel to the team, its officials
acquired him a P-1 work visa for "internationally recognized
athletes."

"The entire time he played for the Americans, he was not a student
at any time," the lawsuit says.

Mr. Walter has sued for $45 million worth of back pay, holiday pay
and overtime, and $15 million in punitive damages.  He is also
seeking to certify the Alberta case as a class action.

"We have not yet had the opportunity to review the lawsuit
received late this afternoon," said WHL commissioner Ron Robison
in a statement.  "The WHL will however vigorously defend our
player experience and the extensive investment our ownership makes
in our players  We will also be addressing those matters that are
being taken out of context and used in lawsuits which have been
orchestrated by individuals who have no association with the
Canadian hockey system or the WHL.

"WHL players are amateur athletes who are registered in the
Canadian amateur system and they receive an extensive benefit
package while playing in our League.  There is no indication from
our current players or their families that they are being treated
in any way but a highly fair and respectful manner."

Mr. Walter's lawsuits came days after another lawsuit was filed by
former Ontario Hockey League player Sam Berg against the CHL, the
governing body for 60 teams in the OHL, QMJHL and Western Hockey
League.

A statement of claim filed by Berg on behalf of himself and
thousands of other players seeks $180 million in outstanding
wages, vacation, holiday and overtime pay and employer payroll
contributions, according to legal documents obtained by TSN.

The documents filed by Berg show players in the OHL receive $50 to
$120 a week in compensation, while players in the QMJHL get $35 to
$150, depending on the age of the player.  Those aged 16 to 19 get
$50 a week in the OHL and $35 a week in the QMJHL.

CHL president David Branch has repeatedly said that players in the
CHL are student athletes, and are well compensated, thanks largely
to an education program the league has in place that provides some
players with university scholarships when they are done playing.

That description of players as student athletes is now under fire
in Mr. Walter's lawsuit.

In past years, players were described as independent contractors
by teams in their contracts.

But in 2013, at the same time as questions were being raised in
the U.S. over whether NCAA student athletes receive their fair
share of compensation, the CHL redrafted contracts to remove
references to fees, Walton's lawsuit alleges.

Instead the players' fees were recast as an allowance.

QMJHL teams have reworded the former contract to describe the fee
as an allowance and to recast the status between players and clubs
as one of 'student athletes' in an attempt to avoid minimum-wage
laws, Walton says.

In the wake of Berg's lawsuit and as the union, Unifor continues
efforts to start a players union for major-junior hockey, several
player agents told TSN that it's common practice for teams to give
players T-4 tax slips, which they say is evidence that players are
employees, not student athletes as Mr. Branch describes them.

On Oct. 23, before Walton filed his lawsuit, TSN sent Branch a
series of emailed questions.

One question was: "Some OHL teams issued T4 slips for the 2013 tax
year . . .  doesn't that establish an employee-employer
relationship?"

Branch replied on Oct. 24 that "we are not currently issuing T4's
and we are not certain what the past practices of our Clubs may
have been. The teams are responsible for filing their own tax
documents and the league doesn't have access to their detailed
information."

While TSN has learned that the CHL also has a new TV contract with
Rogers Communications that is worth at least $5 million a season
(the previous TV contract was a barter deal with no rights fee),
Branch declined to discuss terms of the CHL's TV contract.

The CHL teams also have relationships with video game companies,
as noted by Walter in his lawsuit against the Americans and the
WHL.

"The (WHL) used images of Luke for their own profit, including,
but not limited to selling the use of his image and name to video
game companies for use in a video game which Luke purchased at
full price with his own money," Mr. Walter's lawsuit says.

Mr. Branch, meanwhile, was also asked about recent changes to the
standard players agreement (SPA) in the OHL.

"I will reiterate that 97 per cent of our players are represented
by agents, in addition, the players and their parents are required
to sign the SPA and to either provide a certificate of independent
legal counsel or a waiver of such," Mr. Branch wrote.


RICHARDSON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Margarine Products
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Richardson International Limited
Distribution:             Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova
                          Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan,
                          Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail, Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9372


ROLLING ACRES: Recalls Unpasteurized Apple Cider Due to E. Coli
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Rolling Acres Cider Mill
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9401

Rolling Acres Cider Mill is recalling unpasteurized apple cider
from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled
products.

These products have been sold by Rolling Acres Cider Mill at the
St. Jacobs Farmers' Market located in Waterloo, Ontario on
Oct. 11, 2014 and from the company's own location in Waterloo,
Ontario between Oct. 10, 2014 and Oct. 11, 2014.

Check to see if you have the products in your home.  If the
products are in your home, do not consume them.

Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell
spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include nausea,
vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody
diarrhea.  In severe cases of illness, some people may have
seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis
or live with permanent kidney damage.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption
of these products.

The recall was triggered by findings by the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) during its investigation into a foodborne
illness outbreak.  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.


ROYAL BANK: Judge Settles MBS Class Action for $275 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge has signed off on a $275 million accord in
litigation that pension funds pressed against Royal Bank of
Scotland and other defendants regarding the sale of certain
mortgage-backed securities.

Southern District Judge Loretta Preska on Nov. 4 gave her final
approval to the settlement in New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund
v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group, 08-cv-05093.  The pension funds
commenced the litigation in 2008 in connection to the packaging
and sale of 14 public offerings of "Harborview" series mortgage-
backed securities.

Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action said documentation
used in the sale did not disclose that the underlying mortgage
loans did not originate according to underwriting standards.  By
late 2008, as the economy imploded, the certificates for the
securities were downgraded to junk bond status, the plaintiffs
said.

"We are pleased with Judge Preska's decision and her recognition
that this was a different case that took many legal twists and
turns over the years," Joel Laitman of Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll, plaintiffs' lead counsel, said in a statement.  "Final
approval of this settlement is proof that perseverance for a just
cause is worth it."

Thomas C. Rice -- trice@stblaw.com -- a partner at Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett, was lead counsel for the defendants.  He declined to
comment.


S & S PETROLEUM: Removes "Figueroa" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Maria Figueroa, et al. v. S & S
Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. BC557369, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
08519-BRO-MRW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Sang J. Park, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN AND BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
          E-mail: brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  sang@carlinbuchsbaum.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric S. Tweten, Esq.
          Mandeep S. Rupal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MANDEEP S. RUPAL
          5811 Pine Avenue, Suite A
          Chino Hills, CA 91709
          Telephone: (909) 597-2445
          Facsimile: (909) 597-6199
          E-mail: mrupal@rupallaw.com


SARROS: Appeals Court Revives Class Action Over Junk Fax Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
John Pacenti, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
divided federal appeals court panel sided on Oct. 30 with anyone
who ever muttered a curse after receiving a junk fax
advertisement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a
Miami judge's dismissal of a class action lawsuit against a
Pompano Beach dentist who sent out thousands of unsolicited
advertisements.

The case was filed by Palm Beach Golf Center-Boca Inc., which
received Sarros' fax Dec. 13, 2005. The company claimed the
unsolicited fax violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ruled a year ago in favor of
the dentist, granting summary judgment.

On appeal, the golf shop argued the fact no employee saw Sarro's
fax didn't matter, only that it could be proven the ad tied up its
business telephone and fax machine.

The appellate court agreed and remanded the case to Judge
Williams.

The opinion was written by Judge Richard K. Eaton, who was sitting
by designation from the U.S. Court of International Trade. Also on
the panel were Circuit Judge Beverly Martin and U.S. District
Judge Robert L. Hinkle of Tallahassee, also sitting by
designation.

In a partial dissent, Judge Hinkle noted the golf shop received
only a single unsolicited fax, and that was akin to an unwanted
phone call in tying up resources.  He said one fax should not give
rise to a separate common law claim.  Judge Hinkle also observed,
"Surely the days when messages are received this way are near an
end."


SECURITAS SECURITY: Bid for Conditional Certification Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification in the case entitled MICHAEL DEATRICK,
Plaintiff, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 13-CV-05016-JST (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff alleges six causes of action: (a) a claim under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay overtime wages, (b)
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor
Code sections 510 and 1198, (c) inaccurate wage statements in
violation of California Labor Code sections 226 and 1174, (d)
waiting time penalties under California Labor Code section 203 for
failure to pay the wages owed upon termination, (e) a claim under
California's Unfair Competition Law, and (f) a claim under
California's Private Attorneys General Act.

Judge Tigar granted Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification of the FLSA collective action, and directed
Securitas to produce to the Plaintiff in Microsoft Excel or a
comparable format the names, all known addresses, and all known
telephone numbers of all security officers known as of the date of
this Order who have received lump-sum vacation pay at any time
since October 28, 2010, pursuant to (a) the Securitas USA Vacation
Pay Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2007 (the
"Plan") and/or (b) the Vacation Pay Policy, Security Officers and
Other Employees Performing Services Under Client Contracts.  The
Court also approved the Plaintiff's revised Form of Notice, and
the parties' jointly proposed Consent to Join form, Bulletin
Board/Workplace Notice, and Reminder Postcard.

Within 10 days of receipt by the Plaintiff of the Class List, and
after first verifying and updating the addresses through the
National Change of Address database, Plaintiff shall mail copies
of the Notices and Consent to Join forms to all individuals on the
Class List.  For any mailed Class Notices that are returned by the
U.S. Postal Services as undeliverable as addressed, Plaintiff will
perform an address trace process in order to obtain a more current
mailing address. For any records where the address trace produces
a potentially more current mailing address, Plaintiff will print
and mail a Notice and Consent to the new address.  Prior to the
response deadline, Plaintiff shall send a reminder postcard to all
individuals that have not filed a Consent to Join form.  Plaintiff
shall establish a website repository containing printer-friendly
versions of the Class Notices and Consent to Join forms, any other
documents the parties wish to make available, and contact
information for the notice administrator and Plaintiff's counsel.
A Consent to Join form may be completed online, so long as the
online form provides a means by which the individual signifies his
or her assent to the statements listed on the form comparable to
signature, such as by checking a box on a web page.  Individuals
shall be permitted to file Consent to Join forms postmarked or
completed online within 90 days after the date of first mailing.

A copy of Judge Tigar's Order dated October 20, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/DvZEl1from Leagle.com.

Securitas Securitty Services USA, Inc. represented by Sherry Beth
Shavit, Esq. -- sshavit@tharpe-howell.com -- Gabriel Joseph
Padilla -- gpadilla@tharpe-howell.com -- at Tharpe & Howell, LLP;
and John Kevil Lilly -- klilly@littler.com -- at Littler Mandelson
PC.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Prevails in Most Public Nuisance Litigations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Except for the Santa Clara County, California proceeding, all of
the public nuisance litigations against The Sherwin-Williams
Company have been concluded in favor of the Company, 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.

The Company and other companies are or were defendants in legal
proceedings seeking recovery based on public nuisance liability
theories, among other theories, brought by the State of Rhode
Island, the City of St. Louis, Missouri, various cities and
counties in the State of New Jersey, various cities in the State
of Ohio and the State of Ohio, the City of Chicago, Illinois, the
City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the County of Santa Clara,
California and other public entities in the State of California.
Except for the Santa Clara County, California proceeding, all of
these legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the
Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings.

The proceedings initiated by the State of Rhode Island included
two jury trials. At the conclusion of the second trial, the jury
returned a verdict finding that (i) the cumulative presence of
lead pigment in paints and coatings on buildings in the State of
Rhode Island constitutes a public nuisance, (ii) the Company,
along with two other defendants, caused or substantially
contributed to the creation of the public nuisance and (iii) the
Company and two other defendants should be ordered to abate the
public nuisance. The Company and two other defendants appealed
and, on July 1, 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court, among other
determinations, reversed the judgment of abatement with respect to
the Company and two other defendants. The Rhode Island Supreme
Court's decision reversed the public nuisance liability judgment
against the Company on the basis that the complaint failed to
state a public nuisance claim as a matter of law.

The Santa Clara County, California proceeding was initiated in
March 2000 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara. In the original complaint, the plaintiffs
asserted various claims including fraud and concealment, strict
product liability/failure to warn, strict product liability/design
defect, negligence, negligent breach of a special duty, public
nuisance, private nuisance, and violations of California's
Business and Professions Code. A number of the asserted claims
were resolved in favor of the defendants through pre-trial
proceedings. The named plaintiffs in the Fourth Amended Complaint,
filed on March 16, 2011, are the Counties of Santa Clara, Alameda,
Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano and Ventura, the Cities
of Oakland and San Diego and the City and County of San Francisco.
The Fourth Amended Complaint asserted a sole claim for public
nuisance, alleging that the presence of lead pigments for use in
paint and coatings in, on and around residences in the plaintiffs'
jurisdictions constitutes a public nuisance. The plaintiffs sought
the abatement of the alleged public nuisance that exists within
the plaintiffs' jurisdictions. A trial commenced on July 15, 2013
and ended on August 22, 2013. The court entered final judgment on
January 27, 2014, finding in favor of the plaintiffs and against
the Company and two other defendants (ConAgra Grocery Products
Company and NL Industries, Inc.). The final judgment held the
Company jointly and severally liable with the other two defendants
to pay $1.15 billion into a fund to abate the public nuisance. The
Company strongly disagrees with the judgment. On February 18,
2014, the Company filed a motion for new trial and a motion to
vacate the judgment. The court denied these motions on March 24,
2014. On March 28, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal to
the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California.
The filing of the notice of appeal effects an automatic stay of
the judgment without the requirement to post a bond. The Company
believes that the judgment conflicts with established principles
of law and is unsupported by the evidence. The Company has had a
favorable history with respect to lead pigment and lead-based
paint litigation, particularly other public nuisance litigation,
and accordingly, the Company believes that it is not probable that
a loss has occurred and it is not possible to estimate the range
of potential loss with respect to the case.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: To Receive Disbursement in Antitrust Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company was notified that it would receive a
disbursement of settlement funds as member of the plaintiff class
related to Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, 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.

The Company is a member of the plaintiff class related to Titanium
Dioxide Antitrust Litigation that was initiated in 2010 against
certain suppliers alleging various theories of relief arising from
purchases of titanium dioxide made from 2003 through 2012. The
Court approved a settlement less attorney fees and expense, and
the Company timely submitted claims to recover its pro-rata
portion of the settlement. There was no specified deadline for the
claims administrator to complete the review of all claims
submitted. In October 2014, the Company was notified that it would
receive a disbursement of settlement funds, and the Company
received a pro-rata disbursement net of all fees of approximately
$21.0 million. The Company will record this settlement gain in the
fourth quarter of 2014.


SHOP PACKAGING: Recalls 115,505 Lbs. of Chicken Wing Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shop Packaging LLC, a New Bedford, Mass. establishment, is
recalling approximately 115,505 pounds of chicken wing products
due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.  The products were processed with a releasing agent
containing soy lecithin, a known allergen which is not declared on
the product label.

The chicken wing products were produced on various dates between
Aug. 8 and Oct. 10, 2014.  The product subject to recall includes:

    20-lb. bags containing "Chicken Mid-joint Wing."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"P-46946" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  These products
produced were shipped to a distribution location in New York.

The problem was discovered by a FSIS inspector.  The company
sprayed a vegetable and canola oil, which contains soy lecithin,
on their conveyor belt.  FSIS has determined that the spray has
been used since Aug. 8th of this year.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Ron Sylvia, President, at (508) 961-7552.


SILVER AIRWAYS: Faces Suit in Florida Alleging Violations of FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Caruso and Bruce Alonso, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly-situated individuals v. Silver Airways Corp., Case No.
8:14-cv-02759-CEH-TBM (M.D. Fla., November 3, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs represented by:

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


SM ENERGY: Okla. Court Lifts Stay on Royalty Payments Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma lifted its stay on the case against SM Energy Company,
claiming damages related to royalty payments on all of the
Oklahoma oil and gas wells and the Company now expects Chieftain
to file a new motion for class certification in the first half of
2016, 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 27, 2011, Chieftain Royalty Company ("Chieftain") filed
a Class Action Petition against the Company in the District Court
of Beaver County, Oklahoma, claiming damages related to royalty
payments on all of the Oklahoma oil and gas wells operated by the
Company and its predecessors. These claims include breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment,
tortious breach of contract, conspiracy, and conversion, based
generally on asserted improper deduction of post-production costs.
The Company removed this lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on February 22, 2011.
The Company responded to the petition and denied the allegations.
The district court did not rule on Chieftain's motion to certify
the putative class, and stayed all proceedings until the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued its rulings
on class certification in two similar royalty class action
lawsuits. On July 9, 2013, the Tenth Circuit issued its opinions,
reversing the trial courts' grant of class certification and
remanding the matters to the trial courts for those cases. The
district court presiding over the Company's case subsequently
lifted its stay, and the Company now expects Chieftain to file a
new motion for class certification in the first half of 2016.

This case involves complex legal issues and uncertainties; a
potentially large class of plaintiffs, and a large number of
related producing properties, lease agreements and wells; and an
alleged class period commencing in 1988 and spanning the entire
producing life of the wells. Because the proceedings are in the
early stages, with discovery yet to be completed, the Company is
unable to estimate what impact, if any, the action will have on
its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The
Company is still evaluating the claims, but believes that it has
properly paid royalties under Oklahoma law and has and will
continue to vigorously defend this case. On December 30, 2013, the
Company sold a substantial portion of the assets that were subject
to this matter and the buyer assumed any such liabilities related
to such properties.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Suit v. Delta, Airtran Sent to Special Master
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia in Atlanta referred the sanctions dispute in an antitrust
suit against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, LLC to a
special master, and the proceedings before the special master are
ongoing, according to Southwest Airlines Co.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States
who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic
flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May
2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also
seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal
district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las
Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single
federal district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February 1,
2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and
AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to
raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In
addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees
paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged
anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees. On August
2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and
Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let
stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of
a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and pricing decisions.
On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The parties have
submitted briefs on class certification, and AirTran filed a
motion to exclude the class certification reports of plaintiffs'
expert. The Court has not yet ruled on the class certification
motion or the related motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert. The
parties engaged in extensive discovery, which was extended due to
discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta, but discovery has
now closed. On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and
Order that plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and
Delta conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran
and Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs'
remaining claims, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs and
Delta have delayed further briefing on summary judgment. On
December 2, 2013, plaintiffs moved for discovery sanctions against
Delta, and the Court has suspended further briefing on (i) the
motion for summary judgment, (ii) the motion for class
certification, and (iii) the motion to strike plaintiffs' expert
on class certification, until the sanctions motion is resolved. On
May 14, 2014, the Court referred the sanctions dispute to a
special master, and the proceedings before the special master are
ongoing.


ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses "Chaflin" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CHALFIN, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM, Defendant, CIV. NO. 2:14-1883 (WJM), (D. N.J.), is a
putative class action that is before the Court on Plaintiffs'
motion for remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1447(c) and
Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Magistrate Judge Mark Falk entered a Report and Recommendation on
October 10, 2014 (the R&R) in favor of denying Plaintiffs' motion
for remand. Judge Falk concluded that Plaintiffs' claim was
exclusively governed by 26 U.S.C. Section 7422 and therefore
removable.  The parties were notified that they had fourteen days
to submit objections and responses to the R&R pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2), but they declined to avail themselves of
that opportunity. The Court has reviewed the R&R de novo and found
that the R&R correctly concluded that Plaintiffs' action was
removable. Therefore, the R&R is adopted as the opinion of the
Court and Plaintiffs' motion to remand is denied, ruled District
Judge William J. Martini in his October 31, 2014 opinion, a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/l9mpTRfrom Leagle.com.

With respect the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust the
administrative remedies laid out in 26 U.S.C. Section 7422, Judge
Martini agrees with Defendant's position and granted the motion to
dismiss.  The complaint is dismissed with prejudice, he added.

St. Joseph's Healthcare System, Defendant, represented by Ronald
V. Sgambati, Esq. -- SgambatR@jacksonlewis.com -- and Diane Marie
Shelley, Esq. -- ShelleyD@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis
P.C.


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Zamora" Product Liability Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susana Zamora, Jorge Pimentel, Henry Collins, Terri Gamino,
Barbara Mulroy and Dan Peoples, On Behalf of Themselves and Those
Similarly Situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc.,
Highland Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., American Honda
Motor Co., Inc, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North America,
LLC, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC and Chrysler Group LLC, Case No.
3:14-cv-02618-JAH-RBB (S.D. Cal., November 3, 2014) asserts claims
under Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L Street NW, Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (213) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Signature Cafe Broccoli Kale Salad
--------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms, a Swedesboro, NJ, establishment, is recalling
approximately 377 pounds of Signature Cafe Broccoli Kale Salad
with Chicken product because of misbranding and an undeclared
allergen, tree nuts.  The product contains walnuts, a tree nut,
which is a known allergen and not declared on the product label.
The walnuts are packaged in a cupped packet inside the salad
container.

The product subject to recall includes:

   -- 9.75-oz. plastic clam shell packages of "Signature Cafe
      Broccoli Kale Salad with Chicken" with Use by dates of
      "10/23/14," "10/25/14," and "10/27/14" on the lid of the
      product.

The product subject to recall bears "P-34513" inside the USDA mark
of inspection on the label.  The salads were produced on 10/17/14,
10/19/14, and 10/21/14.  The distributed product was sent to
retail stores in Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

The problem was discovered at the distributor doing business with
the company.  FSIS and the company have received no reports of
adverse reactions due to consumption of this product.  Anyone
concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare 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.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Jim
Bryan, Director of Operations, at 856-294-4211.  Media with
questions about the recall should contact Alan Applonie,
President, at 209-835-6300.


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls 1,510 Units of WAWA Garden Rotini Salad
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms New Jersey, Inc. of Swedesboro, NJ is voluntarily
recalling 1,510 units of WAWA Garden Rotini Salad due to the
potential of undeclared fish, wheat and egg allergens contained in
the salad.

People who have sensitivity or allergies to fish, wheat and egg
may be at risk of a serious adverse reaction, if they consume
these products.  To this date, there have been no reported adverse
reactions to this product.

The Garden Rotini Salad was sold to WAWA stores in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland.  The recalled
product have the code date of "sell by" 11/04/2014 TFNJ 303 1
5:00am found on the top the container.  The WAWA Garden Rotini
Salads are packaged in an 8 oz. plastic container.  The affected
product was distributed to stores on 10/30/2014 and was discovered
by an associate at store level.

This voluntary recall does not apply to any other WAWA or Taylor
Farms products distributed anywhere in the United States.

Consumers who have purchased Wawa Garden Rotini Salad with "sell
by" date 11/04/2014 are urged to discard the product and contact
the Wawa Call Center at 1-800-444-9292 24 hours a day 7 days a
week for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
Taylor Farms New Jersey at 856-294-4181 Monday through Friday
between 8am and 4pm EST.


TE CONNECTIVITY: Removes "Wilson" Labor Suit to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Wilson v. Te Connectivity
Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 530714, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:14-cv-04872-EDL to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Neil Michael Larsen, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 711
          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 Defendants are represented by:

          Kathryn T. McGuigan, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612-7390
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: kmcguigan@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Caitlin Victoria May, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1468
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: cmay@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Melinda S. Riechert, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          Two Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 843-4000
          Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
          E-mail: mriechert@morganlewis.com


TEPCO: Sailors' Class Action Over Radiation Exposure Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stars and Stripes reports that a U.S. federal judge has ruled that
a class-action lawsuit filed by about 200 Navy sailors and Marines
can proceed against Japanese utility TEPCO and other defendants
who they blame for a variety of ailments from radiation exposure
following a nuclear reactor meltdown 3-1/2 years ago.

In a decision released on Oct. 28 Southern District of California
Judge Janis Sammartino ruled that the suit can be amended to add
the builders of the Fukushima-Daichi Nuclear Power Plant reactors
-- General Electric, EBASCO, Toshiba and Hitachi -- as defendants.

Judge Sammartino also denied a change of venue to Japan and
dismissed several minor aspects of the suit.  The plaintiffs'
lawyers have until Nov. 18 to make changes to their filings.

"It is not over, but we have won the major battle," lawyer Charles
Bonner wrote in an email to his clients that was provided to Stars
and Stripes.

"THANK GOD!!!!!" responded Lindsay Cooper, the first USS Ronald
Reagan sailor to come forward and report an illness.

Judge Sammartino's ruling was a bit of a surprise.  The Defense
Department, including Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs Dr. Jonathan Woodson, have concluded that the illnesses
are not a result of the servicemembers' work in Operation
Tomodachi, in which a massive earthquake on March 11, 2011,
spawned a tsunami that swamped the nuclear plant.

The suit was first filed in 2012 by a small group of sailors off
the USS Ronald Reagan, who alleged that TEPCO's misinformation
coaxed U.S. forces closer to the affected areas and made them
sick.  More ailing servicemembers came forward citing exposure-
related ailments such as unexplained cancers, excessive bleeding
and thyroid issues.

The suit has been refiled a number of times, adding plaintiffs
and, more recently, additional defendants.

TEPCO tried to have the case dismissed. Oral arguments were
presented Aug. 25.

Mr. Bonner and fellow attorney for the sailors, Paul Garner, said
additional plaintiffs are continuing to come forward with "serious
ailments from radiation," according to a statement released by the
legal team.


TRENDON SHAVERS: Faces Bitcoin Securities Fraud Case
----------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the federal government on Nov. 6 announced its first bitcoin
securities fraud case, accusing a Texas man of engineering a Ponzi
scheme by getting people to turn over their bitcoins in return for
promises of high interest rates and the ability to recoup their
investment at any time.

Trendon Shavers, of McKinney, appeared in federal court in Texas
on securities fraud and wire fraud charges that were outlined in a
criminal complaint unsealed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

"This case, the first of its kind, should serve as a warning to
those looking to make a quick buck with unsecured currency," U.S.
Attorney Preet Bharara said in a news release.

Mr. Bharara said the 32-year-old Mr. Shavers combined financial
fraud and cyberfraud into a bitcoin Ponzi scheme offering
"absurdly high interest payments, and ultimately cheated his
investors out of their bitcoin investments."

At the peak of the scheme, Mr. Shavers possessed about 7 percent
of all bitcoin in public circulation, prosecutors said.

George Venizelos, head of the FBI's New York office, said Mr.
Shavers "used a new currency, but the same old reprehensible
tricks."

"He claimed to offer a bitcoin market-arbitrage strategy.  In
reality, it was nothing more than an insidious scheme motivated by
greed. Today, Shavers' jig is up," Mr. Venizelos said.

Mr. Bharara said Mr. Shavers caused about half of 100 investors to
lose all or part of their bitcoin investment from at least
September 2011 through September 2012 as he promised them up to 7
percent weekly interest and assured them they could withdraw their
investment at any time if they turned over bitcoins.

Authorities say Mr. Shavers has already been ordered by a federal
court in Texas to give up more than $40 million and pay a $150,000
penalty in a related civil case.

Mr. Shavers was released on bail on Nov. 6.  He didn't immediately
respond to a message seeking comment.  If convicted, he could face
up to 40 years in prison.


TRIUMPH MOTORCYCLES: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Suspensions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that Triumph
Motorcycles America Ltd. was hit on Oct. 29 with a putative class
action in California federal court accusing the storied British
motorcycle maker of knowingly selling vehicles with defective
suspension systems that can cause the motorcycles' rear wheel to
lock up.

The suit alleges the company misled consumers by marketing their
Daytona and Street Triple model motorcycles as reliable and safe,
despite knowing that the motorcycles suffer from a systemic safety
defect in their suspension systems that can cause accidents, and
that Triumph has actively concealed the defect, refusing to recall
or freely repair the affected motorcycles.

"Despite notice of the suspension defect from numerous customer
complaints, Triumph has not recalled the class motorcycles to
repair the safety defect," the complaint states.  "As a result of
the Suspension Defect, Plaintiff and the members of the proposed
class have been exposed to dangerous driving conditions and have
suffered damages."

Named plaintiff Craig Duttweiler, a California resident, purchased
a new 2007 Triumph Daytona 675 in April 2007, and on Feb 1. of
this year, Duttweiler was traveling on a highway at roughly 60
miles an hour when the suspension plates on his motorcycle failed
and his rear wheel locked up.  Mr. Duttweiler's motorcycle became
"uncontrollable," and he skidded off the road and was thrown from
the motorcycle, suffering injuries.

Filed on behalf of all consumers nationwide who purchased one of
Triumph's model year 2006 to 2009 Daytona 675 or Street Triple 675
motorcycles, the suit contends that the potential class is
composed of thousands, "if not tens of thousands" of motorcycle
buyers.

The complaint claims the motorcycle maker engaged in an extensive
advertising campaign for the affected vehicles that emphasizes
their reliability, "precision instruments," and says the
motorcycles are "engineered to cope . . . conquering miles, varied
terrain and obstacles," leading Triumph purchasers to reasonably
believe their motorcycles' suspensions will work properly for the
life of the vehicle.

Despite these marketing claims, Triumph knew that the affected
motorcycles contain defective cast aluminum "drop linkage plates,"
triangular metal plates that support the rear of motorcycle,
allowing for shock absorption and handling, according to the suit.
The defective plates warp, crack, fracture and fail with ordinary
use.

The suit says from 2007 to 2014, numerous Triumph owners have
published online accounts of crashes and injuries resulting from
suspension plate failure, and that multiple customers have
reported incidents to Triumph, actually leading to the company to
switch from the defective cast aluminum plates to stronger milled
steel plates in 2009.

After this switch, however, Triumph did not notify its customers
about the defect, conduct a recall, or offer repair or replacement
for the existing defective vehicles, according to the suit.

The suit is seeking damages for lost value, as putative class
members would not have purchased their motorcycles, or would have
paid much lower prices for them, had they known of the defect, and
alleges violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
Unfair Competition Law.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael F. Ram --
mram@rocklawcal.com -- and Susan S. Brown -- sbrown@rocklawcal.com
-- on Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP; and Richard Alexander
and Annie Wu of Alexander Law Group.

The case is Craig R. Duttweiler v. Triumph Motorcycles America
Ltd., case number 3:14-cv-04809 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


UNITED SERVICES: Removes "Turk" Suit to Washington District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Turk, et al. v. United Services
Automobile Association, et al., Case No. 14-2-12880-6, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the
County of Pierce to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington (Tacoma).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-05878-KLS to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that on November 17, 2013, Plaintiff Marissa
Turk was involved in an auto accident caused by an uninsured
driver; that the cost of repair of the vehicle was $10,997; that
USAA determined that the claim should be paid under her
uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage; that the Plaintiff was
without the use of vehicle until December 31, 2013 (a total of 44
days); and that USAA failed to compensate her for the "loss of
use" of the vehicle by paying for a rental car.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN
          1821 Dock Street, Suite 103
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael A. Moore, Esq.
          David Edwards, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE LLP
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154-1051
          Telephone: (206) 625-8600
          Facsimile: (206) 625-0900
          E-mail: mmoore@corrcronin.com
                  dedwards@corrcronin.com


UNUM LIFE: Removes "Davis" Suit to Eastern District of Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Davis v. Unum Life Insurance
Company of America, Case No. 60CV-14-3910, was removed from the
Pulaski County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00640 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & GILLHAM, PLLC
          Post Office Box 2012
          Benton, AR 72018
          Telephone: (501) 315-1910
          Facsimile: (501) 315-1916
          E-mail: luthersutter.law@gmail.com

               - and -

          Paul Gerard Pfeifer, Esq.
          PFEIFER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          111 Center Street, Suite 1200
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-4440
          Facsimile: (501) 374-4446
          E-mail: pgp2@yahoo.com


VOLVO: Appeals Sunroof Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that in their
appeal to overturn a lower court's approval of a six-state class
action over an alleged sunroof defect, Volvo's attorneys claim,
"[T]he certified classes include former owners of class vehicles,
many of which now reside in a junkyard.  And former owners have no
need to repair a vehicle they no longer own and that functioned
without incident for as long as they owned it."

The class action covers Massachusetts, Florida, Hawaii, New
Jersey, California and Maryland.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit
allege there is a defect in the automaker's sunroofs, which
allegedly allows water to flood their vehicles.  They contend the
"defect" sunroofs are on Volvo's S40, S60, S80, V50 (model years
2004 to present), XC90 (model years 2003 to present) and V50
(model years 2005 to present).

A lower judge approved a six-state class action and Volvo
responded by appealing this decision to the Third Circuit Court.

"Plaintiffs accuse us of hyperbole and legal misstatement. . . .
But it is they, not us, who rely on histrionics and whose position
advocates a tectonic shift in settled law," Volvo's attorneys
claim.  "The District Court's certification order allows classes
to be certified any time a few consumers allege that a mass-
produced product did not meet their expectations.  In so doing, it
facilitates a broadside attack on settled warranty law by allowing
consumers to seek recovery of damages allegedly caused by a
component that functioned precisely, and for as long, as
warranted.  There is no logical distinction between the individual
component at issue in this case and any of the thousands of other
components in vehicles (and other products) that might or might
not require repair or replacement after the warranty has expired.

"The cost of defending such class actions ultimately is borne by
consumers in the form of higher costs.  Certifying classes full of
uninjured members not only violates settled law and provides a
windfall to the uninjured, it constitutes bad economic and social
policy," they claim.

Volvo's attorneys ask the Circuit Court to reverse the District
Court's class certification order.

The Circuit Court has not issued any new decision at press time.

The initial lawsuit was filed in New Jersey U.S. District Court by
Joanne Neale of Needham, Mass., and seven other owners.


WELCOME MARKET: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome Market, Inc., dba 99 Ranch Market of Union City, CA, is
recalling "Taro Toast", "Family Toast", "U-Ta-Ne Toast", "Raisin
Toast", "Green Onion Porksung Toast", "Coconut Toast", "Pineapple
Toast", "Multi-9 Grain", "Cheese Toast", "Wheat Bran Toast", and
"Red Bean Toast" because the product labels failed to declare food
allergen wheat, soy, and/or and milk in the ingredient statement.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat, soy
and/or milk run the risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction
that requires immediate medical attention should they consume
these products.

"Taro Toast", "Family Toast", "U-Ta-Ne Toast", "Raisin Toast",
"Green Onion Porksung Toast", "Coconut Toast", "Pineapple Toast",
"Multi-9 Grain", "Cheese Toast", "Wheat Bran Toast", and "Red Bean
Toast" are various flavors of toast, packaged as pre-sliced loaves
in clear plastic bags.  The products were distributed to company
owned stores and each store has a different bar code and address
information specific to each store.  The products have a sell by
date of 11/04/14 or prior.

Consumers in possession of "Taro Toast", "Family Toast", "U-Ta-Ne
Toast", "Raisin Toast", "Green Onion Porksung Toast", "Coconut
Toast", "Pineapple Toast", "Multi-9 Grain", "Cheese Toast", "Wheat
Bran Toast", and "Red Bean Toast" should not eat the product and
should return the product to the place of purchase.

Consumers who have experienced allergic reaction after consuming
this product should contact their health care provider.

99 Ranch Market will be sending recall notices to all of its
direct customers. Please call Wendy Lo at (510) 487-8899 extension
221 for further information.


WEST ASSET: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Mazzucco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. West Asset Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-06875-AET-DEA (D.N.J., November 3, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of violating 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


WYETH: Court Narrows Claims in Effexor XR Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Peter G. Sheridan granted in part and denied in
part the Motion to Dismiss on the ground of Failure to State a
Claim in the case captioned In re EFFEXOR XR ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 11-5479 (D. N.J.).

The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that Wyeth: (1)
fraudulently procured three patents for extended release
formulations of venlafaxine hydrochloride; (2) wrongfully listed
those patents in the FDA Orange Book as covering Effexor XR; (3)
engaged in sham litigation to block and delay multiple generic
companies from entering the generic Effexor XR market; (4) entered
into an illegal horizontal market-allocation and price-fixing
reverse settlement agreement with its co-defendant Teva through
which Wyeth paid Teva value worth more than $500 million in
exchange for Teva's agreement not to market its own generic
version of Effexor XR until an agreed-upon entry date; and (5)
negotiated settlements with subsequent generic applicants for the
sole purpose of preserving and protecting its alleged monopoly and
market-division agreement with Teva.

Judge Sheridan granted in part and denied in part Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action complaint.

A copy of Judge Sheridan's Memorandum dated October 6, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/OOfQ9Tfrom Leagle.com.

IBEW NECA Local 505 Health & Welfare Plan, Interested Party,
represented by James E. Cecchi, Esq. -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
-- and Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- at
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.


ZILLOW INC: Court Says Securities Action Fails to State Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted the Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim in the case entitled JONATHAN
REINSCHMIDT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZILLOW, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
C12-2084 RSM (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiff brought the action on behalf of similarly situated
purchasers of Zillow Inc. common stock, under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R.
Sections 240.10b-5. Putative class members contend that when
Zillow's misrepresentations came to light, Zillow's inflated share
price dropped causing substantial economic harm to investors

Judge Martinez granted (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State Claim, (2) Defendants' Request for Judicial
Notice and Dismisses the Class Action Complaint with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Martinez Order dated October 20, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/fxfNG7from Leagle.com.

Chad M. Cohen, Defendant, represented by Sean C Knowles, Esq. --
SKnowles@perkinscoie.com -- and Ronald L Berenstain, Esq. --
RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com -- at PERKINS COIE.

                           *     *     *

Bruce M. Sabados, Esq. and Zachary Denver, Esq. at Katten Muchin
Roseman LLP report that the US District Court for the Western
District of Washington recently dismissed a securities fraud class
action against Zillow, Inc. and named officers and directors,
holding that the material omissions plaintiff alleged were already
known to the market.

Zillow is an online real estate marketing company that derives
revenue from online advertisements, including a subscription
service for local real estate agents.  Subscribers are referred to
as Zillow's Premier Agents.  In early 2012, Zillow announced that
it would implement a new pricing model for its Premier Agents.
Plaintiffs alleged that Zillow withheld material information about
difficulties encountered in its new pricing model.  Among other
claims, plaintiffs alleged that Zillow should have disclosed its
Static Average Revenue Per Customer (ARPU), which they claimed
would have illustrated whether Zillow was successfully
implementing the new pricing plan.  According to plaintiffs, when
Zillow released its ARPU in early November 2012, it "shocked the
market" for Zillow stock.  Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging
securities fraud in late November 2012.

The court held that Zillow's failure to disclose that ARPU was
flat was not an actionable omission because analysts in the market
had already estimated that Zillow's ARPU was flat or decreasing.
In addition to analyst estimates, one of the named defendants
disclosed that ARPU was down.  Because the information was
credibly available in the market before the November release, the
court found that an earlier release of ARPU would not have
affected the total mix of information available in the market, and
granted Zillow's motion to dismiss.


* Australian Big Plaintiff Law Firms, Litigation Funders Dominate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian Business Review, reports
that plaintiff lawyer Stewart Levitt says the law governing class
actions needs to be changed to eliminate what he believes is a
bias in favor of large plaintiff law firms and litigation funders.
He says the relationship between large class action firms and
litigation funding companies is overly close and this has given
them too much influence over this part of the legal sector.

"They are all mates," said Mr. Levitt, who is principal solicitor
at law firm Levitt Robinson.

"And the trouble is that the big plaintiff firms and litigation
funders all control the game.

"The big losers are the punters."

Mr. Levitt cited the example of the AU$150 million settlement in
the Centro class action.

In that case, litigation funder Bentham IMF received 40%, or AU$60
million, while Maurice Blackburn received about AU$18 million,
which left about AU$72 million for clients.

The settlement in a class action Mr. Levitt's firm ran against
Macquarie Bank was much smaller -- AU$82.5 million -- but he said
the payout to clients would be larger than the payout from the
$150m settlement in the Centro case.

This was because the AU$7.5 million cost of running the Macquarie
Bank class action had been financed by some of the plaintiffs who
received interest on their outlays on legal fees of 7%-8%, Mr.
Levitt said.

"That means they got about AU$8.5 million, coming off the top of
AU$82.5 million," he said.

Another AU$1 million went on administrative expenses but once
interest on the settlement was included, the amount available for
distribution from the Macquarie Bank class action would be about
AU$75 million, compared with AU$72 million from the Centro case.

Mr. Levitt said he was in favor of class actions but it was
important that these cases were "genuine" and were being brought
in order to address real grievances for the plaintiffs.  He
believed the legal and regulatory environment was encouraging big
plaintiff firms to "invent" class actions where the members of the
class each had a very small stake in the case and little interest
in how much money was being made by their lawyers and litigation
funders.

"If people never knew they had a claim and will finish up with a
couple of thousand dollars, they are not going to give a rat's
arse how much the funder and the law firms are making," he said.

"Those are the sort of cases that are being brought now inventive
cases with no social utility."

Mr. Levitt's criticism comes as Attorney-General George Brandis
considers a report on the future regulation of class actions and
litigation funders.  That report, by the Productivity Commission,
is the result of an inquiry into access to justice whose terms of
reference were drafted by the Gillard government before it lost
office last year.

The report, which Senator Brandis has not made public, is expected
to be assessed by an expert panel that will advise him on how to
end what he has described as "wildcat and opportunistic class
actions".

Mr. Levitt said he believed the dominance of the big plaintiff
firms and the litigation funders could be broken by allowing
lawyers to charge US-style contingency fees that are calculated as
a percentage of the damages awarded to their clients.

While litigation funders currently take up to 40% of class action
settlements, Mr. Levitt said he favored a system in which lawyers
could charge contingency fees of no more than 20%-30%.  He also
favors reversing a ruling in a case his firm ran and allowing
plaintiffs who help fund class actions to receive the same
"uplift" as litigation funders.

However, that uplift would also be capped at no more than 20%-30%.
This would reduce the cost of class actions to individual
plaintiffs and provide real competition for litigation funders, he
said.


* Background Check Forms Must Not Include Release Language
----------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that Todd Lebowitz of Baker & Hostetler in a recent post that
companies should get those release of liability clauses out of
their background check forms.  Lebowitz says not one, but two
companies have been sued -- and had to cough up a lot of dough --
for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by including release
language in the forms.  The latest lawsuit sees Publix Super
Markets Inc. paying out $6.8 million to settle a class action.

According to the FCRA, employers are required to disclose to
applicants before they conduct any background checks, which the
companies in question did.  However, the act mandates the document
be made in writing and consist solely of the disclosure.  This is
where Publix broke the bank.

"The named plaintiffs, along with more than 90,000 potential class
members, stand to take home $48 each, despite no harm having been
proven or alleged," says Mr. Lebowitz.

According to the statute, penalties range from $100 to $1,000 per
person affected, whether or not there was any harm.  "Although the
Publix case settled before the court entered a ruling on the
merits, employers should heed the warning sounded by this
settlement and take steps to ensure that their disclosure forms do
not include release language," he says, adding a good option for
employers would be to separate the disclosure and consent forms.


                             *********

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  * * *