CAR_Public/141112.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 12, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 225

                             Headlines

13TH STREET ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AETNA HEALTH: Dismissal of Hollingshead's ERISA Claims Affirmed
ALTRIA GROUP: US Tobacco-Related Cases as of October 27
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Faces Int'l Tobacco-Related Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: 4 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial in 2014

ALTRIA GROUP: 64 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
ALTRIA GROUP: Dec. 11 Oral Argument in Mulholland Case Appeal
ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Held in Schwarz Case Appeal
ALTRIA GROUP: 3,100 State Court Cases Against PM USA at Oct. 27
ALTRIA GROUP: Defendant in 7 Smoking Class Actions in Canada

ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Date Has Not Been Set in "Donovan" Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Nov. 17 Oral Argument in El-Roy Class Action
ALTRIA GROUP: Updates on "Lights" Federal MDL Proceedings
ALTRIA GROUP: "Cabbat" Parties File Stipulation for Dismissal
ALTRIA GROUP: Dist. Court Seen to Formally Dismiss "Wyatt" Case

ALTRIA GROUP: Courts in 19 "Lights" Cases Won't Certify Class
ALTRIA GROUP: October 2015 Trial in "Aspinall" Case Appeal
ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs in "Brown" Case Appeal Costs Award
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Seeks to Decertify Class in "Larsen" Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Held in "Pearson" Case Appeal

ALTRIA GROUP: Ill. Supreme Court Allows PM USA to Appeal
ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs in Tobacco Price Case Seek Review
ALTRIA GROUP: Proceedings in Five Argentine Grower Cases Stayed
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in Suit Against UST to Commence in 2015 Q4
AMERICAN GUARD: "Patterson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
AUSTIN COUNTY, TX: Faces "Cox" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AVON PRODUCTS: Class Action Plaintiffs File 2nd Amended Complaint
BEVERLY ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued in Ill. Over Violation of Labor Laws
CAPITAL ONE: Wins Summary Judgment in Interest Rate Litigation

CENTRAL CONTINENTAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CITIGROUP INC: Pension Fund, Beaver County Actions Consolidated
CITY-WIDE SEWER: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Rivera" Suit Says
CMRE FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ortiz" Suit Claims
COMANCHE COUNTY: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

COMPUTER INNOVATIONS: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations
CROSSBORO CONTRACTING: Sued in N.Y. Over Labor Law Violations
DAIMLER AG: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over Mercedes Gas Leaks
EARTH FRIENDLY: Faces "Naples" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EL NOPAL: Faces "Bahena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
EPIC SYSTEMS: Settles Overtime Class Action for $5.4 Million
EXPRO AMERICAS: "Cormier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FACEBOOK INC: Bid to File Documents Under Seal Gets Court OK
FERRELLGAS COMPANY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Propane Sale

FLORAL LOGISTICS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
FOODBRIDGE LLC: "Mata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GAWKER MEDIA: Court Settles Dispute Over Notice of FLSA Case
GRAND A. INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GERBER PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Infant Formula, Action Claims

HAGGARD LAW: Faces "Delgado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HANOVER INSURANCE: Appeal of Claims Dismissal Still Pending
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Lead Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: No Ruling Yet in "Russell" Case Appeal
HOME DEPOT: Wants Breach Suit Consolidated with First Choice Case

HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Airbags
IBERIX ENTERPRISES: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ILLINOIS: Denial of Counsel Appointment in Suit v. IDOC Upheld
ILLINOIS: Inches Closer to Vienna Prison Class Action Settlement
IPPUDO USA: Faces "Hyun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

J.B. HUNT: Awaits Appointment of Panel of Judges in Appeal
JAGUAR ENERGY: Faces "Cormier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
KUESTER REAL: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Neil" Case Upheld
MARRONE BIO: Hedge Funds Sue Over Misleading Financial Reports
MARRONE BIO: Hedge Funds File 2nd Suit Over Misleading Reports

MM 130 BOWERY: Faces "Westropp" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MURPHY DISTRIBUTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NBTY INC: Falsely Marketed Gingko Biloba Products, Action Claims
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Ruling in Public School Workers' Suit Reversed
NEW YORK, NY: Appeals Court Upholds Stop-and-Frisk Suit Ruling

OLE MEXICAN: Falsely Marketed Tortilla Products, Action Claims
OLYMPIA MOVING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ONWARD LLC: "Austin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
OUTERWALL INC: Redbox Motion to Dismiss to be Argued Today
OUTERWALL INC: Appeal in "Boesky" Suit Fully Briefed

PANANG THAI: Sued on Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PHL VARIABLE: Illegally Increases Insurance Costs, SPRR Claims
PMKS WICHITA: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RADAR-SAT INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
RED ONION: Muhammad's Bid to Classify Case as Class Action Tossed

RENTAL CONCEPTS: "Files" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
REX ITALIAN: Faces "Higuera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ROYAL OAK: Faces "Coria" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SACRAMENTO COUNTY: "White" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: "Portilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

SAMSUNG TELECOM: Parties in McNamara Case Directed to Arbitrate
SANDISK CORPORATION: Motion to Stay Discovery in Ritz Case Denied
SD & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Bonner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SERVICE CORPORATION: Settles Individuals Claims in "Bryant et al"
SERVICE CORPORATION: Files Exceptions to "Moulton" Complaint

SOTHEBY'S: 9th Cir. Agrees to Rehear Royalties Class Action
STAR BULK: Nobu Su Leads Shareholder Class Action
STATE FARM: Sued Over Suppression of Automotive Repair Fees
STATE FARM: Court Denies Guadiana's Motion for Judgment
STONEHAM DRILLING: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces "Tuttle" Suit Over Sale of Corn
SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Sued Over Dangers Caused by Viptera Corn
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces Gilbert Art Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Bonet" Suit Over Defective Airbags

TD BANK: Settles 2012 Data Breach Suit for $850,000
TESCO PLC: Faces "Buggs" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
TUESDAY MORNING: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
UNIVERSITY FOUNTAINS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WELLS FARGO: Court Refuses to Stay "Shehan" TCPA Class Action

WYETH LLC: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Shade" Case
YRC WORLDWIDE: Settlement in "Bryant" Case Awaits Approval


                             *********


13TH STREET ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Zohirul Alom, Mohammed B. Uddin and Kamruzzaman Choudury, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated v.
13TH Street Entertainment, LLC, d/b/a Tri Hospitality Group, d/b/a
Beaumarchais, Ryan Tarantino, in his individual and professional
capacities, and Shawn Kolodny, in his individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-08707 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a French restaurant, a night club,
and a luxury sports bar located at 409 W. 13th Street, New York,
New York, 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212)257-6800
      Facsimile: (212)257-6845
      E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
              trahman@wigdorlaw.com


AETNA HEALTH: Dismissal of Hollingshead's ERISA Claims Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Hollingshead brings a putative class action against Aetna
Health Inc. alleging that Aetna wrongfully denied him and other
similarly situated individuals medical benefits in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The district
court dismissed Mr. Hollingshead's ERISA claims pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and also denied Mr. Hollingshead's request to
amend his complaint for a second time.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in an opinion
dated November 4, 2014, affirmed the District Court's ruling
saying it finds no error in the District Court's dismissal of Mr.
Hollingshead's ERISA claims.  Furthermore, it added that the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr.
Hollingshead's motion to amend, and that Mr. Hollingshead was
already afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint and the
proposed second amendment would be futile.  A copy of the ruling
is available at http://is.gd/1zSim3from Leagle.com.

The case is JOE HOLLINGSHEAD, Individually and as Representative
of All Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA
HEALTH INC., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-20158.


ALTRIA GROUP: US Tobacco-Related Cases as of October 27
-------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, reported the number of
certain tobacco-related cases pending in the United States against
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and, in some instances, Altria
Group, Inc. as of October 27, 2014, October 21, 2013 and October
25, 2012.

                        Number           Number        Number
                        of Cases         of Cases      of Cases
                        Pending          Pending       Pending
                        As of            As of         As of
   Type of Case         10/27/14         10/21/13      10/25/12
   ------------         --------         --------      --------
Individual Smoking
and Health Cases (1)       67                68             77

Smoking and Health
Class Actions and
Aggregated Claims
Litigation (2)              5                 6              7

Health Care Cost
Recovery Actions (3)        1                 1              1

"Lights/Ultra Lights"
Class Actions              13                15             14

Individual Smoking and Health Cases do not include 2,563 cases
brought by flight attendants seeking compensatory damages for
personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke ("ETS"). The flight attendants allege that they are
members of an ETS smoking and health class action in Florida,
which was settled in 1997 (Broin). The terms of the court-approved
settlement in that case allow class members to file individual
lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibit them from
seeking punitive damages. Also, does not include individual
smoking and health cases brought by or on behalf of plaintiffs in
Florida state and federal courts following the decertification of
the Engle case.

Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims
Litigation include as one case the 600 civil actions (of which 346
were actions against PM USA) that were to be tried in a single
proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation). The West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that the United States
Constitution did not preclude a trial in two phases in this case.
Issues related to defendants' conduct and whether punitive damages
are permissible were tried in the first phase. Trial in the first
phase of this case began in April 2013. In May 2013, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of defendants on the claims for design
defect, negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and
concealment and declined to find that the defendants' conduct
warranted punitive damages. Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes should have included use
instructions for the period 1964 - 1969. The second phase, if any,
will consist of individual trials to determine liability and
compensatory damages on that claim only. In August 2013, the trial
court denied all post-trial motions. The trial court entered final
judgment in October 2013 and, in November 2013, plaintiffs filed
their notice of appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals.

Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiaries included Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), which is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes and certain smokeless tobacco products in
the United States; John Middleton Co. ("Middleton"), which is
engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made large cigars
and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PM USA; and
UST LLC ("UST"), which through its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC ("USSTC") and Ste.
Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. ("Ste. Michelle"), is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of smokeless tobacco products and wine.

Altria Group, Inc.'s other operating companies included Nu Mark
LLC ("Nu Mark"), a wholly-owned subsidiary, which is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco products, and
Philip Morris Capital Corporation ("PMCC"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary, which maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct
finance leases.

Other Altria Group, Inc. wholly-owned subsidiaries included Altria
Group Distribution Company, which provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to Altria Group, Inc.'s operating
subsidiaries, and Altria Client Services Inc., which provides
various support services, such as legal, regulatory, finance,
human resources and external affairs, to Altria Group, Inc. and
its subsidiaries. In addition, Nu Mark and its subsidiaries, and
Middleton use third-party contract manufacturing arrangements in
the manufacture of their products.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Faces Int'l Tobacco-Related Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 27,
2014, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") is a named defendant in
Israel in one "Lights" class action. PM USA is a named defendant
in nine health care cost recovery actions in Canada, seven of
which also name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and
Altria Group, Inc. are also named defendants in seven smoking and
health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces.


ALTRIA GROUP: 4 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial in 2014
---------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 27,
2014, 4 Engle progeny cases and no individual smoking and health
cases against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") are set for trial
in 2014. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are
also scheduled for trial in 2014. Trial dates are subject to
change.


ALTRIA GROUP: 64 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
---------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 27,
2014, 64 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") have resulted in verdicts since the
Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision. Thirty-two verdicts were
returned in favor of plaintiffs and 32 verdicts were returned in
favor of PM USA.

The Company said the 32 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA
(Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis, Russo (formerly
Frazier), C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva, Weingart, Junious,
Szymanski, Gollihue, McCray, Denton, Hancock, Wilder, D. Cohen,
LaMotte, J. Campbell, Dombey, Haldeman, Jacobson, Blasco,
Gonzalez, Reider, Banks, Surico, Davis, Harris and Baum).

On July 31, 2014, the jury in Harris returned a verdict indicating
that plaintiff was not a member of the Engle class, but also
awarded $238,975 against PM USA. Defendants' motion to enter a
defense verdict is pending. In addition, there have been a number
of mistrials, only some of which have resulted in new trials as of
October 27, 2014. The juries in the Reider and Banks cases
returned zero damages verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juries in
the Weingart and Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA
awarding no damages, but the trial court in each case granted an
additur. In the Russo case (formerly Frazier), however, the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in
defendants' favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new
trial. Defendants sought review of the case in the Florida Supreme
Court, which was granted in September 2013. Oral argument occurred
in April 2014 in the Florida Supreme Court on the question of
whether the statute of repose applies in Engle progeny cases.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 56 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 38 of the 56 cases. These 38 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (6), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion
for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in
the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court
withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for
reconsideration. Oral argument of plaintiff's appeal of this
ruling occurred on September 9, 2014.

Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 14 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against
defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois
(Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in
December 2006, but plaintiff is seeking to reinstate the verdict,
which an intermediate appellate court ordered in April 2014. PM
USA filed a petition for leave to appeal, which automatically
stayed the April 2014 order.  On September 24, 2014, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal.

After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse
verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, since October
2004, PM USA has paid in the aggregate judgments (and related
costs and fees) totaling approximately $266 million and interest
totaling approximately $144 million as of October 27, 2014. These
amounts include payments for Engle progeny judgments (and related
costs and fees) totaling approximately $13.8 million and interest
totaling approximately $2.5 million.


ALTRIA GROUP: Dec. 11 Oral Argument in Mulholland Case Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that oral argument is
currently scheduled for December 11, 2014, in the appeal by Philip
Morris USA Inc. in the Mulholland case.

In July 2013, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and
awarded $5.5 million in compensatory damages against PM USA. In
August 2013, after taking into account a prior recovery by the
plaintiff against third parties, the court entered final judgment
in the amount of $4.9 million.

In September 2013, PM USA filed a renewed motion for judgment as a
matter of law and plaintiff moved to modify the amount of the
judgment. In December 2013, the trial court denied the parties'
post-trial motions.

In January 2014, PM USA filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, plaintiff cross-appealed and PM
USA posted a bond in the amount of $5.5 million. Oral argument is
currently scheduled for December 11, 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Held in Schwarz Case Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that oral argument at
the Oregon Court of Appeals occurred on September 9, 2014 in the
Schwarz case involving Philip Morris USA Inc.

In March 2002, an Oregon jury awarded $168,500 in compensatory
damages and $150 million in punitive damages against PM USA. In
May 2002, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award to
$100 million.

In May 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the compensatory
damages verdict, reversed the award of punitive damages and
remanded the case to the trial court for a second trial to
determine the amount of punitive damages, if any. In June 2006,
plaintiff petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court to review the
portion of the court of appeals' decision reversing and remanding
the case for a new trial on punitive damages.

In June 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the court of
appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for a
new trial limited to the question of punitive damages. In December
2010, the Oregon Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling and
awarded PM USA approximately $500,000 in costs.

In March 2011, PM USA filed a claim against the plaintiff for its
costs and disbursements on appeal, plus interest. Trial on the
amount of punitive damages began in January 2012. In February
2012, the jury awarded plaintiff $25 million in punitive damages.
In September 2012, PM USA filed a notice of appeal from the trial
court's judgment with the Oregon Court of Appeals. Oral argument
at the Oregon Court of Appeals occurred on September 9, 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: 3,100 State Court Cases Against PM USA at Oct. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 27,
2014, approximately 3,100 state court cases were pending against
Philip Morris USA Inc. or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual
claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,200 state court
plaintiffs.  Furthermore, as of October 27, 2014, approximately
900 cases were pending against PM USA in federal district court
asserting individual claims by or on behalf of a similar number of
federal court plaintiffs. Most of these federal cases are pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Because of a number of factors, including, but not limited to,
docketing delays, duplicated filings and overlapping dismissal
orders, these numbers are estimates.

In July 2013, the district court issued an order transferring, for
case management purposes, all the Middle District of Florida Engle
progeny cases to a judge presiding in the District of
Massachusetts. The order directed that the cases will remain in
the Middle District of Florida and that such judge will be
designated a judge of that district for purposes of managing the
cases. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed a significant number of cases, of which approximately
750 were appealed by plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.

In September 2014, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed those dismissals.
All remaining cases pending in the Middle District of Florida have
been activated or are scheduled to be activated by May 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Defendant in 7 Smoking Class Actions in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on
Other Smoking and Health Class Actions.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1),
South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of October 27, 2014, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Date Has Not Been Set in "Donovan" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on
Medical Monitoring Class Actions.

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost
for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs
for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs. Two purported medical monitoring class
actions are pending against PM USA. These two cases were brought
in New York (Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York) and Massachusetts
(Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts) on behalf of each state's
respective residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the
Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been
diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a
physician for suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases
seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of
action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing
members of the purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in
order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these
cases do not seek punitive damages. The future defense of these
cases may be negatively impacted by evolving medical standards and
practice. Two other cases (California (Xavier) and Florida
(Gargano)) were dismissed in 2011.

In Caronia, in January 2011, the district court dismissed
plaintiffs' implied warranty and medical monitoring claims and
declared plaintiffs' motion for class certification moot in light
of the dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In May 2013, the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' traditional
negligence, strict liability and breach-of-warranty claims on the
grounds of statute of limitations and the widespread knowledge
regarding the risks of cigarette smoking, but certified certain
questions to the New York State Court of Appeals, including
whether New York would recognize an independent claim for medical
monitoring. In May 2013, the New York Court of Appeals accepted
the certified questions and, in December 2013, ruled that New York
law does not allow for an independent cause of action for medical
monitoring. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the entire case in April 2014, including the so-
called independent claim for medical monitoring, and issued its
mandate in May 2014.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in
October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes
a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the
absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or
not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is
a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010,
the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims
for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to
plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review
of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in
September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year
medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of $190
million. In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for
partial summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses, which
the district court denied in March 2012 without prejudice. In
October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification,
which motion was denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the
district court amended the class definition to extend to
individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria through
February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was not a
Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013. In January 2014,
plaintiffs renewed their previously filed motions for partial
summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses. A trial date
has not been set.


ALTRIA GROUP: Nov. 17 Oral Argument in El-Roy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that oral argument at
the Israel Supreme Court in the El-Roy class action is scheduled
for November 17, 2014.

As of October 27, 2014, a total of 13 "Lights/Ultra Lights" cases
are pending in the United States. One of these cases are pending
in U.S. federal courts. The other cases are pending in various
U.S. state courts. In addition, a purported "Lights" class action
is pending against PM USA in Israel (El-Roy).

In El-Roy, hearings on plaintiffs' motion for class certification
were held in November and December 2008, and an additional hearing
on class certification was held in November 2011. In November
2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and ordered the plaintiffs to pay defendants
approximately $100,000 in attorney fees. Plaintiffs in that case
have noticed an appeal. Oral argument at the Israel Supreme Court
is scheduled for November 17, 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: Updates on "Lights" Federal MDL Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on
Federal Multidistrict Proceedings.

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA") and
dismissed the case. In December 2008, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not barred by federal
preemption. Although the Court rejected the argument that the
FTC's actions were so extensive with respect to the descriptors
that the state law claims were barred as a matter of federal law,
the Court's decision was limited: it did not address the ultimate
merits of plaintiffs' claim, the viability of the action as a
class action or other state law issues. The case was returned to
the federal court in Maine and consolidated with other federal
cases in the multidistrict litigation proceeding. In June 2011,
the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice
after the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, concluding the litigation.

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through October 27, 2014, 26 purported "Lights" class
actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases, Altria
Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either
were filed in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM
USA and were transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL
proceeding").

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this
decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.
Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice their cases. In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded
the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back
to the federal district courts in which the suits originated. In
Tang, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
case without prejudice in July 2012, concluding the litigation. In
Phillips, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, following the district court's denial
of class certification, PM USA made an offer of judgment to
resolve the case for $6,000, which plaintiff accepted. As a
result, in July 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio dismissed the case, concluding the litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: "Cabbat" Parties File Stipulation for Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in the Cabbat
case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii denied
plaintiffs' class certification motion in January 2014. Plaintiffs
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for
appellate review of the class certification decision, which was
denied in April 2014. In June 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for reconsideration
and reconsideration en banc. On July 23, 2014, the parties filed a
stipulation for dismissal with prejudice, which the court approved
the same day.


ALTRIA GROUP: Dist. Court Seen to Formally Dismiss "Wyatt" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in the Wyatt case,
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
denied plaintiffs' class certification motion in August 2013.
Plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit for appellate review of the class certification decision,
which was denied in September 2013. In October 2013, plaintiffs
filed a motion in the district court seeking reconsideration of
the denial of class certification, which the district court denied
in May 2014. Subsequently, PM USA made an offer of judgment to
resolve the case for $1,000, which plaintiff accepted on September
18, 2014. The district court is expected to formally dismiss the
case.


ALTRIA GROUP: Courts in 19 "Lights" Cases Won't Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that 18 courts in 19
"Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed
class action allegations, reversed prior class certification
decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to
grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class
action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in
Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois
overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in
the Price case.

In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
dismissed a purported "Lights" class action (Sullivan) on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In
New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that granted
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all
U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that
were labeled "Light" or "Lights."

In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case
with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009,
but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case discussed above.
The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory
review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought
review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a
class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies
case with prejudice.

In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of
"Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In
Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment
in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation. In Lawrence, in
August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial
court's order to certify a class and subsequently denied
plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October 2012, the case was
dismissed with prejudice.


ALTRIA GROUP: October 2015 Trial in "Aspinall" Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that trial is currently
scheduled for October 2015 in an appeal in the "Aspinall" case.

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court
denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted
plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of
federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts'
consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial
court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment
to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings
pending completion of the appellate review.

In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the
plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral
estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department
of Justice. In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the
parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against
Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.

In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in
September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the
Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding
that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an
equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual
damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual
damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the
Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court
denied.

In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals
Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court denied.
Trial is currently scheduled for October 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs in "Brown" Case Appeal Costs Award
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiffs in
"Brown" case appealed the costs awarded to PM USA in the amount of
$764,553.

In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state court
alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA
and others, violated California law regarding unfair, unlawful and
fraudulent business practices.  In May 2009, the California
Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court decision that
decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court.
At that time, the class consisted of individuals who, at the time
they were residents of California, (i) smoked in California one or
more cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were labeled and/or
advertised with the terms or phrases "light," "medium," "mild,"
"low tar," and/or "lowered tar and nicotine," but not including
any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the terms or phrases
"ultra light" or "ultra low tar," and (ii) who were exposed to
defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California.
Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of the costs of
"light" cigarettes purchased during the class period and
injunctive relief ordering corrective communications.

In September 2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court
dismissed all defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit.  Trial
began in April 2013. In May 2013 the plaintiffs redefined the
class to include California residents who smoked in California one
or more of defendant's Marlboro Lights cigarettes between January
1, 1998 and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendant's
marketing and advertising activities in California. In June 2013,
PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. Trial concluded in
July 2013.

In September 2013, the court issued a final Statement of Decision,
in which the court found that PM USA violated California law, but
that plaintiffs had not established a basis for relief. On this
basis, the court granted judgment for PM USA. The court also
denied PM USA's motion to decertify the class. In October 2013,
the court entered final judgment in favor of PM USA. In November
2013, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the court denied.

In December 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA
filed a conditional cross-appeal. In February 2014, the trial
court awarded PM USA $764,553 in costs. Also in February 2014,
plaintiffs appealed the costs award.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Seeks to Decertify Class in "Larsen" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that PM USA filed
motions to decertify the class in "Larsen" case and for partial
summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995 - 2003. In June 2010, PM USA's
motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request
for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved
for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the
case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was
denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October
2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach
a verdict.

In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling
granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. The
trial court has set jury selection to begin on January 12, 2015,
with opening arguments scheduled to begin on February 17, 2015.

On October 28, 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class
and for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous"
claim.


ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Held in "Pearson" Case Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that oral argument
occurred in June 2014 in an appeal in the "Pearson" case.

In the "Pearson" case in Oregon, a state court denied plaintiffs'
motion for interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to
certify a class. In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for
summary judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon
statutory exemption. In September 2007, the district court granted
PM USA's motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and
plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and the class certification
denial to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Argument was held in April
2010. In June 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's denial of class certification and remanded to the trial
court for further consideration of class certification. In July
2013, PM USA filed a petition for reconsideration with the Oregon
Court of Appeals, which was denied in August 2013. PM USA filed
its petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court in October
2013, which the court accepted in January 2014. Oral argument
occurred in June 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: Ill. Supreme Court Allows PM USA to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Illinois
Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal and took
no action on PM USA's motion for a supervisory order in the Price
case.

Trial in Price commenced in state court in Illinois in January
2003 and, in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff
class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3.0
billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In December 2005, the
Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs. In November 2006, the United States
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari
and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County
enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed the
case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment
entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that
the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good
demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was
"inaccurate."  PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's
motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed.

In March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. In
February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the
petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois
Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review. As a result,
the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on
whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen
the prior judgment.

In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended petition, which PM
USA opposed. Subsequently, in responding to PM USA's opposition to
the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the trial court to
reinstate the original judgment.  The trial court denied
plaintiffs' petition in December 2012.

In January 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District. In January 2013, PM USA filed a motion
asking the Illinois Supreme Court to immediately exercise its
jurisdiction over the appeal. In February 2013, the Illinois
Supreme Court denied PM USA's motion. Oral argument on plaintiffs'
appeal to the Fifth Judicial District was heard in October 2013.

In April 2014, the Fifth Judicial District reversed and ordered
reinstatement of the original $10.1 billion trial court judgment
against PM USA. In May 2014, PM USA filed in the Illinois Supreme
Court a petition for a supervisory order and a petition for leave
to appeal. The filing of the petition for leave to appeal
automatically stayed the Fifth District's mandate pending
disposition by the Illinois Supreme Court. Also in May 2014,
plaintiff filed a motion seeking recusal of Justice Karmeier, one
of the Illinois Supreme Court justices, which PM USA opposed.

On September 24, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court granted PM USA's
motion for leave to appeal and took no action on PM USA's motion
for a supervisory order. Justice Karmeier denied plaintiff's
motion seeking his recusal.


ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs in Tobacco Price Case Seek Review
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Plaintiffs in the
Tobacco Price Case have filed a petition for review in the Kansas
Supreme Court.

One case remains pending in Kansas (Smith) in which plaintiffs
allege that defendants, including PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.,
conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted. In March
2012, the trial court granted defendants' motions for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs sought the trial court's reconsideration of
its decision, but in June 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have appealed the decision,
and defendants have cross-appealed the trial court's class
certification decision, to the Court of Appeals of Kansas. In July
2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment
in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs filed a petition for review in
the Kansas Supreme Court on August 18, 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: Proceedings in Five Argentine Grower Cases Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that PM USA and Altria
Group, Inc. are named as defendants in six cases (Hupan, Chalanuk,
Rodriguez Da Silva, Aranda, Taborda and Biglia) filed in Delaware
state court against multiple defendants by the parents of
Argentine children born with alleged birth defects. Plaintiffs in
these cases allege that they grew tobacco in Argentina under
contract with Tabacos Norte S.A., an alleged subsidiary of PMI,
and that they and their infant children were exposed directly and
in utero to hazardous herbicides and pesticides used in the
production and cultivation of tobacco. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants.

In December 2012, Altria Group, Inc. and certain other defendants
were dismissed from the Hupan, Chalanuk and Rodriguez Da Silva
cases. Altria Group, Inc. and certain other defendants were
dismissed from Aranda, Taborda and Biglia in May 2013, October
2013 and February 2014, respectively. The three remaining
defendants in the six cases are PM USA, Philip Morris Global
Brands Inc. (a subsidiary of PMI) and Monsanto Company.

Following discussions regarding indemnification for these cases
pursuant to the Distribution Agreement between PMI and Altria
Group, Inc., PMI and PM USA have agreed to resolve conflicting
indemnity demands after final judgments are entered.

In April 2014, all three defendants in the Hupan case filed
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and PM USA and
Philip Morris Global Brands filed separate motions to dismiss
based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. All proceedings in
the other five cases are currently stayed pending the court's
resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in Hupan.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in Suit Against UST to Commence in 2015 Q4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that UST LLC and/or its
tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a number of other
individual tobacco and health suits over time. Plaintiffs'
allegations of liability in these cases are based on various
theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of
implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer protection
statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including
compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief,
including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk,
comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of
limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in
Florida (Vassallo). On August 25, 2014, the court entered a
scheduling order setting trial to commence in the fourth quarter
of 2015.


AMERICAN GUARD: "Patterson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Patterson and other similarly-situated individuals v.
American Guard Services, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and
Sherif Assal, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24088 (S.D. Fla.,
October 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

American Guard Services, Inc. provides security needs including
uniformed officers, mobile patrol, & security consulting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Berney Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., Nicholas S.
Schorsch, Brian S. Block, David S. Kay and Lisa P. Mcalister, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08740 (S.D.N.Y., November 3, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard Longman, Esq.
      Jason D'Agnenica, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com
              jasondag@ssbny.com


AUSTIN COUNTY, TX: Faces "Cox" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Cox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Austin County, Texas and Sheriff Jack W. Brandes, Case
No. 4:14-cv-03122 (S.D. Tex., October 31, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages.

Austin County, Texas is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002-1637
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
              melissa@mooreandassociates.net


AVON PRODUCTS: Class Action Plaintiffs File 2nd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit filed their second amended complaint on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock
from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain
present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On
September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June
14, 2012.

On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.  On October 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including
October 26, 2011.

The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and
two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the
Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
and injunctive relief.

Avon is a global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related
products.


BEVERLY ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued in Ill. Over Violation of Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Ruiz, on behalf of himself and all other employees similarly
situated v. Beverly Environmental, LLC, and James Esposito, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08748 (N.D. Ill., November 3, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Beverly Environmental, LLC is a landscaping company servicing
Chicago and Northwest Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL ONE: Wins Summary Judgment in Interest Rate Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., issued on November 3, 2014,
a corrected opinion and order granting defendant's motion for
summary judgment in IN RE: CAPITAL ONE BANK CREDIT CARD INTEREST
RATE LITIGATION, NO. 1:10-MD-02171-TWT, (N.D. Ga.).

This multidistrict litigation and purported class action stems
from the Defendant Capital One's decision to raise interest rates
on customers' credit card accounts in 2009. The Plaintiffs allege
a multitude of claims, including breach of contract; breach of
implied contract; unconscionability; unjust enrichment; and
violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1601 et
seq.; the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Section 1750 et seq.; the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; the California False
Advertising Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.; the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623; and the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Sections 56:8-1 et seq.

The Plaintiffs had argued that the Defendant should not have been
able to undertake the 2009 Change in Terms plan because: (1) it
violated promises made to the Plaintiffs that rates would be "low"
and "fixed"; (2) the "enormous" interest rate increases were
outside the market range; (3) the Defendant failed to give proper
notice; (4) the Defendant made the changes in an attempt to avoid
the consequences of the Credit CARD Act which was set to become
effective shortly after the Defendant implemented the plan; and
(5) the Defendant made the changes because it desired to make more
money.

According to Judge Thrash, "The Plaintiffs are unable to show any
contractual duty on the part of the Defendant to keep rates "low"
and "fixed."  The Defendant offered consumers a choice as to
whether to keep the credit card or not. For this reason, the
Plaintiffs cannot argue that the Defendant increased its interest
rates "outside the market range." If consumers did not want to pay
interest rates that high, they could close their accounts. The
Defendant complied with requirements under federal law in the
substantive and procedural notice it gave to consumers. The Credit
CARD Act has no retroactive effect. There is no legal significance
to the possibility that any of the actions the Defendant took in
the 2009 Change in Terms might have been barred under the Credit
CARD Act. While the Plaintiffs may have pointed out difficulties
the Defendant had in implementing the 2009 Change in Terms, the
Plaintiffs have not been able to link any of this evidence to
their particular causes of action."

Judge Thrash directed the Clerk of the Court to dismiss with
prejudice the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.  A copy of the
Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/ZgwrvGfrom
Leagle.com.

Capital One Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan
A. Fratkin -- bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, LLP,
Jonathan Chiu -- jchiu@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, LLP,
Michelle N. Comeau -- mcomeau@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, LLP
& Nancy R. Thomas -- nthomas@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster.


CENTRAL CONTINENTAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Rodriguez individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated v. Central Continental Bakery, Inc., and Robert
Czerniak, Case No. 1:14-cv-08766 (N.D. Ill., November 3, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a wholesale bakery business with
two locations within the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CITIGROUP INC: Pension Fund, Beaver County Actions Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court signed
on October 14, 2014, an order consolidating two actions for all
purposes.

On September 4, 2014, Alaska Electrical Pension Fund filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup and
other U.S. dollar (USD) ISDAFIX panel banks.  On September 30,
2014, the County of Beaver (Pennsylvania) filed a similar putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in both actions assert
federal antitrust claims, as well as claims under the Commodity
Exchange Act and for unjust enrichment.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 1:14-cv-7126
(S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.) and 1:14-cv-7907 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.).

Following the initial consolidation order, substantially similar
putative class action complaints were filed by Magnolia Regional
Health Center (on October 17, 2014 in the Southern District of New
York), the County of Montgomery, Pennsylvania (on October 17, 2014
in the District of New Jersey) and the Genesee County Employees'
Retirement System (on October 20, 2014 in the Southern District of
New York). Additional information concerning these actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 1:14-
cv-8342 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.), 2:14-cv-06427 (D.N.J.) (Linares,
J.) and 1:14-cv-8365 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.).


CITY-WIDE SEWER: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Rivera" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. City-Wide Sewer & Drain Service Corp., Long Island
Plumbing Corp., Emergency Flood Restoration, Inc., and Salvatore
Mangia, Jr., Case No. 1:14-cv-06484 (E.D.N.Y., November 3, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a plumbing company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


CMRE FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ortiz" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Ortiz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02437
(D. Ariz., November 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently and intentionally contacting the Plaintiff on the
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

CMRE Financial Services, Inc. provides both soft-core and
continued collection services that help healthcare organizations
reconcile delinquent accounts without jeopardizing patient
relationships.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMANCHE COUNTY: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug McCauley, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated
v. Comanche County Medical Center Company and Comanche County
Consolidated Hospital District, Case No. 1:14-cv-00172 (N.D. Tex.,
October 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a general medical and surgical
hospital in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles W. Branham III, Esq.
      BRANHAM LAW, LLP
      3900 Elm Street
      Dallas, TX 75226
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: tbranham@branhamlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Corinna Pia Chandler, Esq.
      CHANDLER LAW PC
      3900 Elm Street
      Dallas, TX 75226
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (972) 692-5220
      E-mail: chandler@chandlerlawpc.com


COMPUTER INNOVATIONS: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Weiss, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Computer Innovations, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:14-
cv-08735 (S.D.N.Y., November 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Computer Innovations, Inc. is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

         - and -

      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OFJOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com


CROSSBORO CONTRACTING: Sued in N.Y. Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Crossboro Contracting Co. Inc., William A.
Gross Construction Associates, Inc., Westmoreland Construction
Inc., Michael Paletta and Laura Paletta, Case No. 1:14-cv-08715
(S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a corporation that provides
construction services within the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Serrins, Esq.
      Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
      SERRINS FISHER LLP
      233 Broadway, Suite 2340
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 571-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 233-3801


DAIMLER AG: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over Mercedes Gas Leaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that Daimler AG and
Mercedes-Benz USA LLC have been slapped with a putative class
action in New Jersey state court claiming the companies failed to
disclose, and have failed to properly remedy, defects in certain
Mercedes-Benz vehicles that can cause gasoline-soaked seats and
vapors.

Plaintiff Helena Barinova is hoping to represent a class of New
Jersey residents who purchased certain W211 E-Class generation
Mercedes-Benz vehicles that were produced from 2003 to 2009 as
well as a subclass of owners and lease holders who shouldered
costs to repair components of the vehicles' fuel delivery systems,
according to the Oct. 22 complaint in Bergen County Superior
Court.

Ms. Barinova contends in the suit, which asserts claims under the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and state common law, that
undisclosed defects in the fuel delivery system of the vehicles
can cause interior and exterior leaks of gasoline and gasoline
vapors and that the vehicles' seats can end up absorbing gasoline.
The problem has left drivers and passengers facing fire and
explosion risks and health problems, according to the complaint.

"Defendants have ignored these risks and otherwise failed to
repair or replace defective fuel tanks under vehicle warranties,"
the complaint said.  "Instead, Defendants have ignored and
concealed the defect, instructing Mercedes-Benz technicians to
replace fuel sending units under warranty only after repeated
owner complaints."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has fielded
more than 100 complaints concerning the smell of gasoline in the
cabins of Mercedes-Benz E-Class vehicles and liquid gasoline leaks
outside of the vehicles, according to the complaint.  In 2012, the
agency opened an investigation into gasoline leaks on Mercedes-
Benz E55 vehicles from 2003 to 2006, the complaint said.

Additionally, the complaint acknowledges a Mercedes-Benz recall to
fix a problem related to leaking gasoline but said that recall
only covered certain 2003 to 2006 vehicles and didn't truly
correct the problem.

"Many of the vehicles receiving the 'recall' are still
experiencing unsafe fuel containment issues with the Fuel Delivery
System on these vehicles still leaking," the complaint said.

Ms. Barinova herself purchased a new Mercedes-Benz E350 in 2005
that allegedly ended up leaking raw fuel and gasoline vapors, with
the back seat of her vehicle becoming "saturated" with raw
gasoline several times, according to the complaint.  The
dealership that sold her the car and Mercedes-Benz refused to fix
the alleged defects, forcing her to replace certain components of
the fuel delivery system at her own expense, the complaint said.
However, the defects and the leaks have persisted, according to
the complaint.

The suit also names various dealers in the state as defendants.

"The Dealership Defendants were well aware of the problems with
the Fuel Delivery System in E-Class vehicles as they received
complaints from customers, including Plaintiff, and performed
repairs; yet, they continued to sell and/or lease E-Class vehicles
without warning consumers of the known defect," the complaint
said.

Ms. Barinova is represented by Barry R. Eichen and Evan J.
Rosenberg of Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy LLP

The case is Barinova v. Daimler AG et al, case number L-9841-14 in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County.


EARTH FRIENDLY: Faces "Naples" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Naples, Sr., on his own behalf and those similarly
situated v. Earth Friendly Contracting, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Corporation and Ray Cooper, individually, Case No. 8:14-
cv-02766 (M.D. Fla., November 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Pasco
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      Jeffrey Corbett Moore, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com
              jmoore@forthepeople.com


EL NOPAL: Faces "Bahena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adan Bahena, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. El Nopal Bakery, Inc., and Francisco
Bonilla, Jr., Case No. 1:14-cv-08759 (N.D. Ill., November 3,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08736 (S.D.N.Y., November 3, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OFJOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

         - and -

      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com


EPIC SYSTEMS: Settles Overtime Class Action for $5.4 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that
health care software maker Epic Systems would pay $5.4 million to
settle a lawsuit by former workers who sued the company claiming
that they were not paid overtime wages to which they were
entitled, under a settlement filed in court on Oct. 31.

The proposed settlement, filed in U.S. District Court in Madison,
applies to quality assurance employees of the Verona-based
company, who sued in December over unpaid overtime wages.

Since the lawsuit was filed, originally naming one former worker
as plaintiff, 44 others have joined.  After the two sides agreed
to conditionally certify the class, just under 1,000 current and
former quality assurance workers were mailed notification of the
class action in May.

Under the agreement, Epic does not admit to the allegations made
by the former workers.  Both sides are settling the lawsuit to
avoid further expense and the risk of the case's uncertainty, the
agreement states.

The lawsuit alleged that quality assurance employees were
improperly classified by Epic as being exempt from overtime wages.
That was a point on which there was no agreement, according to a
brief that outlines the procedure leading to the settlement.

Epic maintained, according to the brief, that QA workers are
exempt either as administrative or computer employees.  Lawyers
for the QA workers maintained that the job duties of the QA
workers don't fit either of those classifications.

"The parties have divergent views regarding plaintiff's assertions
in his complaint, but were able to work toward a compromise in
this matter," wrote Noah Finkel, a lawyer for Epic, in a
declaration supporting preliminary approval of the settlement.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb.

Under the agreement, members of the class of QA workers won't have
to file claims, but will receive payments from the $5.4 million
settlement fund unless they exclude themselves.  Lawyers for the
plaintiffs will be paid from the settlement fund.

Any money left in the fund -- from workers who exclude themselves
from payments or those who don't cash their settlement checks --
will be donated to Madison-based Access Community Health Centers,
which operates clinics in Dane and Iowa counties.

"The settlement provides all participating settlement class
members a substantial benefit in light of the risk of recovery,"
wrote William Parsons, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a
declaration supporting approval of the agreement.  Mr. Parsons
wrote that before attorney fees, all will receive compensation for
hours they worked based on actual time log data, plus an average
of 3.7 hours per week to represent work time not captured by
records.


EXPRO AMERICAS: "Cormier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Cormier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Expro Americas, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03127 (S.D.
Tex., October 31, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Expro Americas, LLC provides well testing services throughout the
United States and the Gulf of Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Bid to File Documents Under Seal Gets Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued an order on November 3,
2014, granting defendant's request to file certain documents under
seal in the case captioned GLYNNIS BOHANNON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-01894-BLF, (N.D.
Cal.).

This sealing dispute came before the Court in regard to a Motion
for Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs in this matter on
August 21, 2014.  Along with their Motion for Class Certification,
and pursuant to the terms of the parties' Stipulated Protective
Order, Plaintiffs filed with the Court an administrative motion to
file certain documents under seal. The information Plaintiffs
asked the Court to seal referenced documents that Defendant
Facebook had designated "confidential" or "highly confidential."
As required by the Protective Order, Defendant filed a memorandum
in support of Plaintiffs' Motion. Following this filing,
Plaintiffs informed the Court that they intended to contest
Facebook's designations of confidentiality, stating that "[h]aving
reviewed Facebook's justifications for its designations of
confidentiality and redactions[,] Plaintiffs now believe that most
of the redactions [] are improper." The parties attempted,
unsuccessfully, to reach an agreement as to what information
should be sealed. After these attempts, the parties filed
additional briefs with the Court regarding the dispute.

According to Judge Freeman's ruling, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/iJL6pxfrom Leagle.com:

1. Defendant's request to file under seal in their entirety the 24
   exhibits to the Parker Declaration is granted.

2. Defendant's request to partially redact portions of Exhibits D,
   E, F, and V is granted.

3. Defendant's request to partially redact portions of the
   Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
   its Motion for Class Certification is granted.

Facebook, Inc., Defendant, represented by Whitty Somvichian --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Benjamin Hansel Kleine --
bkleine@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kristine Anne Forderer --
kforderer@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


FERRELLGAS COMPANY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Propane Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ferrellgas Company Inc., Ferrellgas, L.P. d/b/a Blue
Rhino LLC, Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. Ferrellgas, Inc., Ferrellgas
Partners Finance Corp., Ferrellgas Finance Corp., UGI Corporation,
Amerigas Propane, Inc., Amerigas Propane, L.P., Amerigas Partners,
L.P. d/b/a Amerigas Cylinder Exchange, Case No. 2:14-cv-08461
(C.D. Cal., October 31, 2014), arises out of the Defendants'
unfair and deceptive scheme to make more money off selling pre-
filled propane cylinders.

The Defendants sell pre-filled propane cylinders in the propane
cylinder exchange industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com


FLORAL LOGISTICS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jhon Leguizamo and other similarly situated individuals v. Floral
Logistics of Miami, Inc. and Ralph Milman, Case No. 1:14-cv-24059
(S.D. Fla., October 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Floral Logistics of Miami, Inc. is a third-party logistics
provider specializing in perishable commodities, including
flowers, produce, dairy, and meat.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOODBRIDGE LLC: "Mata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Edmundo Ramos Mata, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class v. Foodbridge LLC d/b/a Printon 56, Lets
Eat Bakery Corp. d/b/a Fresh 'N' Delish, Thomas A. Printon, Guy
Goldmeer, Amin [Last Name Unknown] and Russell [Lastname Unknown],
Case No. 1:14-cv-08754 (S.D.N.Y., November 3, 2014), seeks to
recover  unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate two food service establishments in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GAWKER MEDIA: Court Settles Dispute Over Notice of FLSA Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Bankruptcy Court granted on August 15, 2014, Plaintiffs'
motion in AULISTAR MARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GAWKER MEDIA LLC,
et al., Defendants, NO. 13-CV-4347 (AJN), (S.D.N.Y.) for
conditional certification and court-authorized notice under
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The
parties were ordered to meet and confer about the content and
dissemination of the proposed notice. On September 10, 2014, the
parties submitted a joint letter describing the remaining disputes
regarding the proposed notice, and setting forth each party's
position.

In resolution of the remaining disputes regarding the proposed
notice, District Judge Alison J. Nathan ruled that:

1) the opt-in period will be 60 days;

2) equitable tolling will not apply;

3) Plaintiffs may not use Defendant's logos on their notice;

4) Defendants are not required to post hard-copy notice in their
   offices;

5) Defendants are not required to post notice on their websites
   and blogs; and

6) Plaintiffs may send notice via social media sites, subject to
   the Court's further approval of the form and content of the
   notice.

A copy of Court's November 3, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/vRt8ekfrom Leagle.com.

Nick Denton, Defendant, represented by Mark W. Batten --
mbatten@proskauer.com -- at Proskauer Rose LLP.


GRAND A. INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Andrade, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Grand A. International Co., Inc., and Jimmy
Z. Qin, Case No. 1:14-cv-08747 (N.D. Ill., November 3, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Grand A. International Co., Inc. is a manufacturer and importer of
a wide range of consumer and food service products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GERBER PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Infant Formula, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Constance Werthe, a Wisconsin Resident, on Behalf of Herself and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Gerber Products Co., a Michigan
corporation, d/b/a Nestle Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition, and
Nestle Nutrition North America, Case No. 3:14-cv-08216 (D. Ariz.,
November 3, 2014), arises out of the Defendants' false, misleading
and deceptive advertising materials regarding the Gerber Good
Start Gentle infant formula that prevents or reduces the risk of
developing allergies.

The Defendants labeled, advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold
Gerber Good Start Gentle infant formula to consumers throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elaine Ryan, Esq.
      Patricia Syverson, Esq.
      Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq.
      2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
              psyverson@bffb.com
              lgomez@bffb.com

         - and -

      Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
      Janine Pollack, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
              pollack@whafh.com

         - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl V. Malmstrom, esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      55 W. Monroe St., Suite 1111
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 984-0001
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com


HAGGARD LAW: Faces "Delgado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Oscar Delgado and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. The Haggard Law Firm, P.A. and Michael A.
Haggard, Esq., Case No. 1:14-cv-24084 (S.D. Fla., October 31,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a law firm in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HANOVER INSURANCE: Appeal of Claims Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
appeal of the dismissal of claims of two named plaintiffs added in
the Amended Complaint in the Durand Litigation was filed on May
30, 2014 and is pending.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named
plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution
from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the
time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly
situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution
because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan
understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff
claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and those of
similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional
so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an
estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum
distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65.

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation
of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint included: (a) a
claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account
balances and lump sum payments properly because interest credits
were based solely upon the performance of each participant's
selection from among various hypothetical investment options (as
the Plan provided) rather than crediting the greater of that
performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that the
2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest crediting for all
participants from the performance of participant's investment
selections to the 30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") for participants who had account balances as of the
amendment date by not continuing to provide them performance-based
interest crediting on those balances; and (c) claims against the
Company for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice requirements
arising from the various interest crediting and lump sum
distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain.

On March 31, 2011, the District Court granted the Company and the
Plan's Motion to Dismiss on statute of limitations grounds the
additional claims set forth in (a) and (b) above, however, in
response to a motion for reconsideration, the Court allowed the
new breach of fiduciary duty claim to stand, but only as to
plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim that remained in the case. On June 22,
2012, the Company and the Plan filed a Partial Motion for Summary
Judgment to dismiss the "whipsaw" claim of one of the named
plaintiffs who received his lump sum distribution after December
31, 2003.

On October 2, 2013, the Court granted the Company and the Plan's
Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice
the "whipsaw" claim of the named plaintiff who received a lump sum
distribution after December 31, 2003 and the similar claims of the
putative class members he sought to represent. On December 17,
2013, the Court entered an order certifying a class to bring
"whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting
of all persons who received a lump sum distribution between March
1, 1997 and December 31, 2003, and a subclass to bring such claims
consisting of all persons who received lump sum distributions
between March 1, 1997 and March 12, 2002. On December 17, 2013,
the Court also granted plaintiffs' motion for entry of a final
order allowing an immediate appeal by the two named plaintiffs
added in the Amended Complaint of their dismissed claims that the
2004 Plan amendment reduced benefits in violation of ERISA, and
for one of them, that his post-2003 lump sum distribution should
have been greater.

On January 14, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Alter or Amend
the Court's December 17, 2013 Order requesting that the Court
reverse its order making the dismissed claims final and appealable
or, in the alternative, stay merits discovery on the claims
remaining in the district court pending resolution of the
dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. The Court denied this motion on
April 30, 2014. The appeal of the dismissal of the claims of the
two named plaintiffs added in the Amended Complaint was filed on
May 30, 2014 and is pending.

At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the
outcome of the suit is unfavorable. The extent to which any of the
plaintiffs' multiple theories of liability, some of which are
overlapping and others of which are quite complex and novel, are
accepted and upheld on appeal will significantly affect the Plan's
or the Company's potential liability. The statute of limitations
applicable to the class has not yet been finally determined and
the extent of potential liability, if any, will depend on this
final determination. In addition, assuming for these purposes that
the plaintiffs prevail with respect to claims that benefits
accrued or payable under the Plan were understated, then there are
numerous possible theories and other variables upon which any
revised calculation of benefits as requested under plaintiffs'
claims could be based. Any adverse judgment in this case against
the Plan would be expected to create a liability for the Plan,
with resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to pay
benefits. The Company's future required funding of the Plan could
also be impacted by such a liability.

Hanover's business operations consist of four operating segments:
Commercial Lines, Personal Lines, Chaucer and Other.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Lead Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the Lead Plaintiff in the In re Harman International
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation has filed a notice of
appeal and the matter has been fully briefed but no hearing has
yet been set.

The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against
Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September
24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,
Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common
stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during
the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the
reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,
the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff
class significant losses.

"On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock
between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in
the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the
allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original
Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

"On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period
through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the
violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,
production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The
amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the
first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class."

On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That
same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement
System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law
firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead
counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

"On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed
to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal
navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated
Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition
became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined
significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class," the Company
said.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.

On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was
reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras while Patrick Russell v.
Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. remained
before Judge Richard W. Roberts.

"On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on
defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on
September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on
defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court
granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead
Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and the matter has been
fully briefed but no hearing has yet been set," the Company said.

Harman is a worldwide leader in the development, manufacture and
marketing of a wide range of audio and electronics for consumer
and professional applications, lighting systems, video and control
solutions and information delivery systems, as well as digitally
integrated audio and infotainment systems for the automotive
industry.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: No Ruling Yet in "Russell" Case Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the Plaintiff in the case Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. filed a notice of
appeal and oral arguments on the briefs submitted by the parties
were heard on September 30, 2014, but no decision has yet been
rendered by the Court.

Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint on
December 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class
action complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and certain of the
Company's officers and directors alleging violations of ERISA and
seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the
Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Savings Plan
as well as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust,
restitution, and other monetary relief.

The Company said, "The amended complaint alleged that from April
26, 2007 to the present defendants failed to prudently and loyally
manage the Savings Plan's assets, thereby breaching their
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing the Savings Plan
to invest in our common stock notwithstanding that the stock
allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for the
Participants' retirement savings." The amended complaint further
claimed that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to
monitor the Savings Plan's fiduciaries, failed to provide the
Savings Plan's fiduciaries with, and to disclose to the Savings
Plan's participants, adverse facts regarding Harman and our
businesses and prospects."

The Russell Plaintiff also contended that defendants breached
their duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the
interests of participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan
with undivided loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary
breaches, the amended complaint asserted that the Savings Plan had
"suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of
millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated
retirement income of the Savings Plan's Participants."

"On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 5, 2008.
The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on
September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further
support of their motion to dismiss on October 20, 2008. On May 22,
2013, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
The Russell Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and oral arguments
on the briefs submitted by the parties were heard on September 30,
2014, but no decision has yet been rendered by the Court.

Harman is a worldwide leader in the development, manufacture and
marketing of a wide range of audio and electronics for consumer
and professional applications, lighting systems, video and control
solutions and information delivery systems, as well as digitally
integrated audio and infotainment systems for the automotive
industry.


HOME DEPOT: Wants Breach Suit Consolidated with First Choice Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, Jonathan Randles and Emily Field, writing for
Law360, report that The Home Depot Inc. told a Georgia federal
court on Oct. 31 that a proposed class action alleging First
Choice Federal Credit Union was damaged by the retailer's recent
data breach -- the first such suit brought by a financial
institution -- is related to another class action over the breach
and should be consolidated with it.

Pennsylvania-based First Choice maintains that its suit is
different from the class action filed by two store customers,
since theirs is a consumer class action alleging breach of credit
or debit card information, while its suit is on behalf of the
financial institutions that issued the breached payment cards.

Home Depot is asking that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidate this case with the consumers' class action,
according to its response to First Choice.  It disagreed with the
bank's assertion that the two cases weren't related, contending
that they were related because they originated from the same data
breach.

"[First Choice's opposition] rests upon a fundamental
misunderstanding of the standard for assessing whether cases are
related," Home Depot said.  "This court does not require perfect
identity of the issues, arguments and defenses.  Rather, two cases
are related as long as they involve the same facts and/or arise
out of the same transaction or occurrence."

First Choice said that its negligence claims are based in the
banks' and Home Depot's participation in the payment card
processing system, whereas the claims in the consumer class action
are predicated on a consumer-merchant relationship that isn't
applicable to the financial institutions.

"Each suit involves a wholly different type of plaintiff, seeks
different damages and is based on different legal theories, and
they do not involve the same 'issues, arguments and defenses,'"
First Choice said in a response filed earlier in October.
"Indeed, Home Depot also has implicitly recognized the many
distinctions between the Solak matter and this matter by retaining
separate counsel for the two actions."

First Choice filed suit in September seeking to recover damages on
behalf of credit unions, banks and other financial institutions
that were injured when hackers breached Home Depot's payment card
data, according to court documents.

First Choice said in its complaint that the "massive security
breach" began in April and included Home Depot's customers' names,
credit and debit card numbers, card expiration dates, card
verification values and more.

The lawsuit alleges that as a result of the breach, financial
institutions will be forced to cancel or reissue affected cards,
close certain affected accounts, and even issue refunds to
cardholders who see unauthorized transactions stemming from the
breach.

First Choice's lawsuit came on the heels of a proposed class
action filed two days after Home Depot disclosed on Sept. 2 that
hackers had broken into its computer network.

Plaintiffs John Solak and Dennis O'Rourke claim that their payment
card data was compromised as a result of the breach. O'Rourke, who
used his debit card at Home Depot, claims he incurred a fraudulent
$49.99 charge as a result of the alleged breach.

First Choice is represented by Anthony C. Lake and Thomas A.
Withers -- twithers@gwllawfirm.com -- of Gillen Withers & Lake
LLC, Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Edwin J. Kilpela
Jr. -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- and Jamisen A. Etzel of
Carlson Lynch Ltd., and Richard A. Lockridge --
ralockridge@locklaw.com -- Robert K. Shelquist --
rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Karen Hanson Riebel --
khriebel@locklaw.com -- Heidi M. Silton -- hmsilton@locklaw.com --
and Eric N. Linsk -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal
Nauen PLLP.

Home Depot is represented by Cari S. Dawson --
cari.dawson@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird LLP.

The case is First Choice Federal Credit Union v. The Home Depot
Inc., case number 1:14-cv-02975, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.


HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Airbags
------------------------------------------------------
Chris Isidore, writing for CNNMoney, reports that Honda Motor and
its airbag supplier Takata have been hit by a federal lawsuit over
defective airbags that can explode and send shards of metal into
passengers.

The suit, filed in federal court on Oct. 30, seeks class action
status on behalf of the owners of all five million Hondas affected
by the recall, alleging that they've suffered inconvenience and
financial losses.  It contends that owners have been hurt by
having limited use of their cars as well as a decline in the
resale value of their vehicles.  The suit also says car owners
have been told they'll have to wait months before Honda and Takata
have the replacement airbags needed to repair all the cars.

Finally, the suit alleges that Honda knew of the exploding airbag
problem as early as 2001 but delayed recalling the cars.

The law firm which filed the suit, Hagens Berman, won more than $1
billion in a settlement from Toyota Motor for the decreased value
of cars with an unintended acceleration problem.  It is currently
pursuing a similar case against General Motors on behalf of car
owners with a faulty ignition switch tied to at least 30 deaths.
The firm argues that case could have more than $10 billion in
damages.

Spokesmen for both Honda and Takata declined to comment.


IBERIX ENTERPRISES: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Devora Gutierrez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Iberix Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Glass & Mirror
Enterprises, Pedro Contreras and Inaky Contreras, Case No. 1:14-
cv-24091 (S.D. Fla., November 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate an automotive glass replacement
shop located in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ILLINOIS: Denial of Counsel Appointment in Suit v. IDOC Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN SANGRAAL, Plaintiff, v. S.A. GODINEZ, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 14-CV-00661-JPG-PMF, (S.D. Ill.) is before the court on
Mr. Sangraal's motion for review of a magistrate's order denying
appointment of counsel.

Mr. Sangraal filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. Section
2000cc-1, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act
("IRFRA"), 775 ILCS Section 35/15. He sues six employees of the
Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") for infringing upon
his right to practice Paganism freely and without discrimination
at Robinson Correctional Center ("Robinson") and Centralia
Correctional Center ("Centralia"). He seeks monetary damages,
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on behalf of himself
and also on behalf of those individuals similarly situated.
Mr. Sangraal filed a motion to Appoint Counsel to assist in
obtaining class certification and to determine and communicate
with potential class members.  The preliminary review of the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 1915A denied without
prejudice Plaintiff's request for class certification, but allowed
Plaintiff to proceed as to Counts 1, 2, and 3.

District Judge J. Phil Gilbert has reviewed Magistrate Judge
Frazier's Order and finds that it is neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law. Thus, the Court affirms Magistrate Judge
Frazier's Order and denies Mr. Sangraal's Motion for Review.
A copy of the Court's November 3, 2014 memorandum and order is
available at http://is.gd/9Ca4EEfrom Leagle.com.

Chaplain Kline, Centralia CC, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Lipetz, Office of the Attorney General.


ILLINOIS: Inches Closer to Vienna Prison Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Erickson, writing for Herald-Review.com, reports that a
class-action lawsuit seeking to improve conditions for inmates at
a Southern Illinois prison could be settled early next year.

In an order filed on Oct. 31, U.S. Magistrate Philip Frazier
signaled that attorneys for the two sides involved in the Vienna
Correctional Center case are inching closer to an agreement on a
settlement.

"The parties must submit a preliminary draft of the joint proposed
consent decree by January 15, 2015," Judge Frazier wrote.

Judge Frazier's order came a day after he and U.S. Judge Phil
Gilbert took the rare step of visiting the minimum-security lock-
up to see how the conditions match up with what the inmates
claimed in their original June 2012 lawsuit.

Illinois Department of Corrections spokesman Tom Shaer said the
judges spent about three hours inside the facility on Oct. 30
touring various areas of the complex.

Also on the visit were attorneys for the inmates, Vienna warden
Robert Hilliard and Randy Davis, the deputy director of the
agency's southern district.

In an email on Oct. 31, Mr. Shaer said the department believes the
visit was well received.

"IDOC requested this visit because we were eager for the judiciary
to view actual conditions at the facility," he noted.

The case was launched in June 2012 when three inmates filed a
lawsuit alleging many of the prisoners in Vienna were living in
moldy, cockroach- and mouse-infested quarters with insufficient
bathroom facilities in some of the buildings.  Broken windows on
some buildings had been simply boarded up, rather than replaced,
they said.

Educational and vocational programs, once a hallmark at the
facility, have been significantly curtailed because of state
budget problems, leading to tense conditions, the lawsuit noted.

"The severe overcrowding and the fact that the prisoners do not
have any productive way to spend their time and energy fosters an
environment of tension, unrest and violence.  Fights routinely
break out over theft as well as petty issues," the lawsuit said.

Corrections officials have been working to upgrade the facility
since the lawsuit was filed. In November 2012, officials hosted a
tour of the prison to highlight some of the improvements made to
inmate living areas.

Contacted on Nov. 2 in Chicago, attorney Kathleen Lally, who is
representing the prisoners, declined to comment on the latest
developments.

When the suit was filed, attorneys for the prisoners said the
inmates were not seeking monetary damages.


IPPUDO USA: Faces "Hyun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hyun, Jordan Ricasa, Thanh Ta, Maria Francisco and Ryan
Robinett on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. Ippudo USA Holdings, Inc, Ippudo NY, LLC,
Ippudo Westside, LLC, and Ippudo Kuro-Obi, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
08706 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as Ippudo
Westside, located at 321 West 51st Street, New York, New York
10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence M. Pearson, Esq.
      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212)257-6800
      Facsimile: (212)257-6845
      E-mail: lpearson@wigdorlaw.com
              trahman@wigdorlaw.com


J.B. HUNT: Awaits Appointment of Panel of Judges in Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company is a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in which
the plaintiffs are current and former California-based drivers who
allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, and other items.

"During the first half of 2014, the Court in the lead class-action
granted Judgment in our favor with regard to all claims," the
Company said.  "The plaintiffs have appealed the case to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals and we are currently awaiting the
appointment of a panel of judges. The overlapping claims in the
remaining two actions have been stayed pending a decision in the
lead class-action case. We cannot reasonably estimate at this time
the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from
these lawsuits."

J.B. Hunt Transport Services is one of the largest surface
transportation, delivery, and logistics companies in North
America.


JAGUAR ENERGY: Faces "Cormier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Cormier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jaguar Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03128
(S.D. Tex., October 31, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Jaguar Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company
proving well related services to oil companies and operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


KUESTER REAL: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Neil" Case Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN NEIL, KOLLIN KALK, SUSAN ZHAO, and JOHN STOEHR, Plaintiffs,
v. KUESTER REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., CHS/ASU, LLC, and KUESTER-
GREENWAY COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, NO. COA14-513 is an appeal from
the trial court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in their action against various real estate entities
which provide rental housing, largely to a college student
population, in Boone, North Carolina. The crux of Plaintiffs'
complaint concerns alleged violations of the North Carolina Tenant
Security Deposit Act, and the dispositive question in resolving
their motion for class certification concerns the remedy to which
they would be entitled under the Act.  Plaintiffs assert that the
proper remedy would be an automatic full refund of their security
deposits, obviating the need for separate trials on damages for
every prospective class member.

After careful consideration, the Court of Appeals of North
Carolina, in an opinion dated November 4, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/CADCuvfrom Leagle.com, held that, for
the violations of the Act alleged, Plaintiffs would not be
entitled to an automatic full refund, but rather, would only be
entitled to a refund of any amounts withheld from their security
deposits for a use not permitted by the Act. Determination of the
appropriate amount of each Plaintiff's refund would require
individual trials, thus rendering class action an inferior method
for the adjudication of Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the
Appeals Court affirms the order of the trial court denying
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

For Defendants CHS/ASU, LLC, and Kuester-Greenway Company, LLC:

     Victoria H. Tobin, Esq.
     TURNER LAW OFFICE, PA
     136 North Water Street
     Boone, NC 28607
     Tel: 828-264-5900
     Fax: 828-264-9767


MARRONE BIO: Hedge Funds Sue Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., and Special Situations
Cayman Fund, L.P, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G.
Marrone, James B. Boyd, Donald J. Glidewell, Hector Absi, Elin
Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag, Tim Fogarty, Lawrence
Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard Rominger and Shaugn
Stanley, Case No. 2:14-cv-02571 (E.D. Cal., November 3, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. purports to provide effective,
sustainable pest management solutions that are safe for people and
protective of the environment.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Marrone
Bio Innovations, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. McQaughey, Esq.
      LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
      390 Lytton Avenue
      Palo Alto, CA 94301
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com

         - and -

      Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq.
      Steven M. Hecht, Esq.
      Thomas E. Redburn, Esq.
      LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (646) 414-6902
      Facsimile: (973) 597-2381
      E-mail: shecht@lowenstein.com
              tredburn@lowenstein.com


MARRONE BIO: Hedge Funds File 2nd Suit Over Misleading Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., and Special Situations
Cayman Fund, L.P, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G.
Marrone, James B. Boyd, Donald J. Glidewell, Hector Absi, Elin
Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag, Tim Fogarty, Lawrence
Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard Rominger and Shaugn
Stanley, Case No. 2:14-at-01386 (E.D. Cal., November 3, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. purports to provide effective,
sustainable pest management solutions that are safe for people and
protective of the environment.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Marrone
Bio Innovations, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. McQaughey, Esq.
      LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
      390 Lytton Avenue
      Palo Alto, CA 94301
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com

         - and -

      Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq.
      Steven M. Hecht, Esq.
      Thomas E. Redburn, Esq.
      LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (646) 414-6902
      Facsimile: (973) 597-2381
      E-mail: shecht@lowenstein.com
              tredburn@lowenstein.com


MM 130 BOWERY: Faces "Westropp" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Westropp, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated v. David Marvisi, Case No. 1:14-cv-08695 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation or benefits for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours each week.

David Marvisi owns MM 130 Bowery Rest. Corp.

MM 130 Bowery Rest. Corp. owns and operates the Capitale catering
facility in downtown Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirschenbaumm, Esq.
      Matthew Kadushin, Esq
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548


MURPHY DISTRIBUTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony San Miguel, and Aaron Soliz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Murphy Distribution, Inc., d/b/a
Interstate Industrial & Fleet Services, d/b/a Interstate Collision
& Service Center, and Don Murphy, individually, Case No. 4:14-cv-
03131 (S.D. Tex., October 31, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages.

The Defendants own and operate a blasting and painting company
within the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002-1637
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
              melissa@mooreandassociates.net


NBTY INC: Falsely Marketed Gingko Biloba Products, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Petkevicius on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NBTY, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Nature's
Bounty, Inc., a New York Corporation and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:14-
cv-02616 (S.D. Cal., November 3, 2014), arises out of the
Defendants' false, misleading and deceptive advertising message
regarding its Ginkgo biloba-based supplements that purportedly
provide a variety of health benefits centered around improving
mild memory problems, supporting mental alertness, and supporting
healthy brain function.

The Defendants manufacture, advertise, market and distribute
Ginkgo Biloba product, under separate, private labels sold at a
variety of grocery stores, retail stores, and pharmacies across
the country.

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) 756-6690
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Ruling in Public School Workers' Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGill, writing for Associated Press, reports that
Louisiana's Supreme Court on Oct. 31 dismissed a lawsuit filed on
behalf of thousands of New Orleans public school workers who were
fired after Hurricane Katrina laid waste to much of the city in
2005.

It was a reversal of fortune for the employees, who had won at the
district and appellate levels.  For the state of Louisiana and the
New Orleans school board, it meant an apparent end to a lawsuit
that could have cost well over $1 billion.

The high court said the fired employees' due-process rights were
not violated.  It also said the issues had been dealt with in a
separate lawsuit bought by the New Orleans teachers' union.

Katrina struck in August 2005, flooding an estimated 80 percent of
New Orleans and scattering its population.

With schools in no shape to open, the Orleans Parish School Board
dismissed more than 7,000 employees -- teachers, aides, service
workers and others.  And the state began taking over most schools
in the system, plagued long before Katrina by corruption,
mismanagement, terrible test scores and high dropout rates.

Civil District Judge Ethel Simms Julien had awarded more than $1
million to seven people, but that ruling also made more than 7,000
others eligible to seek damages because it came in a class-action
suit.  Exactly how much money was at stake was unclear, although
at one point during the appeals process an attorney estimated an
early district court ruling in favor of the employees could cost
the board as much as $1.5 billion.

A state appeals court largely affirmed the ruling in January.  But
the seven-member court Supreme Court dismissed the suit on Oct. 31
with two dissents.


NEW YORK, NY: Appeals Court Upholds Stop-and-Frisk Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Azi Paybarah and Colby Hamilton, writing for Capital New York,
report that a federal appeals court on Oct. 31 upheld a lower
court ruling that police unions in New York City cannot formally
join a federal class-action lawsuit over the stop-and-frisk
policing tactic.

Last year, a judge ruled the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk violated
the civil rights of New Yorkers because it unduly targeted people
of color.

The decision on Oct. 31 by the Second Circuit of Appeals in the
Floyd v. City of New York case effectively allows Mayor Bill de
Blasio's administration to negotiate a deal with the plaintiffs,
after a tentative agreement was announced in January.

The three-judge panel noted that the unions had only acted to
intervene after the election of Mayor Bill de Blasio, and ruled
that "granting the unions' motions in the wake of the November
2013 mayoral election would essentially condone a collateral
attack on the democratic process and could erode the legitimacy of
decisions made by the democratically-elected representatives of
the people."

Legal challenges by a number of police unions, who sought a formal
role in negotiations after de Blasio made clear he would drop the
city's appeal, effectively halted Judge Shira Scheindlin's ruling
from being put into place.

Judge Scheindlin ordered the department to establish a court
monitor to oversee the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk for three
years (followed by an additional two years of monitoring by the
newly created Inspector General for the NYPD).  Judge Scheindlin
also called for at least one precinct in each borough to place
body cameras on police officers for at least one year.

(The NYPD later announced a pilot program where 60 officers
volunteered to wear body cameras, and police commissioner Bill
Bratton has aimed to have them used throughout the department.)

"The Second Circuit decision clears the way for implementation of
the remedial measures to which the City agreed as part of the stop
& frisk litigation," said the city's corporation counsel, Zachary
Carter, in a statement.

Baher Azmy, the legal director for the Center for Constitutional
Rights, one of the groups that helped bring the Floyd case,
celebrated the ruling in a statement.  He said it "confirms the
unions cannot claim they are harmed by court orders simply
requiring them to comply with the Constitution.  Now, after the
unions' unnecessary obstructionism, all New Yorkers can work
together to end racially discriminatory policing and bring
meaningful reform and accountability to the NYPD."

Police unions celebrated part of the decision, in which the court
said its ruling should not prohibit the district court from
considering the unions' interest in the remedies.

Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent
Association, said, "The court made clear that the PBA's collective
bargaining and state law rights do not take a back seat to what is
clearly a voluntary agreement between plaintiffs and the City, a
point the PBA has made repeatedly since the agreement was struck
by the new administration.  The PBA will continue to monitor
actions taken in this process moving forward to ensure that they
do not violate the rights of NYC police officers."


OLE MEXICAN: Falsely Marketed Tortilla Products, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Guttmann, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ole Mexican Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04845 (N.D.
Cal., October 31, 2014), alleges that the Defendant uses various
marketing methods to falsely represent Xtreme Wellness tortilla
products as healthful and not harmful to the cardiovascular system
when in fact, Xtreme Wellness contains dangerous levels of
partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (PHVO).

PHVO is a food additive banned in many parts of the world due to
its artificial trans fat content.

Ole Mexican Foods, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that owns,
manufactures and sells Xtreme Wellness.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      Melanie Persinger, Esq.
      Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 798-2006
      Facsimile: (480) 247-4553
      E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
              mel@westonfirm.com
              paul@westonfirm.com


OLYMPIA MOVING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navil Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Olympia Moving and Storage, Inc., and Ben
Tesler, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08692 (N.D. Ill., October
31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Olympia Moving and Storage, Inc. provides households and business
with moving and storage solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONWARD LLC: "Austin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Austin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Onward, LLC, Maritime Sanitation, Inc., and Autrey P.
McVicker, II, 3:14-cv-00350 (S.D. Tex., November 3, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-
judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Onward, LLC provides consultant services for the Oil and Gas
Industry.

Maritime Sanitation, Inc. provides sewage waste management
services to the boating community and maritime industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
      STARZYK AND ASSOC PC
      10200 Grogans Mill Rd, Suite 300
      The Woodlands, TX 77380
      Telephone: (281) 364-7261
      E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com


OUTERWALL INC: Redbox Motion to Dismiss to be Argued Today
----------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the motion of
Redbox to dismiss all remaining claims in the class action by
Laurie Piechur is fully briefed, and is tentatively scheduled to
be argued on November 12, 2014.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in
the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things,
Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois
Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract
Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and
other relief.

In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the
District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May
2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class
certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court
denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an
amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

The amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At
the hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification,
the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only
her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and
the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the
court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion.

On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's
petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of class
certification. Redbox has moved to dismiss all remaining claims on
mootness grounds. The motion is fully briefed, and is tentatively
scheduled to be argued on November 12, 2014.

"We believe that the claims against us are without merit and
intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently,
no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate," the
Company said.

Outerwall provides automated retail solutions offering convenient
products and services that benefit consumers and drive incremental
retail traffic and revenue for retailers.


OUTERWALL INC: Appeal in "Boesky" Suit Fully Briefed
----------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the the appeal in
the Blake Boesky class action was fully briefed as of July 1,
2014, and argument occurred on September 26, 2014.  The appellate
court has not scheduled a date for argument.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the
same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk.

Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced
by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended
complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally
identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of
retention of such information. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and
interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The court denied
Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon
interlocutory appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the
district court's denial of Redbox's motion to dismiss plaintiff's
claims involving retention of information, holding that the
plaintiffs could not maintain a suit for damages under this
theory. On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint
to add claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 2707, and for breach of contract. On May 9, 2012, Redbox
moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2012, the
court dismissed the added retention claims, except to the extent
that plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief.

On August 16, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in Redbox's
favor on all remaining claims, and entered a final judgment for
Redbox. On September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
The appeal was fully briefed as of July 1, 2014, and argument
occurred on September 26, 2014.  The appellate court has not
scheduled a date for argument.

"We believe that the claims against us are without merit and
intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently,
no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate," the
Company said.

Outerwall provides automated retail solutions offering convenient
products and services that benefit consumers and drive incremental
retail traffic and revenue for retailers.


PANANG THAI: Sued on Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Guachichulca, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Panang Thai Cuisine, Inc. and Piyasit
Suwatthee, Case No. 1:14-cv-08762 (N.D. Ill., November 3, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHL VARIABLE: Illegally Increases Insurance Costs, SPRR Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SPRR LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated.
v. PHL Variable Insurance Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-08714 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 31, 2014), arises out of the unlawful and discriminatory
cost of insurance increase imposed by the Defendant.

PHL Variable Insurance Co. is an insurance company, having its
corporate headquarters in Hartford, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arun S. Subramanian, Esq.
      Seth Ard, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 336-8330
      Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
      E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      Frances S. Lewis, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
              flewis@susmangodfrey.com


PMKS WICHITA: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PMKS Wichita, LLC, and Schrene Davis, Case No. 6:14-
cv-01364 (D. Kan., November 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
straight time, overtime premium, liquidated damages, and for the
attorneys fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are regularly engage in interstate commerce and in
the production of goods for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald N. Peterson, Esq.
      Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
      WITHERS, GOUGH, PIKE, PFAFF & PETERSON LLC
      O.W. Garvey Building
      200 W. Douglas, Suite 1010
      Wichita, KS 67202
      Telephone: (316) 266-5023
      Facsimile: (316) 303-1018
      E-mail: dpeterson@withersgough.com
              smcgivern@withersgough.com


RADAR-SAT INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Davis, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Radar - Sat Inc., a/k/a
Cable Buster, Radar Sat Installation Inc., Rafal Stykowski, and
Dish Network, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08746 (N.D. Ill., November 3,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide cable installation services to clients in
the Chicago land area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com


RED ONION: Muhammad's Bid to Classify Case as Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul Hamza Wali Muhammad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
alleging that prison officials at Red Onion State Prison
interfered with his ability to utilize the grievance procedures
concerning specific complaints about his religious diet.

In the heading of his complaint, Mr. Muhammad lists inmate Uhuru-
Sekou Obitaiya-Allah as a co-plaintiff and moves to have his
dietary claim certified as a "class action," with Muhammad and
Obitaiya-Allah as the representatives of the class.

District Judge Glen E. Conrad held that the court cannot certify a
class in an action where a pro se litigant seeks to represent the
interests of the class.  Therefore, Mr. Muhammad's request to
classify this case as a class action will be denied, he said.

Upon review of the record, the court further found that the action
must be summarily dismissed.  A copy of the Court's November 3,
2014 memorandum opinion is available at http://is.gd/smPDfPfrom
Leagle.com.

The case is ABDUL HAMZA WALI MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD W.
CLARKE, ET AL, Defendant(s), CASE NO. 7:14CV00272, (W.D. Va.).

Abdul Hamza Wali Muhammad, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


RENTAL CONCEPTS: "Files" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Scott Files, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Rental Concepts, LLC, Rental Concepts Jonesboro, LLC,
d/b/a RNR Custom Wheels and Performance, Case No. 3:14-cv-00260
(E.D. Ark., November 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act

The Defendants are companies that sell, on a rent to own basis,
and service aftermarket designer custom wheels and tires for
automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      188 East Capitol Street, Suite 777
      Jackson, MS 39201
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com


REX ITALIAN: Faces "Higuera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Higuera, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Rex Italian Foods, Inc., and Josephine
Pinello, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08704 (N.D. Ill., November
1, 2014), is brought against the Defendants wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROYAL OAK: Faces "Coria" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Coria, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Royal Oak Landscaping, Inc., and Michael
Tameling, Case No. 1:14-cv-08697 (N.D. Ill., October 31, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping company, doing
business within the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SACRAMENTO COUNTY: "White" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the action captioned LLOYD WHITE, Plaintiff, v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN JAIL MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-1572 AC P., (E.D. Cal.), filed his case
while a county inmate and is currently a state prisoner proceeding
pro se.  He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and
has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 to
proceed in forma pauperis.

Magistrate Judge Allison Claire, in an order dated November 3,
2014, granted the Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.

"Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00
for this action," ruled Magistrate Judge Claire. "Plaintiff is
assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be
collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the
Director of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith."

"The complaint is dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with
leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days from
the date of service of this order," Magistrate Judge Claire added.
"Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of
this action."

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/KoTf3Ffrom
Leagle.com.

Lloyd White, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: "Portilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Portilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Safeway Construction Enterprises Inc., Pedena Inc.,
Pennat Inc., Steve Cestaro, John Doe, Executor In The Matter of
The Estate of Guido Dire, Deceased, Jane and John Does 1-10,
John Doe Corporations 1-10, seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a site development and utilities
construction company based in Maspeth, New York.

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) 756-6990
      E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com


SAMSUNG TELECOM: Parties in McNamara Case Directed to Arbitrate
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber granted the defendants' motion
to compel arbitration in the case captioned JOHN McNAMARA, TONY
GUGLIOTTA, MELISSA NELSON, and RUDY WOODWARD, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Case Plaintiffs, v.
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
COMPANY, LTD., Defendants, NO. 14 C 1676, (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs are all purchasers of Samsung Galaxy S4
smartphones.  They contend that the Galaxy's battery failed to
live up to consumer and industry standards and the product
specifications.  The specific complaint is that the capability of
continuous usage was far short of what Samsung claimed in the
specifications.  Plaintiffs seek to represent various classes of
consumers.  They bring claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq.
alleging breach of express warranty and breach of implied
warranty.  Each Plaintiff purchased his smartphone through a
different provider: McNamara through T-Mobile, Gugliotta through
AT&T, Nelson through Cricket, and Woodward through Verizon.
Samsung has moved to compel arbitration on an individual, non-
class basis because of arbitration agreements contained in the
Standard Limited Warranty which was located in the respective
manuals provided in the packaging.

"The proceedings in this matter are stayed pending outcome of
Plaintiffs' arbitrations," ruled Judge Leinenweber in his
memorandum opinion and order dated November 3, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/msec7Nfrom Leagle.com.

MELISSA NELSON, Movant, represented by Katrina Carroll, Esq. --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- at Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Kyle
Alan Shamberg, Esq. -- kShamberg@litedepalma.com -- at Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC & Richard R Gordon --
richard.gordon@gordonlawchicago.com -- at Gordon Law Offices, Ltd.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Motion to Stay Discovery in Ritz Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action against SanDisk
Corporation, alleging claims for relief under Section 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2.  The parties are
presently before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion to stay discovery
and other case deadlines pending resolution of their motion for
class certification. SanDisk opposes the motion.

District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denies the Plaintiffs'
motion saying they failed to demonstrate that an extension of the
pretrial deadlines will promote judicial economy or efficiency, or
avoid unnecessary costs.

A copy of the Court's November 3, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/7n14ozfrom Leagle.com.

The case is ALFRED T. GIULIANO, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz
Estate; CPM ELECTRONICS INC.; E.S.E. ELECTRONICS, INC.; and
MFLASH, INC., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANDISK CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO:
C 10-02787 SBA, (N.D. Cal.).

Alfred T. Giuliano, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz Estate,
Plaintiff, represented by Colleen Duffy-Smith, Morgan Duffy-Smith
& Tidalgo, LLP, Alexander Samuel Edelson, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans and Figel, PLLC, Jason Scott Hartley, Stueve Siegel
Hanson, LLP, Joseph S. Hall, Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans and
Figel, P.L.L.C, Melanie L. Bostwick, Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd
Evans Figel. P.L.L.C., Michael E. Joffre, Kellogg Huber Hansen
Todd Evans & Figel, PLLC, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP, Robert Stephen Berry, Berry Law PLLC, Ryan Dennis O'Dell,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Steven F. Benz, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd & William J. Conynham, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
Figel.

CPM Electronics, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Colleen Duffy-Smith,
Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, LLP, Alexander Samuel Edelson,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans and Figel, PLLC, Jason Scott
Hartley, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Joseph S. Hall, Kellogg Huber
Hansen Todd Evans and Figel, P.L.L.C, Melanie L. Bostwick, Kellogg
Huber Hansen Todd Evans Figel. P.L.L.C., Michael E. Joffre,
Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel, PLLC, Norman E. Siegel,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Robert Stephen Berry, Berry Law PLLC,
Ryan Dennis O'Dell, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Steven F. Benz,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & William J. Conynham, Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel.

E.S.E. Electronics, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Colleen Duffy-Smith,
Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, LLP, Alexander Samuel Edelson,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans and Figel, PLLC, Jason Scott
Hartley, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Joseph S. Hall, Kellogg Huber
Hansen Todd Evans and Figel, P.L.L.C, Melanie L. Bostwick, Kellogg
Huber Hansen Todd Evans Figel. P.L.L.C., Michael E. Joffre,
Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel, PLLC, Norman E. Siegel,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Robert Stephen Berry, Berry Law PLLC,
Ryan Dennis O'Dell, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Steven F. Benz,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & William J. Conynham, Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel.

MFLASH, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Samuel Edelson,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans and Figel, PLLC.

Sandisk Corporation, Defendant, represented by Raoul Dion Kennedy,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, David W. Hansen, Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Ian Chen, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP, James Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP, Michael Menitove, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher and Flom, LLP & Patrick Maben Hammon, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher Flom.

Eliyahou Harari, Defendant, represented by Raoul Dion Kennedy,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, David W. Hansen, Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP & James Patrick Schaefer, Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.

FTI Consulting, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Nolan
Edward Shanahan, Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman and Leonard, P.A..
SK hynix America Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Jeffrey
Michael Ratinoff, K&L Gates.


SD & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Bonner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juba Bonner, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. S. D. & Associates, Inc., and Stanley
Howard, Case No. 1:14-cv-08751 (N.D. Ill., November 3, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

S. D. & Associates, Inc. is a Chicago-based private detective and
security consulting agency

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SERVICE CORPORATION: Settles Individuals Claims in "Bryant et al"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company settled claims of certain individuals in Bryant, et al. v.
Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. RG-07359593;
and Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI; Case No. RG-07359602; in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, for
an amount which is not material to SCI, and the Company expects
these cases to be dismissed.

Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case
No. RG-07359593; and Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI; Case No. RG-
07359602; in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Alameda, were filed on December 5, 2007. These cases were
removed to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco/Oakland Division.
The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-CV-01190-SI and the Helm case
is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI.

On December 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The
plaintiffs modified and refiled their motion for certification. On
March 9, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' renewed motions to
certify a class in both of the Bryant and Helm cases and dismissed
the Helm case. The Helm plaintiff is appealing the court's order
decertifying her claims. The plaintiffs have also (i) filed
additional lawsuits with similar allegations seeking class
certification of state law claims in different states, and (ii)
made a large number of demands for arbitration.

In October 2014, the Company settled claims of certain individuals
in these cases for an amount which is not material to SCI, and the
Company expects these cases to be dismissed. Accordingly, the
Company considers this matter to be closed.

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral homes and cemeteries unequaled in geographic scale and
reach.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Files Exceptions to "Moulton" Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014.

Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation
International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil
District Court Parish of New Orleans, was filed as a class action
in June 2013 against SCI and the Company's subsidiary in
connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The
plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in
negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a
subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the
combination.  The Company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs'
complaint that were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to
appeals, SCI will no longer be a party to the suit. The case will
continue against the Company's subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and
its former individual directors.  The Comopany cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages.

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral homes and cemeteries unequaled in geographic scale and
reach.


SOTHEBY'S: 9th Cir. Agrees to Rehear Royalties Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that in
a somewhat unusual development, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
has agreed to rehear en banc a dispute over the constitutionality
of the California Resale Royalties Act.

Chuck Close, Laddie John Dill and the estate of the sculptor
Robert Graham are challenging the rejection of their class action
lawsuit against Sotheby's, Christie's and online auction giant
eBay for violating the California law that entitles artists to
claim five percent of resale royalties on any work sold for more
than $1,000, so long as the seller resides or the transaction
happens in California.

The law was put on the books in 1976, yet sparked few lawsuits
until recently.  But in May 2012, the artists ran into a roadblock
when U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Nguyen dismissed the claims as
running afoul of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"The following example illustrates the CRRA's problematic reach,"
wrote the judge in her opinion. "Assume a California resident
places a painting by a New York artist up for auction at Sotheby's
in New York, and at the auction a New York resident purchases the
painting for $1,000,000."

Even though such a transaction happened in New York and the artist
is a New Yorker, just the fact that seller is a California citizen
could spark a lawsuit over royalties.  Thus, the judge concluded
that the "practical effect" of the law was controlling interstate
commerce even though it may have some "effects within the State."

After the lawsuit was rejected by the judge, the artists appealed
it up to the 9th Circuit, which held oral arguments last April.
Reportedly, a three-panel judge assigned to the case was skeptical
about reviving the class action and seemed inclined to strike down
the law as unconstitutional.

On Oct. 30, it was announced that a fuller panel of appellate
judges at the 9th Circuit would rehear arguments in December.
What makes that unusual is that no opinion from the 9th Circuit
ever came after that April hearing.  Instead, the appellate
circuit has elected to skip right to the en banc hearing.  Why
this happened was that two recent other cases -- one involving the
regulation of carbon dioxide emissions and another involving a
health and safety ordinance on the feeding of ducks for the
purposes of foie gras -- offered some potentially conflicting
conclusions on how a California law may or may not discriminate
against out-of-state interests.

And so, the 9th Circuit will now be giving weighty review on a
decision that could not only transform the art world by figuring
out if artists have a "droit de suite" to collect a fee from art
sellers, but maybe go even further, possibly impacting big
subjects like whether states can unilaterally impose measures like
cap-and-trade to curb climate change.  Stated another way, this
Chuck Close painting looks one way when viewed up close, but pull
back, and the microscopic designs begin to reveal something
massive.


STAR BULK: Nobu Su Leads Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
TradeWinds reports that the masterminds behind the merger between
Star Bulk Carriers and Greek compatriot Oceanbulk have emerged as
the targets of a class action lawsuit led by Nobu Su.

The Nasdaq-quoted bulker owner alerted investors about the dispute
with the embattled Taiwanese shipping magnate in a prospectus tied
to a fundraiser that began on Oct. 30.

Star Bulk described the case as a "derivative and punitive class
action lawsuit" brought a "purported shareholder" against its
chief executive, board of directors and several shareholders.

"The lawsuit alleges that our acquisition of Oceanbulk and
purchase of several Excel vessels were the result of self-dealing
by various defendants and that we entered into the transactions on
unfair terms," it added.

"The lawsuit further alleges that, as a result of the
transactions, several defendants' interests in Star Bulk Carriers
Corp have increased and that the plaintiff's interest in Star Bulk
Carriers Corp has been diluted."

Star Bulk, a nominal defendant, said the suit seeks unspecified
monetary damages and the cancellation of shares that were issued
to the defendants when it took over Oceanbulk and acquired tonnage
from Excel Maritime Carriers.

The operator, which pointed out that the plaintiff is also calling
for the resignation of its chief executive and several board
members, said the claims are "completely without merit" and
pledged "to vigorously defend against them".

While Star Bulk failed to identify the plaintiff or defendants by
name and omitted other specifics about the suit, which was filed
in New York's Supreme Court, TradeWinds tracked down a copy in an
effort to fill in the blanks.

Plaintiff

The suit identifies the plaintiff as F5 Capital, which is owned by
Nobu Su, who served on Star Bulk's board until 2008 following what
it described as a "falling out" with Petros Pappas.  The plaintiff
claims it had a 1.4% stake in Star Bulk prior to the merger with
Oceanbulk.

As the former chairman of Today Makes Tomorrow, which filed for
bankruptcy in Houston last year, Su is no stranger to the US legal
system.  Today, observers note he is also locked in a legal battle
in the UK over the collapse of a deal involving forward freight
agreements.

Defendants

The list of defendants includes Star Bulk chairman Spyros
Capralos, chief executive Petros Pappas and his daughter Maria
plus members of the owner's board: Rodger Schmitz, Tom Softeland,
Koert Erherdt, Renee Kemp, Emily Stephens and Stelios Zavvos.

In addition to Rajath Sourie, Oceanbulk Shipping and Oceanbulk
Carriers, funds controlled by private equity giant Oaktree Capital
Management and affiliates of Monarch Alternative Investments are
identified as defendants as well.

Allegations

In the suit the plaintiff argued that Star Bulk's chief executive,
chairman and members of the board were acting in their own best
interest when they pursued the takeover with Oceanbulk and
acquisition of assets from Excel Maritime Carriers.

"The proposed merger was, in reality, an 'inside out' merger meant
to reward Pappas and his cohorts through increased shareholder
control and new sweetheart management positions at Star Bulk," it
said after outlining various ties between Star Bulk, Oceanbulk,
Oaktree, Monarch and Excel.

The plaintiff noted that, following the deals that are the centre
of the suit, the defendants were left with an 80% stake in Star
Bulk.  On Oct. 31, filings indicate that Oakree, Pappas and his
affiliates, Angelo Gordon and Monarch control 57.4%, 9.3%, 6.3%
and 5.4% of its shares, respectively.

Attempts to reach Star Bulk Carriers, Oaktree and other defendants
named in the lawsuit for comment were not immediately successful
at the time of writing on Oct. 31.


STATE FARM: Sued Over Suppression of Automotive Repair Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Main Paint & Body, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02417 (N.D. Ohio, October 31, 2014), seeks
to redress the Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to suppress
compensation to repair facilities for automotive collision repairs
covered by insurance.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. is comprised of a group of
companies that issue automotive collision insurance throughout the
State of Ohio, and operate as a single, integrated enterprise for
claims adjustment and administrative purposes, including, without
limitation, the conduct and subject matter at issue in this
action.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
      James B. Rosenthal, Esq.
      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      COHEN ROSENTHAL &KRAMER LLP
      The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400
      700 West St. Clair Ave.
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 781-7956
      Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
      E-mail: jcohen@crklaw.com
              jrosenthal@crklaw.com
              jbristol@crklaw.com

         - and -

      Peter D. Traska, Esq.
      TRASKA LAW FIRM, LLC
      P.O. Box 609306
      Cleveland, OH 44109
      Telephone: (216) 282-4738
      Facsimile: (216) 342-7078
      E-mail: ptraska@traskalawfirm.com

         - and -

      Erica L. Eversman, Esq.
      846 N. Cleveland-Massillon Road
      Bath, OH 44333-2181
      Telephone: (330) 668-2595
      Facsimile: (330) 668-2627
      Email: eeversman@vehicleinfo.com

        - and -

      Dennis A. Becker, Esq.
      BECKER & CADE
      526 Wards Comer Road, Suite A
      Loveland, OH 45140-9134
      Telephone: (513) 683-2252
      Facsimile: (513) 683-2257
      Email: dabecker@fuse.net


STATE FARM: Court Denies Guadiana's Motion for Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------
Pending before the court in Rosemary Guadiana, Plaintiff, v. State
Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, NO. CIV 07-326 TUC FRZ
(LAB), (D. Ariz.) is the plaintiff's motion for judgment filed on
August 27, 2014.

The plaintiff in this class action, Rosemary Guadiana, claims the
defendant breached her homeowner's insurance policy by failing to
pay the cost of tearing out and replacing part of the structure
when she replaced her polybutylene (PB) plumbing.  Ms. Guadiana
maintains that when a section of PB pipe springs a leak, the only
way to fix the plumbing system is to replace all the PB pipe.
Having done just that, Ms. Guadiana claims her insurer must pay
the tear-out cost associated with accessing and replacing all that
pipe.  Ms. Guadiana moved for judgment based on her successful
motion for partial summary judgment.

The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Bowman for all
pretrial matters pursuant to LRCiv 72.1.

In a report and recommendation entered November 3, 2014, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court, after its
independent review of the record, enter an order denying the
plaintiff's motion for judgment.

"The motion should be denied. Guadiana is not entitled to judgment
at this time on her claim for breach of contract," ruled District
Judge James A. Soto.  A copy of the ruling is available at
http://is.gd/3EEz4Ffrom Leagle.com.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by
James R Broening -- jrb@bowwlaw.com -- Broening Oberg Woods &
Wilson PC, Michael S McCarthy -- michael.mccarthy@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre Baker & Daniels LLP, Robert Thomas Aquinas Sullivan --
rts@bowwlaw.com -- Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson PC, Todd P Walker
-- todd.walker@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker & Daniels LLP & Tyler
Maxwell Abrahams -- tma@bowwlaw.com -- Broening Oberg Woods &
Wilson PC.


STONEHAM DRILLING: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley "Dean" Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stoneham Drilling Corporation and Western
Energy Services Corp., 1:14-cv-02969 (D. Colo., October 31, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation or benefits for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours each week.

The Defendants own and operate an oilfield located at 1675
Broadway, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado 80202.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces "Tuttle" Suit Over Sale of Corn
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen W. Tuttle v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02554
(D. Kan., October 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain
elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the
dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or
otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles F. Speer, Esq.
      SPEER LAW FIRM, P.A.
      104 West 9th Street, Suite 400
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 472-3560
      Facsimile: (816) 421-2150
      E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
      Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
      James A. O'Brien III, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water St., 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com
              dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
              jobrien@seegerweiss.com


SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Sued Over Dangers Caused by Viptera Corn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlynn Hamilton v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00345
(D. Neb., November 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain
elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the
dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or
otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul D. Lundberg, Esq.
      LUNDBERG LAW FIRM, P.L.C.
      600 Fourth St., Suite 906
      Sioux City, IA 51101
      Telephone: (712) 234-3030
      Facsimile: (712) 234-3034
      E-mail: paul@lundberglawfirm.com

         - and -

      Charles F. Speer, Esq.
      SPEER LAW FIRM, P.A.
      104 West 9th Street, Suite 400
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 472-3560
      Facsimile: (816) 421-2150
      E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
      Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
      James A. O'Brien III, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water St., 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com
              dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
              jobrien@seegerweiss.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces Gilbert Art Suit Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Art, LLC v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-
02520 (E.D. La., November 3, 2014), alleges that the defective
vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that,
instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during
accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with
lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
      Bruce S. Kingsdorf, Esq.
      Zachary L. Wool, Esq.
      BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
      701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
      New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
      Telephone: (504) 524-3300
      Facsimile: (504) 524-3313
      E-mail: barrios@bkc-law.com
              bkingsdorf@bkc-law.com
              zwool@bkc-law.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
      Phong-Chau Nguyen
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      Embarcadero Center West
      275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
              twalburg@lchb.com
              pgnguyen@lchb.com

         - and -

      Russ M. Herman, Esq.
      Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
      HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
      820 O'Keefe Avenue
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 581-4892
      Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
      E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
              ldavis@hhklawfirm.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Morris, Adam Wishkovsky, Cyndee Wishkovsky, Peter
Breschnev, and Avis Scott, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-
cv-14209 (E.D. Mich., October 31, 2014), alleges that the
defective vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant
that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury
during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants
with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      101 North Main Street, Suite 565
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 769-2144
      Facsimile: (734) 769-1207
      E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
      Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 864-280
      Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
      E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
              ktucker@caffertyclobes.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Bonet" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Bonet, Keile Allen, Gerson Joseph, Idotenyin Umoh, Meliza
Gurian, Angela Ruffin, and Deborah Morgan, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et la.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-24087 (S.D. Fla., October 31, 2014), alleges that
the defective vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the
Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from
bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel
vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and
shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andres Rivero, Esq.
      Jorge Mestre, Esq.
      Charlie Whorton, Esq.
      Michael Fasano, Esq.
      RIVERO MESTRE LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste. 1000
      Miami, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 445-2500
      Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
      E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
              jmestre@riveromestre.com
              cwhorton@riveromestre.com
              mfasano@riveromestre.com

         - and -

      John Scarola, Esq.
      SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
      2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
      West Palm Beach, FL 33409
      Telephone: (561) 686-6300
      Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
      E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com

         - and -

      Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti
      Robert Neary, Esq.
      Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
      Joshua L. Plager, Esq.
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Miami, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
              tr@kttlaw.com
              rn@kttlaw.com
              tjl@kttlaw.com
              jplager@kttlaw.com

         - and -

      Lance August Harke, Esq.
      HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
      9699 NE Second Ave.
      Miami, FL 33138
      Telephone: (305) 536-8220
      Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
      E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com

         - and -

      Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.
      Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: 205-314-0500
      E-mail: gwiggins@wcqp.com
              kjent@wcqp.com

         - and -

      Allan A. Joseph, Esq.
      FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH, PL
      1001 Brickell Bay Drive, 32nd Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 350-5690
      Fax: (786) 364-7995

         - and -

      Chip Merlin, Esq.
      Mary Fortson, Esq.
      MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
      Tampa, FL
      Telephone: (813) 229-1000
      E-mail: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com
              mfortson@merlinlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Phillip Sanov, Esq.
      MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Three Riverway, Suite 701
      Houston, TX
      Telephone: (713) 626-8880
      E-mail: PSanov@merlinlawgroup.com


TD BANK: Settles 2012 Data Breach Suit for $850,000
---------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that TD Bank has agreed to pay an
$850,000 settlement with nine states to resolve an investigation
into a 2012 data breach that affected thousands of consumers.  The
breach involved the loss of unencrypted backup tapes in
Massachusetts, which contained personal information of 260,000 TD
Bank customers.  The agreement will resolve consumer protection
and privacy claims and requires the bank to notify customers in a
timely manner of any future breaches of security or other
acquisitions of personal information in a timely manner.


TESCO PLC: Faces "Buggs" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kasey M. Buggs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tesco PLC, Philip Clarke, and Laurie McIlwee, Case No.
14-cv-08696 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


TUESDAY MORNING: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday Morning Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court
has granted final approval of the settlement in a class action
lawsuit.

The Company has been defending against a class action lawsuit
filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, on
December 5, 2008 -- Julia Randell, et al., v. Tuesday Morning,
Inc., No. BC403298 (Cal. Super. Ct.) -- in which the original
complaint alleged violations of California's meal and rest period
laws. The two named plaintiffs, who were former employees of the
Company, subsequently amended the complaint three times. Narrowing
their class allegations, the plaintiffs moved on March 14, 2012 to
certify a class on the issue of whether the Company's alleged
practice of providing "on-duty" meal periods to Senior Sales
Associates violates the California Labor Code. The Court granted
that motion on June 20, 2012, certifying a class comprised of
current and former Senior Sales Associates who worked for the
Company in California, and who were required to take meal breaks
"on duty" at any point from April 1, 2005 to the present.

The Company filed motions to decertify the class and for summary
judgment on January 4, 2013, which the Court denied on March 29,
2013. On March 20, 2014, the parties executed a settlement
agreement and release which, subject to Court approval, resolved
the matter on a class basis. On April 16, 2014, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement and authorized the parties
to provide notice of the settlement and its terms to class
members.

On October 9, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  The terms of the settlement did not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.

Tuesday Morning is a retailer of off-price, upscale decorative
home accessories, housewares, seasonal goods and famous-maker
gifts that the Company generally sells below retail prices charged
by department stores and specialty and on-line retailers in the
United States.


UNIVERSITY FOUNTAINS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Fernandez and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. University Fountains, Ltd. and Diego Ojeda,
Case No. 1:14-cv-24090 (S.D. Fla., November 2, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

University Fountains, Ltd. is an apartment building operator in
Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Court Refuses to Stay "Shehan" TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Shehan initiated a putative class action against Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. alleging claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. (TCPA).  Wells Fargo moved to
stay the action contending the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) has primary jurisdiction to determine "the central issue in
this litigation."

Magistrate Judge John H. England, III, in a memorandum opinion and
order entered November 3, 2014, denied the request saying "to stay
this action based on an issue not within the 'special competence
of [the] administrative agency,' Reiter, 507 U.S. at 268, and that
is being uniformly applied throughout this Circuit and others is
not warranted."  A copy of the ruling is available at
http://is.gd/8vlfKcfrom Leagle.com.

The case is JAMES SHEHAN, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00900-JHE, (N.D. Ala.).

Wells Fargo Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Divya S Gupta --
dsg@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON, Eric J Troutman --
ejt@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON, R Frank Springfield --
fspringfield@burr.com -- BURR & FORMAN LLP & Ryan James Hebson --
rhebson@burr.com -- BURR & FORMAN LLP.


WYETH LLC: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Shade" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Liza Valido-Shade and her husband Tim Shade sued Wyeth for damages
they allegedly sustained as a result of her ingestion of Wyeth's
diet drugs known as Pondimin(R) and Redux(TM) ("Fen-Phen"). The
action was originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County and timely removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on the basis of
diversity of citizenship.  According to plaintiffs, Valido-Shade
took the drugs for a number of months in 1996 and 1997 and was
diagnosed in 2010 with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a
debilitating and incurable condition.  Whether she suffers from
PAH and if so whether Wyeth's diet drugs caused her PAH after such
a long latency period is hotly disputed.  Wyeth has now filed a
Daubert motion and a motion for summary judgment. Wyeth argues
that the testimony of plaintiffs' case-specific causation experts,
Lewis Rubin, M.D. and Laurence A. Berarducci, M.D. should be
excluded and that without this testimony Wyeth is entitled to
summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Dr. Berarducci stated at his deposition that he does not disagree
with anything Dr. Rubin stated at his deposition. Consequently, if
Dr. Rubin's testimony is excluded, the testimony of Dr. Berarducci
should be excluded.

Plaintiffs are members of the Nationwide Class Action Settlement
Agreement involving diet drugs which was approved by the court in
Pretrial Order (PTO) No. 1415.  As part of the Settlement
Agreement, claims involving primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH),
the former name for PAH, are excluded from the definition of
settled claims. The Settlement Agreement contains a detailed
definition of PPH.  Those claiming PPH or PAH may sue Wyeth in the
tort system.

In a memorandum entered October 31, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/G0QvkHfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Harvey Bartle, III, held that what Dr. Rubin has opined runs afoul
of Griffin and thus leaves the plaintiffs without expert testimony
that Wyeth's diet drugs, to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty, brought about Valido-Shade's PAH after a latency period
of some thirteen years. Even if her illness is PAH, plaintiffs
cannot prevail against Wyeth without proper expert causation
testimony, since a jury cannot find causation in this case without
such evidence. Accordingly, reviewing the admissible evidence in
the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the court must grant
summary judgment in favor of Wyeth as there is now no evidence on
causation allowing plaintiffs to go to a jury, ruled Judge Bartle.

The case is LIZA VALIDO-SHADE, et al. v. WYETH LLC, et al., MDL
DOCKET NO. 1203, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-20003, (E.D. Penn.).

GREGORY P. MILLER, Special Master, represented by GREGORY P.
MILLER -- Gregory.Miller@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Settlement in "Bryant" Case Awaits Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the settlement
agreement in the Bryant Holdings Securities Litigation remains
subject to approval by the court.

On February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking damages under the federal securities laws for
statements and/or omissions allegedly made by the Company and the
individual defendants during the Class Period which plaintiffs
claimed to be false and misleading.

The individual defendants are former officers of the Company. No
current officers or directors were named in the lawsuit. The
parties participated in voluntary mediation between March 11, 2013
and April 15, 2013. The mediation resulted in the execution of a
mutually acceptable settlement agreement by the parties, which
agreement remains subject to approval by the court.

"Court approval cannot be assured. Substantially all of the
payments contemplated by the settlement will be covered by our
liability insurance. The self-insured retention on this matter has
been accrued as of September 30, 2014," the Company said.

On August 19, 2013, the Court entered an Order denying plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.  Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval and, on November
18, 2013, the Court denied that Motion.

Each denial was based primarily on deficiencies that the Court
perceived in the plan that plaintiffs proposed for allocation of
the settlement proceeds among class members.  Plaintiffs have
revised the plan of allocation and, on February 18, 2014, filed a
Second Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval.


                             *********

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  * * *