CAR_Public/141119.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 19, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 230


                             Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Sued by Insurer Over Unsafe Testosterone Drugs
ABILITY RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ACCESS MEDICAL: Refuses to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
ADVANCED CALL CENTER: Arbitration Provision Upheld in "Lagrone"
AEROPOSTALE INC: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages

AFRICAN SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Miranda" Suit Claims
AKSHAR CORPORATION: "Snyder" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
ALERE HOME: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss With Leave to Amend
ALLEN DANIEL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
AMERICAN SALES: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay overtime Wages

AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Faces "Diamond" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
AMERICAN WATER: Scheduling Orders Entered in Chemical Spill Case
AMGEN INC: 9th Cir. Remanded "Harris" Case Back to District Court
AMREIT INC: To Defend Against Stockholder Class Action
ANTHEM HEALTH: Accused of Violating ERISA in W.D. Kentucky

APPLE HOSPITALITY: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Remaining Claims
APPLE HOSPITALITY: To Defend Against DCG&T et al. Action
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Dismissal of "Moses" Amended Complaint Sought
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Defendants Seek to Dismiss "Wenzel" Complaint
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Removes "McNorrill" Suit to District of Georgia

AT&T CORP: Employee-Employer Relationship Exists, Court Says
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Hears Oral Argument on Dismissal Bid
BJ'S CARGO: Faces "Corniel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BOGOPA SERVICE: Loiters' Bid for Class Certification Denied
BP PLC: Judge Rejects Attempt to Oust Claims Administrator

BPI SPORTS: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Action Claims
BREITBURN ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over QR Energy Merger
CENTURY REALTY: Faces "Burns" Class Suit Alleging RICO Violations
CFJ PROPERTIES: Fails to Provide Barrier Free Access, Suit Claims
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Court Denies Motions to Intervene

CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Disclose TIPM Unit Defects
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Lutz" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
DECEASED CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DELANO FARMS: Has Green Light to Conduct Depositions
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Digital Domain Dismissed From Wage Suits

ELITE DENTAL: Has Improperly Classified Ex-Employee, Suit Says
ESPRESSO ROMA: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, Suit Says
F. GARCIA LANDSCAPING: Sued in Ill. Over Violation of Labor Laws
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Birdie's Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
FIREEYE INC: Faces Stockholder Class Action in California

FITCHBURG GAS: Mass. Supreme Court Rules in "Bellermann" Case
FREESE AND GOSS: S.D. Miss. Rules in "Bridges" Lawsuit
FREUNDLICH & LITTMAN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff Files Consolidated Amended Suit
GARLOCK SEALING: Objects to Bid to Reopen Damages Issue

GENERAL MOTORS: "Gebremariam" Suit Added to Ignition Switch MDL
GENZYME CORP: Removes "Bradish" Suit to District of Massachusetts
GIGGLE INC: Removes "Jessop" Suit to California District Court
GROUPON INC: Faces "McDonnell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Blomberg" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

HOME DEPOT: Faces Greater Chautaqua Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
IMVU INC: California Appeals Court Reinstates "MacKinnon" Suit
INNOVATIVE EMERGENCY: "West" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Texas
J. HEINZ: Request for Transfer of Venue Denied
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Illegal Debt Collection

JOHN SARRIS DDS: 11th Cir. Flips Dist. Court Ruling in TCPA Case
JP MORGAN: Maine District Court Remands Suit Back to State Court
LABOR READY: "Machado" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LIFE TIME: "Salam" Suit Transferred From Illinois to Minnesota
LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

LOGAN'S ROADHOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LONDON SILVER: American Suit Consolidated in Silver Fixing MDL
MACY'S INC: Removes "Ambers" Class Suit to C.D. California
MANTECH INT'L: Sued by Ex-Instructor Over Discrimination Claims
MARIA CORVAIA: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA

MICHIGAN: Plan First! Enrollees Win Class Certification
MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Colorado Suit Pending
MOLYCORP INC: Files Motion to Dismiss New York Lawsuit
MONTEFIORE MEDICAL: Accused of Retaliation and Discrimination
NATIONWIDE DEBT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
NEW WAY FOODS: Sued for Refusing to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Homeless Services Workers Sue Over Unpaid OT
NFL PRODUCTIONS: "Culp" Suit Transferred From N.J. to Minnesota
NONGSHIM CO: 3 Korean Noodle Makers Dismissed From Antitrust Suit

NORTHERN TRUST: Sued for Wrongfully Discharging Jewish Employee
NORTHLAND GROUP: Uses Unfair Means to Collect Debt, Suit Claims
OASIS PETROLEUM: To Defend Against "Gagne" Class Action
OCEAN SKY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
OCEAN SKY: Second "Valladares" Overtime Suit Filed

ONTEL PRODUCTS: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Copyright Infringement
ORANGE REGIONAL: Accused of Discriminating Against Safety Officer
PILOT FLYING J: Owner Faces Suit Over Alleged Rebate Scheme
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Schnacky" Suit Over EFTA Violations
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bararsani v. Coldwell Case in Discovery Phase

RESTAURANT INVESTMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid FLSA Wages
ROC SERVICE: Faces "Smiley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: 11th Cir. Reverses Ruling in Malpractice Suit
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA: Faces "Newberry" Suit in C.D. Cal.
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Surbaugh" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Bohrer" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
SNACK FACTORY: Faces Suit Over Misleading "All Natural" Label
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued Over Misleading Priority Boarding Policy
SPENDWELL HEALTH: Sued in C.D. California Over Violation of TCPA
SPIRIT REALTY: Court Approves Stipulation of Settlement

SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: US Millennium Funds Class Action Now Concluded
SUSHI YASUDA: Judge Slashes Attorney Fees in Labor Suit Settlement
SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces "Cox" Suit Over Viptera Corn
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Lawrence" Suit Over Defective Airbags

TAKATA CORP: Senate Sets Nov. 20 Hearing Over Airbag Defects
TAZEWELL COUNTY, IL: Accused of Violating Civil Rights
TOWERS WATSON: Settlement Reached in "Weldon" Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Graham" Suit Alleging Product Liability
TPC GROUP: Increase in Attorney Fees Not Warranted, Court Says

UNITED STATES: Faces "Arciero" Civil Rights Class Suit in Hawaii
UNITED STATES: Vaccine Injury Claimants Still Await Compensation
VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Approves Class-Wide Settlement Agreement
VOYA FINANCIAL: Early January 2015 Hearing on Punitive Damages
WENDY'S INT'L: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages

WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, "Kubick" Suit Says
WPX ENERGY: Provides Updates on Royalty Litigation


                            *********


ABBVIE INC: Sued by Insurer Over Unsafe Testosterone Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------
Deceptive marketing "duped" insurers into paying billions for
ineffective and unsafe drugs to treat low testosterone, one claims
in Illinois Federal Court, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse
News Service.

Medical Mutual of Ohio sued Abbvie, Abbott Laboratories, Solvay
America, Eli Lilly and Company, Auxilium Pharmaceutical, Actavis
Pharma and various subsidiaries on November 5.

The complaint comes in the wake of hundreds of product-liability
lawsuits against Abbott Labs, the maker of AndroGel, and others
over an aggressive disease-awareness campaign that led millions of
men to think that their lack of energy was low-testosterone, or
"low-T," problem.

Many men who took AndroGel claim that the drug gave them serious
medical problems, including life-threatening cardiac events,
strokes and thrombolytic problems.

Medical Mutual of Ohio, an insurance company, joined the chorus of
individual complaints November 5 with a class action purporting to
represent all insurers that paid for the costs of AndroGel,
Testopel, Axiron, Androderm and Fortesta Gel.

"These TRT [testosterone-replacement therapy] drugs were marketed
as part of a decade-long deceptive marketing scheme to transform
the male aging process into a curable disease state defendants
variously called 'Andropause,' 'ate-onset male hypogonadism,'
'age-related hypogonadism,' or simply 'Low T, which were invented
from whole cloth," the 341-page complaint states.

But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration never approved promotion
of the TRT drugs to third-party payors like insurance companies,
as well as to patients and physicians, "for 'Andropause' and as a
treatment for a host of medical problems," Medical Mutual says.

In addition to unapproved, such "off-label" were also ineffective,
the complaint says.

The FDA has approved TRT drugs only to treat hypogonadism, but
pharmaceutical companies allegedly applied off-label use to other
age-related ills, such as erectile dysfunction, diabetes,
depression, and obesity.

Medical Mutual says many of these afflictions already come with a
higher risk for heart disease.

"Defendants succeeded in polluting the medical discourse and
medical literature concerning testosterone therapy to such a
degree that the contours of the entire disease state and diagnosis
were blurred," according to the complaint.

Paying doctors and researchers to inflate the prevalence of
hypogonadism created the false impression that "almost half of the
middle-aged male population in the world was hypogonadal and now
needed TRT drugs," the insurer claims.

Sales of TRT drugs allegedly grew by 90 percent from 2007 to 2012.
Sales of AndroGel topped $1 billion in the U.S. by 2012, and
Testim sales account for nearly 80 percent of Auxilium's revenues
in 2011, according to the complaint.

"With their respective schemes now exposed, estimates are that the
vast majority of TRT drug use is for ineffective, unsafe, and/or
unuseful off-label purposes," the complaint states, citing studies
published in respected medical journals.  "For once-daily TRT
drugs, estimates are that such off-label use is even higher."

Emphasizing "the serious adverse health effects associated with
the off-label use of TRT drugs" that the drugmakers allegedly
concealed intentionally, the insurer notes that "there is up to a
500 percent increased risk of such adverse events" among some
patient populations.

"As part of Defendants' illegal schemes to increase sales of their
TRT drug(s), these known safety risks were and continue to be
systematically concealed and minimized from the public and from
TPPs," the complaint states.

Insurers that pay the cost of TRT drug prescriptions are the
"financial victims" of this scheme, and have been "duped" into
paying billions of dollars for ineffective and unsafe
prescriptions that endanger patients' lives, according to the
complaint.

The class seeks damages for violations of federal anti-
racketeering law, conspiracy and fraud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Conlee Whiteley, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
          E-mail: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com


ABILITY RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Lourea-Waddell, an individual; on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Ability Recovery Services, LLC,
and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25, Case No. 2:14-cv-
06440-TJS (E.D. Pa., November 7, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PC
          30 E. Butler Pike
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 540-8888
          E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com


ACCESS MEDICAL: Refuses to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Martinez Sanchez v. Access Medical Acquisition, Inc., Access
Medical Group of Hialeah, Inc., and Victor Lugo, Case No. 1:14-cv-
24217-DPG (S.D. Fla., November 7, 2014) accuses the Defendants of
willfully and intentionally refusing to pay the Plaintiff's
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Access Medical Acquisition, Inc. and Access Medical Group of
Hialeah, Inc., are corporations that regularly transacts business
within Broward County.  Victor Lugo is a corporate officer, owner
or manager of both Defendant Corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCED CALL CENTER: Arbitration Provision Upheld in "Lagrone"
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James L. Robart granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration and Order to
Stay the case entitled MAUREEN LAGRONE, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED
CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. C13-2136JLR
(W.D. Wash.).

The Defendant had an agreement with GE Capital to collect debts on
GE's behalf.  Ms. Lagrone is a credit card holder issued by GE
Capital under the J.C. Penney label. When Ms. Lagrone fell behind
on her credit payments, the defendant sent an initial debt
validation letter. Ms. Lagrone alleges that the substance of this
letter violates numerous provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. Ms.
Lagrone, who seeks to bring this suit as a class action,
originally named both GE Capital and Advanced Call Center as
defendants, but GE Capital reached a settlement with Plaintiff.
Defendant moves to compel Ms. Lagrone to arbitrate her claims by
virtue of the provision found in the J.C. Penney Rewards Credit
Card Account Agreement.

Judge Robart granted in part and denied in part Advanced Call
Center's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The court
stayed the action and directed the parties to undertake
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. The parties
shall submit a joint status report within 10 days of the
arbitrator's final determination.

A copy of Judge Robart's Order dated October 2, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/ODB82Ufrom Leagle.com

Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, Defendant, is represented
by Bert W. Markovich, Esq. -- bmarkovich@schwabe.com -- at SCHWABE
WILLIAMSON & WYATT and Claire L. Rootjes, Esq. --
crootjes@schwabe.com -- at SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT


AEROPOSTALE INC: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Aeropostale stiffed workers
for minimum wages and overtime, a class action claims in Orange
County Court.


AFRICAN SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Miranda" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walfred Miranda, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. African Supermarket & Liquors, Inc. and
Walid Mousa, Case No. 1:14-cv-09005 (N.D. Ill., November 10,
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 supermarket and a liquor store in
Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


AKSHAR CORPORATION: "Snyder" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
William Snyder, Stephanie Denko, Antonio Davis, Elena Marrow, and
Rosita Bouldin v. Akshar Corporation, Chandrakant Patel, Narayan
Swarupdas Corporation, Pramukh Swami LLC, Pramukh Swami Maharaj
LLC, and Jatin Thakkar, Case No. 1:14-cv-03520 (D. Md., November
10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate several hotels, under four
different corporate names, Akshar Corporation, Narayan Swarupdas
Corporation, Pramukh Swami LLC, and Pramukh Swami Maharaj LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Lanier, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 S Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com


ALERE HOME: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled on motions filed in the case
entitled JOHN FALKENBERG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALERE HOME
MONITORING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-00341-JST (N.D. Cal.)

Alere collects and stores confidential personal medical
information ("CPMI") from patients. One of its employees left the
company laptop in a vehicle; the laptop was later stolen.

The Plaintiffs bring six causes of action: violation of the CMIA,
negligence, "money had and received & unjust enrichment," willful
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681, et seq, negligent violation of the FCRA, and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.

Judge Tigar granted Alere's motion to dismiss. Insofar as the
complaint brings a standalone claim for unjust enrichment, the
claim is dismissed with prejudice, since any such claim fails as a
matter of law. Plaintiffs have leave to amend the complaint to re-
assert their CMIA, FCRA, UCL, and money had and received claims if
they can allege additional facts not pled in the initial
complaint, which overcome the deficiencies identified.

The Court denied Alere's motion to strike without prejudice.

In filing an amended complaint, the Plaintiffs must specifically
identify to the court the amendments they have made to cure the
deficiencies identified in the order. Failure to file a timely
amended complaint may result in dismissal with prejudice.

The Court also set the matter for a case management conference on
for January 14, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. A joint case management
statement is due 10 court days beforehand. If it appears that the
pleadings in the action will be not be settled by that date, or
will be settled well before that date, the parties should move to
continue or advance the conference, as appropriate.

A copy of Judge Tigar's Order dated October 7,2014, is available
at http://is.gd/S3ohVbfrom Leagle.com.

Alere Home Monitoring, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Stephanie Anne Sheridan, Esq. and Kelly Savage Day,
Esq. -- kelly.savageday@sedgwicklaw.com and
stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP.


ALLEN DANIEL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Sandberg, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Allen Daniel Associates, Inc. dba
Capital Collection Service, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:14-cv-06473-LFR (E.D. Pa., November 10, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


AMERICAN SALES: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Rodriguez Diaz, Amaury Gonzalez, Yanaris Pena, Lieng Un
Rey, Osmar Rodriguez, Jose E. Mora Yera, Carlos Zelaya, Pedro
Pablo Galindo Gutierez, Pedro Lantigua Gomez, Jose Luis Caballero
and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v.
American Sales and Management Organization, LLC a Florida limited
liability company, Eulen America, Inc., and Livan Acosta, Case No.
1:14-cv-24245 (S.D. Fla., November 10, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per work week.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides ground
handling and passenger services for domestic and foreign carriers

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


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Faces "Diamond" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter A. Diamond, Cesar Couri, Raul M. Milian, Taryn S. Pisaneschi
and Xiomara Santos, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc., American Traffic
Solutions LLC and American Traffic Solutions Consolidated LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-24258-JAL (S.D. Fla., November 10, 2014) seeks
relief under the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ramon Alvaro Rasco, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          City National Bank Building
          25 W Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130-1780
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: rrasco@podhurst.com

Plaintiff Cesar Couri is also represented by:

          Rafael Enrique Millares, Esq.
          ESTRELLA TICKET DEFENSE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          3750 West Flagler Street, 2nd Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 503-4124
          Facsimile: (305) 443-9132
          E-mail: rmillares@estrellaticketdefense.com


AMERICAN WATER: Scheduling Orders Entered in Chemical Spill Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Court has entered scheduling orders in the lawsuits related to the
West Virginia Elk River Chemical Spill, setting a schedule for
discovery and class certification motions, culminating in a class
certification hearing to be held on September 25, 2015. A trial
date has not yet been set.

The litigation relates to leakage of two substances from a
chemical storage tank owned by Freedom Industries, Inc. into the
Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC")
treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia (the "Elk
River Chemical Spill"). A consolidated class action complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia against multiple individuals and
corporate entities, including WVAWC, American Water Works Service
Company, Inc. and the Company (collectively, the "American Water
Defendants"). On September 5, 2014 and October 27, 2014, the Court
entered scheduling orders, setting a schedule for discovery and
class certification motions, culminating in a class certification
hearing to be held on September 25, 2015. A trial date has not yet
been set.

The Court has not yet acted upon the American Water Defendants'
motions to dismiss.

American Water Works Company is an investor-owned United States
water and wastewater utility company, as measured both by
operating revenue and population served.


AMGEN INC: 9th Cir. Remanded "Harris" Case Back to District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William A. Fletcher of the U.S Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the appellate case STEVE
HARRIS; DENNIS F. RAMOS, AKA Dennis Ramos; DONALD HANKS; JORGE
TORRES; ALBERT CAPPA, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMGEN, INC.; AMGEN
MANUFACTURING, LIMITED; FRANK J. BIONDI, JR.; JERRY D. CHOATE;
FRANK C. HERRINGER; GILBERT S. OMENN; DAVID BALTIMORE; JUDITH C.
PELHAM; KEVIN W. SHARER; FREDERICK W. GLUCK; LEONARD D. SCHAEFFER;
CHARLES BELL; JACQUELINE ALLRED; AMGEN PLAN FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE;
RAUL CERMENO; JACKIE CROUSE; FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE OF THE AMGEN
MANUFACTURING LIMITED PLAN; LORI JOHNSTON; MICHAEL KELLY,
Defendants-Appellees, DENNIS M. FENTON; RICHARD NANULA; THE
FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE; AMGEN GLOBAL BENEFITS COMMITTEE; AMGEN
FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE, Defendants., Case No. 10-56014 (9th Cir.)

Amgen, Inc. and its subsidiary Amgen Manufacturing, Limited
offered two employer-sponsored pension plans to plaintiffs, the
Amgen Plan and the AML Plan, both qualified as Eligible Individual
Account Plans or EIAP. All of the plaintiffs' EIAPs included
holdings in the Amgen Common Stock Fund, one of the investments
available to plan participants. The Amgen Common Stock Fund held
only Amgen common stock. When Amgen stock and Amgen Common Stock
fund lost significant value, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging
defendants' have breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act or ERISA. However the
district court dismissed the complaint against Amgen under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that Amgen was not
a fiduciary. It dismissed the complaint against the other
defendants, who were fiduciaries, after applying the presumption
of prudence. The Plaintiffs' appealed

In reversing the district court' decision, the Ninth Circuit said
that the defendants' are not entitled to a presumption of
prudence, that plaintiffs' have stated claims under ERISA, and
that Amgen is a properly named fiduciary under the Amgen Plan. The
case is being remanded to the district court for further
proceedings.

A copy of Judge Fletcher Opinion dated October 30, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/R2Xowqfrom Leagle.com.

Emily Seymour Costin, Esq. -- emily.costin@alston.com -- at
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Steven
Oliver Kramer, Esq. -- skramer@sheppardmullin.com -- and Jonathan
David Moss, Esq. -- jmoss@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton, LLP, Los Angeles, California; and Jonathan
Rose, Esq. -- jonathan.rose@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird, LLP,
Washington, D.C.; John Nadolenco, Esq. --
jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown, LLP, Los Angeles,
California; Brian David Netter, Esq. -- bnetter@mayerbrown.com --
at Mayer Brown, LLP, Washington, D.C.; and Robert P. Davis, Esq.
-- rdavis@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown, LLP, New York, New
York, for Appellees.


AMREIT INC: To Defend Against Stockholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
On July 14, 2014, two of AmREIT, Inc.'s alleged stockholders,
filed a stockholder derivative petition and purported class action
in the Harris County, Texas District Court, seeking injunctive
relief in connection with alleged breach of fiduciary duty claims
against each of the Company's directors in connection with the
board's consideration of an unsolicited proposal from Regency
Centers Corporation, announced on July 10, 2014, to acquire all of
the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock.

"The complaint also names us as a nominal defendant in connection
with the shareholder derivative claim. There have been no further
pleadings in this action since the filing of the complaint. We
believe these claims are without merit and intend to defend
against the claims vigorously," AmREIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

AmREIT is a full service, vertically integrated and self-
administered REIT that owns, operates, acquires and selectively
develops and redevelops primarily neighborhood and community
shopping centers located in high-traffic, densely populated,
affluent areas with high barriers to entry.


ANTHEM HEALTH: Accused of Violating ERISA in W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Wilson, individually and on behalf of a Class of persons
similarly situated v. Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00743-TBR (W.D. Ky., November 10, 2014) alleges
violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
          150 E. Fourth Street, 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile: (513) 241-8259
          E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Remaining Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that defendants
have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' remaining claims in the Apple
REITs Litigation matter.

On April 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") entered a summary order in
the consolidated class action referred to in the Company's prior
filings as the In re Apple REITs Litigation matter.  In the
summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(the "District Court") of the plaintiffs' state and federal
securities law claims and the unjust enrichment claim. The Second
Circuit also noted that the District Court dismissed the
plaintiffs' remaining state common law claims based on its finding
that the complaint did not allege any losses suffered by the
plaintiff class, and held that, to the extent that the District
Court relied on this rationale, its dismissal of the plaintiffs'
state law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach
of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims is vacated and remanded
for further proceedings consistent with the summary order.

Following remand, on June 6, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' remaining claims.  The Company will defend against the
claims remanded to the District Court vigorously.  At this time,
the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these
proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss
or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine,
Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, owned 188
hotels (of which 99 were acquired in the mergers with Apple REIT
Seven, Inc. and Apple REIT Eight, Inc., effective March 1, 2014.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: To Defend Against DCG&T et al. Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that two
shareholders of the Company commenced on January 31, 2014, a
purported class action against the Company and its directors (the
"Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (DCG&T, et al. v. Knight, et al., No.
3:14cv67, E.D. Va.). An amended complaint was filed on March 24,
2014.  The amended complaint alleges (i) that the A7 and A8
mergers are unfair to the Company's shareholders, (ii) various
breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors in
connection with the A7 and A8 mergers, (iii) that the A7 and A8
mergers provide a financial windfall to insiders, and (iv) that
the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus mailed to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the A7 and A8 mergers contains
false and misleading disclosures about certain matters, and adds
as parties certain Company management employees.

The amended complaint demands (i) an order stating that the action
may be maintained as a class action, certifying plaintiffs as
class representatives, and that the action may be maintained as a
derivative action, (ii) that the merger and the conversion of
common and preferred shares be rescinded, (iii) an award of
damages, and (iv) reimbursement of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
other costs.  On May 5, 2014, the Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint and filed an answer.

The Company believes that plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intends to defend these cases vigorously. At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings
or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine,
Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, owned 188
hotels (of which 99 were acquired in the mergers with Apple REIT
Seven, Inc. and Apple REIT Eight, Inc., effective March 1, 2014.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Dismissal of "Moses" Amended Complaint Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that defendants
have moved to dismiss and strike Plaintiff Susan Moses's amended
complaint.

Plaintiff Susan Moses, purportedly a shareholder of Apple Seven
and Apple Eight, now part of the Company, filed on April 22, 2014,
a class action against the Company and several individual
directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former
shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the
Company, who purchased additional shares under the Apple REITs'
Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP") between July 17, 2007 and
February 12, 2014 (Susan Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT,
Inc., et al., No. 503487/2014, N.Y. Sup. (Kings County)).
Plaintiff brought suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York in Kings County (Brooklyn) and alleged claims under Virginia
law for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors,
and constructive trust and unjust enrichment claims against the
Company.  Plaintiff alleges that the prices at which Plaintiff and
the purported class members purchased additional shares through
the DRIP were artificially inflated and not indicative of the true
value of units in Apple Seven and Apple Eight.  On May 19, 2014,
defendants removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.  Following the filing of
defendants' motion to dismiss and strike on June 6, 2014,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 27, 2014 adding a
claim for breach of contract.  On July 14, 2014, defendants moved
to dismiss and strike Plaintiff's amended complaint.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine,
Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, owned 188
hotels (of which 99 were acquired in the mergers with Apple REIT
Seven, Inc. and Apple REIT Eight, Inc., effective March 1, 2014.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Defendants Seek to Dismiss "Wenzel" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that defendants
have moved to dismiss the Dorothy Wenzel complaint or to transfer
the action to the Eastern District of New York to be consolidated
with the Susan Moses action.

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff Dorothy Wenzel, purportedly a
shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the
Company, filed a class action against Apple Seven Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., AFM and several officers and directors
of the Company on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and
former shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of
the Company, who purchased additional shares under the Apple
REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP") between July 17, 2007
and June 30, 2013 (Wenzel  v. Knight, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-
00432-REP, E.D. Va.).  Plaintiff brought suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and alleged
claims under Virginia law for breach of fiduciary duty against the
individual directors, as well as aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence against Apple Seven Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., and AFM.  Plaintiff alleges that the
prices at which Plaintiff and the purported class members
purchased additional shares through the DRIP were artificially
inflated and not indicative of the true value of units in Apple
Seven and Apple Eight.  On July 18, 2014, defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint or to transfer the action to the Eastern
District of New York to be consolidated with the Moses action.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine,
Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, owned 188
hotels (of which 99 were acquired in the mergers with Apple REIT
Seven, Inc. and Apple REIT Eight, Inc., effective March 1, 2014.


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Removes "McNorrill" Suit to District of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled McNorrill v. Asset Acceptance,
LLC, Case No. 2014CV648, was removed from the Superior Court of
Columbia County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia (Augusta).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00210-JRH-BKE to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Cosper, Esq.
          HULL BARRETT, PC
          P.O. Box 1564
          Augusta, GA 30903-1564
          Telephone: (706) 722-4481
          Facsimile: (706) 722-9779
          E-mail: ccosper@hullbarrett.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Brewton, Esq.
          Jason W. Blanchard, Esq.
          TUCKER, EVERITT, LONG, BREWTON & LANIER, PC
          P.O. Box 2426
          Augusta, GA 30903
          Telephone: (706) 722-0771
          Facsimile: (706) 722-7028
          E-mail: bbrewton@thefirm453.com
                  jblanchard@tuckerlong.com


AT&T CORP: Employee-Employer Relationship Exists, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied the
defendant's motion to dismiss in the case entitled RAMSES
GUITIERREZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARTER BROTHERS SECURITY
SERVICES, LLC, AT&T DIGITAL LIFE, INC., PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY DBA AT&T DATACOMM, INC., ATT&T CORP. and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants., Case No. 2:14-CV-00351-MCE-CKD (E.D.
Cal.)

The root cause of the complaint arose from an Agreement of which
Carter Brothers and AT&T required the plaintiffs and class members
to sign.  The Plaintiffs allege they were misclassified as
independent contractors rather than employees.  The Plaintiffs
said they were required to enter into the Agreements so that
Carter Brothers and AT&T could avoid and evade federal and state
labor laws, wage and hour laws, and numerous other state and
federal laws, taxes and requirements.

AT&T moves to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to allege sufficient facts to
support the Plaintiffs' claims against AT&T. Specifically, AT&T
argues that the Plaintiffs' allegations do not allow a reasonable
inference that AT&T was the Plaintiffs' employer, and that AT&T
cannot therefore be liable for alleged violations of the state and
federal labor statutes on that basis.

Chief District Judge England, in denying Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, finds AT&T as a joint employer, of which it has a
significant right to control the activities of Class Members and
that the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to support their
allegations that there exists an employee-employer relationship
under both California and federal laws.

A copy of Chief District Judge England Memorandum and Order dated
October 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/mHFhGHfrom
Leagle.com.

AT&T Digital Life, Inc., a New York Corporation, Defendant, are
represented by Alan L. Rupe -- Alan.Rupe@KutakRock.com -- Mark
Allen Kanaga -- mark.kanaga@kutakrock.com -- Matthew C. Sgnilek
-- Matthew.Sgnilek@KutakRock.com -- Brian F. Hansen --
Brian.Hansen@KutakRock.com -- Nathan J. Allen --
Nathan.Allen@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP.


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Hears Oral Argument on Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, the Court has heard
oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss class action
lawsuits.

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain present and former officers and members of the Company's
board of directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William
Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul
Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-
JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine
Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-
JLT, filed on May 31, 2013.

On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the
complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint
was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purports to
be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. The amended
complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for our
TIVO-1 study in an effort to lead investors to believe that the
drug would receive approval from the FDA. The amended complaint
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.

On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint with prejudice. Lead
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on June
10, 2014, and the Company filed a reply to the opposition on July
10, 2014. The Court heard oral argument on the Company's motion to
dismiss on July 22, 2014.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no
assurance that the Company will be successful in our defense or
that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any
settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action.
Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time

AVEO Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company committed to
discovering and developing targeted therapies designed to provide
substantial impact in the lives of people with cancer by
addressing unmet medical needs.


BJ'S CARGO: Faces "Corniel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Corniel v. BJ's Cargo Express, Corp., Benjamin Jimenez,
and Lusia Martinez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08952
(S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per work week.

The Defendants are engaged in the transportation of freight and
cargo business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Bldg. 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NY 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


BOGOPA SERVICE: Loiters' Bid for Class Certification Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sandra L. Townes, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case entitled EMANUEL SUVILL and RASHAN
BESWICK individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated who were employed by BOGOPA SERVICE CORP. /d/b/a FOOD
BAZAAR and FOOD DIMENSIONS, HWEE III AM, or any other entities
affiliated or controlled by BOGOPA SERVICE CORP. and/or HWEE III,
Plaintiffs, v. BOGOPA SERVICE CORP. /d/b/a FOOD BAZAAR and FOOD
DIMENSIONS, HWEE III AM, or any other entities affiliated or
controlled by BOGOPA SERVCE CORP. and/or HWEE III, Defendants.,
Case No. 11-CV-3372 (SLT)(RER)(E.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs commenced this putative class action suit against
Bogopa Service Corp., alleging violations of Fair Labor Standards
Act or FLSA and New York Labor Law or NYLL, as they are workers
and or employees of the defendants but were not paid minimum wages
or overtime wages.

The Defendant on the other hand, claimed that the plaintiffs were
not employees rather, they loiter outside the defendants premises,
hustled customers for tips and occasionally stole beer. The
Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendation recommended
certification of plaintiffs' class.

Judge Townes declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge and denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  A copy of Judge Townes Memorandum and Order dated
September 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/b4gH9mfrom
Leagle.com.

HWEE III AM, Defendant, is represented by Michael T Grosso, Esq.
and William Patrick McLane, Esq. -- mgrosso@littler.com and
wmclane@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson PC.


BP PLC: Judge Rejects Attempt to Oust Claims Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, Kat Greene, Keith Goldberg, Kira Lerner and Kurt
Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that a Louisiana federal judge
on Nov. 10 rejected BP PLC's attempt to oust the claims
administrator in charge of paying out claims to individuals and
businesses from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill $9.2 billion
settlement, saying that a claims administrator isn't subject to
the same recusal rules as a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier rejected BP's contention that
lawyer Patrick Juneau should be disqualified because his
neutrality was compromised by his previous work representing the
state of Louisiana in the case.  The judge said that a claims
administrator, appointed in a privately negotiated settlement
agreement, is not bound by the same recusal rules as a federal
judge or a special master under Rule 35, and therefore Juneau did
not have to disclose possible grounds for disqualification when he
was appointed.

The judge noted that it was beyond dispute that BP had "actual
knowledge" of Mr. Juneau's work for the state of Louisiana after
the 2010 oil spill.

"Mr. Juneau himself disclosed this information to BP and at least
six of its attorneys or representatives before he was selected by
the parties," Judge Barbier said.  "BP's own submissions evince
that this information was discussed during one or more of the
vetting sessions that Mr. Juneau underwent before he was selected
by the parties."

The judge's ruling shuts down BP's second crack at dismissing
Mr. Juneau, who was appointed in 2012 to handle claims from the
$9.2 billion settlement.

In August 2013 BP tried to freeze payments during a corruption
investigation over fraudulent claims, saying Mr. Juneau's
neutrality had been compromised.

BP reached the settlement deal in March 2012 to resolve the flood
of lawsuits from thousands of Gulf of Mexico businesses and
individuals claiming losses from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
rig explosion and spill. The deal settled most of the property
damage, economic loss and medical claims in the multidistrict
litigation.

The judge said that even if Mr. Juneau were subject to Rule 35, BP
had waited too long to file its motion, since the Fifth Circuit
requires that a party file a motion to disqualify as soon as it
learns about a possible reason.

"A party cannot wait until after an adverse decision has been made
by the judge before raising the issue of recusal," he said.

The judge rejected BP's contention that Juneau had made false or
misleading statements to former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, who
was a special master appointed by Judge Barbier to investigate the
payout system.

Mr. Freeh was appointed following an Associated Press report
claiming Juneau had told the judge about misconduct allegations
against a lawyer for the court-supervised settlement program.

"The statement that BP relies upon is taken out of context in a
much longer sworn statement or interview," the judge said.
"Mr. Freeh was investigating alleged misconduct by a staff
attorney at the DHECC, and the question to Mr. Juneau was simply
'when were you appointed' as claims administrator."

The remaining arguments in BP's motion were "mostly a
regurgitation of old issues or complaints that the court or
special master has previously addressed," the ruling said.

The judge also called out BP for filing a 207-page motion to
supplement evidence in support of its motion.  The motion
contained 200 pages of new exhibits, in defiance of the judge's
order limiting BP's reply to 10 pages and excluding new evidence.

"Regrettably, this is not the first time that BP has attempted to
flout this court's briefing orders," the judge said.  "There is no
reason why BP could not have obtained its 'new' evidence before
filing its motion to remove the claims administrator."

"BP strongly disagrees with the District Court's ruling and is
considering its appellate options.  BP will also continue its
efforts to restore needed and promised integrity and transparency
to the Gulf claims program," Geoff Morrell, spokesman for BP, said
in a statement to Law360 on Nov. 10.  "Simply put, it is
unacceptable for the claims program to continue operating as it
has been -- inefficiently, secretively, and marred by corruption,
fraud, and conflicts of interest."

The class is represented by Stephen J. Herman of Herman Herman &
Katz LLC and James Parkerson Roy -- jimr@wrightroy.com -- of
Domengeaux Wright Roy & Edwards LLC, among others.

BP is represented by Williams & Connolly LLP, Liskow & Lewis PLC,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Arnold & Porter LLP, Dentons and in-house
counsel.

The MDL is In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in
the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, case number 2:10-md-02179,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.


BPI SPORTS: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Foster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BPI Sports, LLC, BPI Sports Holdings, LLC, and General
Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-09025 (N.D. Ill., November
10, 2014), arises out of the Defendants' false and misleading
labeling and advertising of Pro-Nutra Ultra Concentrated Garcinia
weight loss dietary supplement as a highly effective appetite
suppressant, fat burner, and weight loss pill.

The Defendants are retailers of nutritional products, including
vitamin, mineral, herbal and other specialty supplements and
sports nutrition, diet and energy products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60610
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
      PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
      27300 Riverview Center Blvd, Suite 103
      Bonita Springs, FL 34134
      Telephone: (239) 390-1000
      Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
      E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com

         - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      434 West Alexandrine #101
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 303-3472
      Facsimile: (248) 698-8634
      E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


BREITBURN ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over QR Energy Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Breitburn Energy Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that following
the July 24, 2014 announcement that QR Energy and Breitburn had
entered into a definitive merger agreement, purported unitholders
of QR Energy filed putative class action lawsuits, on behalf of
the common unitholders of QR Energy, asserting claims challenging
the Merger. Four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
and were consolidated under the caption In re QR Energy LP
Unitholder Litigation, No. 4:14-cv-02195 (the "Consolidated
Unitholder Action"). Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder
Action bring claims against QR Energy, QRE, the members of the QRE
board of directors, the Partnership, Breitburn's General Partner
and Merger Sub.

Breitburn is an independent oil and gas partnership focused on the
acquisition, exploitation and development of oil, natural gas
liquids ("NGL") and natural gas properties in the United States.


CENTURY REALTY: Faces "Burns" Class Suit Alleging RICO Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Burns, Borden Deane, Leslie Jacobson, John McCloskey,
Leopold Ouellette and John Sardina, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Lawrence W. Maxwell, Lawrence T.
Maxwell, Century Realty Funds, Inc., Mark Schreiber, MX
Communication Services, LLC, Lake Ashton Development Group, LLC,
Lake Ashton Golf Club, Ltd., Century Residential, LLC, Ronald L.
Clark and Clark, Campbell & Lancaster & Munson, PA, fka Clark,
Campbell & Lancaster, PA, fka Clark, Campbell, Mawhinney &
Lancaster, PA, fka Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, PA, fka Clark &
Campbell, PA, Case No. 8:14-cv-02793-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla.,
November 7, 2014) alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel W. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL PERRY
          4767 New Broad St., Suite 1007
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Telephone: (407) 894-9003
          E-mail: dan@danielperry.com


CFJ PROPERTIES: Fails to Provide Barrier Free Access, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Loskot v. CFJ Properties, dba Motel 6 and Does One to
Ten, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-08674-MWF-AS (C.D. Cal.,
November 7, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a physically handicapped person and uses a
wheelchair.

Motel 6 is located in Lebec, California, and is owned and operated
by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
barrier free access to the Motel in conformity with federal and
California legal requirements, including the ADA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason K. Singleton, Esq.
          SINGLETON LAW GROUP
          611 "L" Street, Suite "A"
          Eureka, CA 95501
          Telephone: (707) 441-1177
          Facsimile: (707) 441-1533
          E-mail: jason@singletonlawgroup.com


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Court Denies Motions to Intervene
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Malachy E. Mannion denied the Motions to Intervene
and Motion to Consolidate in the case entitled DEMCHAK PARTNERS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA,
LLC, Defendant., Civil Action No. 3:13-2289 (M.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action complaint in which
they seek monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief
based on alleged underpayment of royalties by the defendant on
natural gas produced by the defendant under common oil and gas
leases entered into by the named plaintiffs and others similarly
situated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The issues pending before the court are the following:

     (1) a motion to intervene in the case filed by Gayle and
Russell Burkett on behalf of themselves and the putative
arbitration class of landowners they represent, as well as at
least 87 other individuals;

     (2) a motion to intervene on behalf of Paul F. Sidorek; and

     (3) a motion to consolidate filed by Gayle and Russell
Burkett on behalf of the Landowners.

Judge Mannion denied the proposed intervenors' and Mr. Sidorek's
motions to intervene as well as denied the Landowners' motion to
consolidate.  A copy of Judge Mannion's Memorandum dated September
30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/2odxE5from Leagle.com.

Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Daniel T.
Brier, Esq. -- dbrier@mbklaw.com -- at Myers Brier & Kelly, LLP;
Daniel T Donovan, Esq. -- daniel.donovan@kirkland.com -- at
Kirkland & Ellis LLP; and Ragan Naresh, Esq. --
ragan.naresh@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Disclose TIPM Unit Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franklyn Cabrera Garcia, Judy King, Jay J Probasco, Ethan KEY,
Franklin Lewis, Lee Franklin, Harold Danielson, and Nathan Taylor,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Chrysler Group LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08926 (S.D.N.Y., November 10,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose a
known defect in Totally Integrated Power Module unit found in many
Chrysler's popular vehicles.

Chrysler Group LLC manufactures, sells and leases vehicles under
the Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep brand names throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Marshall, Esq.
      Robin Greenwald, Esq.
      Christopher Dalbey, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5500
      Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
      E-mail: cmarshall@weitzlux.com
              rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
              cdalbey@weitzlux.com

         - and -

      Roland Tellis, Esq.
      David Fernandes, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818)839-2333
      Facsimile: (818)986-9698
      E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
              dfernande@baronbudd.com

         - and -

      Kirsten Soto, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214)520-1181
      E-mail: ksoto@baronbudd.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Lutz" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Lutz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Community Health Systems Professional Services
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-06433-RBS
(E.D. Pa., November 7, 2014) asserts claims for breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO KARON & PENNY PC
          101 E. Lancaster Ave., Suite 204
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: penny@gskplaw.com


DECEASED CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Kapustin, in his capacity as executor of the estate of
Estelle Kanther, on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Deceased Credit Management, LLC, dba DCM Services; DCM Services,
LLC dba DCM Services; DCM Services; and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06474-TJS (E.D. Pa., November 10,
2014) is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


DELANO FARMS: Has Green Light to Conduct Depositions
----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng denied Plaintiff's Motion for
Protective Order in the case entitled SABAS ARREDONDO et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DELANO FARMS CO., et al., Defendants, No. 1:09-CV-
01247 MJS (E.D. Cal.).

The Parties have been ordered by the court to meet and devise a
joint scheduling report but cannot agree on how to conduct
discovery relating to the liability phase of the trial.  The
Plaintiffs sought to test a potential survey on three to five
class members and then administer the survey through stratified
random sampling of approximately 1500 class members.

The Defendants intended to conduct a pilot study consisting of
taking depositions of 14 foremen and 14 class members from each of
the foremen's crews for a total of 210 depositions.

The Plaintiffs seek a protective order to prevent the Defendants
from taking some 196 depositions of absent class members as a part
of a "pilot study."

The Defendants assert the pilot study is a prerequisite to
gathering statistical data necessary to respond to the Plaintiffs'
use of statistical evidence to prove labor violations suffered by
the class.

Magistrate Judge Seng ordered that the Plaintiff's Motion for
Protective Order is denied and that Plaintiff's objections to the
testimony of Joseph Krock are dismissed with prejudice.  A copy of
Magistrate Judge Seng's Order dated October 10, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/EfNXDtfrom Leagle.com.

Anderson & Middleton Company, Unknown, is represented by William
C. Hahesy, Esq. -- bill@hahesylaw.com -- at the Law Offices of
William C. Hahesy.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Digital Domain Dismissed From Wage Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in three class actions accusing DreamWorks, Disney and
other animation studios of fixing wages dismissed without
prejudice charges against one defendant, reports Arvin Temkar at
Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiffs Robert Nitsch Jr., Georgia Cano and David
Wentworth all dismissed their claims against Digital Domain 3.0 on
November 5.

Remaining defendants include DreamWorks Animation, Pixar,
LucasFilm, Disney, Sony and others.

The animation studios are accused of fixing wages and restricting
career opportunities for employees.

Plaintiff Robert A. Nitsch is represented by:

          Daniel A. Small, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com

Plaintiff Georgia Cano is represented by:

          Matthew R. Berry, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA  98101-3000
          Telephone: (206) 516-3880
          Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
          E-mail: mberry@susmangodfrey.com

Plaintiff David Wentworth is represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

The cases are: Robert A. Nitsch, Jr. v. Dreamworks Animation SKG,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-04062-LHK; Georgia Cano v. Pixar, et
al., Case No. 14-cv-4203-LHK; and David Wentworth v. Lucasfilm
Ltd. LLC., et al., Case No. 14-cv-04422-LHK, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division.


ELITE DENTAL: Has Improperly Classified Ex-Employee, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda McCauley v. Elite Dental Associates - Dallas, P.C., and
Andy Chang, Case No. 3:14-cv-03954-G (N.D. Tex., November 7, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff was improperly classified as a salaried
employee, but in reality was non-exempt from the overtime
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Elite Dental Associates - Dallas, P.C. is registered as a
professional corporation in Texas.  Elite Dental is a business
providing dental services in Dallas County, Texas.  Andy Chang is
the sole owner of Elite Dental.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nellie G. Hooper, Esq.
          BLANSCET HOOPER & HALE, LLP
          14285 Midway Road, Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001
          Telephone: (214) 764-7977
          Facsimile: (214) 764-7981
          E-mail: nhooper@metrocrestlaw.com


ESPRESSO ROMA: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Rojas v. Espresso Roma Corporation and David Sandy Boyd,
Case No. 3:14-cv-04947-JCS (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2014) accuses
the Defendants of failure to pay proper overtime and minimum
wages.

Espresso Roma Corporation was a corporation operating
approximately 20 to 30 coffee houses in California, Oregon and
other western states.  The Plaintiff alleges that the corporate
status of the Company was suspended by the California Franchise
Tax Board.  David Sandy Boyd is an individual and the employer of
the Plaintiff and other workers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Huy Ngoc Tran, Esq.
          Tomas Eduardo Margain, Esq.
          JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP
          84 West Santa Clara St., Suite 790
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 317-1100
          Facsimile: (408) 351-0105
          E-mail: huy@jawlawgroup.com
                  Tomas@jawlawgroup.com


F. GARCIA LANDSCAPING: Sued in Ill. Over Violation of Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Quinones, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. F. Garcia Landscaping,
Inc. and Fernando Garcia, Case No. 1:14-cv-09011 (N.D. Ill.,
November 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides
landscaping, snowplowing, and maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. State Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org

         - and -

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


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Birdie's Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Birdie's Inc., et al. v.
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01821, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri (Kansas City).  The Missouri District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00985-GAF to the proceeding.

The action arises out of an alleged conspiracy to fix the price of
propane sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks commonly
referred to as "propane exchange tanks."  Propane exchange tanks
are used to fuel outdoor barbeque grills and outdoor heaters.  The
conspirators, named as defendants in this action, are the two
leading distributors of propane in propane exchange tanks.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
          Irma L. Netting, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
          15058 River Road
          P.O. Box 904
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: (985) 783-6789
          Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
                  irma@lemmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832-9080
          Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
          E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

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

          Gabriel A. Crowson, Esq.
          MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC
          601 Poydras St., 12th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 596-2839
          E-mail: gcrowson@mcglinchey.com

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

          Wayne J. Lee, Esq.
          Samantha Paula Griffin, Esq.
          STONE, PIGMAN, WALTHER, WITTMANN, LLC
          546 Carondelet St.
          New Orleans, LA 70130-3588
          Telephone: (504) 581-3200
          E-mail: wlee@stonepigman.com
                  sgriffin@stonepigman.com


FIREEYE INC: Faces Stockholder Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit was filed on June 20, 2014, in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against
the Company, the members of the Company's Board of Directors, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of the
Company's March 2014 follow-on public offering.  On July 17, 2014,
a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
against the same defendants. The complaints allege violations of
the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the
follow-on public offering, and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.  The Company intends to defend the
litigation vigorously.  Based on information currently available,
the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or
range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable.

FireEye, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a leader in
stopping advanced cyber attacks that use advanced malware, zero-
day exploits, and APT ("Advanced Persistent Threat") tactics.


FITCHBURG GAS: Mass. Supreme Court Rules in "Bellermann" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Fernande R.V. Duffly of the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the orders denying plaintiffs'
motions and denied in part the defendant's motions in the case
entitled MARCIA D. BELLERMANN & others vs. FITCHBURG GAS AND
ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY., No. SJC-11492 (Mass.)

In 2008 a Winter Storm struck the areas of the northeastern United
States, in which defendant Fitchburg Gas and Electric Company
supplied electricity service. Plaintiffs are twelve residential
and business customers of defendant who lost power during the
winter storm in 2008, they filed a suit on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated disgruntled customers of defendant
and seeks class certification. Both parties filed a motion for
partial summary judgment, of which the trial judge both denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the motion for
summary judgment.

Associate Justice Duffly affirms the orders denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, denying the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and denying in
part FG&E's motion for partial summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Duffly decision dated October 30, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/C8Uc9Ofrom Leagle.com.

Robin L. Main -- rmain@hinckleyallen.com -- for Massachusetts
Electric Company and others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.


FREESE AND GOSS: S.D. Miss. Rules in "Bridges" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jon C. Gargiulo of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division, denied
various motions filed by the defendants in the case entitled MARY
BRIDGES, BOBBY GORDON, and JOHNNIE GRIFFIN, all individually and
on behalf of 345 other named plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD A.
FREESE; TIM K. GOSS; SHEILA M. BOSSIER; DENNIS C. SWEET, III;
FREESE AND GOSS PLLC; SWEET AND FREESE PLLC; BOSSIER AND
ASSOCIATES PLLC; and DENNIS C. SWEET, d/b/a Sweet and Associates,
PLLC, Defendants, DON A. MITCHELL, Third-Party Defendant., Civil
Action No. 3:13-CV-457-TSL-JCG (S.D. Miss.).

The Defendants failed to offer particularized and legally
supported objections to the discovery sought by the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants instead took an across-the-board position that the
Plaintiffs were entitled to no discovery during the class-
certification discovery period because, as asserted by the
Defendants, the discovery sought was all merits-based discovery.
Simultaneously, the Defendants averred that they had not produced
discovery for two reasons: (1) because the Plaintiffs' counsel
would not agree to a protective order identical to one issued in
another factually-related case; and (2) because the Plaintiffs'
counsel had already been provided some of the discovery he sought
through other litigation.

In denying the defendants' Emergency Motion for Stay and Limited
Reconsideration of Order, Magistrate Judge Gargiulo enunciated
that Motions to reconsider are not appropriate to raise arguments
that could have or should have been made previously or to reurge
matters that a court has already considered. The Court rejects any
argument that discovery be limited in this case because it is
duplicative of discovery had in other cases. Counsel, and not the
Court, knows what discovery has been produced in other litigation.
The Court will not assume the burden of refereeing an issue that
could easily be resolved without Court intervention if counsel
were inclined to cooperate.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Gargiulo's Order dated October 29,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/JzS7Pzfrom Leagle.com.

Don A. Mitchell, Third Party Defendant, represented by J. Wyatt
Hazard, Esq. -- whazard@danielcoker.com -- and Christy Vinson
Malatesta, Esq. -- cmalatesta@danielcoker.com -- at Daniel, Coker,
Horton & Bell.


FREUNDLICH & LITTMAN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Jaffe, Paige Pansky and Leslie Pyatetsky, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freundlich &
Littman, LLC, Jonathan David Rosenau and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06475-TJS (E.D. Pa., November 10,
2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff Files Consolidated Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that five purported
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon have been consolidated
into a single action, In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities
Litig., No. 3:14-cv-367 (D. Or.), and a lead plaintiff has been
appointed. On October 31, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which alleges, among other things,
that certain of the Company's officers and directors violated the
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions in press releases and in filings with the
SEC.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the foregoing complaints.
Based on the very early stage of the litigation, it is not
possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that
might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these
matters," the Company said.

Galena Biopharma is a biopharmaceutical company developing and
commercializing innovative, targeted oncology therapeutics that
address major medical needs across the full spectrum of cancer
care.


GARLOCK SEALING: Objects to Bid to Reopen Damages Issue
-------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and related
companies are objecting to a request from the plaintiffs who
developed mesothelioma from their products to reopen a judge's
estimation of how much they are owed for their injuries.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of
North Carolina estimated in January that Garlock owes $125 million
to plaintiffs.  He based his decision to reject the plaintiffs'
argument that Garlock's liability is around $1 billion to $1.3
billion because of records indicating that plaintiffs attorneys
had misrepresented the value of cases that Garlock settled in the
past or in which Garlock lost jury verdicts.

The judge in January found that some plaintiffs alleged they were
exposed to asbestos from different sources in civil court than
when they submitted claims to the trusts formed after companies
went through bankruptcy because of asbestos-related liability.

For example, Garlock said, plaintiffs lawyers suppressed evidence
that their clients, who won a $9 million verdict against Garlock,
had been exposed to Unibestos made by Pittsburgh Corning on the
U.S.S. John Marshall submarine.

The official committee of asbestos and personal injury claimants
argued, however, that Garlock's counsel had documents and
transcripts indicating that Unibestos was present on the submarine
and that Garlock's counsel failed to that produce information
during the estimation proceedings.

In Garlock's latest court filing, the company's counsel argues
that much of the evidence couldn't have been hidden because it was
in the possession of the committee's consultant who attended the
trial and the committee's trial counsel, Waters & Kraus.

Garlock said it has proposed a reorganization plan setting aside a
$275 million fund available to pay asbestos claimants -- more than
double Hodges' estimate of the defendants' liability.

Garlock's opposition was filed by Garland Cassada --
gcassada@rbh.com -- Jonathan Krisko -- jkrisko@rbh.com -- and
Richard Worf Jr. -- rworf@rbh.com -- of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson
in Charlotte, N.C.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Gebremariam" Suit Added to Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mesafint Gebremariam v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00627, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-08886-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The claims in the litigation involve an alleged unprecedented
failure to disclose, indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known
dangerous defects in GM vehicles.  Since 2002, GM has allegedly
sold millions of vehicles throughout the United States and
worldwide that have a safety defect in which the vehicle's
ignition switch can unintentionally move from the "run" position
to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in a loss of
power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a failure of
the vehicle's airbags to deploy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Fiore, Esq.
          Mary E. Alexander, Esq.
          MARY ALEXANDER AND ASSOCIATES PC
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4440
          Facsimile: (415) 433-5440
          E-mail: jfiore@maryalexanderlaw.com
                  malexander@maryalexanderlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENZYME CORP: Removes "Bradish" Suit to District of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bradish v. Genzyme Corporation,
Case No. MICV2014-6619, was removed from the Middlesex Superior
Court to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Boston).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-14123-DJC to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Mary Alice Bradish alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq.
          Walter H. Jacobs, Esq.
          JACOBS AND ASSOCIATES AT LAW LLC
          795 Turnpike Street
          North Andover, MA 01845
          Telephone: (978) 688-0900
          E-mail: ajacobslaw@gmail.com
                  wjacobslaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq.
          Alison Hickey Silveira, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          One International Place, Suite 2700
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 378-6016
          Facsimile: (617) 507-8046
          E-mail: ckaczmarek@littler.com
                  asilveira@littler.com


GIGGLE INC: Removes "Jessop" Suit to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jessop v. Giggle, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 37-2014-00033716-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
02659-CAB-RBB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts personal injury claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 623-4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623-4299
          E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Devin J. Stone, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 284-3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          E-mail: dstone@btlaw.com


GROUPON INC: Faces "McDonnell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean McDonnell, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, and Bari Dolin, Kelli Furgeson, Gunars Inka,
Jennifer Mack, Michael Moore, Frank Winters, Jr., John Adorno,
Megan Katz, Andrew Albright, and Katie Lonze v. Groupon, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-09028 (N.D. Ill., November 10, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Groupon, Inc. is in the business of selling discount coupons
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie G. Sypulski, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE JAMIE GOLDEN SYPULSKI
      150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 360-0960
      E-mail: jsypulski@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

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


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Blomberg" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Blomberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09015 (N.D. Ill.,
November 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to secure and safeguard its customer's personal financial data.

Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Auchter, Esq.
      Vincent Louis DiTommaso, Esq.
      Peter Scott Lubin, Esq.
      DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.
      17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
      Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
      Telephone: (630) 333-0000
      E-mail: jauchter@ditommasolaw.com
              vdt@ditommasolaw.com
              psl@ditommasolaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Greater Chautaqua Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greater Chautaqua Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-03629 (N.D. Ga., November 10, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to secure and safeguard its
customers' personal and private financial information.

Home depot U.S.A., Inc. is the world's largest home improvement
retailer, operating over 2,266 store locations throughout the
United States, Canada, and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Daniel M. Cohen
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: 202-789-3960
      Facsimile: 202-789-1813

         - and -

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


IMVU INC: California Appeals Court Reinstates "MacKinnon" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Eugene M. Premo of Court of Appeals of California, Sixth
District, reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case
PETER MacKINNON, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. IMVU, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent, Case No. H039236 (Cal. Ct. App.)

The appealed class action suit stems from two amended complaints
from the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff alleged these causes of action,
(1) violation of the CLRA; (2) false advertising (Bus. & Prof.
Code, Section 17500 et seq.); (3) conversion; (4) breach of
contract; (5) misrepresentation; (6) unfair, unlawful, and
deceptive trade practices in violation of the UCL; and (7) breach
of warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-
Beverly Act) (Civ. Code, Sec. 1790 et seq.). Each claim was
premised on the allegation that IMVU misled users into believing
they would be able to play the full-length versions of the audio
products they purchased as long as they used IMVU.

The trial court, in the first amended complaint, granted IMVU's
motion for judgment on the pleadings as to all causes of action
and granted MacKinnon leave to amend only the claims under the
CLRA and UCL claims, and on the second amended complaint the trial
court sustained the demurrer filed by IMVU, this time without
leave to amend.

Justice Premo reversed the judgment of dismissal and the case is
remanded to the Superior Court with directions to vacate its
orders granting IMVU's motion for judgment on the pleadings and
sustaining IMVU's demurrer to the second amended complaint without
leave to amend. The Superior Court is further directed to enter a
new order (1) denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings as
to the conversion and breach of contract claims; (2) granting the
motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the false advertising
law claim with leave to amend as to the September 2008
announcement only; (3) granting the motion for judgment on the
pleadings as to the misrepresentation cause of action with leave
to amend as to the September 2008 announcement only; (4) granting
the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the breach of
warranty cause of action without leave to amend; (5) overruling
the demurrer as to the deception-based CLRA and UCL claims to the
extent they are based on the September 2008 announcement; (6)
overruling the demurrer as to the unconscionability-based CLRA
claim, except to the extent it is premised on the class action
waiver; and (7) overruling the demurrer as to the breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim.

A copy of Justice Premo's Opinion dated October 30, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/6cWpt1from Leagle.com.

The Panel consists of Associate Justices Eugene M. Premo, Franklin
D. Elian and Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing.


INNOVATIVE EMERGENCY: "West" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned West, et al. v. Innovative
Emergency Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04014, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas (Galveston).  The Texas District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:14-cv-00359 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover overtime compensation, damages for
breach of contract and statutory penalties for the Plaintiff and
similarly situated Quality Assurance Control Specialists, who work
or have worked for IEM nationwide on the Hurricane Sandy Recovery
Project.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333

               - and -

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher P. Calsyn, Esq.
          Thomas Peter Gies, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624-2602
          Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
          E-mail: ccalsyn@crowell.com
                  tgies@crowell.com

               - and -

          Ira M. Saxe, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          590 Madison Ave., 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 223-4000
          E-mail: isaxe@crowell.com


J. HEINZ: Request for Transfer of Venue Denied
----------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the Defendant's Motion
to Transfer Venue in the case entitled MICHAEL STEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. J. HEINZ COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C 14-1871 PJH
(N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action under California
statutory law, plus causes of action for breach of express
warranties and negligence, on behalf of himself and a class of
California consumers.

The Defendant argues that this case could have been brought in the
Central District of California, and that the interests of justice
compel transfer to discourage what Heinz claims is impermissible
forum shopping.

Judge Hamilton, in denying Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue,
had the following reasons:

     -- 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 (a) provides discretion to the
district court to transfer a case for "the convenience of parties
and witnesses."  Heinz concedes that convenience is not a factor.
Thus, Heinz has not met its burden as the party seeking;

     -- Heinz appears to be arguing in a roundabout way that the
case should be transferred pursuant to the "first-to-file" rule.
Application of this rule is discretionary with the court, and
courts generally analyze three factors to determine the
applicability of the rule: (1) the chronology of the actions; (2)
the similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the
issues; and

     -- Civil Local Rule 3-3, which is cited by Heinz in support
of its motion, is entirely inapplicable.

A copy of Judge Hamilton's Order dated October 7, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/uov1SAfrom Leagle.com.

H J Heinz Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, is
represented by Amanda L. Groves, Esq. -- agroves@winston.com --
Kathleen Bridget Barry, Esq. -- kbarry@winston.com -- and Sean D.
Meenan, Esq. -- smeenan@winston.com -- at Winston and Strawn


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Illegal Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandre Martchenko, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC d/b/a Jefferson Capital
International, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-
06470 (E.D. Pa., November 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
used inappropriate tactics to collect the Plaintiff's debt.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is engaged in the business of debt
collection within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
      Lawrence Kalikhman, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              lkalikhman@kalraylaw.com

         - and -

      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      Robert J. Gray, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com


JOHN SARRIS DDS: 11th Cir. Flips Dist. Court Ruling in TCPA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard K. Eaton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit ordered the reversal of a district court decision
dated October 22, 2013; and remanded the case PALM BEACH GOLF
CENTER-BOCA, INC., a Florida corporation, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
JOHN G. SARRIS, D.D.S., P.A., a Florida corporation, Defendant-
Appellee, Case No. 13-14013 (11th Cir.)

Palm Beach Golf brought this class action suit against Sarris in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 or
TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3) and gave rise to common law
claims for conversion.  Palm Beach Golf said it received an
unsolicited one-page fax advertisement from Sarris, promoting
dental services. The District Court granted summary judgment in
favor of the defendant by minute entry on August 2, 2013.  The
Plaintiff then filed an interlocutory appeal of the minute entry,
and subsequently, the District Court issued a written decision on
October 22, 2013 and entered a final judgment in favor of the
Defendant.  The Plaintiff appealed.

Judge Eaton reversed the judgment against Palm Beach Golf for its
statutory claim brought under the TCPA, and its common law
conversion claim, and remanded the case back to the District Court
for reconsideration.

A copy of Judge Eaton Opinion dated October 30, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/QTWIxlfrom Leagle.com.

The Eleventh Circuit Panel consists of Judges Beverly B. Martin
and Richard K. Eaton, and District Judge Robert L. Hinkle.

District Judge Hinkle concurred in part and dissented in part.


JP MORGAN: Maine District Court Remands Suit Back to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon D. Levy of District Court of Maine granted plaintiffs
motion to remand in the case entitled  ALEC T. SABINA et al.
Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, Defendant, JONATHAN A.
QUEBBMAN, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Defendant, STANLEY M.
NICKERSON et al. Plaintiffs, v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, ALEC T.
SABINA et al. Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAG, INC.
Defendant., Case No. 2:14-CV-160-JDL, No. 2:14-CV-177-JDL., 2:14-
CV-189-JDL, 2:14-CV-227-JDL (D. Me.)

The Plaintiffs filed class action complaints on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated alleging that the
defendant banks, as mortgagees, failed to mail a copy of a
mortgage release to a mortgagor within 30 days of receiving the
recorded release from the Registry of Deeds which is a violation
of 33 M.R.S. Section 551, a Maine Consumer Protection Statute.

The Defendants tried to removed the state action, invoking the
court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) and
further invoked jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
or CAFA.

The plaintiffs moved to remand the actions to state court,
asserting that the amount in controversy requirements for
diversity and CAFA jurisdiction has not been satisfied.

Judge Levy granted the plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and, since the
actions are remanded, declared that the Motion to Dismiss pending
in each action is rendered moot. The Clerk shall wait until the
expiration of the applicable appeal period before remanding the
case to the Maine Superior Court.

A copy of Judge Levy's Order dated October 29, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/Vw3JRkfrom Leagle.com.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, Defendant, represented by Todd S.
Holbrook, Esq. -- tholbrook@morganlewis.com -- Brian M. Ercole,
Esq. -- bercole@morganlewis.com -- Robert M. Brochin, Esq. --
rbrochin@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Brockius LLP.


LABOR READY: "Machado" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raudel Cruz Machado, Zulaida Romero, and others similarly-situated
v. Labor Ready Southeast, Inc., a foreign corporation, d/b/a True
Blue, and MDT Personnel, LLC, a foreign corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-24234 (S.D. Fla., November 10, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIFE TIME: "Salam" Suit Transferred From Illinois to Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Salam v. Life Time Fitness,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02913, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The Minnesota
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-04446-JNE-SER to
the proceeding.

Life Time is a chain of mega-fitness centers and health clubs
featuring personal fitness instruction, salons, food courts, large
child centers, and indoor/outdoor pools.

In an effort to market its products and services, Life Time sent
(or directed to be sent on its behalf) unsolicited text messages
to the wireless telephones of Plaintiff and each of the members of
the Class without prior express written consent in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1591
          Facsimile: (973) 877-3845
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com


The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq.
          Erin L. Hoffman, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com
                  erin.hoffman@faegrebd.com

               - and -

          Ernest Summers, III, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 212-6500
          Facsimile: (312) 212-6501
          E-mail: ernest.summers@faegrebd.com


LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baruch Lowenbein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Case
No. 1:14-cv-06571 (E.D.N.Y., November 7, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOGAN'S ROADHOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Carey Bradford and Cody Bolen, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated current and former employees v. Logan's
Roadhouse, Inc., LRI Holdings, Inc., and Roadhouse Holding, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02184 (M.D. Tenn., November 10, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Logan's Roadhouse restaurants in
numerous states across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon Ernest Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt Jr., Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Telephone: (901) 754-8001
      Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
      E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
              jholt@jsyc.com


LONDON SILVER: American Suit Consolidated in Silver Fixing MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled American Precious Metals Ltd., et
al. v. The London Silver Market Fixing, Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-04724, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The Southern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-08869-VEC to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the proceeding captioned In re: London
Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02573-
VEC.

The actions in the multidistrict litigation share factual issues
arising from largely similar allegations that the Defendant Banks
conspired to manipulate the prices of silver and silver
derivatives through their membership on The London Silver Fixing,
Ltd., a panel that meets privately on a daily basis to determine
the market price of silver.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lester L. Levy, Esq.
          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: llevy@wolfpopper.com
                  pavery@wolfpopper.com
                  fqian@wolfpopper.com

Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by:

          Peter Joseph Isajiw, Esq.
          CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
          One World Financial Center
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 504-6579
          Facsimile: (212) 504-6666
          E-mail: peter.isajiw@cwt.com


MACY'S INC: Removes "Ambers" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Shirley Ambers v. Macy's Inc., et
al., Case No. BC559515, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
08715-SVW-SH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that Macy's violated the Song Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act by improperly collecting certain personally
identifiable information in connection with in-store purchases of
gift registry items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin C. Schreiber, Esq.
          Eric A. Schreiber, Esq.
          Ean M. Schreiber, Esq.
          SCHREIBER & SCHREIBER, INC.
          16633 Ventura Boulevard Suite 711
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818)789-2577
          Facsimile: (818)789-3391
          E-mail: ed@schreiberlawfirm.com
                  eric@schreiberlawfirm.com
                  ean@schreiberlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dana J. Dunwoody, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130-2006
          Telephone: (858) 720-8900
          Facsimile: (858) 509-3691
          E-mail: ddunwoody@sheppardmullin.com


MANTECH INT'L: Sued by Ex-Instructor Over Discrimination Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
James F. Parker, Jr. v. ManTech International Corporation, a
Virginia corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-02301 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 10,
2014) arises from alleged civil rights violations arising from
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation committed against the
Plaintiff by his former employer in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and in retaliation for his engagement in
protected activity under the False Claims Act.

Mr. Parker was employed by ManTech as an instructor for Department
of Defense personnel at Camp Casey, in South Korea, for the
Technical Services Group, a division of ManTech.  In May 2012, Mr.
Parker was injured in a motorcycle accident, which included
breaking the tibia and fibula in his left leg.  This injury
required multiple surgeries to address, and has resulted in Mr.
Parker's disability, as he now has a permanent limp, requires the
use of a cane to walk, and has been issued a handicapped parking
permit from the South Korean government.

ManTech International Corporation is a Delaware corporation,
authorized to do business in Virginia, with a place of business in
Fairfax, Virginia.  ManTech provides technologies and solutions
for national security programs, and employs over 9,000 people.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Travis M. Tatko, Esq.
          SHLANSKY LAW GROUP, LLP
          228 Hamilton Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 238-5433
          Facsimile: (866) 257-9530
          E-mail: Travis.Tatko@slglawfirm.com


MARIA CORVAIA: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phynecia Rodolph v. Law Offices of Maria Corvaia O'Donnell, P.A.,
a Florida corporation, and Maria Corvaia O'Donnell, individually,
Case No. 0:14-cv-62550-JIC (S.D. Fla., November 7, 2014) is an
action for damages under Fair Labor Standards Act relating to
unpaid overtime.

Law Offices of Maria Corvaia O'Donnell, P.A., is a Florida
corporation authorized to transact business in the state of
Florida and further, was conducting business in Broward County,
Florida.  Maria Corvaia O'Donnell is sui juris and a resident of
the state of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Rush, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER J. RUSH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          Compson Financial Center, Suite 205
          1880 North Congress Avenue
          Boynton Beach, FL 33426
          Telephone: (561) 369-3331
          Facsimile: (561) 369-5902
          E-mail: crush@crushlawfl.com


MICHIGAN: Plan First! Enrollees Win Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Laurie J. Michelson of U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan granted, in part, the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case entitled MAYA DOZIER,
KRICKETT LUCKHARDT, and MICHELLE MACKAY, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES K.
HAVEMAN, in his official capacity as Director of the Michigan
Department of Community Health; and MAURA D. CORRIGAN, in her
official capacity as Director of the Michigan Department of Human
Services, Defendants., Case No. 2:14-CV-12455 (E.D. Mich.)

The Plaintiffs allege violation of federal laws against Michigan,
when the State through its Department of Community Health and
Department of Human Services, tried to wind down the Plan First!
Family Planning Program and ramped up the Healthy Michigan Plan.
They asked the court to:

     (1) immediately certify a class of Plan First! enrollees who
have allegedly received inadequate pre-termination process;

     (2) order defendants to provide that process, and

     (3) enjoin the Defendants from terminating the proposed class
members Plan First! benefits until it could be finally determined
whether Michigan's phase out of Plan First! complied with federal
law.

The Departments agreed to extend Plan First! benefits pending the
Court's decision on the Plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motion.

Judge Michelson granted, in part, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification; made no finding as to the viability of the class
beyond adjudication of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Relief;
and further appointed Katie Linehan, Jacqueline Doig, and the
Center for Civil Justice as class counsel.  The Plaintiffs'
individual substantive claims are moot and are dismissed for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Michelson's opinion and order dated October 29,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/cY6Iljfrom Leagle.com.

Beverly Kimberly, Interpleader Plaintiff, is represented by
Jacqueline Doig, Esq. -- jdoig@ccj-mi.org -- and Katie N. Linehan,
Esq. -- klinehan@ccj-mi.org -- at the Center for Civil Justice


MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Colorado Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company's
motion to dismiss that Complaint filed in the Colorado Federal
District Court is pending.

The Company said, "In February 2012, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Colorado Federal District Court against
us and certain of our current and former executive officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on July 31, 2012 also
names most of our Board members and some of our stockholders as
defendants, along with other persons and entities. That Complaint
alleges 18 claims for relief arising out of alleged: (1)
securities fraud in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, or the Exchange Act, during the proposed class period from
February 11, 2011 through November 10, 2011; and (2) materially
untrue or misleading statements in registration statements and
prospectuses for our public offering of preferred stock in
February 2011 and of common stock in June 2011, in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933. Our motion to dismiss that Complaint
was filed in October 2012 and is pending. We believe that this
lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against these claims."

Molycorp is a rare earths producer that operates a vertically
integrated, global supply chain that combines a world-class rare
earths resource with manufacturing facilities on three continents
that can produce a wide variety of custom engineered, advanced
rare earth materials from all of the lanthanide elements, plus
yttrium.


MOLYCORP INC: Files Motion to Dismiss New York Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Company said, "In August 2013, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us and certain of our current and
former executive officers, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
filed on May 19, 2014, also names us and certain of our current
and former executive officers. The Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint alleges claims for relief arising out of alleged
securities fraud in violation of the Exchange Act, during a
purported class period from February 21, 2012 through October 15,
2013. Our Motion to Dismiss the consolidated lawsuit was filed on
August 13, 2014. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit,
and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these
claims."

Molycorp is a rare earths producer that operates a vertically
integrated, global supply chain that combines a world-class rare
earths resource with manufacturing facilities on three continents
that can produce a wide variety of custom engineered, advanced
rare earth materials from all of the lanthanide elements, plus
yttrium.


MONTEFIORE MEDICAL: Accused of Retaliation and Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie-Ann Turney v. Montefiore Medical Center, and Nerissa Chin,
Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08876-WHP (S.D.N.Y., November 7,
2014) seeks damages to redress the alleged injuries the Plaintiff
suffered as a result of being discriminated against by the
Defendants solely due to her religion (Seventh-Day Adventist), and
retaliated against for objecting to the discrimination.

Montefiore Medical Center is a New York domestic not-for-profit
corporation.  Montefiore owns, operates, and maintains multiple
health care facilities within New York City, including one called
the "Montefiore Medical Center" located in Bronx, New York.
Nerissa Chin worked for Montefiore in the Labor Relations
Department.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Casey Wolnowski, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & PHILLIPS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
          E-mail: cwolnowski@tpglaws.com


NATIONWIDE DEBT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Yonason Goldman and Miriam Goldman, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated consumers v. Nationwide Debt
Management Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06576 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 7, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Sutton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-06986-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., November 7, 2014) seeks relief
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW WAY FOODS: Sued for Refusing to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Pato and all others similarly-situated under 29 U.S.C. 216
(B) v. New Way Foods, Inc., Neovez Rodriguez, and Wanda Rodriguez,
Case No. 1:14-cv-24219-PCH (S.D. Fla., November 7, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

New Way Foods, Inc., is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Miami-Dade County.  The Individual Defendants are
officers, managers or owners and operators of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Claudio R. Cedrez Pellegrino, Esq.
          1090 Kane Concourse, Suite 206
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Telephone: (305) 763-8678
          Facsimile: (786) 664-6596
          E-mail: ccedrez@cedrezlaw.com


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Homeless Services Workers Sue Over Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Martin, et al. v. City of New York, New York, Case No. 1:14-
cv-08950 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2014) accuses New York City of,
among other things, failure to pay overtime for all hours the
Plaintiffs are suffered or permitted to work in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs' counsel filed a 268-page document with the Court.
The complaint is 20 pages, including a five-page list of
plaintiffs' names.  The remaining pages include copies of each
Plaintiff's consent to sue.

The Plaintiffs are Steve Martin, Olatumbosun Adeagbo, Wale
Ademoye, Ademola Adesanya, Adekunle Adesina, Nadir Ahmed, Anthony
Aigbedion, David Alexander, Walter Alexander, Maria Alfonso, Kaye
Allen, Anibal Allende, John Alumoottil, Fabio Alvarez, Magalie
Amilcar, Cherise Armstrong, Derrick Askins, Creola Atchison,
Cydnee Atwater, Glenn Bailey, Benjamins Banks, Larry Barber,
Cyrlene Barnett, Aimee Barton, Duwayne Baugh, Terry Bayne, Audrey
Belton, Henrich Benjamin, Penniellen Bergholz, Chevelle Bethea,
Jose Bien-Aime, Rendell Blount, Liciele Blunte, Kenneth Boatswain,
Nesha Borrero, Clarice Brackett, Kevin Branch, Howard Brown, Luis
Brown, Valencia Brown, Villa Brown, Linda Browne, Alton Burton,
Monique Burton, Regina Butler, Daralyn Calderon, Nora Cameron,
Morven Campbell, Gary Capers, Jani Cauthen, Artenkah Carswell,
Jocelynne Chamblin, Coran Chang, Ultide Charles, Yvette
Clairjeane, Doret Clarke, Marvin Clear, Suzette Coles, Keisha
Collins, Maria Corporan-Cintron, Terry Cox, Foster Davis, David
Diaz, Dashrath Dugar, Jamie Easton, Linda Edwards, Hilda
Eghardevba, Jane Etienne, Phillip Ewola, Gilbert Ezeofor, Franklin
Fenton, Elnora Fludd, Barbara Fogle, Regina Franklin-Moore,
Johanne Gaspard-Joseph, Karen Giles, Erik Giordano, George
Glemauel, Felicia Gomes, Pedro Gomez, Ian Gordon, Evelyn Goree,
Larry Graham, Karen Haines, Jamel Hansen, Chitra Harris, Howard
Harris, Samuel Hartley, Acie Heitt, Dionne Hendricks, Paul
Henriques, Miguel Henriquez, Patrick Henry, Antonio Hernandez,
Suzette Holder, Kevin Holt, Caleb Hubert, Hugh Hughes, Deborah
Isoor, Raynal Jabouin, Fabiola Jean-Louis, Marie Jean-Louis,
Natalia Jennings, Odetta Jervis, Jean Jeudy, Dolores Jimenez,
Milous Johnson, Hallie Jones, Rochelle Jordan-McInnis, Rhonda
Jose, Jasmine Joseph, David Kayode, Venus Kellam-Thomas, Suzanne
Kellar, Robert Kerkula, Latica Lamar, Sabrina Leckey, Juliana
Liburd, Hubert Lindsay, Rosa Liriano, Melida Mahon, Giselle Marks,
Benjullays Martinez, Jacqueline Martins, Valentyna Masyk, Gladys
Mateo, Cynthia Matlock, Victor Matos, Gavin McAulay, Maria McBean,
Joycelyn McBride, Thavems McClary-Ellis, Peggy McGill, Errol
McNaught, Steven McNeil, Sandra McQueen, Victor Mendez-Santoni,
Amber Miller, Avis Miller, Farisha Mohammed, Loyda Molina-
Caldwell, Larry Moody, Napoleon Morales, Steck Morales, Rhonda
Morgan, Shalema Murray, Niniola Musib, Shonnette Nash, Gail
Nobles, Marlene Occean, Chistianah Ogunleye, Olateju Ogunremi,
Felix Okafor, Ifeyinwa Okeya, Augustine Okopie, Miguel Olivo,
Ladipo Olukogbon, Joseph Osazee, Julia Pabon, Jesse Pender, Alecia
Philip, Robert Phillips, Lydia Piker, Freddie Porter, Azeenaudina
Price, Connie Rashid, Julia Ragin, Richard Ramnarine, Rajnaline
Rampersaud, Sheila Ray, Wilmot Reedy, Mark Richards, Tanisha
Roach, Rafael Rodriguez, Patrick Rose, Elizabeth Ryan, Diane
Salley, Greg Scott, Charles Senu, Maria Serrano, Gwendolyn
Shannon, Joseph Shola-Philips, Roberto Shoy, Damien Sims, Dmitriy
Sirota, Juanelle Small, Donna Smith, Beverly St. Hill, Donna St.
Hill, Roxanne St. Hill, Carnell Stevenson, Germaine Stewart, Faith
Strachan, Thomas Swann, Semiramis Taveras, Maurice Taylor, Andrea
Thomas, John Thomas, Tara Thompson, Isaac Timotheose, Arit Udoh,
Mercy Ukanwoke, Janet Vazquez, Norma Vidal, Yeudy Villalona, Mary
Vincent, Vanessa Wallace, Lynette Ward, Darrell Watson, Charles
White, Dionnie Williams, Doreatha Williams, Norman Williams,
Richard Williams, Olin Witt, Donna Yee and Lateef Yusuf.

The Plaintiffs are, and at all times material herein have been,
employed by the Defendant in the Department of Homeless Services
in the positions of Community Coordinator, Caseworker, Community
Associate, Community Assistant, Fraud Investigator, Associate
Fraud Investigator, Assistant Superintendent of Welfare,
Superintendent of Adult Institutions, Addiction Counselor,
Caseworker or Supervisor I, II or III.

The Plaintiffs' job duties are to work to prevent homelessness, to
assist New Yorkers in transitioning from shelter into permanent
housing, to assist clients in gaining employment, to connect
clients to work supports and other public benefits and to help
prepare them for independent living as well as performing various
other duties and activities related to serving the citizens of New
York City.

New York City is a public agency and has a principal office and
place of business located at Broadway and Park Row, in New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hope Pordy, Esq.
          SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
          1700 Broadway, Suite 2100
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 765-2100
          Facsimile: (212) 765-8954
          E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com

               - and -

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          David Ricksecker, Esq.
          WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855


NFL PRODUCTIONS: "Culp" Suit Transferred From N.J. to Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Culp, et al. v. NFL Productions
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-07815, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  The Minnesota District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-04700-PJS-SER to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged trademark infringement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William J. Pinilis, Esq.
          PINILISHALPERN LLP
          160 Morris Street
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 401-1111
          Facsimile: (973) 401-1114
          E-mail: wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jon T. King, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jonk@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 752-5455
          Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
          E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Stein, Esq.
          BOB STEIN LLC
          6473 Beach Road
          Eden Prairie, MN 55344
          Telephone: (952) 829-1043
          Facsimile: (952) 829-1040
          E-mail: rastein66@aol.com


NONGSHIM CO: 3 Korean Noodle Makers Dismissed From Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge dismissed three of eight Korean noodle makers from
an antitrust class action accusing them of conspiring to fix
noodle prices in the United States.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick on November 4 partially granted
and partially denied motions from several Korean companies and
their U.S. distributors.

Orrick found that lead plaintiff Stephen Fenerjian has not
plausibly pleaded that all of the defendant companies were
involved in a conspiracy to raise the prices of dried noodles in
the United States.

The Korean Fair Trade Commission in 2012 fined four Korean
companies for conspiring to raise the price of instant noodles.

Fenerjian et al. sued lead defendant Nongshim Co. in September
2013, claiming that the price increases in Korea led to similar
increases in the United States.

The Korean defendant companies are Nongshim, Ottogi, Samyang Foods
and Korea Yakult, and their U.S. counterparts, Nongshim America,
Ottogi America, Sam Yang USA and Paldo Co.

Orrick dismissed with leave to amend all causes of action against
Sam Yang USA because the plaintiffs did not adequately plead that
its Korean counterpart owned, controlled or directed the company.

Orrick also dismissed with leave to amend causes of action against
Yakult Korea, because the plaintiffs allege only that prices of
Yakult's noodles "were expected" to increase, not that they
actually increased.

"The mere allegation that Yakult Korea conspired to fix prices in
Korea is insufficient to plausibly plead that Yakult Korea
participated in the conspiracy to fix prices of Korean noodles
sold in the United States," Orrick wrote.

Similarly, since Paldo was Yakult Korea's U.S. distributor, Orrick
found no plausible allegations connecting it to the alleged
scheme.  But Orrick denied Nongshim Korea and Nongshim Americas'
motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claims.

"In combination with the allegations that Nongshim Korea
controlled and directed Nongshim America and that the prices of
Nongshim Korean Noodles sold in the United States did in fact
increase in correlation to the increase in Korea, plaintiffs have
plausibly alleged that Nongshim America was part of the conspiracy
to fix prices on Korean Noodles sold in the United States," Orrick
wrote.

Orrick came to a similar conclusion with Ottogi Korea and its
American counterpart, and also denied their motions to dismiss the
Sherman Act claims.  Orrick ruled that Samyang Korea is also
liable for any injury caused by the conspiracy, even if the
company didn't sell directly to the plaintiffs.

He set a case management conference for Nov. 25.

The case is Stephen Fenerjian, et al. v. Nongshim Company, Ltd, et
al., Case No. 3:13-cv-04115-WHO, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.


NORTHERN TRUST: Sued for Wrongfully Discharging Jewish Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Soussan v. The Northern Trust Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-08952
(N.D. Ill., November 7, 2014) accuses the Defendant of wrongfully
discharging the Plaintiff, a Jewish male and a citizen of the
United States of America.

The North Trust Company is an Illinois corporation.  The Company
is an international bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward M. Fox, Esq.
          ED FOX & ASSOCIATES
          300 West Adams, Suite 330
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 345-8877
          E-mail: efox@efox-law.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Uses Unfair Means to Collect Debt, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Kassin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Northland Group Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:14-cv-06970-JAP-LHG (D.N.J., November 7, 2014) is brought on
behalf of a class of New Jersey consumers seeking redress for the
Defendants' alleged actions of using an unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Northland Group Inc. is a collection agency with its principal
office located in Edina, Minnesota.  The Doe Defendants are
unknown individuals and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


OASIS PETROLEUM: To Defend Against "Gagne" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Petroleum Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend against the class action, Yannick
Gagne, etc., et al. v. Rail World, Inc., etc., et al., Case No.
48006000001132.

On July 6, 2013, a freight train operated by Montreal, Maine and
Atlantic Railway ("MMA") carrying crude oil (the "Train") derailed
in Lac-M‚gantic, Quebec. In March 2014, Oasis Petroleum Inc. and
OP LLC were added to a group of over fifty named defendants,
including other crude oil producers as well as the Canadian
Pacific Railway, MMA and certain of its affiliates, owners and
transloaders of the crude oil carried by the Train, several
lessors of tank cars, and the Attorney General of Canada, in a
motion filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize a class-action
lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as costs for claims arising out of the derailment of the
Train (Yannick Gagne, etc., et al. v. Rail World, Inc., etc., et
al., Case No. 48006000001132). The motion generally alleges
wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for the
proper and safe transportation of crude oil.

The Company believes that all claims against Oasis Petroleum Inc.
and OP LLC in connection with the derailment of the Train in Lac-
M‚gantic, Quebec are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against them.

Oasis Petroleum is an independent exploration and production
company focused on the acquisition and development of
unconventional oil and natural gas resources in the Williston
Basin.


OCEAN SKY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Valladares and all others similarly-situated under 29
U.S.C. 216 (B) v. Gaylee Rivera and Felix J. Ruiz, d/b/a/ Ocean
Sky Limo, Case No. 9:14-cv-81387-KLR (S.D. Fla., November 7, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff regularly worked overtime hours, but
was not paid overtime compensation at a rate of time and one-half
of the regular rate of pay for all of the overtime hours worked.

The Individual Defendants are officers, managers, owners or
operators of the company doing business under the fictitious name
Ocean Sky Limo.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Claudio R. Cedrez Pellegrino, Esq.
          1090 Kane Concourse, Suite 206
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Telephone: (305) 763-8678
          Facsimile: (786) 664-6596
          E-mail: ccedrez@cedrezlaw.com


OCEAN SKY: Second "Valladares" Overtime Suit Filed
--------------------------------------------------
Carlos Valladares, and all others similarly-situated under 29
U.S.C. 216 (B) v. Gaylee Rivera and Felix J. Ruiz, d/b/a/ Ocean
Sky Limo, Case No. 9:14-cv-81396 (S.D. Fla., November 10, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Ocean Sky Limo is a limousine service provider in South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Claudio R. Cedrez, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CLAUDIO R. CEDREZ
      1090 Kane Concourse, Suite 206
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 868-7177
      Facsimile: (786) 664-6596
      E-mail: ccedrez@cedrezlaw.com


ONTEL PRODUCTS: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Copyright Infringement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Implus Footcare, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company v.
Ontel Products Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, Case No.
2:14-cv-08726 (C.D. Cal., November 10, 2014), alleges that the
Defendant uses deceptive, misleading, and confusingly similar
advertising for its products to identify goods in competition with
the Plaintiff's goods in the same trade area in which the
Plaintiff has already established its mark in violation of the
Copyright Act of 1976.

Ontel Products Corporation developed, manufactured, and marketed a
growing line of fitness products for U.S. and international
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph P. Costa, Esq.
      Lindsay T. Cinotto, Esq.
      Yujin Yi, Esq.
      COSTA, ABRAMS & COATE, LLP
      1221 Second Street, Third Floor
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 576-6161
      Facsimile: (310) 576-6160
      E-Mail: joseph.costa@costalaw.com
              lindsay.costa@costalaw.com
              yujin.costa@costalaw.com


ORANGE REGIONAL: Accused of Discriminating Against Safety Officer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Ferraris v. Orange Regional Medical Center, Case No. 7:14-
cv-08890-CS (S.D.N.Y., November 7, 2014) alleges that while
employed as a Security and Safety Officer for the Defendants, the
Plaintiff suffered discrimination on the basis of being disabled
or perceived as disabled, use of Family and Medical Leave Act
leave, and as a result of his service in the United States Air
Force Reserves and obligations related thereto.

Orange Regional Medical Center is a hospital licensed to do
business in the state of New York and is located in Middletown,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Ranni, Esq.
          RANNI LAW FIRM
          148 North Main Street
          Florida, NY 10981
          Telephone: (845) 651-0999
          Facsimile: (845) 651-5111
          E-mail: joeranni@rannilaw.com


PILOT FLYING J: Owner Faces Suit Over Alleged Rebate Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two trucking companies are
accusing Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam of directly
orchestrating a scheme to cheat customers out of promised rebates
and discounts, according to recent court filings.

Mr. Haslam is the CEO of Pilot Flying J, the nation's largest
diesel retailer, with annual revenues of around $30 billion.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam also holds an undisclosed ownership
share in the company but has said he is not involved in Pilot's
day-to-day operations.

Since federal agents raided Pilot's Knoxville headquarters in
April 2013, 10 former employees have pleaded guilty to the scheme
to defraud customers.  Jimmy Haslam has not been charged with any
crime.

The accusations against him came in a bill of particulars filed on
Nov. 14 in federal court by National Retail Transportation Inc.
and Keystone Freight Corp.  They were first reported by
investigative reporter Walter F. Roche Jr. on his blog.

Tom Ingram, a spokesman for the Pilot CEO, said on Nov. 15 that he
was not familiar with the claims made in this lawsuit, but "Jimmy
Haslam has said from the beginning that he was unaware of any
issues and that he would get to the bottom of it and deal with any
issues.  And that continues to be his position."

In July, Pilot agreed to pay $92 million in fines and accept
responsibility for the criminal conduct of its employees while the
government agreed not to prosecute the company.  The agreement
requires Pilot to comply with several conditions, including
cooperation with the ongoing investigation of people who may have
been involved in the fraud. It does not protect any individual at
Pilot from prosecution.

Civil suits against Pilot were mostly resolved by a class-action
settlement in which Pilot agreed to pay out nearly $85 million to
5,500 customers last November.  But several individual trucking
companies, including National Retail Transportation and Keystone
Freight, opted out of the settlement in order to pursue their own
civil lawsuits.

Those lawsuits were consolidated early this year in U.S. District
Court for Kentucky's eastern district.

In the Nov. 14 filing, National Retail Transportation and Keystone
Freight accuse Mr. Haslam of instructing his employees to tell the
companies they would receive rebates while never intending to
honor that commitment.  The bill of particulars also claims that
Pilot employees sent fraudulent rebate checks at Haslam's
direction.  The filing offers no specific evidence to support
those claims.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Schnacky" Suit Over EFTA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Schnacky, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Association, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01387-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., November 10, 2014) alleges violations of
the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Hans Crumley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA
          2254 Riverside Ave.
          Jacksonville, FL 32204
          Telephone: (904) 374-0111
          Facsimile: (904) 374-0113
          E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bararsani v. Coldwell Case in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Company is now in the discovery phase, Realogy Holdings Corp. and
Realogy Group LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC")
alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former
affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they
were actually employees.  The complaint, as amended, further
alleges that, because of the misclassification, CBRBC has violated
several sections of the California Labor Code including one for
failing to reimburse the plaintiff and purported class for
business related expenses and a second for failing to keep proper
records.  The amended complaint also asserts an Unfair Business
Practices claim for misclassifying the sales associates.  The
Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, seeks the benefit of
the California labor laws for expenses and other sums, plus
asserted penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.  The Company
believes that CBRBC has properly classified the sales associates
as independent contractors and that it has and continues to
operate in a manner consistent with applicable law, and
longstanding, widespread industry practice for many decades.

On July 31, 2013, CBRBC filed a Demurrer with the Court seeking to
dismiss the amended complaint.  The Demurrer asserted that the
claims raised by the plaintiff were without basis under California
law because the California Business and Professions Code sets out
the applicable three-part test for classification of real estate
sales associates as independent contractors and all elements of
the test have been satisfied by CBRBC and the affiliated sales
associates.  Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 12, 2013 and
a hearing was held on August 28, 2013.  The Court denied the
Demurrer and stated that it would look to the more complex multi-
factor common law test to determine whether the plaintiff was
misclassified.  CBRBC filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeals seeking its discretionary review
of that decision on September 30, 2013 and on November 8, 2013,
the Court of Appeal denied the Petition.

On March 25, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's ex parte
application which sought, in part, to invalidate, for purposes of
this litigation, arbitration clauses with class action waivers in
independent contractor agreements executed by some putative
members of the class following the commencement of the litigation.
Plaintiffs filed a Writ of Mandate with the California Court of
Appeal seeking its discretionary review of the Court's decision to
deny plaintiff's application.  On June 2, 2014, the Court of
Appeal summarily denied the petition.  The case is now in the
discovery phase.

Realogy is a global provider of residential real estate services.


RESTAURANT INVESTMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid FLSA Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Urias, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Restaurant Investment at Doral, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and Eduardo Namnum, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24218-
DPG (S.D. Fla., November 7, 2014) is brought for damages exceeding
$15,000, excluding attorneys' fees and costs, for unpaid wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Restaurant Investment at Doral, LLC, is a Florida limited
liability company having its main place of business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked.  Eduardo Namnum is a
corporate officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROC SERVICE: Faces "Smiley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kipp Smiley and Aaron Sapp, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROC Service Company, LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-01539 (W.D. Pa., November 10, 2014), seeks to recover the
unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

ROC Service Company, LLC is an oilfield services company providing
well related services to oil companies and operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: 11th Cir. Reverses Ruling in Malpractice Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson M. Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that a
groundbreaking decision by the Atlanta-based federal appeals court
will allow cruise ship companies to be sued for medical
malpractice.

The Nov. 10 ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit discards a long-standing rule embodied in a 1988
decision of a neighboring circuit and adopted by other courts.
The Eleventh Circuit panel said changes in legal norms, the
development of a complex cruise ship industry and advances in
communications technology since 1988 mean cruise lines should not
be immune from suit over allegations of negligence by ship doctors
and nurses.

Besides being a case of first impression for the Eleventh Circuit,
the decision is of particular importance because most lawsuits
filed by customers against cruise lines fall within the Eleventh
Circuit.  According to South Miami lawyer Philip Parrish, who won
the appeal for the plaintiff, most cruise lines are headquartered
in Miami and require their passengers from cruises involving a
U.S. port to sue them in the Southern District of Florida as a
matter of contract.  That means up until now the cruise lines have
specifically sought out the Eleventh Circuit as a venue.

Mr. Parrish's client, Patricia Franza, sued Royal Caribbean
Cruises after her father, Pasquale Vaglio, died as a result of a
fall on a ship in 2011.  Ms. Franza contended that her elderly
father, while traveling aboard the Explorer of the Seas, fell and
bashed his head boarding a trolley at or near the dock as the
vessel was docked in Bermuda.

Ms. Franza alleges that a cruise ship nurse negligently allowed
him to return to his cabin.  After Mr. Vaglio's son and daughter-
in-law became concerned his condition was deteriorating,
Mr. Vaglio was transported by wheelchair back to the ship's
infirmary, where he was seen by a doctor, who ordered him
transferred to a Bermuda hospital.  Ms. Franza claims that, by the
time her father arrived at the Bermuda hospital, more than six
hours after he was first examined by the ship nurse, it was too
late to save his life.  Mr. Vaglio was airlifted to a hospital in
New York the following day and died there a week later.

U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard dismissed the case.  Applying the
1988 rule out of the Fifth Circuit, she rejected the claim that
the cruise line could be vicariously liable for the nurse's and
doctor's negligence on the theory that the medical professionals
were agents of the cruise line.  Cruise lines, including Royal
Caribbean in this case, have argued that they can't be sued for
medical malpractice because their medical professionals are
independent contractors.

Several courts have allowed cruise line liability for medical
negligence on an apparent agency theory when plaintiffs have shown
that they erroneously, but reasonably, believed the medical
professional was an agent of the cruise company.  Judge Lenard
rejected that claim, as well, saying Ms. Franza hadn't pleaded
enough facts to support it.

The plaintiff appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, where the case was
heard by Judge Stanley Marcus, Senior Judge R. Lanier Anderson and
visiting Judge Richard Goldberg of the U.S. Court of International
Trade.

Writing for the panel, Judge Marcus reversed Judge Lenard.  He
noted there was no binding precedent from the Supreme Court or his
court on whether cruise ships can be vicariously liable for
negligent medical care.  Judge Marcus concluded that such cases
raise a factual question of whether the shipowner controlled the
medical workers whose care is at issue, rather than call for a
blanket rule of immunity for the owner.

Judge Marcus said the roots of the 1988 decision of the Fifth
Circuit, Barbetta v. S/S Bermuda Star, "snake back into a wholly
different world.  Instead of 19th-century steamships . . . we now
confront state-of-the-art cruise ships that house thousands of
people and operate as floating cities, complete with well-stocked
modern infirmaries and urgent care centers.  In place of truly
independent doctors and nurses, we must now acknowledge that
medical professionals routinely work for corporate masters. And
whereas ships historically went 'off the grid' when they set sail,
modern technology enables distant ships to communicate
instantaneously with the mainland in meaningful ways."

Judge Marcus noted that state courts have in recent decades
abandoned the notion that doctors could never be the agent of a
company in light of their special skills and independent judgment.
Marcus said shipowners' purported lack of medical expertise was
not a reason to immunize them from suit, either, comparing cruise
lines to universities, which may be held liable for medical
negligence in school health clinics even though a university's
primary business is not providing medical services.  He said the
idea that onboard medical personnel could not be supervised was
outdated given the development of cellular and satellite
communication capabilities, noting several cruise lines now
purport to staff land-based medical departments.

Judge Marcus also said cruise lines shouldn't have immunity for
medical negligence given the potential profit for onboard medical
care.  "And, surely, for at least some ticket-buying customers,
the availability of onboard medical facilities is a deal-maker,"
added Marcus, who is 68 and pointed to a survey in which nearly 30
percent of respondents who had ever taken a cruise vacation were
over 60.

Judge Marcus rejected the cruise line's argument that Mr. Vaglio's
ticket contract makes clear that onboard medical personnel are
independent contractors, not employees or agents.  "Even if we
were to look at the contract at this stage," said Judge Marcus,
"we would not consider the nurse and doctor to be independent
contractors simply because that is what the cruise ship calls
them."

The judge pointed to several allegations in the complaint that he
said, if true, would support the conclusion that Royal Caribbean
controlled its onboard medical personnel.  Among other things,
Ms. Franza's complaint said the medical workers were paid directly
by the cruise line and required to wear uniforms furnished by
Royal Caribbean.

Holland & Knight partner Rodolfo Sorondo Jr. --
rodolfo.sorondo@hklaw.com -- of Miami, a former state court judge,
argued the case for Royal Caribbean. He could not be reached for
comment.

Mr. Parrish, who represents the plaintiff along with Miami lawyers
Joel Barnett and Andrew Waks, said he hoped the decision would
lead cruise lines to abandon what he said was a practice of using
mostly, if not exclusively, foreign-domiciled, foreign-educated
doctors, which he said he suspected was a strategy to make it
difficult to sue the doctors directly.  "The medical care on board
their ships would be better, and the passengers would benefit from
that," he said.

Mr. Parrish said he didn't think the ruling would drive medical
malpractice cases against cruise lines out of the Eleventh
Circuit.  "That's somewhat unpredictable," he said.  "[But] I
don't think that the bottom line effect of this decision is going
to be significant enough to the cruise lines to . . . cause them
to alter their forum selection ticket provisions."

The case is Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, No. 13-13067.


SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA: Faces "Newberry" Suit in C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Newberry, Patricia Mendoza, Maria Aboytia, Juana Pulido,
Jesus Pulido, Jonathan Pulido, Richard Gonzalez Lozada, Melinda
McNeal, Bertha Lozada, Mildred Lytwynec, Nicholas Lytwynec, Gloria
Basua, and Others Similarly Situated v. County of San Bernardino,
in its individual capacity; County of San Bernardino, in its
official capacity; City of San Bernardino, in its individual
capacity; City of San Bernardino, in its official capacity; Jarrod
Burguan, Chief, in his individual capacity; Jarrod Burguan, Chief,
in his official capacity; Chief of San Bernardino Police
Department, in his/her individual capacity; Chief of San
Bernardino Police Department, in his/her official capacity; Carey
Davis, Mayor, in his individual capacity; Carey Davis, Mayor, in
his official capacity; Richard Lawhead, Lt., in his individual
capacity; Richard Lawhead, Lt., in his official capacity; Rebecca
Daugherty, in her individual capacity; Rebecca Daugherty, in her
official capacity; Curtis Stone, in his individual capacity;
Curtis Stone, in his official capacity; Patricia Johns, in her
individual capacity; Patricia Johns, in her official capacity; Jim
Sowers, in his individual capacity; Jim Sowers, in his official
capacity; and Does 1-20, Case No. 5:14-cv-02298-UA-DUTY (C.D.
Cal., November 7, 2014) alleges violations of Civil Rights.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marjorie Barrios, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARJORIE BARRIOS
          P O Box 500
          San Bernardino, CA 92401
          Telephone: (909) 888-6000
          Facsimile: (909) 888-6001
          E-mail: mbarrios@mbarrios.com


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Surbaugh" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Surbaugh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sandridge Energy, Inc., Tom L. Ward, James D. Bennett,
Eddie M. Leblanc, and Randall D. Cooley, Case No. 5:14-cv-01252
(W.D. Okla., November 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies.

Sandridge Energy, Inc. is engaged in the exploration and
production of oil and natural gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Rubenstein, Esq.
      RUBENSTEIN & PITTS, PLLC
      1503 E. 19th Street
      Edmond, OK 73013
      Telephone: (405) 340-1900
      Facsimile: (405) 340-1001
      Email: mrubenstein@oklawpartners.com

         - and -

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


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Bohrer" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Bohrer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sandridge Energy, Inc., Tom Ward, James D. Bennett,
and Eddie M. Leblanc, Case No. 5:14-cv-01239 (W.D. Okla., November
10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Sandridge Energy, Inc. explores and produces oil and natural gas
properties primarily in the Mid-Continent region of the United
States.

The Individual Defendants are officers of Sandridge Energy, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Rubenstein, Esq.
      RUBENSTEIN & PITTS, PLLC
      1503 E. 19th Street
      Edmond, OK 73013
      Telephone: (405) 340-1900
      Facsimile: (405) 340-1001
      E-mail: mrubenstein@oklawpartners.com

         - and -

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


SNACK FACTORY: Faces Suit Over Misleading "All Natural" Label
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Seidman, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Snack Factory, LLC, a New Jersey limited
liability company, Case No. 0:14-cv-62547-JIC (S.D. Fla.,
November 7, 2014) asserts claims under contract product liability.

According to Top Class Actions, Mr. Seidman alleges that the
Company's "All Natural" label on certain products is false,
misleading because they contain artificial materials, including
dextrose and caramel color.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued Over Misleading Priority Boarding Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Zammetti, Michael J. Lowry, individually, and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Southwest Airlines, Co., and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01792 (C.D. Cal.,
November 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants engaged in the
deceptive, fraudulent, and misleading Early Bird priority boarding
program.

Southwest Airlines, Co. is a commercial airliner doing business in
counties throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristopher P. Badame, Esq.
      Joseph H. Hunter, Esq.
      Michele E. Pillette, Esq.
      BADAME & ASSOCIATES, APC
      25432 Trabuco Road, Suite 207
      Lake Forest, CA 92630
      Telephone: (949) 770-2867
      Facsimile: (866) 230-3044
      E-mail: kbadame@badameandassociates.com
         jhunter@badameandassociates.com
         mpillette@badameandassociates.com


SPENDWELL HEALTH: Sued in C.D. California Over Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., a California corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. Spendwell Health, Inc., Cambia Health
Solutions, Inc., Cambia Health Foundation and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 2:14-cv-08728 (C.D. Cal., November 10, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendants operate an online marketplace for health care
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
      Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
      GERAGOS AND GERAGOS APC
      644 South Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
      Telephone: (213) 625-3900
      Facsimile: (213) 625-1600
      E-mail: meiselas@geragos.com
              mark@geragos.com


SPIRIT REALTY: Court Approves Stipulation of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
The court has approved the Stipulation of Settlement in the class
action related to the merger with Cole Credit Property Trust II,
Inc., Spirit Realty Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In connection with the Merger with Cole Credit Property Trust II,
Inc. ("Cole II"), a Maryland Corporation, a putative class action
and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland against and purportedly on behalf of the
Company captioned Kendrick, et al. v. Spirit Realty Capital, Inc.,
et al. The complaint names as defendants Spirit, the members of
the board of directors of Spirit, the Operating Partnership, Cole
II and the Cole Operating Partnership, and alleges that the
directors of Spirit breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in
an unfair process leading to the Merger Agreement, failing to
disclose sufficient material information for pre-merger Spirit
stockholders to make an informed decision regarding whether or not
to approve the Merger, agreeing to a Merger Agreement at an
opportunistic and unfair price, allowing draconian and preclusive
deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement, and engaging in
self-interested and otherwise conflicted actions.

The complaint alleges that the Operating Partnership, Cole II and
the Cole Operating Partnership aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks a declaration that defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted such
breaches and that the Merger Agreement is unenforceable, an order
enjoining a vote on the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, rescission of the transactions in the event they are
consummated, imposition of a constructive trust, an award of fees
and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and
other relief.

On June 4, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the named defendants in the
merger litigation signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU")
regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted therein.
The MOU provides, among other things, that the parties will seek
to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the
release and dismissal of all asserted claims (the "Stipulation of
Settlement"). The Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the
court on January 22, 2014 for approval.

On September 5, 2014, the court approved the Stipulation of
Settlement, and all asserted claims were thereupon released and
dismissed with prejudice. The final terms of the settlement, as
approved by the court, will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position or results of operations.

Spirit Realty Capital, Inc. is a Maryland corporation and operates
as a self-administered and self-managed REIT that seeks to
generate and deliver sustainable and attractive returns for
stockholders by investing primarily in and managing a portfolio of
single-tenant, operationally essential real estate throughout the
United States that is generally leased on a long-term, triple-net
basis predominately to tenants engaged in retail, service and
distribution industries.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: US Millennium Funds Class Action Now Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
U.S. Class Action related to the Millennium Funds has been
dismissed with prejudice and is now concluded.

Several actions have been filed in various jurisdictions against
GlobeOp alleging claims and damages with respect to a valuation
agent services agreement performed by the Company's subsidiary,
GlobeOp Financial Services S.A. ("GlobeOp"), for the Millennium
Global Emerging Credit Fund, L.P. and Millennium Global Emerging
Credit Fund Ltd. (the "Millennium Funds"). These actions include
(i) a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "U.S. Class Action") on behalf
of a putative class of investors in the Millennium Funds filed in
May 2012 asserting claims of $844 million (the alleged aggregate
value of assets under management by the Millennium Funds at the
funds' peak valuation); (ii) an arbitration proceeding in the
United Kingdom (the "UK Arbitration") on behalf of Millennium
Global Investments Ltd. and Millennium Asset Management Ltd., the
Millennium Funds' investment manager and administrative manager,
respectively (together, the "Millennium Managers"), which
commenced with a request for arbitration in July 2011, seeking an
indemnity of $26.5 million for sums paid by way of settlement to
the Millennium Funds in a separate arbitration to which GlobeOp
was not a party, as well as an indemnity for any losses that may
be incurred by the Millennium Managers in the U.S. Class Action;
and (iii) a claim in the same arbitration proceeding by the
liquidators on behalf of the Millennium Global Emerging Credit
Master Fund Ltd. (the "Master Fund") against GlobeOp for damages
alleged to be in excess of $160 million.

These actions allege that GlobeOp breached its contractual
obligations and/or negligently breached a duty of care in the
performance of services for the Millennium Fund and that, inter
alia, GlobeOp should have discovered and reported a fraudulent
scheme perpetrated by the portfolio manager employed by the
investment manager. The U.S. Class Action also asserts claims
against SS&C identical to the claims against GlobeOp in that
action. In the arbitration, GlobeOp has asserted counterclaims
against both the Millennium Managers and the Master Fund for
indemnity, including in respect of the U.S. Class Action.

Hearings on the merits of the claims asserted in the UK
Arbitration were conducted in London in July and August 2013 and
September 2014.

GlobeOp has secured insurance coverage that provides reimbursement
of various litigation costs up to pre-determined limits. Since
2012, GlobeOp has been reimbursed for litigation costs under the
applicable insurance policy.

In January 2014, GlobeOp, SS&C, the Millennium Managers and the
plaintiff in the U.S. Class Action entered into a settlement
agreement resolving all disputes and claims between and among the
parties (including a separate mutual release between and among
GlobeOp and SS&C, on the one hand, and the Millennium Managers on
the other that covers claims asserted in the UK Arbitration). The
settlement agreement was approved by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on July 7, 2014 and
consummated in August 2014. Accordingly, the U.S. Class Action
matter has been dismissed with prejudice and is now concluded.

GlobeOp's insurers funded the entirety of the settlement amount
contemplated to be contributed by GlobeOp. The resolution of the
U.S. Class Action does not affect the claims, counterclaims and/or
defenses as between GlobeOp and the Master Fund that have been
asserted in the UK Arbitration.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of the UK Arbitration. The
Company believes that it has strong defenses and is vigorously
contesting the UK Arbitration.


SUSHI YASUDA: Judge Slashes Attorney Fees in Labor Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
lamenting the absence of an adversarial process when determining
legal fees in fair wage class actions, a federal judge slashed the
award to plaintiffs lawyers who settled a lawsuit against a
prominent sushi restaurant in Manhattan.

Southern District Judge William Pauley said he had no problem with
the "unquestionably high" quality of work done by Pelton &
Associates in reaching a $2.4 million settlement on behalf of
chefs, bussers and staff who sued Sushi Yasuda on East 43rd Street
over customer tips, overtime and other compensation.  But
rejecting the assumption that attorneys in Fair Labor Standards
Act class actions should receive as much as one-third of the
settlement amount, Judge Pauley knocked down the firm's fee
request from $600,000 to $480,000.

The lower amount represents 20 percent of the settlement fund that
will be paid out to some 68 class members in Fujiwara v. Yasuda,
12cv8742.

The judge said the disappearance of the defense after Fair Labor
Standards Act lawsuits are settled has created a "vacuum," leaving
it to the plaintiffs bar to write the law on attorney fees.  Often
times, he said, fee applications under the act are unopposed
because defendants don't care how the money is distributed to the
lawyers.

"And unlike a securities class action, where the class likely
contains sophisticated investors, most [fair labor] class members
are not in a position to object," he said.  "Those best suited to
dispute the fees -- the class representatives -- would be forced
to oppose their own lawyers, and in any event are often placated
with outsized service awards."

Lead attorney Brent Pelton had originally requested fees of
$800,000 -- one-third of the settlement fund -- but he reduced it
to $600,000 when Judge Pauley questioned the request at a final
approval hearing.

The judge said the issue of attorneys fees is increasingly
important, as the number of Fair Labor Standards Act cases in
New York and nationwide has expanded dramatically.

Fair Labor Standards Act cases make up almost 9 percent of the
civil cases filed in the Southern District this year.  Nationally,
the number of Fair Labor Standards Act cases filed has risen more
than 400 percent since 2001, with 1,961 cases filed in the one-
year period ending March 31, 2001, and 8,126 in the one-year
period ending March 31, 2014.

The case against Sushi Yasuda was filed in December 2012 and the
plaintiffs moved for class certification in September 2013.
Before the motion could be fully briefed, the parties entered
mediation and finalized the settlement in April 2014.

The restaurant made news last year when it announced that it was
raising its prices and eliminating tipping, in part to follow
Japanese customs and improve the dining experience, although Judge
Pauley said "it appears this lawsuit may also have prompted the
move."

Under the settlement, the six class representatives will receive
$20,000 "service awards" for being out front on the litigation.
The judge said the money was deserved because they helped draft
pleadings, most sat for seven-hour depositions, "and all put their
reputations at risk and jeopardized their relationships with their
employer, a restaurant which plaintiffs' counsel described as
having very loyal employees."

"And this court is mindful of class counsel's argument that the
Japanese are more litigation averse than Americans, and therefore
plaintiffs face greater opprobrium for bringing this suit than
typically might be the case," Judge Pauley added.

He rejected a request to keep the settlement confidential.
"Nondisclosure agreements in [fair labor] settlements contravene
public policy," he said, before turning to an analysis of the fee
request.

The "quality of representation was unquestionably high," Judge
Pauley said, noting that Mr. Pelton, with 12 years of experience
in fair wage cases, is "an accomplished attorney in the field."

At the same time, he said, the case was not particularly risky or
complex, and a settlement was reached even before the motion for
class certification was litigated.

Mr. Pelton had cited a number of cases in the Second Circuit where
the courts found that attorney fee payments equaling one-third of
the settlement fund were reasonable.

Judge Pauley was not persuaded and took aim at the downside to
submitting "proposed orders" on attorney fees by the class action
bar in Fair Labor Standards Act settlements.

"[T]here is reason to be wary of much of the case law awarding
attorney's fees in [fair labor] cases in this circuit," he said.
"Struck by similarities in the wording of several decisions, this
court discovered that many of the authorities cited by plaintiffs'
counsel in support of their fee application are in fact proposed
orders drafted by the class action plaintiffs' bar and entered
with minimal, if any, edits by judges."

Judge Pauley said proposed orders submitted by counsel in
unopposed class action settlements deserve extra scrutiny.  While
they are useful for judges managing congested dockets, if approved
they represent an adjudication against absent class members "who
neither negotiated nor agreed to the settlement."

As a result, he said, orders drafted by counsel should be given
little precedential value.

"By submitting proposed orders masquerading as judicial opinions,
and then citing to them in fee applications, the class action bar
is in fact creating its own case law on the fees it is entitled
to," he said.  "Because Westlaw and Lexis sweep every order of any
significance into their databases, these form orders appear as if
they were decisions by the judges who signed them."

"No wonder the case law is so generous to plaintiffs' attorneys."
The restaurant is represented by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partner
Christopher Parlo -- cparlo@morganlewis.com -- associate Anna
Kolontyrsky, and Melissa Rodriguez, of counsel, and Vincent Bauer
of the Law Offices of Vincent Bauer.

Mr. Pelton, who was joined by firm associate Taylor Graham on the
case, declined to comment.


SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces "Cox" Suit Over Viptera Corn
--------------------------------------------------------
David Cox, d/b/a Cox Farms, Inc., individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation,
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-04345 (D.S.C., November 10, 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:

      J. Preston "Pete" Strom, Jr., Esq.
      Mario A. Pacella, Esq.
      John R. Alphin, Esq.
      STROM LAW FIRM, LLC
      2110 N. Beltline Boulevard
      Columbia, SC 29204
      Telephone: (803) 252-4800
      Facsimile: (803) 252-4801
      E-mail: petestrom@stromlaw.com
              mpacella@stromlaw.com
              jalphin@stromlaw.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------
Lauryn Sanchez, Chanteil Walter, John Zion and Amir Bishara, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08727 (C.D. Cal., November
10, 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:

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, 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 mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
             ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      William C. Carmody, Esq.
      Arun Subramanian, Esq.
      Seth Ard, Esq.
      Tamar E. Lusztig, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10022-6828
      Telephone: (212) 336-8330
      Facsimile: (212) 336-8340

         - and -

      John D. Zaremba, Esq.
      ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWNE PLLC
      40 Wall Street, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 380-6700


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Lawrence" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lawrence, John Lee, Jena Napp, Robert Paul Rich, Robert
Anthony Rich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-08963
(S.D.N.Y., November 10, 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:

      Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE KREGER
      303 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1201
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212)956-2136
      Facsimile: (212)956-2137
      E-Mail: wavne@kregerlaw.com


TAKATA CORP: Senate Sets Nov. 20 Hearing Over Airbag Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that senators
this week plan to put embattled Takata Corp. under the microscope,
holding a hearing on the Japanese company's air bag safety defect
that allegedly caused five deaths and prompted a U.S. criminal
investigation and class action lawsuits.

The Senate Commerce Committee, which scheduled the hearing for
Nov. 20, has yet to say who will testify.  But Reuters reported
that representatives of Takata and Honda Motor Co., a major client
of the air bag maker, will appear before the panel.

Lawmakers, led by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who will serve as the
chairman of the hearing, will examine "how defective Takata air
bags became installed in so many vehicles and the responses of
both automakers and [the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration] to remedy the safety defect to protect consumers,"
according to a committee announcement on Nov. 13.  Product recalls
to address the problem affect about 7.8 million U.S. cars and
trucks from Honda, as well as BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors,
Mazda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru and Toyota.


TAZEWELL COUNTY, IL: Accused of Violating Civil Rights
------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Moretto, Amber Robertson, Ashley M Mehrzad, Dawn K
Hostetler, Marissa Hutton, Larry Vicary, Rebecca Melloy, Rhonda
Randolph, Richard Johnston, Steve Vandusen, Charles Tyson May,
Aleisha Karrick and Trent Strunk, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Tazewell County Sheriff's Office,
Sheriff Robert Huston, Chief Deputy Jeff Lower, Jail
Superintendent Kurt Ulrich, Deputy Jail Superintendent Bill Roth,
Tazewell County and Earl Helm, Case No. 1:14-cv-01433-MMM-JEH
(C.D. Ill., November 7, 2014) alleges violations of the Civil
Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dana L. Kurtz, Esq.
          KURTZ LAW OFFICES LTD
          32 Blaine Street
          Hinsdale, IL 60521
          Telephone: (630) 323-9444
          Facsimile: (630) 604-9444
          E-mail: dkurtz@kurtzlaw.us


TOWERS WATSON: Settlement Reached in "Weldon" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action is
currently pending against the Company in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia.

On July 14, 2009, James Weldon, an employee of Teck Metals, Ltd.
("Teck") commenced an action against Teck and Towers Perrin Inc.
(now known as Towers Watson Canada Inc.). On October 17, 2011,
Leonard Bleier, a former employee of Teck, sued Teck and Towers
Perrin. Aside from their employment status, the allegations in the
action commenced by Bleier (retired from Teck in 2006) are
substantively similar in all material respects to those in the
action commenced by Weldon (employed by Teck at the time the
action commenced). Both actions were brought in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia, and that court consolidated the actions on
June 21, 2012.

On October 1, 2012, the Company filed a response to the
plaintiffs' consolidated and amended claim denying the legal and
factual basis for the plaintiffs' claim. On December 21, 2012, the
court certified the consolidated case as a class action.

At all times relevant to the plaintiffs' claim, Towers Perrin
acted as the actuarial advisor for Teck's defined benefit pension
plan. According to the plaintiffs' allegations, in 1992 and on
Towers Perrin's advice, Teck offered its non-union, salaried
employees a one-time option to continue participation in Teck's
defined benefit pension plan or to transfer to a newly established
defined contribution plan. The plaintiffs also allege that Towers
Perrin assisted Teck in preparing -- and that Towers Perrin
approved -- informational materials and a computer-based modeling
tool that Teck distributed to eligible employees prior to the
employees electing whether to transfer. Several hundred employees
elected to transfer from the defined benefit pension plan to the
defined contribution plan on January 1, 1993.

The plaintiff class comprises current and former Teck employees
who elected to transfer from the defined benefit pension plan to
the defined contribution plan. As of October 23, 2014, the Company
understands there to be 436 individuals in the class.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, allege that Towers Perrin
was professionally negligent and that Teck and Towers Perrin
breached statutory and fiduciary duties and acted deceitfully by
providing incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading information to
participants in Teck's defined benefit plan regarding the option
to transfer to the defined contribution plan. Principally, the
plaintiffs allege that the risks of the defined contribution plan
-- including investment risk and annuity risk -- were downplayed,
either negligently or with the specific intent of causing eligible
employees to transfer to the defined contribution plan.

The plaintiffs seek assorted declaratory relief; an injunction
reinstating them and all class members into the defined benefit
plan with full rights and benefits as if they had not transferred;
disgorgement against Teck; damages in the amount necessary to
provide the plaintiffs and all class members with the pension and
other benefits they would have accrued if they had not
transferred; interest as allowed by law; and such further and
other relief as to the court may seem just.

In a settlement agreement dated October 31, 2014, the Company,
plaintiffs, and Teck agreed to resolve all claims in this
litigation. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval.
Based on all of the information to date, the Company believes that
any loss beyond accrued amounts is unlikely.

Towers Watson is a global professional services company that helps
organizations improve performance through effective people, risk
and financial management.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Graham" Suit Alleging Product Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Graham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.
and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-04357-DCN (D.S.C., November 10, 2014) is brought
under Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Hoyt Rowell, III, Esq.
          James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
          Robert S. Wood, Esq.
          Thomas Christopher Tuck, Esq.
          RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK AND BRICKMAN
          PO Box 1007
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500
          Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
          E-mail: hrowell@rpwb.com
                  jward@rpwb.com
                  bwood@rpwb.com
                  ctuck@rpwb.com

               - and -

          Mark Charles Tanenbaum, Esq.
          Mia Lauren Maness, Esq.
          MARK C. TANENBAUM LAW OFFICE
          PO Box 20757
          Charleston, SC 29413-0757
          Telephone: (843) 577-5100
          Facsimile: (843) 722-4688
          E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com
                  mia@tanenbaumlaw.com


TPC GROUP: Increase in Attorney Fees Not Warranted, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor John W. Noble of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
denied Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in the consolidated case entitled Re: In re TPC Group
Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 7865-VCN (Del.
Ch.)

Plaintiffs who are responsible in bringing this class action suit
were shareholders of TPC Group Inc.  Plaintiffs first offered $40
per share but eventually raised it to $45 per share when TPC
received an unsolicited proposal from a competing bidder
expressing interest in acquiring TPC for a price of $47.50.

Plaintiff now seeks the court for additional attorneys' fees for
the $5 per share increase in the merger price achieved between the
commencement of the litigation and the acquisition's closing under
an amended merger agreement. Plaintiffs argue that their legal
challenge caused to raise the bid from $40 to $45 per share.
Defendants contend that a competing proposal, not the litigation,
caused the price bump.

Vice Chancellor Noble denied plaintiffs' application for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses for the increase in the merger
price, expressing that plaintiffs did not cause the price increase
in any way.

A copy of Vice Chancellor Noble Order dated October 29, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/uxxy9ofrom Leagle.com.

Christine S. Azar, Esq. -- cazar@labaton.com -- at Labaton
Sucharow LLP; S. Mark Hurd, Esq. -- shurd@mnat.com -- at Morris,
Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Ronald N. Brown, III, Esq. --
ron.brown@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate & Raymond J.
DiCamillo, Esq. -- dicamillo@rlf.com -- at Richards, Layton &
Finger, P.A.


UNITED STATES: Faces "Arciero" Civil Rights Class Suit in Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------------------
Malia Arciero; Alan Mapuatuli; Gary Victor Dubin dba The Dubin Law
Offices, a Member of the Hawaii bar; and Gilbert Medina, on behalf
of themselves and for all others in this District similarly
situated v. Eric Holder, Jr., in his capacity as United States
Attorney General; Charles E. Samuels, Jr., in his official
capacity as Director of the United States Bureau of Prisons; J.
Ray Ormond, in his official capacity as Warden of the Honolulu
Federal Detention Center; and Florence T. Nakakuni, in her
official capacity as United States Attorney for the District of
Hawaii, Case No. 1:14-cv-00506-KSC-NONE (D. Haw., November 10,
2014) asserts Civil Rights claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel J. O'Meara, Esq.
          Elaine Lee Kwak, Esq.
          Frederick J. Arensmeyer, Esq.
          Gary Victor Dubin, Esq.
          DUBIN LAW OFFICE
          55 Merchant Street, Suite 3100
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 537-2300
          Facsimile: (808) 523-7733
          E-mail: domeara@dubinlaw.net
                  ekwak@dubinlaw.net
                  farensmeyer@dubinlaw.net
                  gdubin@dubinlaw.net


UNITED STATES: Vaccine Injury Claimants Still Await Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitch Weissjustin and Pritchardtroy Thibodeaux, writing for The
Associated Press, report that a system Congress established to
speed help to Americans harmed by vaccines has instead heaped
additional suffering on thousands of families.

The premise was simple: quickly and generously pay for medical
care in the rare cases when a shot to prevent a sickness such as
flu or measles instead is the likely cause of serious health
complications.  But the system is not working as intended.

The AP read hundreds of decisions, conducted more than 100
interviews, and analyzed a database of more than 14,500 cases
filed in a special vaccine court.  That database was current as of
January 2013; the government has refused to release an updated
version since.

Among the findings:

   -- Private attorneys have been paid tens of millions of
taxpayer dollars even as they clog the court with more cases than
they can handle, some of which the court rejected as totally
inadequate.  The court offers a financial incentive to over-file -
- unlike typical civil court cases, attorneys are paid whether or
not they win, as was the case with more than 5,000 losing claims
that vaccines caused the developmental disability autism.  Those
who double-bill for their time or consistently submit questionable
expenses are not disciplined.

   -- Prominent attorneys have enlisted expert witnesses whose own
work has been widely discredited, including one who treated autism
with a potent drug used to chemically castrate serial rapists.
Another doctor cribbed his material from an anti-vaccine website.
Some of the most prominent experts set up nonprofits questioning
vaccine safety, further fueling public skepticism.  Meanwhile,
many doctors hired by the government to defend vaccine safety in
court have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

   -- Lawmakers designed vaccine court to favor payouts, but the
government fights legitimate claims and fails its obligation to
publicize the court, worried that if they concede a vaccine caused
harm, the public will react by skipping shots.  The court was
created with relaxed standards of evidence and a burden of proof
more easily met than civil lawsuits.  Lawmakers expected some
children would get help even though their injuries weren't truly
caused by a vaccine.  If government doctors had their way, though,
1,600 families would not have gotten more than $1.1 billion in
cash and future medical care between the court's opening in 1988
and the end of 2012.  The government said that while perception of
vaccine safety is important, individual claims are evaluated on
scientific evidence and legal standards.

   -- Cases are supposed to be resolved within 240 days, with
options for another 150 days of extensions.  Less than 7 percent
of 7,876 claims not involving autism met the 240-day target.  Add
in autism claims, which were postponed so the court could hear all
of them at once, and just 4.5 percent took fewer than 240 days.
Most non-autism cases take at least two and a half years, with the
average case length more than three years, not including cases
unresolved at the end of 2012.  Hundreds have surpassed the decade
mark. Several people died before getting any money.

The vanquishing of polio, measles and other preventable diseases
was the transcendent public health accomplishment of the 20th
century.  And yet, by the mid-1980s, those gains seemed fragile.
Pharmaceutical companies were facing a barrage of lawsuits from
parents who believed the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis shot had
disabled their kids. Their profits imperiled vaccine makers
signaled they would leave the U.S. market.

In response, Congress gave a break both to pharmaceutical
companies and to those who received a vaccine to prevent one
illness, yet suffered another.

To protect the nation's supply, lawmakers shielded companies from
jury verdicts, shifting liability for injuries to the U.S.
government.  That part worked: Vaccines are widely available, and
profitable.

To help people harmed by shots, Congress created the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.  Government doctors and
lawyers review claims. If they believe it is more likely than not
that a vaccine -- and not something else -- caused the injury,
they tap a $3.5 billion fund to pay for future care and lost
wages. That fund is replenished by a 75-cent tax on each vaccine.

If the government concludes the vaccination was not likely the
cause, it contests the claim in vaccine court, based several
blocks from the White House.

Serious injuries are extremely uncommon.  Though much is in
dispute regarding vaccines and their side effects, the court
remains obscure.  But largely due to an influx of adult flu
claims, the volume of new cases has increased, averaging more than
400 annually in recent years.

To be sure, many of those who received the $2.8 billion that the
government says it has distributed would not have won a civil
trial.  But the system has not worked as Congress envisioned.

Many claims fall into a vast gray area: The science is clear on
only nine of 144 vaccine-injury combinations that a shot could --
or could not -- cause the illness.  Amid this fundamental
uncertainty, the kind of litigation the court was created to avoid
is routine.

Caught in the middle are families that need help.

"The system is not working," said Richard Topping, a former U.S.
Department of Justice attorney who defended the government against
vaccine injury claims but resigned after concluding his bosses had
no desire to fix the major flaws he saw.  "People who need help
aren't getting it."


VOYA FINANCIAL: Court Approves Class-Wide Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that litigation against
the Company includes a case styled Healthcare Strategies, Inc.,
Plan Administrator of the Healthcare Strategies Inc. 401(k) Plan
v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (U.S.D.C. D. CT, filed
February 22, 2011), in which sponsors of 401(k) plans governed by
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") claim that
ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (now known as Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, "VRIAC") has entered
into revenue sharing agreements with mutual funds and others in
violation of the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA. Among
other things, the plaintiffs seek disgorgement of all revenue
sharing payments and profits earned in connection with such
payments, an injunction barring the practice of revenue sharing,
and attorney fees.

On September 26, 2012, the district court certified the case as a
class action in which the named plaintiffs represent approximately
15,000 similarly situated plan sponsors. On April 11, 2014, the
parties submitted to the court a motion for preliminary approval
of a class-wide settlement agreement under which VRIAC, without
admitting liability, would make a payment to the class of
approximately $15.0 million and adopt certain changes in its
disclosure practices. Final court approval will be required before
the settlement becomes effective. On September 25, 2014, the Court
approved the settlement.

Voya Financial provides its principal products and services in
three ongoing businesses -- Retirement Solutions, Investment
Management and Insurance Solutions.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Early January 2015 Hearing on Punitive Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Marin County CA Superior Court intends to hold a hearing in
early January 2015 regarding whether to award punitive damages to
Fireman's Fund in the case Beeson, et al. v SMMS, Lion Connecticut
Holdings, Inc. (Marin County CA Superior Court, CIV-092545), Voya
Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Litigation against the Company includes Beeson, et al. v SMMS,
Lion Connecticut Holdings, Inc. (Marin County CA Superior Court,
CIV-092545). Thirty-four Plaintiff households (husband/wife/trust)
assert that SMMS, which was purchased in 2000 and sold in 2003,
breached a duty to monitor the performance of investments that
Plaintiffs made with independent financial advisors they met in
conjunction with retirement planning seminars presented at
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. SMMS recommended the advisors to
Fireman's Fund as seminar presenters. Some of the seminars were
arranged by SMMS. As a result of the performance of their
investments, Plaintiffs claim they incurred damages. Fireman's
Fund has asserted breach of contract and concealment claims
against SMMS alleging that SMMS failed to fulfill its ongoing
obligation to monitor the financial advisors and the investments
they recommended to Plaintiffs and by failing to disclose that a
primary purpose of the seminars was to develop business for the
financial advisors.

The Company denies all claims and vigorously defended this case at
trial. During trial, the Court ruled that SMMS had duties to
Plaintiffs and Fireman's Fund that it has breached. On October 30,
2014, the Court issued a tentative ruling for damages in the
aggregate of $36.8 million to Plaintiffs and $7.5 million to
Fireman's Fund. The Court intends to hold a hearing in early
January 2015 regarding whether to award punitive damages to
Fireman's Fund. The Company objects to the court's decisions and
the tentative ruling on the grounds that they are inconsistent
with California law and the evidence presented at trial.

Voya Financial provides its principal products and services in
three ongoing businesses -- Retirement Solutions, Investment
Management and Insurance Solutions.


WENDY'S INT'L: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juanita Turner v. Wendy's International, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
24257-CMA (S.D. Fla., November 10, 2014) is brought to recover
unpaid wages, compensation and damages.

Wendy's International, LLC, was the Plaintiff's employer and is a
corporation conducting business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd William Shulby, Esq.
          2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, "Kubick" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Kubick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01013 (W.D.
Tex., November 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants falsely
labeled its' Whole Foods 365 Everyday Plain Greek Yogurt that its
contains 2 grams of sugar per serving, when in fact it contains
over 11 grams of sugar per serving, more than five and a half
times the labeled amount.

Whole Foods Market, Inc. is a retailer of natural and organic
foods and is America's first national Certified Organic grocer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
      Martin Woodward, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 770
      Dallas, TX 75205
      Telephone: (214) 443-4300
      Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
      E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
              mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
              nkulesa@zlk.com
              sbartone@zlk.com

         - and -

      Janine L. 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: pollack@whafh.com

         - and -

      Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      225 Broadway, Suite 1350
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 235-5306
      Facsimile: (815) 377-8419
      E-mail mzevin@aol.com


WPX ENERGY: Provides Updates on Royalty Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on
Royalty litigation.

The Company said, "In September 2006, royalty interest owners in
Garfield County, Colorado, filed a class action suit in District
Court, Garfield County, Colorado, alleging we improperly
calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for
proceeds received from the sale of natural gas and extracted
products, improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refund
amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.
Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners,
recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments
related to calculation errors."

"We entered into a final partial settlement agreement. The partial
settlement agreement defined the class for certification, resolved
claims relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding
royalty payments, established certain rules to govern future
royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved claims related
to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments, established a
procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding in the
future, and reserved two claims for court resolution. We have
prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on the first
reserved claim regarding whether we are allowed to deduct mainline
pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain lease
agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of whether we
are required to have proportionately increased the value of
natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission
lines and, if required, whether we did so and are entitled to
deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs in
calculating royalty payments.

"Plaintiffs had claimed damages of approximately $20 million plus
interest for the period from July 2000 to July 2008. The court
issued pretrial orders finding that we do bear the burden of
demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct
transportation costs and that the enhancement test must be applied
on a monthly basis in order to determine the reasonableness of
post-production transportation costs. Trial occurred in December
2013 on the issue of whether we have met that burden.

"Following that trial, the court issued its order rejecting
plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting our position as to the
methodology to use in determining the standard by which our
activity should be judged. We have completed the process under
that standard of conducting an accounting, and the parties have
jointly submitted the information to the court for approval.
However, we continue to believe our royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and Colorado law."

The Company also said, "In October 2011, a potential class of
royalty interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a
complaint against us in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The
complaint presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons
including drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of
the value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market
hydrocarbons in Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas
Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining
activities relating to production, payments and future reporting.
This matter has been removed to the United States District Court
for New Mexico."

"In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
us in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both
in Colorado and New Mexico, violation of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act and seek declaratory judgment, accounting
and injunction.

"At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient
information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to
these claims."


                              *********

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  * * *