CAR_Public/141202.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 239


                             Headlines

AADG INC: Faces "Behr" Suit Alleging Employment Discrimination
ADT SECURITY: Security System Compromised by $10 Radio, Suit Says
AEGON COMPANIES: "Pinney" Suit Moved From California to Iowa
ALLERGAN INC: Sued by Shareholder Supporting Ackman-Led Takeover
ALLMAX NUTRITION: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Product Label

ALCOBRA LTD: Faces "Rahman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
AMERICAN RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
AMYRIS INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
APOLLO GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seek Interlocutory Review
APOLLO GLOBAL: Has January 2 Deadline to Respond to Class Action

APOLLO GLOBAL: Class Action Parties Engaged in Limited Discovery
APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties Expect to Enter Into Formal Settlement
AVALON DOWNTOWN: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BAI BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Antioxidant Products, Action Claims
BANK OF NEW YORK: Pending Forex Lawsuits in Discovery Phase

BAYER HEALTHCARE: District Court Narrows "Yuncker" Lawsuit
BITCASA INC: Faces Suit Over Ending of "Infinite" Storage Plans
BRANCH BANKING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
CINEMARK USA: "De Ponton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Leblanc" Suit Claims

COCA-COLA CO: Fails to Properly Encrypt Workers' PII, Suit Claims
CONDE NAST: Has Agreed to Fork Over $5.8MM to Spike Interns Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removes "Thompson" Suit to S.D. California
CREATIVE FOOD: "Tantawy" Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. New York
CUYAHOGA, OHIO: Faces "Mulloy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

DHR INTERNATIONAL: Case Management & Pretrial Order Entered
DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Richards" Suit Over High Electricity Rate
DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Faces Soffer Suit Over Merger With Siemens
DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Faces Union Suit Over Merger With Siemens
FEDERAL HOME: Filed Response to Motion to Dismiss

FIT FOODS: Faces "Canizalez" Over Misleading Product Label
FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Court Narrows V. Malon's Discovery Requests
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces "Shuppert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GECESC ASSOCIATES: Accused of Bias and Sexual Harassment in Texas
GILLETTE COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Battery Leakage

GOODMAN GLOBAL: Class Cert. Bid Hearing in "Kotsur" on Jan. 19
GOOGLE INC: Hourly Staff Not as Favored as Contractors, Suit Says
GURSTEL CHARGO: Obtains Initial Approval of "Smith" Suit Accord
HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Certified Class in False Advertising Suit
HOME DEPOT: Faces Salisbury Bank Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Took $112-Mil. Bribe From Endo, Suit Says
IMPERVA INC: Lead Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Filed
INNERWORKINGS INC: Files Motion to Dismiss "Van Noppen" Case
INTEGRITY SOLUTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
INTELLIGENDER LLC: 9th Cir. Enters Order on Appeal in Calif. Suit

KKR FINANCIAL: Delaware Chancery Court Grants Motions to Dismiss
KOLBE & KOLBE: Claims in "Haley" Defective Windows Suit Dismissed
LA FIESTA: "Henderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LAYERED TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Morris" Suit to W.D. Missouri
LEADING EDGE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

LINKEDIN CORP: Court Refuses to Dismiss Spamming Class Suit
MAGNUM HUNTER: Intends to Vigorously Defend Plaintiffs' Appeal
MARICOPA COUNTY CCD: Faces Class Suit Over Leak of Students Data
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Harassing Ecuadorian Worker
MED REV: Sued in New York for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

MEDTRONIC INC: "Hendrich" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
MISO RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Court Dismissed "Mazzeo" Marketing Class Suit
NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Securities Suit Tossed Without Prejudice

OMEGA FLEX: "Schoelwer" Plaintiff Refiled Case in May 2014
PALM WEST: "Bravo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PARADISE MANOR: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Removes "Harris" Suit to Florida District Court
PRO-MARK CONTRACTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Suits Over Flushable Butt Wipes Continue
PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT: "Szczurek" FDCPA Case Dismissed
PROSUPPS USA: Accused of Wrongful Labeling of ProSupps PS Whey
QR ENERGY: Class Suit Over Breitburn Merger at Preliminary Stage
RADDATZ LAW: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lipscomb" Action Claims

RANCHO CORDOVA: Dec. 15 Status Conference Set in "B.O.L.T." Suit
REMAX INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
RICK'S CABARET: Strippers Get $10.8MM Over Dance Dollars Claims
ROUSE'S ENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Denial in "Ticknor" Case Upheld
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

S. KATZMAN PRODUCE: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "McMahon" Suit Claims
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SCHUFF INT'L: Faces Merger Class Suit in Delaware Chancery Court
SERVICE SOURCE: Accused of Exaggerating Financial Assets
SIMPLICITY BANCORP: Faces Class Action Relating to Merger

TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Vukadinovic" Suit Over Airbag Defects
TEMPOSITIONS INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging Gender Discrimination
TEMPUR-SEALY INT'L: Court Enters Discovery Order in "Todd" Suit
TESLA MOTORS: Trial Court Dismissed Class Action

TGI FRIDAYS: Removes "Grace" Suit to New Jersey District Court
THREE TWENTY FIVE: Faces "Xenos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TREE.COM INC: Expects Administration of Settlement in 4th Quarter
TREE.COM INC: "Dijkstra" Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Appeal
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Requests in "O'Connor" Suit Ruled on

US AGRICULTURE DEP'T: Choctaw Nation Can't Share in Bias Funds
VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Faces "Sanborn" Suit Over High Electricity Rate
WEST 44TH STREET: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS: Remand of Painkiller Case Reversed
ZYNGA INC: Court Vacates Scheduled Hearing in "DeStefano" Case

ZYNGA INC: Case Management Conference in "Reyes" Suit Vacated
ZYNGA INC: Court Takes Motion to Dismiss Under Submission


                            *********


AADG INC: Faces "Behr" Suit Alleging Employment Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Behr and Employees Similarly Situated to Him v. AADG, Inc.
dba Curries, Case No. 3:14-cv-03075-DEO (N.D. Iowa, November 21,
2014) alleges claims of employment discrimination against the
Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Sherinian, Esq.
          Melissa C. Hasso, Esq.
          SHERINIAN & HASSO LAW FIRM
          3737 Woodland Ave., Suite 630
          West Des Moines, IA 50266
          Telephone: (515) 224-2079
          Facsimile: (515) 224-2321
          E-mail: sherinianlaw@msn.com
                  mhasso@sherinianlaw.com


ADT SECURITY: Security System Compromised by $10 Radio, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A $10 radio allows hackers to infiltrate ADT security systems,
compromising the so-called "peace of mind" the service offers, a
federal class action alleges, reports Lisa Klein at Courthouse
News Service.

The complaint filed November 9 by Illinois resident Dale Baker
says that the home and small-business customers of ADT Security
Services "are far less safe than ADT leads them to believe."

Customers sign a three-year agreement when they purchase equipment
that relies on "unencrypted and unauthenticated" wireless signals,
according to the complaint.

Baker says hackers can exploit these flaws to disable the system,
cause false alarms to go off and even use the system's own cameras
to spy on people.

The lawsuit points to an article in Forbes magazine that a simple
software-defined radio (SDR) allows hackers to detect when doors
are opened and closed.  With a more complicated SDR they can
manipulate the system, according to the complaint.  This leaves
consumers "insufficiently protected from intrusion and
interference by unauthorized third parties," Baker says.  Indeed
Baker's home security system was allegedly hacked twice, both
times triggering an alarm that led to the police being called.

ADT says that it holds 25 percent of the residential and 13
percent of the small-business security industries, with its
systems used in about 6.5 million homes and businesses in the
United States and Canada.  The company advertises "peace of mind"
for its customers, offering systems that use advanced technology
and are "safe and reliable," according to the complaint.

But Baker says ADT "knows that its systems are vulnerable to
intrusion." Despite admitting that it uses professional hackers to
test ADT systems, the Delaware company with principal offices in
Boca Raton, Fla., does not alert customers to any issues,
according to the complaint.

The class seeks an injunction requiring ADT to change its
marketing materials and use encrypted signals in its security
systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Zimmerman, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington St., Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180


AEGON COMPANIES: "Pinney" Suit Moved From California to Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Pinney v. AEGON Companies Pension Plan, Case
No. 3:14-cv-01004, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa (Cedar Rapids).  The Iowa
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00125-LRR to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Henry Kim, Esq.
          James Pieper Keenley, Esq.
          BOLT KEENLEY KIM LLP
          1010 Grayson Street, Suite Three
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 225-0696
          Facsimile: (510) 225-1095
          E-mail: bkim@bkkllp.com
                  jkeenley@bkkllp.com

               - and -

          Teresa Renaker, Esq.
          LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
          476-9th Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 839-6824
          Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
          E-mail: trenaker@lewisfeinberg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David R. Levin, Esq.
          DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          1500 K Street, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 230-5181
          Facsimile: (202) 230-8465
          E-mail: david.levin@dbr.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Pulliam, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          50 Fremont Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 591-7500
          Facsimile: (415) 591-7510
          E-mail: michael.pulliam@dbr.com

               - and -

          Wilford H. Stone, Esq.
          LYNCH, DALLAS, PC
          526 Second Avenue, SE
          PO Box 2457
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
          Telephone: (319) 365-9101
          Facsimile: (319) 365-9512
          E-mail: wstone@lynchdallas.com


ALLERGAN INC: Sued by Shareholder Supporting Ackman-Led Takeover
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billionaire William Ackman's plan to take over Allergan found
support in a new federal shareholder action amid reports that
Activis put in a $60 billion bid, reports Matt Reynolds, writing
for Courthouse News Service.

Mary Tolaro, an Ohio-based Allergan shareholder, filed a
derivative and direct class action complaint against Allergen's
board of directors on November 12.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of an adverse ruling against
Allergan shareholders in the Delaware Chancery court, which on
Nov. 7, found that it is too early to let stockholders install
board members favorable to the takeover.

Ackman is aggressively pursuing Allergan through his hedge fund,
Pershing Square Capital Management, which has teamed up with
Canadian firm Valeant Pharmaceutical International to mount a
hostile takeover of the company.

On Aug. 1, the pharmaceutical filed a federal complaint in Santa
Ana to keep Allergan's board of directors intact.  Valeant and
Ackman wanted to install executives more receptive to a merger;
the Allergan board had rejected Pershing's unsolicited offer more
than two years ago.  Pershing and Valeant made a $54 billion offer
for the company in June, which Allergan again rebuffed.

U.S. District David Carter dealt the company a blow last week when
he declined to block Pershing from voting its 9.7 percent stake at
a Dec. 18 Allergan shareholder meeting.  Allergan has appealed.

In another twist in the saga, Bloomberg reported this week that
Irish firm Actavis is negotiating a deal with Allergan to acquire
the company for $60 billion and beat off Ackman's acquisition.

Tolaro's shareholder complaint meanwhile says that Allergan
directors are more interested in protecting their salaries and
bonuses than protecting stockholders.  Their rejection of the
Valeant deal contravenes advice from investment bank Goldman
Sachs, according to the complaint.

Since 2011, CEO David E.I. Pyott has earned $15.7 million per year
and holds Allergan options worth $350 million, the complaint says.

"Allergan's Board ignored Goldman Sachs' advice and instead
embarked on a course of conduct designed solely to entrench the
individual board members in office and to deter an acquisition by
Valeant at all costs, and regardless of the premium offered by
Valeant," Tolaro says.

The lawsuit echoes recently reported claims that the Allergen
board launched a smear campaign against Valeant, in an attempt to
hurt the company in the stock market.

Tolaro notes that Pyott, the Allergan CEO, met with Valeant
shareholders in Canada on Nov. 3, and badmouthed the company to
drive down the price of its stock and take the air out of the
proposed takeover.

"Allergan had never before met with Valeant's shareholders, and
the meetings had no discernible purpose other than to injure
Valeant and depress its share price in order to attempt to make
Valeant's acquisition proposal look less favorable," the complaint
states.

Alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty of honest
service, Tolaro wants the judge to make the Allergan board
reconsider offers for the company that are in the best interest of
shareholders.

In addition to Pyott, directors Deborah Dunsire, Michael
Gallagher, Trevor Jones, Louis Lavigne Jr., Peter McDonnell, Karah
Parschauer, Timothy Proctor, Russell Ray and Henri Termeer are
named as defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Cotchett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com


ALLMAX NUTRITION: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Product Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Gubala and John Norris, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Allmax Nutrition, Inc., and HBS
International Corp., Canadian Corporations, Case No. 1:14-cv-09299
(N.D. Ill., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants is
engaged in an unfair and deceptive business practices,
specifically by misrepresenting the nature and quality of Allmax
Nutrition Ultra-Premium 6-Protein Blend Hexapro on the Product
label.

Allmax Nutrition, Inc. is a supplier of bodybuilding and sports
nutrition supplements in the United States and Canada.

HBS International Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allmax
Nutrition, Inc. and distributes Allmax's line of products in the
United States and Canada for purchase at a variety of retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Gregory W. Jones, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: www.siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com
              gjones@siprut.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com


ALCOBRA LTD: Faces "Rahman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arifur Rahman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Alcobra Ltd., Yaron Daniely, Tomer Berkovitz, and Ehud
Gilboa, Case No. 1:14-cv-09203 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Alcobra Ltd. is an emerging pharmaceutical company primarily
focused on the development and commercialization of a proprietary
drug candidate, MDX, to treat cognitive disorders including
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Fragile X Syndrome.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Linkh, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      122 E 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

         -and-

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)201-9150
      Facsimile: (310)201-9160


AMERICAN RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Astolin, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. American Recovery Service Incorporated, Case
No. 1:14-cv-06834 (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


AMYRIS INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Amyris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the court issued an order
(based on stipulation of the parties) dismissing a securities
class action with prejudice.

In May 2013, a securities class action complaint was filed against
the Company and its CEO, John G. Melo, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. In October 2013, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint,
as amended, sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the
Company's common stock between April 29, 2011 and February 8,
2012. The complaint alleged securities law violations based on the
Company's commercial projections during that period. In December
2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In
March 2014, the court issued an order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint. The
plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint further and, on June
12, 2014, the court issued an order (based on stipulation of the
parties) dismissing the action with prejudice.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seek Interlocutory Review
---------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs
in a class action alleging online fraud moved for interlocutory
review of certain of the court's motion-to-dismiss rulings.

In March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions,
captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of Connecticut
on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online fraud. The
defendants included, among others, Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion Group, LLC
("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), which
is affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 68%
of Affinion's common stock. In both cases, plaintiffs allege
that Trilegiant, aided by its business partners, who include
e-merchants and credit card companies, developed a set of business
practices intended to create consumer confusion and ultimately
defraud consumers into unknowingly paying fees to clubs for
unwanted services. Plaintiffs allege that AGM is a proper
defendant because of its indirect stock ownership and ability to
appoint the majority of Affinion's board. The complaints assert
claims under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act;
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act; and the California Business and Professional
Code, and seek, among other things, restitution or disgorgement,
injunctive relief, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

The allegations in Kelm and Miller are substantially similar to
those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-957), a
putative class action filed in the District of Connecticut in 2010
that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as defendants. The court
has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and Schnabel cases under the
caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. and ordered that they
proceed on the same schedule.

On June 18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and on September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action
against AGM as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012,
plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013, and
defendants filed replies on April 5, 2013. On December 5, 2012,
plaintiffs filed another putative class action, captioned Frank v.
Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12- cv-1721), in the District of
Connecticut, naming the same defendants and containing allegations
substantially similar to those in the CAC.

On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate
Frank into In re: Trilegiant. On July 24, 2013 the Frank court
transferred the case to Judge Bryant, who is presiding over In re:
Trilegiant, and on March 28, 2014, Judge Bryant granted the motion
to consolidate. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral
argument on defendants' motions to dismiss.

On March 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
motions to dismiss filed by Affinion and Trilegiant on behalf of
all defendants, and also granted separate motions to dismiss filed
by certain defendants, including AGM. On that same day, the court
directed the clerk to terminate AGM as a defendant in the
consolidated action.

On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs moved for interlocutory review of
certain of the court's motion-to-dismiss rulings, not including
its order granting AGM's separate dismissal motion. Defendants
filed a response on May 23, 2014, and plaintiffs replied on June
5, 2014.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Has January 2 Deadline to Respond to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
deadlines for C.E.C. Entertainment and Apollo Global Management,
LLC to respond to the class action complaint are December 29, 2014
and January 2, 2015, respectively.

On October 17, 2014, Wiley Wright filed a putative class action
against C.E.C. Entertainment ("CEC") and Apollo Global Management,
LLC ("Apollo") in the Eastern District of New York, captioned
Wright v. C.E.C. Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese's, and
Apollo Global Management, LLC (14-cv-6110), on behalf of Chuck E.
Cheese assistant managers and senior assistant managers
(collectively, the "Managers") in the United States.  Plaintiff
alleges that CEC and Apollo jointly employed the Managers and
unlawfully classified them as exempt from the overtime protections
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, even
though the Managers regularly performed non-managerial customer
service duties.  Plaintiff seeks, among other things,
certification of a class, unpaid overtime and liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and interest.  CEC's
and Apollo's deadlines to respond to the complaint are December
29, 2014 and January 2, 2015, respectively.  Apollo believes that
Plaintiff's claims against it are without merit.  For this reason,
and because the claims against Apollo are in their early stages,
no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at
this time.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Class Action Parties Engaged in Limited Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
parties have engaged in limited discovery in class action
lawsuits.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC
Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement
with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger
Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in
the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of
purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its
directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include
Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The first purported class
action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et
al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne
Action"). The second purported class action, which was captioned
John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The
Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14,
2014. The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene
Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed
on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon
Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned
Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank,
et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS
Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the
"Shareholder Actions"). A fifth purported class action, which was
captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was
filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7,
2014. This action was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21,
2014. Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things,
that CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement and that Apollo and certain of its
affiliates aided and abetted those alleged breaches. As filed, the
Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of the
various transactions associated with the merger, damages and
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages
after the tender offer closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions
were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties have
engaged in limited discovery.

No defendant has any obligation to answer or otherwise respond to
any of the complaints in the consolidated action until the
plaintiffs file or designate an operative complaint. Although
Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the actions, it
believes that such actions are without merit.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties Expect to Enter Into Formal Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that parties to
the class actions expect that they will enter into a formal
settlement agreement in late November 2014.

On September 29, 2014, Athlon Energy Inc. ("Athlon") and Encana
Corporation ("Encana") jointly announced that they had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 27,
2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Encana ("Merger Sub") would commence a tender offer
(the "Offer") to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares
of Athlon common stock.  Following completion of the Offer, Merger
Sub would be merged with and into Athlon (the "Proposed
Transaction").  On October 23, 2014, The City of Cambridge
Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint
captioned The City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Reeves, et
al., C.A. No. 10277-VCG (the "Cambridge Action") in the Delaware
Court of Chancery naming Merger Sub, Apollo Global Management, LLC
("AGM") and members of Athlon's board of directors as defendants.
The Cambridge Action alleges, among other things, that members of
Athlon's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their consideration and approval of the proposed
transaction, and that Encana, Merger Sub and AGM aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duty.

On November 3, 2014, the parties to the Cambridge Action and
several other similar actions filed in Delaware and Texas state
court before the Cambridge Action (none of which named AGM as a
defendant (collectively, the "Actions")), entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle the Actions.  Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, AGM will not be required to
contribute any cash and will be granted full and customary
releases.  The parties to the Actions expect that they will enter
into a formal settlement agreement in late November 2014.

The forthcoming settlement agreement will be subject to court
approval. For this reason, and because the claims against Apollo
are in their early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible
loss, if any, can be made at this time.


AVALON DOWNTOWN: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Avalon Downtown, LLC and Anne R. Massullo-Sabella,
Case No. 4:14-cv-02553 (N.D. Ohio, November 19, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a full service restaurant located
in downtown Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      Ste. 1325, 815 Superior Avenue,
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (440) 498-9100
      Facsimile: (216) 621-1094
      E-mail: ryan@winterslawfirm.com


BAI BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Antioxidant Products, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorinda Vassigh and Samantha Lewin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bai Brands LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-
05127 (N.D. Cal., November 19, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's misleading messaging on the product label of its Bai5
Antioxidant Infusions beverage that it is packed with beneficial
antioxidants, when it fact it does not have even a single nutrient
recognized or approved for nutrient content claims using the term
antioxidant.

Bai Brands LLC produces antioxidant infusion beverages for health-
conscious consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
      Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, PA
      1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              apersinger@bursor.com
              ykrivoshey@bursor.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Pending Forex Lawsuits in Discovery Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that BNY Mellon has been named as a defendant in several
putative class action federal lawsuits filed on various dates in
2011, 2012 and 2014. The complaints, which assert claims including
breach of contract and ERISA and securities laws violations, all
allege that the prices BNY Mellon charged for standing instruction
foreign exchange transactions executed in connection with custody
services provided by BNY Mellon were improper. In addition, BNY
Mellon has been named as a nominal defendant in several derivative
lawsuits filed in 2011 and 2012 in state and federal court in New
York. On July 2, 2013, the court in the consolidated federal
derivative action dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims. On Oct. 1,
2013, the court in the consolidated state derivative action
dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims, and one of the plaintiffs has
appealed. All of the pending lawsuits are currently in discovery.
To the extent the lawsuits are pending in federal court, they are
being coordinated for pre-trial purposes in federal court in New
York.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: District Court Narrows "Yuncker" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey district court granted in part and denied in part
Bayer Healthcare, LLC's motion to dismiss a class action complaint
involving Bayer's "Phillips' Colon Health" product.

The putative class action was brought by Troy Yuncker and Dino
Rikos on behalf of themselves and all individuals who purchased
Bayer's over-the-counter Phillips' Colon Health Probiotic + Fiber
product and/or Phillips Colon Health Probiotic Caps (collectively,
"Phillips' Colon Health"). Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that
Bayer's representations that Phillips' Colon Health "helps defend
against" "constipation, diarrhea, [and] gas and bloating" are
false and misleading.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
("NJCFA"), California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act ("ICFA"), breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
and unjust enrichment.

In a Nov. 6, 2014 Opinion available at http://is.gd/lamFoRfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Jose L. Linares:

  -- granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Count One and dismissed
     Count One with prejudice; and

  -- denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Two, Three, Four,
     Five and Six.

Count One is the Plaintiffs' NJCPA Claim.  Counts Two, Three and
Four contain consumer fraud claims under California and Illinois
law.  Counts Five and Six are common law claims of breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment.

Judge Linares says to apply the NJCFA to the out-of-state
consumers in this case would be to ignore the compensatory
interests of Illinois and California.  He concludes that the
states where the named Plaintiffs purchased Phillips' Colon Health
have the most significant relationship to Plaintiffs' consumer
fraud claims.

The case is IN RE BAYER PHILLIPS COLON HEALTH PROBIOTIC SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3017 (JLL), (D. N.J.).

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, Mediator, represented by DENNIS MICHAEL
CAVANAUGH, Esq. -- dcavanaugh@mdmc-law.com -- of MCELROY, DEUTSCH,
MULVANEY & CARPENTER LLP.

DINO RIKOS and TROY YUNCKER, Plaintiffs, represented by JAMES E.
CECCHI, Esq. -- CCCarella@carellabyrne.com -- and LINDSEY H.
TAYLOR, Esq. -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- of CARELLA, BYRNE,
CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO.

BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, represented by LORNA A. DOTRO,
Esq. -- ldotro@coughlinduffy.com & TIMOTHY IGNATIUS DUFFY, Esq. --
tduffy@coughlinduffy.com  -- of COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP.


BITCASA INC: Faces Suit Over Ending of "Infinite" Storage Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that what goes in
the cloud may not stay in the cloud: Bitcasa, a cloud-storage
service, has been sued for ending its unlimited data storage plan.

Shawn Romack filed a class action against California-based Bitcasa
on Nov. 13, less than a month after the company announced it would
end its "Infinite" storage plans.  Romack, who claims Bitcasa
breached its contract, sought, and received, a temporary
restraining order to stop Bitcasa from deleting customers' data.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted the temporary
restraining order, enjoining Bitcasa from deleting or impeding
access to cloud data until Nov. 20.  "Please remember, however,"
Alsup wrote on his Nov. 13 order , "that no class has been
certified."

Romack claims that Bitcasa required Infinite storage customers to
either accept a new, more expensive plan by Nov. 15, or to remove
all of their data, which would be deleted if customers didn't
accept a new plan.

"In essence Bitcasa is holding these customers' data for ransom,
requiring them to accept costlier and inferior data storage plans
from Bitcasa or risk losing their important data," the lawsuit
states.

Romack claims the approximately 23-day time frame for customers to
act is "inadequate and unreasonable."

"Such time frame renders it impracticable, and in many cases
impossible, for customers to remove their data from Bitcasa's
systems by the . . . deadline," the complaint states.

Romack says he has 7 to 8 terabytes of data stored on Bitcasa's
systems, and that he has been "working feverishly to try to
download as much of his data from Bitcasa's system . . . trying to
minimize the data he will lose."

Romack seeks class certification, restitution and damages for
breach of contract, breach of faith, and California Business Code
violations.

A hearing on the temporary restraining order is set for Nov. 19.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com


BRANCH BANKING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Andrew Ketner and Stephen Baker, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals v. Branch Banking and
Trust Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00967 (M.D.N.C., November 19,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Branch Banking and Trust Company provides financial services to
its customers, including personal banking, insurance, home
mortgages, investment services, retirement plans, and wealth
advisory services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Brinson, Esq.
      ROBERSON HAWORTH & REESE, PLLC
      300 North Main Street, Suite 300, PO Box 1550
      High Point, NC 27261
      Telephone: (336) 889-8733
      Facsimile: (336) 885-1280
      E-mail: bbrinson@rhrlaw.com

         - and -

      Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
      Brittany B. Skemp, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St.
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 215-6870


CINEMARK USA: "De Ponton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Sanchez De Ponton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated under 29 USC 216(b) v. Cinemark USA, Inc., a
Foreign Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-62638 (S.D. Fla., November
19, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cinemark USA, Inc. is a foreign corporation that owns and operates
a chain of movie theatres.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Thomas Brady Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM BRADY, P.A.
      800 Brickell Avenue, Penthouse 2
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-7688
      Facsimile: (305) 358-4010
      E-mail: wbrady@wbradylaw.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Leblanc" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Izabella L. Leblanc, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Client Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:14-cv-07215 (D.N.J., November 19, 2014), seeks to redress
Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Client Services, Inc. is a collection agency with its principal
office located at 3451 Harry S. Truman Boulevard, St. Charles,
Missouri 63301-4047.

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


COCA-COLA CO: Fails to Properly Encrypt Workers' PII, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogue Coca-Cola Co. employees went on spending sprees with the
personal information of more than 70,000 co-workers, a federal
class action alleges, reports Andrew Thompson at Courthouse News
Service.

Shane Enslin filed the complaint November 12, seeking damages
under the Drivers Piracy Protection Act for negligence, fraud,
conspiracy and other claims.

As an 11-year employee of Keystone Coca-Cola Bottling, Enslin says
he entrusted the soda giant with his personal identifying and
financial information, abbreviated in the complaint as PII.

Coke allegedly sent Enslin a letter this past February, alerting
him to the fact that his PII was "stored on or accessed from at
least one of the 55 laptops stolen sometime between January of
2007 and December of 2013."  The breach on the company's largest
bottler, Coca-Cola Enterprises, compromised the PII of at least
74,000 current and former Coke employees, according to the
complaint.

Enslin blames Coca-Cola for failing to properly encrypt such PII,
which the thieves used "to wreak havoc on the plaintiff's life."
He says the thieves used his bank account to pay for more than
$958 worth of Bloomingdale's merchandise, delivered to Staten
Island.  They also allegedly had more than $825 of Fingerhut
merchandise shipped to that Staten Island address, which the
thieves tried to make the primary address for all of Enslin's
accounts, according to the complaint.

Enslin says the thieves "took control of two (2) of Mr. Enslin's
Capital One Credit Card accounts and his Best Buy Credit Account,"
and engaged in a similar scheme with his Macy's card.

This summer the thieves shopped in Ireland and got a job with the
delivery giant UPS in his name.  Meanwhile Coca-Cola has merely
offered Enslin free credit monitoring through a third-party.
Enslin no longer worked for the company by the time of the breach.
He claims his information was still accessible on the machines and
were easily accessed on the unencrypted computers.

Coca-Cola recovered approximately 55 computers by Dec. 10, 2013,
according to the complaint.  In addition to various Coke
subsidiaries, the complaint names one of the charged thieves,
Thomas Rogers III, as a defendant.

"On or about June 14, 2014, Mr. Rogers was arrested and charged by
the Cobb County Police," the complaint states.  "He stands charged
with felony and misdemeanor theft by taking."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald Haviland Jr., Esq.
          HAVILAND HUGHES
          201 S. Maple Way, Suite 110
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 609-4661
          Facsimile: (215) 392-4400


CONDE NAST: Has Agreed to Fork Over $5.8MM to Spike Interns Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Conde Nast
has agreed to fork over $5.8 million to spike a class action by
interns who complained that they made "a dollar a day, if that."

Attorneys for the interns urged a federal judge to endorse the
deal in a 25-page memorandum filed on November 13.

Lauren Ballinger, who worked at W Magazine, and Matthew Leib, who
assisted editorial at The New Yorker, claimed in a July 2013
lawsuit that Conde Nast "relies on a steady stream of interns to
perform entry-level work that contributes to its magazines'
operations and reduce its labor costs."

They led a class of 7,500 interns alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

After the lawyers take their proposed 11 percent cut, amounting to
$650,000, the seven-figure deal breaks down to a far smaller nest
egg per intern.

The payouts range from $700 to $1,900 per intern, depending on the
type of internship and whether it included a stipend, according to
the memo.

Outten & Golden attorney Rachel Bien, representing the interns,
called the settlement "fair, reasonable and adequate."

The deal will "avoid significant expense and delay, and instead
ensure recovery for the class," she said.

"Although plaintiffs believe their case is strong, it is subject
to risk," Bien's memo states.

Part of that risk is because "the Second Circuit has not yet
resolved the legal test that applies to interns," the memo notes.
"Two district courts in this circuit adopted different tests for
determining whether an intern is an employee under the FLSA."

The memo notes that these cases are the class actions against Fox
Searchlight Pictures filed by "Black Swan" interns, who achieved
certification; and another against the Hearst Corp. by their
magazine interns, whose case was dismissed.

"Two very different outcomes resulted in these cases - in one, the
court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs; in the other,
the court denied summary judgment," the memo states.  "These very
different outcomes demonstrate the uncertainty that the parties
face.  The proposed settlement alleviates this uncertainty.  This
factor therefore weighs in favor of preliminary approval."

Conde Nast has not returned a request for comment left after
business hours on November 14.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Bien, Esq.
          Juno Turner, Esq.
          Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
          E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com
                  jturner@outtengolden.com
                  wno@outtengolden.com

The case is Lauren Ballinger and Matthew Leib v. Advance Magazine
Publishers, Inc. d/b/a Conde Nast Publications, Case No. 1:13-cv-
04036-HBP, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removes "Thompson" Suit to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Thompson v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00035493-CU-OE-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-02778-CAB-WVG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts class-wide claims for wage theft, failure to
pay overtime premium wages, failure to pay all wages due and
failure to provide meal breaks, among other things.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
          625 Broadway, Suite 635
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq.
          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: kyoumans@seyfarth.com
                  dkadue@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
          Emily E. Schroeder, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 S. Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com
                  eschroeder@seyfarth.com


CREATIVE FOOD: "Tantawy" Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Tantawy, et al. v. Creative Food
Group HD, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-05062, 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-09265-JMF to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages,
stolen tips, payments for laundering uniforms, liquidated damages,
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
          ROBERT WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 612
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 267-2101
          Facsimile: (212) 267-8115
          E-mail: rw@rwapc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Brian Feldman, Esq.
          Shari Ann Alexander, Esq.
          MOSES & SINGER LLP
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174-1299
          Telephone: (212) 554-7800
          Facsimile: (212) 554-7700
          E-mail: dfeldman@mosessinger.com
                  salexander@mosessinger.com


CUYAHOGA, OHIO: Faces "Mulloy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Mulloy, James McClary, and Anthony Church, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Cuyahoga County, Case
No. 1:14-cv-02546 (N.D. Ohio, November 19, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Cuyahoga County is a county located in the U.S. state of Ohio.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER, LLC
      Ste. 201, 4580 Stephen Circle, NW
      Canton, OH 44718
      Telephone: (330) 354-8967
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
              sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


DHR INTERNATIONAL: Case Management & Pretrial Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton adopts the case management
statement of the parties in DHR INTERNATIONAL INC., Plaintiff(s),
v. ADAM CHARLSON, Defendant(s). ADAM CHARLSON, Plaintiff(s), v.
DHR INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendant(s), NOS. C 14-01899 PJH, C
14-03041 PJH, (N.D. Cal.) except as modified by, among other
things, the following pretrial schedule:

TRIAL DATE: Monday, June 6, 2016, at 8:30 a.m., Courtroom 3, 3rd
Fl.

JURY [x] COURT [ ]

TRIAL LENGTH: No more than 8 days.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: May 12, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Only one summary judgment motion per party is
permitted without leave of court)

TO BE HEARD BY: January 13, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF: October 30, 2015.

DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS (retained and non-retained): 8/28/15;
Rebuttal: 9/14/15.

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF: October 30, 2015.

DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS:

Interrogatories: Requests for Documents: Depositions: Requests for
Admissions:

DISCOVERY DISPUTES REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE AFTER MOTION IS
FILED.

LAST DAY TO AMEND PLEADINGS: No later than 90 days before fact
discovery cutoff date a motion or a stipulation must be filed so
that sufficient time remains to conduct discovery on added claims
or parties. Doe defendants must be identified in the motion or
stipulation or they will be dismissed.

[x] REFERRED TO ADR FOR Private Mediation to be completed within
180 days.

A copy of the November 17, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/upqV64from Leagle.com.

Adam D Charlson, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Christopher Robert Le Clerc, Esq.
   Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq.
   LECLERC & LECLERC, LLP
   235 Montgomery St, Suite 1019
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Telephone: 800-465-6254
   Facsimile: 415-445-9977

DHR International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joan Celeste
Woodard -- jwoodard@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees LP.

Carol Hartman, Defendant, represented by Joan Celeste Woodard,
Gordon and Rees LP.

Christine Abrams, Defendant, represented by Joan Celeste Woodard,
Gordon and Rees LP.

Geoffrey Hoffman, Defendant, represented by Joan Celeste Woodard,
Gordon and Rees LP.

Douglas Black, Defendant, represented by Joan Celeste Woodard,
Gordon and Rees LP.


DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Richards" Suit Over High Electricity Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary W. Richards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Direct Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01724
(D. Conn., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendant engaged
in an unfair and deceptive scheme of charging residential
consumers an extraordinarily high premium rate for electricity
regardless of fluctuations in the underlying market price.

Direct Energy Services, LLC provides electricity supply services
within the State of Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq.
     IZARD NOBEL, LLP
     29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Telephone: (860) 493-6295
     Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
     E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com


DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Faces Soffer Suit Over Merger With Siemens
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dresser-Rand Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative
class action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger with Siemens
Energy, Inc. was filed on September 24, 2014 on behalf of Dresser-
Rand Group Inc. stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The action is captioned Soffer v. Volpe et al., C.A. No. 10165-CB
(Del. Ch.).  The complaint in the Soffer action alleges that the
directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders by engaging in a flawed sale process, agreeing to
sell the Company for inadequate consideration and agreeing to
improper deal protection terms in the Merger Agreement.  In
addition, the lawsuit alleges that the Company, Siemens and Dynamo
Acquisition Corporation, the Delaware subsidiary formed by Siemens
in connection with the transaction, aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit seeks, among
other things, an injunction barring the merger.

On October 21, 2014, plaintiffs amended the complaint to allege as
additional basis for relief that the directors of the Company
engaged in self-dealing because they will benefit from their
compensation arrangements and/or the sale of their personal stakes
in the Company and that the preliminary proxy statement filed by
the Company on October 9, 2014 fails to provide stockholders with
material information about the transaction and/or is materially
misleading.

Siemens Energy is among the largest global suppliers of custom-
engineered rotating equipment solutions for long-life, critical
applications in the oil, gas, chemical, petrochemical, process,
power generation, military and other industries worldwide.


DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Faces Union Suit Over Merger With Siemens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dresser-Rand Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on October 24,
2014, Construction Industry & Laborers Union Local 872 Pension A
Trust v. Dresser-Rand Group, Inc., et al, C.A. No. 10285-CB (Del.
Ch.) was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.   This complaint
contains claims and allegations similar to those in the pre-
amendment Soffer complaint and seeks similar relief on behalf of
the same putative class.  The Company believes that the lawsuits
are without merit.

The complaint in the Soffer action challenges the proposed merger
with Siemens Energy, Inc.

Siemens Energy is among the largest global suppliers of custom-
engineered rotating equipment solutions for long-life, critical
applications in the oil, gas, chemical, petrochemical, process,
power generation, military and other industries worldwide.


FEDERAL HOME: Filed Response to Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston, in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided
updates on the class action complaint against EMC Mortgage
Corporation and Bear, Stearns & Co., now known as J.P. Morgan
Securities, LLC, based on Federal Home Loan Bank's investment in
certain private-label MBS trusts.

The Company said, "The defendants in the class action complaint
previously filed a motion to dismiss our complaint, arguing, among
other things, that we lacked standing to pursue the claims and
that we had failed to adequately plead our claims. On September
19, 2014, we filed our response to that motion. We cannot predict
when the court will issue a ruling."


FIT FOODS: Faces "Canizalez" Over Misleading Product Label
----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Canizalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fit Foods, Ltd., and Fit Foods Distribution,
Inc., Canadian corporations, Case No. 3:14-cv-02744 (S.D. Cal.,
November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants is engaged in an
unfair and deceptive business practices, specifically by
misrepresenting the nature and quality of Mutant Whey Extreme
Multi Whey Mega Blend on the Product label.

The Defendants are Canadian companies that manufacture and
distribute a wide range of healthy lifestyle and sports supplement
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, SBN 174806
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS, LLP
      1515 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-1300
      Facsimile: (215) 851-8092
      E-mail:  jshub@seegerweiss.com


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Court Narrows V. Malon's Discovery Requests
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Virginia district court agreed with Franklin Financial
Corporation's assertion that that discovery requests made by
Andrew Malon in a securities class action complaint are overly
broad.

The case is ANDREW MALON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
et al. Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14CV671 (HEH-RCY) (E.D.
Va.).

The other Defendants are Franklin Federal Savings Bank, TowneBank,
and members of Franklin's Board of Directors -- Richard T.
Wheeler, Jr., Hugh T. Harrison II, Warren A. Mackey, Elizabeth W.
Robertson, George L. Scott, Richard W. Wiltshire, Jr., and Percy
Wootton.

In the action, Andrew Malon, a shareholder of Franklin Financial,
challenged a proposed transaction wherein TowneBank will acquire
all outstanding shares of Franklin in a stock-for-stock
transaction.  Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Defendants
violated federal securities law by providing false, misleading,
and incomplete information in the Proxy Statement pertaining to
the TowneBank Transaction.

Presently before the district court is the Plaintiff seeking
expedited discovery to prepare for the shareholder vote and an
anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction.

In a Nov. 6, 2014 Memorandum Opinion available at
http://is.gd/Vlqmzwfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Robert Young
agrees with Defendants that, in their current form, Plaintiff's
requests are overly broad and not sufficiently particularized.
Nonetheless, while Plaintiff's requests are overly broad, the
judge agrees with Plaintiff that some particularized discovery is
both necessary and appropriate in contemplation of the upcoming
shareholder meeting and motion for a preliminary injunction.  The
Court, therefore, reduces the scope of expedited discovery to
certain classes of documents and finds that the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act's (PSLRA) particularity element is
satisfied.

Plaintiff Andrew Malon is represented by Elizabeth Kathleen
Tripodi, Esq. -- etripodi@zlk.com & Julia J. Sun, Esq. --
jsun@zlk.com -- of Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Defendants Franklin Financial Corporation, Franklin Federal
Savings Bank as well as the Individual Defendants are represented
by Jennifer Rasile Everitt, Esq. --
Jeveritt@kilpatricktownsend.com , Hillary Dawn Rightler, Esq. --
Hrightler@townsend.com & Stephen Earl Hudson, Esq. --
Shudson@kilpatrick.com of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP.

Defendant TowneBank represented by Stephen Matthew Faraci, Esq. --
stephen.faraci@leclairryan.com -- of LeClair Ryan PC.


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces "Shuppert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Shuppert, Larry Vincent, Jonathon Geitgey, and Chris Koss,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Freedom
Mortgage Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-01906 (S.D. Ind., November 19,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation for work beyond 40 hours per week.

Freedom Mortgage Corp. is a for-profit foreign corporation that
offers home loans in the Southern District of Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan C. Fox, Esq.
      FOX WILLIAMS & SINK LLC
      8465 Keystone Crossing, Suite 250
      Indianapolis, IN 46240
      Telephone: (317) 254-8500
      E-mail: rfox@fwslegal.com


GECESC ASSOCIATES: Accused of Bias and Sexual Harassment in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea L. Davis v. GECESC Associates LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01065-
JRG (E.D. Tex., November 21, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff is a
victim of unlawful sexual harassment and discrimination.

During her employment with GECESC, Ms. Davis alleges that she was
unlawfully sexually harassed to an extreme degree and
discriminated against based on her sex.  She contends that GECESC
paid her less than similarly situated males in the same position
doing the same work with the same level of experience, which
constitutes unlawful wage discrimination.

The Plaintiff represented herself in the lawsuit:

          Chelsea L. Davis, Esq.
          CHELSEA DAVIS PC
          25 Highland Park Vlg., Suite 100-830
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (469) 4265850
          Facsimile: (469) 5330466
          E-mail: cdavis@chelseadavispc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donald Colleluori, Esq.
          FIGARI & DAVENPORT LLP
          Bank of America Plaza
          901 Main St., Suite 3400
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 939-2007
          Facsimile: (214) 939-2090
          E-mail: don.colleluori@figdav.com


GILLETTE COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Battery Leakage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Carlson and Jamal Yusuf, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. The Gillette Company and The Proctor
& Gamble Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-14201 (D. Mass., November 19,
2014), alleges that the Defendants concealed and misrepresented
material facts concerning potential battery leakage during storage
and intended use of their Duracell Batteries.

The Gillette Company produces and sells personal care products for
men.

The Procter & Gamble Company is a manufacturer of product ranges
including personal care, household cleaning, laundry detergents,
prescription drugs and disposable nappies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP P.A.
      2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1101
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662) 380-5018
      E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

          - and -

      Barrett J. Clisby, Esq.
      BARRETT J. CLISBY, PLLC
      Box 240, 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1021
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662) 234-8413
      E-mail: bjclisby@gmail.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Charles Barrett, Esq.
      CHARLES BARRETT, PC
      6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
      Nashville, TN 37205
      Telephone: (615) 515-3393
      E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

         - and -

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 374-1058
      Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
      E-mail: TomThrash@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com


GOODMAN GLOBAL: Class Cert. Bid Hearing in "Kotsur" on Jan. 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kotsur filed a class action on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated Pennsylvania residents who purchased a
Goodman Unit for primarily personal, family or household purposes
against defendants Goodman Global, Inc., Goodman Manufacturing
Company, L.P., and Goodman Company, L.P in the Court of Common
Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In his complaint, plaintiff
alleged four counts: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, (3) violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
73 Pa. Stat Sections 201-1, et seq., and (4) unjust enrichment.
Defendants removed this action to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The court, sua sponte, considered if there was jurisdiction under
CAFA after plaintiff withdrew his objection to federal
jurisdiction. The court must consider whether it has jurisdiction
even if neither party has raised the issue.  The court ordered the
parties to complete limited discovery on diversity jurisdiction
and to brief the issues relevant to jurisdiction under CAFA.

District Judge Norma L. Shapiro, in a memorandum and order entered
November 17, 2014, ruled that the court has jurisdiction over this
action and the case will not be remanded and may proceed to the
substantive issues after determining what, if any, class will be
certified.

Defendants may file a response to plaintiff's motion for class
certification on or before December 15, 2014.  Plaintiff may also
file a reply in support of his motion for class certification on
or before December 29, 2014.

A hearing on the class certification motion will be held in
Courtroom 10-A on January 13, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., wrote Judge
Shapiro in his memorandum and order, copies of which are available
at http://is.gd/G1kucI and http://is.gd/sAyPbufrom Leagle.com.

The case is ROBERT KOTSUR, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOODMAN GLOBAL, INC., GOODMAN
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., and GOODMAN COMPANY, L.P.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1147, (E.D. Penn.)

ROBERT KOTSUR, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW SILVER --
asilver@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, ESFAND NAFISI --
enafisi@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, GARY E. MASON
-- gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, JONATHAN
SHUB -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS LLP, JONATHAN K.
TYCKO -- jtycko@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, LORENZO B.
CELLINI -- lcellini@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP & SCOTT A.
GEORGE -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS.

GOODMAN GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
MCLAUGHLIN, JONES DAY, KIMBERLY A. BROWN, JONES DAY, RICHARD J.
BEDELL, JR., JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, SHARYL A. REISMAN, JONES
DAY, THEODORE M. GROSSMAN, JONES DAY & JENNIFER L. DELMEDICO,
JONES DAY.

GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER MCLAUGHLIN, JONES DAY, KIMBERLY A. BROWN, JONES DAY,
RICHARD J. BEDELL, JR., JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, SHARYL A.
REISMAN, JONES DAY, THEODORE M. GROSSMAN, JONES DAY & JENNIFER L.
DELMEDICO, JONES DAY.

GOODMAN COMPANY, L.P., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
MCLAUGHLIN, JONES DAY, KIMBERLY A. BROWN, JONES DAY, RICHARD J.
BEDELL, JR., JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, SHARYL A. REISMAN, JONES
DAY, THEODORE M. GROSSMAN, JONES DAY & JENNIFER L. DELMEDICO,
JONES DAY.


GOOGLE INC: Hourly Staff Not as Favored as Contractors, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that while
Fortune Magazine ranked Google the best company to work for this
year, a Brooklynite who worked as an hourly employee far from its
Silicon Valley headquarters says hourly workers are not as
privileged as "independent contractors."

Jacob McPherson, 27, says he took a $35-an-hour job in January
2013 as a site merchandiser for the books-and-magazines division
of Google Play.

Until his termination on New Year's Eve, McPherson worked out of
the company's office in the fashionable Chelsea Market.

A 15-hour cap on McPherson's hours during his training period
doubled to 30 hours roughly four months later, according to the
complaint filed November 12. But McPherson says more than half of
his employment was filled with more-than-45-hour weeks.  He was
allegedly fired after complaining about unpaid overtime.
McPherson sued Google and the software companies that connect it
to freelancers: oDesk Corporation and its successor, Elance-oDesk
Inc.  The complaint does not estimate how many other Google
employees were in McPherson's position, but a confidential
employment agreement included as an exhibit shows some of the
terms employees like him have signed.

The contract warns all "vendors and contractors" that "refusal of
a work assignment" and "excessive absenteeism" can result in the
"immediate end of [their] assignment or services" at Google.

In practice, this meant that McPherson and "others similarly
situated were often forced to work more than the maximum allowed
hours in order to complete the tasks assigned to them by Google
and keep their job," according to the Nov. 7 complaint.

"Google had a practice of requiring plaintiff and others similarly
situated to decrease the time spent on repeated tasks on a weekly
basis," the complaint states.  "When Google's requirement became
impossible and the time spent on these tasks could not be
decreased, plaintiff and others similarly situated were forced to
complete the tasks on their own time."

After McPherson complained about this policy, his manager replied
that "all tasks must be completed without regard to the time," and
warned him that he would be replaced if he did not finish them,
according to the complaint.

"In fact, Google did find a replacement contractor and terminated
plaintiff's employment," the complaint states.

In October 2013, McPherson says that he learned from a friend
within the company that Google Play was "in talks" with another
contractor seeking his position.  McPherson learned about his
termination about a month later, according to the complaint.

Google then used McPherson's "contractor" status in an attempt to
keep him from collecting unemployment insurance benefits,
according to the complaint.

"Although defendants disputed plaintiff's eligibility based on
their claim that he was an independent contractor, the New York
State Department of Labor ultimately determined that plaintiff was
an employee for the purposes of unemployment insurance and
plaintiff received [Unemployment Insurance Benefits]," the
complaint states.

McPherson seeks class-action damages for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, plus injunctive relief
for unlawful retaliation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
          110 State Route 35, 2nd Floor
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 444-3575


GURSTEL CHARGO: Obtains Initial Approval of "Smith" Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph E. Bataillon granted preliminary
approval of a settlement in GARY D. SMITH, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. GURSTEL CHARGO,
PA, Defendant, NO. 8:14CV183, (D. Neb.).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), this action is preliminarily
certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on
behalf of the class defined as: All individuals in the State of
Nebraska to whom during the period commencing four years prior to
the filing of suit, June 17, 2014, through the date of preliminary
approval, it sent a letter substantially similar to Exhibit A to
Plaintiff's Complaint and whose letter was not returned as
undeliverable. There will be a sub-class (the FDCPA sub-class)
consisting of Nebraska consumers to whom such letters were sent
during the portion of the class period commencing one year prior
to the filing of this suit.

Plaintiff Gary D. Smith is designated as the class representative
and William L. Reinbrecht and Pamela A. Car of the law firm Car &
Reinbrecht and O. Randolph Bragg of the law firm Horwitz, Horwitz
& Associates, Ltd. are designated as counsel for the class.

A hearing will be held before the court on March 19, 2015, at 9:00
a.m. in Courtroom 3 in the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska, located at the Roman L. Hruska Federal
Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, NE 68102, to determine
all necessary matters concerning the settlement, including:
whether the proposed settlement of the Action on the terms and
conditions provided should be finally approved by the court as
fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Class Members.

The Class Notice will be distributed to the Class beginning on or
before December 1, 2014.

Any class member who desires to enter an appearance pursuant to
Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) must do so by March 5, 2015. Class members
who wish to exclude themselves from (opt out of) the class and the
proposed settlement agreement must mail a written request for
exclusion to class counsel and counsel for defendant postmarked no
later than March 5, 2015.

A copy of the Court's November 17, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/hmEnlUfrom Leagle.com.

Gary D. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg --
Rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car,
CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT
LAW FIRM.

Gurstel Chargo, PA,, Defendant, represented by Amy L. Van Horne --
Amy.VanHorne@KutakRock.com -- KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Certified Class in False Advertising Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has certified
a class action that claims The Hain Celestial Group falsely
advertised its Avalon Organics and Jason cosmetics as organic.

The case is Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela v. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-03082-LB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco Division.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Salisbury Bank Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salisbury Bank and Trust Company, individually and on behalf of a
class of all similarly situated financial institutions v. Home
Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03722 (N.D. Ga., November 19,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
adequate security and protection for its computer systems
containing customers' financial and personal data.

The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a
wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and
construction supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
      Alex D. Weatherby, Esq.
      W. PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES
      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 -

     Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
     Joseph D. Cohen, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Chrysler Building
     405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10174
     Telephone: (212) 223-6444
     Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
     E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
             jcohen@scott-scott.com

        - and -

     David R. Scott, Esq.
     Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
     Colchester, CT 06415
     Telephone: (860) 537-5537
     Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
     E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
             steti@scott-scott.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Took $112-Mil. Bribe From Endo, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal class action accuses the maker of a popular pain
medication of paying a $100 million bribe to another drug company
to delay the release of its generic tablets.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana Endo Health Solutions, its
subsidiaries and Impact Laboratories Inc. individually and on
behalf of a purported class consisting of anyone who bought Opana
tablets after June 2010.

The insurance company says Impax took more than $112 million in
cash from Endo to keep its generic, extended-release oxymorphone
hydrochloride out of the market from June 2010 to January 2013.

Endo sells oxymorphone hydrochloride as Opana ER.  It used the two
and a half year delay to develop a new "crush resistant"
formulation of Opana, Blue Cross Blue Shield claims.

The anticompetitive scheme by Endo and Impax caused consumers and
insurance companies to overpay, the lawsuit alleges.

"Endo essentially bribed Impax to stay out of the market for two
and a half years to protect Endo's stream of monopoly profits,"
the complaint states.  "Endo literally bought itself freedom from
generic competition.  Endo and Impax -- competitors -- conspired
to allocate the market for Opana ER and its generic equivalents in
a manner that gave each company more exclusivity than it was
entitled to in order to maximize profits at the expense of
purchasers of Opana ER."

The scheme began when Endo sued a group of generic manufacturers,
including Impax, that wanted to sell generic extended-release
oxymorphone hydrochloride.  Endo alleged patent infringement.
Simply filing the lawsuit stopped the FDA from approving the pill
makers' generic drug applications, Blue Cross Blue Shield claims.

Next, after ending its suit against Impax, Endo entered into an
"exclusion payment agreement" with the generic manufacturer.  The
agreement included a $102 million payment to Impax in April 2013
and a second payment of "$10 million up front with an obligation
to pay an additional $30 million under the guise of a development
and co-promotion agreement for Impax's yet-to-be approved product
to treat Parkinson's disease," according to the complaint.

If not for the plan with Endo, Impax would have released its
generic version of Opana more than four years ago, when it
received FDA approval for most strength levels of the pill, the
lawsuit alleges, and Blue Cross Blue Shield says that would have
saved it and others money.

"As a direct and proximate result of defendants' illegal conduct,
plaintiff and the class members were compelled to pay, and did
pay, artificially inflated prices for Opana ER and its generic
equivalents," the complaint states.

Blue Cross Blue Shield is represented by:

          Douglas Plymale, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
          One Canal Place, Suite 1000
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180


IMPERVA INC: Lead Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Filed
-----------------------------------------------------
Imperva Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Lead
plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed in a class action lawsuit.

On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Imperva and certain of its
officers. The lawsuit purports to bring suit on behalf of those
investors who purchased Imperva's publicly traded securities
between May 2, 2013 and April 9, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that
defendants made false and misleading statements, purports to
assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On August
7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead plaintiff and
counsel for the purported class. Lead plaintiff's Amended
Complaint was filed in October 2014.


INNERWORKINGS INC: Files Motion to Dismiss "Van Noppen" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company and
individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class action
entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al.

In February 2014, following the Company's February 2014
announcement of its intention to restate certain historical
financial statements, an individual filed a putative securities
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings
et al. The complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the
Company and certain executive officers violated federal securities
laws by making materially false or misleading statements or
omissions, and by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of
securities, relating to the Company's financial results and
prospects. The purported misstatements and scheme relate to the
Company's inside sales initiative and the Productions Graphics
business based in France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and
individual defendants dispute the claims and intend to vigorously
defend the matter.

On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim,
and this motion is currently pending. Any loss that the Company
and individual defendants may incur as a result of this matter
cannot be estimated.


INTEGRITY SOLUTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moses Eigner, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Integrity Solution Services, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-06832 (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2014) accuses the Defendant
of violating Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


INTELLIGENDER LLC: 9th Cir. Enters Order on Appeal in Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. INTELLIGENDER, LLC Defendant-Appellant, Case No.
13-56806, the district court approved a Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA) settlement between a nationwide certified class of
disappointed purchasers of the IntelliGender Prediction Test and
defendant IntelliGender, which sold and advertised the Test as an
accurate predictor of a fetus's gender using the mother's urine
sample.

Subsequently, the People of the State of California filed an
enforcement action against IntelliGender under the State's Unfair
Competition and False Advertising Laws, largely based on the same
claims asserted in the CAFA class action.  The State seeks civil
penalties, injunctive relief, and restitution for some individuals
who were bound by the CAFA class action settlement.

IntelliGender initially moved for an injunction against the
State's entire action, which the district court denied.
IntelliGender next moved for an injunction against only the
State's restitution claims, positing that the State's action
undermines the finality of the CAFA settlement, which the court
also denied.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms
the district court's order denying the injunction of the State's
action writ large, but reverses the district court's order denying
the injunction with respect to restitution and enjoins those
claims.

The Ninth Circuit's Nov. 7, 2014 Opinion, penned by Circuit Judge
Kim McLane Wardlaw, held that: "Because the State's action is
designed to vindicate broader governmental interests than the
class action, the settlement agreement in the CAFA class action
does not create privity sufficient to warrant enjoining the entire
action. While we recognize the State's strong interest in
protecting its citizens through enforcement actions, we note that
CAFA expressly provides that the defendant in a class action must
provide notice to the appropriate state official of any proposed
settlement, presumably so that the state may comment upon or
object to the settlement's approval, if the State believes the
terms inadequately protect state citizens. Here, the appropriate
State officials were notified, but they chose not to participate
in the settlement approval process. The State cannot now obtain a
duplicate recovery in the form of restitution on behalf of those
individual citizens who are bound by the bargained for restitution
in the CAFA class settlement."

The Ninth Circuit's Nov. 7, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/AJadgvfrom Leagle.com.

Douglas J. Collodel, Esq. -- douglas.collodel@sedgwicklaw.com --
of Sedgwick LLP, in Los Angeles, California; as well as Paul
Jeffrey Riehle, Esq. -- paul.riehle@sedgwicklaw.com , Nora Wetzel,
Esq. -- nora.wetzel@sedgwicklaw.com -- of Sedgwick LLP, in San
Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellant Intelligender LLC.

Kristine A. Lorenz (argued), San Diego City Attorney's Office, San
Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee State of California.


KKR FINANCIAL: Delaware Chancery Court Grants Motions to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR Financial Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Delaware
Court of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss a class
action.

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, the United States District
Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN,
individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR & Co., and
certain of KKR & Co.'s affiliates in connection with KFN's entry
into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a
subsidiary of KKR & Co. The merger transaction was completed on
April 30, 2014.  The actions filed in California state court have
been consolidated but an operative complaint has not been filed or
designated.  The complaint filed in the California federal court
action, which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily
dismissed on May 6, 2014.  Two of the Delaware actions were
voluntarily dismissed, and the remaining Delaware actions were
consolidated.  On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was
filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants
moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014.  On October 14, 2014, the
Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss.

The complaints in these actions allege variously that the members
of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to
KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for
inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in
order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN
shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing
preclusive deal protection devices; failing to take steps to
maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders; and failing
to disclose material information necessary for KFN shareholders to
make a fully informed decision about the proposed transaction. The
actions also allege variously that KKR & Co., and certain of KKR &
Co.'s affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties and that KKR & Co. is a controlling shareholder
of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN and KKR
Financial Advisors LLC, and KKR & Co. breached a fiduciary duty it
allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into
the merger agreement. The relief sought in these actions includes,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and the proposed
transaction, rescission, an accounting by defendants, damages and
attorneys' fees and costs and other relief.


KOLBE & KOLBE: Claims in "Haley" Defective Windows Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Wisconsin district court dismissed claims in a class action
complaint accusing Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc., of selling
defective windows.

The case is MARY HALEY and MICHAEL HALEY, LESLIE BANKS and JAMES
HAL BANKS, ANNIE BUINEWICZ and BRIAN BUINEWICZ, TERRANCE McIVER
and JEAN ANN McIVER, SUSAN SENYK and CHRISTIAN SENYK, MATTHEW
DELLER and RENEE DELLER, GARY SAMUELS and MARIE LOHR, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KOLBE
& KOLBE MILLWORK CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-99-BBC (W.D.
Wi.).

In a Nov. 6, 2014 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/YlkGEpfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Barbara B.
Crabb granted defendant Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co.'s motion to
dismiss counts VII through IX of plaintiffs' amended complaint, in
which plaintiffs contend that defendant violated various
provisions of the Home Improvement Practices Act, Wis. Admin. Code
Sec. ATCP 110.02 and 110.04.

"I conclude that these regulations do not apply to defendant or
other manufacturers that do not install their products in
residential or noncommercial property," the judge said.

Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co. manufactures non-vinyl window products,
including all-wood and wood and aluminum product lines.

Plaintiffs are represented by represented by Dixon R. Gahnz &
James A. Olson of Lawton & Cates, S.C.; Joseph J. DePalma --
jdepalma@litedepalma.com , Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com & Susana Cruz Hodge --
scruzhodge@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC;
Bonnie J. Prober -- bprober@cuneolaw.com , Charles J. LaDuca --
charlesl@cuneolaw.com & Daniel M. Cohen -- danielc@cuneolaw.com of
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP; Charles E. Schaffer --
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman; Jill
T. Lin, Jonas Palmer Mann, & Michael Andrew of McShane of Audet &
Partners, LLP; as well as Robert K. Shelquist --
rkshelquist@locklaw.com of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P..

United States Fire Insurance Company, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by Michael Raymond Gregg -- mrg@merlolaw.com of Merlo
Kanofsky & Gregg, Ltd..

Kolbe and Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by
Gordon Davenport, III -- gdavenport@foley.com , Michael D. Leffel
-- mleffel@foley.com , Krista J. Sterken -- ksterken@foley.com &
Matthew D. Lee -- mlee@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP; as
well as Elizabeth K. Miles -- emiles@dkattorneys.com -- of Davis &
Kuelthau s.c.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Intervenor, represented by Beth
Ann Berger -- BethAnn.Berger@lewisbrisbois.com & Jeffrey Alan
Goldwater -- Jeffrey.Goldwater@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


LA FIESTA: "Henderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel L. Henderson, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. La Fiesta Mexican Grill and Sergio Reza,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00331 (E.D. Tenn., November 19, 2014), seeks to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Russell, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
      341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
      Franklin, TN 37067
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
      E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com


LAYERED TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Morris" Suit to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Morris v. Layered Technologies, et al., Case
No. 14AE-CV01922, was removed from the Circuit Court of Platte
County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (St. Joseph).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-06128-ODS to the proceeding.

The action arises under the Missouri Human Rights Act due to the
Defendants' alleged unlawful employment practices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Baldwin, Esq.
          Eric Vernon, Esq.
          BALDWIN & VERNON
          11 E. Kansas Street
          Liberty, MO 64068
          Telephone: (816) 842-1102
          Facsimile: (816) 842-1104
          E-mail: kevin@bvalaw.net
                  eric@bvalaw.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony B. Byergo, Esq.
          Justin M. Dean, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-1301
          Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
          E-mail: anthony.byergo@ogletreedeakins.com
                  justin.dean@ogletreedeakins.com


LEADING EDGE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mordechai L. Deutsch, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Leading Edge Recovery Solutions LLC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-06815 (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating 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


LINKEDIN CORP: Court Refuses to Dismiss Spamming Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge again thwarted LinkedIn's bid to dismiss a class
action by users who claim the professional networking site
harvested their email addresses, contact lists and email history
to serve its own commercial interests, reports Julie Baker-Dennis
at Courthouse News Service.

Disgruntled users filed a federal class action against LinkedIn in
September 2013, claiming it hacked into their external email
accounts and then barraged their contacts with promotional spam.

In its defense, LinkedIn suggested that the class members may have
been simply "embarrassed" by the repeat invitations they
authorized LinkedIn to send to their contacts.

The plaintiffs, including several well-educated professionals,
countered that "a few cryptic disclosures on a website" do not
give LinkedIn the right to "harvest users' email addresses and
broadcast users' persona to hundreds of people."

In June, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh agreed with LinkedIn's
argument that the permission screens amounted to consent, as a
reasonable user would have understood that the site was collecting
email addresses from the user's external email account.

Koh threw LinkedIn another bone this week, finding in a 40-page
ruling peppered with screenshots of LinkedIn's sign-up process
that the company also "clearly discloses" its intention to invite
those email contacts to connect to the user via LinkedIn.

But the judge added that the consent granted through permission
screens ends with the first invitation and does not necessarily
apply to follow-up "reminder emails" -- the purported spam that
class members say damaged their professional reputations.

"Although the court concludes that plaintiffs have consented to
LinkedIn's initial endorsement email, the court finds that
plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they did not consent to the
second and third reminder endorsement emails," Koh wrote.

LinkedIn had lobbied for a complete dismissal of class members'
second amended complaint filed this past August, and argued in the
alternative to dismiss plaintiffs' request for minimum statutory
damages.

Koh agreed that the request to award each member $750 for economic
injury should be dismissed, since the users didn't claim that they
had been economically harmed.

"Plaintiffs assert that they have in fact alleged 'mental
anguish'", Koh wrote.  "The court is not convinced.  As defendant
correctly points out, plaintiffs' allegations of injury under
California's right of publicity statute focus solely on economic
harm."

But LinkedIn's immunity defense under the Communications Decency
Act did not fare as well with Koh.

"Plaintiffs allege that LinkedIn, without plaintiffs' consent and
for the commercial benefit of LinkedIn, sent reminder emails to
thousands of recipients making use of plaintiffs' names and
likenesses as personalized endorsements for LinkedIn," Koh wrote.
"Plaintiffs allege further that LinkedIn was 'solely responsible
for the creation and development of each reminder email,' and that
each reminder email 'was new, original, and unique content created
and developed in whole or in part by LinkedIn.'  LinkedIn,
plaintiffs say, generated the text, layout, and design of the
reminder emails and sent them to hundreds if not thousands of
recipients.  Because, as plaintiffs allege, LinkedIn sent the
reminder emails without Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent, the text
and layout of these emails were created by LinkedIn without any
input from the user.  Significantly, plaintiffs claim that
LinkedIn provided no means by which a user could edit or otherwise
select the language included in the reminder emails.  True
authorship of the reminder emails, plaintiffs allege, lay with
LinkedIn."

Additionally, LinkedIn unilaterally chose to include users'
photographs in the second reminder emails, and plaintiffs "have
plausibly alleged that LinkedIn was responsible at least 'in part'
for 'the creation or development of' the reminder emails" and is
not entitled to CDA immunity at this stage in the game, Koh said.

Koh also rejected LinkedIn's lengthy First Amendment defense,
since the emails essentially functioned as advertising for the
company -- with logos and invitations to join -- and therefore
commercial speech.

"Because plaintiffs have adequately alleged that LinkedIn's
reminder emails are not just commercial speech but misleading
commercial speech that causes them injury, the First Amendment
provides LinkedIn no refuge," Koh wrote.

She also rejected LinkedIn's argument that using the plaintiffs'
names and photos was incidental and common in the online
networking business.

"LinkedIn's alleged use of plaintiffs' names and likenesses are
critical, not incidental, to defendant's commercial purposes," Koh
wrote, noting that even Facebook legendarily admitted that friend
recommendations are "the Holy Grail of advertising."

Koh gave class members another 30 days to fix deficiencies in
their second amended complaint.

The case is Paul Perkins, et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No.
5:13-cv-04303-LHK, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


MAGNUM HUNTER: Intends to Vigorously Defend Plaintiffs' Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the plaintiffs' appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two
of whom, at that time, also served as directors, and one of whom
continues to serve as a director. On April 24, 2013, Horace
Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against
the Company and certain of its officers. Several substantially
similar putative class actions were filed in the Southern District
of New York and in the Southern District of Texas. All such cases
are collectively referred to as the Securities Cases.

The cases filed in the Southern District of Texas have since been
dismissed.  The cases filed in the Southern District of New York
were consolidated and have since been dismissed.

The plaintiffs in the Securities Cases had filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging that the Company made certain false or
misleading statements in its filings with the SEC, including
statements related to the Company's internal and financial
controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based compensation
expense, the late filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the
dismissal of Magnum Hunter's previous independent registered
accounting firm, the Company's characterization of the auditors'
position with respect to the dismissal, and other matters
identified in the Company's April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended.
The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged false statements
made regarding these issues throughout the alleged class period,
as well as claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act based on alleged false statements and omissions regarding the
Company's internal controls made in connection with a public
offering that Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012. The
consolidated amended complaint demanded that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including
damages allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock
price between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013.

In January 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Securities Cases. On June 23, 2014, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Cases and, accordingly, the Securities
Cases have now been dismissed. The plaintiffs have appealed the
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
which the Company intends to vigorously defend.  It is possible
that additional investor lawsuits could be filed over these
events.


MARICOPA COUNTY CCD: Faces Class Suit Over Leak of Students Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
A data leak at Maricopa County Community Colleges District
affected 2.5 million current and former students, employees and
vendors, a class action claims in Maricopa County Court.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Harassing Ecuadorian Worker
------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Thur De Koos v. Marriott International, Inc. a/k/a Miami
Airport Marriott and David Cesario, individually, Case No. 1:14-
cv-24434-JEM (S.D. Fla., November 20, 2014) is an action under the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992
to redress alleged injury done to the Plaintiff by the Defendants'
discriminatory and retaliatory treatment on the basis of his race
and national origin (Hispanic and Ecuadorian).

Marriott International, Inc. is a profit corporation authorized to
conduct business in the state of Florida, in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.  The Company conducts business under the name of Miami
Airport Marriott Hotel.  David Cesario was the General Manager of
the Hotel at the time that the Plaintiff was allegedly
discriminated and harassed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MED REV: Sued in New York for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Hall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Med Rev Recoveries, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01415-LEK-
DEP (N.D.N.Y., November 21, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James D. Pacitti, Esq.
          OFFICE OF JAMES D. PACITTI
          7120 Hayvenhunt Avenue, Suite 320
          Van Nuys, CA 91406
          Telephone: (800) 590-6905
          Facsimile: (866) 684-6734
          E-mail: james@pacittilawfirm.com


MEDTRONIC INC: "Hendrich" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit JIMMY HENDRICH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:14CV01635 AGF, has been
remanded to the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri,
City of St. Louis.

The action was originally filed in May 2014 in the Twenty-Second
Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri, located in the City of St.
Louis, seeking to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused by
the InFUSETM Bone Graft and LT-CAGETM Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device
manufactured and distributed by the Defendants.  The action had 93
plaintiffs, 14 of which are Missouri residents.

The Defendants sought to move the action to a Missouri district
court, asserting that the district court has jurisdiction pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Two similar lawsuits involving the Infuse device were also removed
to the district court by Defendants, Smith, et al. v. Medtronic,
Inc., No. 4:13-CV-02220-CEJ, and Anders, et al. v. Medtronic,
Inc., No. 4:14-CV-01637-ERW. The Smith and Anders cases also
originated in the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court, and both
cases also involve slightly less than 100 plaintiffs. Prior to
their removal, all three cases were consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.

In a Nov. 5, 2014 Memorandum and Opinion available at
http://is.gd/4RjwYDfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Audrey G.
Fleissig finds that because Plaintiffs have not requested a joint
trial for the Anders, Smith and Hendrich cases, either explicitly
or implicitly, this is not a mass action and does not meet the
jurisdictional requirements of CAFA. "This case shall therefore be
remanded to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction."

The Plaintiffs are represented by Eric D. Holland, Esq. --
eholland@allfela.com -- & Randall S. Crompton, Esq. --
eholland@allfela.com of HOLLAND AND GROVES, L.L.C..

Medtronic Inc, Defendant, represented by John Elliot Gibbons, Esq.
-- jgibbons@buckleylawllc.com -- & Martin J. Buckley, Esq. --
mbuckley@buckleylawllc.com -- of BUCKLEY AND BUCKLEY, L.L.C. as
well as Murray S. Levin, Esq. -- levinm@pepperlaw.com -- of PEPPER
HAMILTON, LLP.

Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew E. Tauber, Esq. -- atauber@mayerbrown.com -- & Daniel L.
Ring, Esq. -- dring@mayerbrown.com -- of MAYER BROWN LLP; John
Elliot Gibbons, Esq. & Martin J. Buckley, Esq. of BUCKLEY AND
BUCKLEY, L.L.C., as well as Murray S. Levin, Esq. & Sean P. Fahey,
Esq. of PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew E.
Tauber, Esq. & Daniel L. Ring, Esq. of MAYER BROWN LLP; Martin J.
Buckley, Esq. of BUCKLEY AND BUCKLEY, L.L.C.; as well as Sean P.
Fahey, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.


MISO RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabino Jimenez Macareno, Felipe Reynoso, Reyes Reynoso, Hector
Galvez Jimenez, Pedro Ramos Guerrero, and Lino Galvez Jimenez, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Miso
Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Souen Soho, Hijiki Restaurant Inc. d/b/a
Souen 13, Yamaguchi LLC, "John Doe" As Executor/Administrator of
The Estate of Masaaki Yamaguchi, Miyako Ikeda, Katzu "Saito," and
Choko "Doe,", Case No. 1:14-cv-09194 (S.D.N.Y., November 19,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants throughout New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
              nmelito@fslawfirm.com


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Court Dismissed "Mazzeo" Marketing Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida man failed to prove Nature's Bounty lied when it said
its "Flush Free Niacin" promotes heart health, reports Caroline
Sparks at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Anthony Mazzeo filed a class action against the Nature's Bounty on
March 5, 2014, claiming the supplement company makes a number of
false and misleading claims in order to deceive otherwise
reasonable consumers.

The lawsuit focused on one product in particular, "Flush Free
Niacin," and Nature's Bounty claim that it "promotes heart
health."

The product is a derivative form of Niacin -- Niacin being a
commonly prescribed treatment for cardiovascular disease.
Nature's Bounty says what makes its product distinctive is that it
does not result in the flushing of the skin, a common side effect
of taking Niacin.

Despite its name, however, Flush Free Niacin contains no Niacin,
but is instead a form of the vitamin B3.  Mazzeo claimed that
distinction rendered the health-related claims of Nature's Bounty
irrelevant.  He said the pills do not promote heart health, that
the advertising is therefore harmful and misrepresentative, and
that he and the class were entitled to relief under the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act.

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom disagreed, citing several reasons
why she was dismissing the lawsuit.  To begin with, she said,
Mazzeo purchased the supplement at a third-party realtor
(Walgreens), and therefore it is not covered by an express
warranty between the parties.  Bloom also said the plaintiff was
unable to prove his negligence claim, because to make that
argument, the complaint must provide "more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do."

The judge also took issue with the three studies Mazzeo cited in
his complaint to proved the allege ineffectiveness of the
supplement.  Bloom said the three sources were unreliable and/or
biased because one was written by a Nature's Bounty contributor,
while the two others were written by doctors regarding specific
cases.  Finally, she said, Nature's Bounty dietary supplements,
all have a disclaimer on their bottles which states "not intended
to cure or prevent any diseases".  This statement protects the
company from complaints such as the one brought by Mazzeo, Bloom
said.

The case is Anthony Mazzeo v. Nature's Bounty, Inc., Case No.
0:14-cv-60580-BB, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.


NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ephraim Steinwuzel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-06833 (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2014) is brought over alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Securities Suit Tossed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick entered an order and opinion
in In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions Securities Litigation,
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01800-JWS, (D. Ariz.) on November 17, 2014.

In this action, defendants Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc.,
Richard J. Heckmann, Mark D. Johnsrud, Jay Parkinson, W.
Christopher Chisholm, and Charles R. Gordon moved pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for an order dismissing
the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs maintained
that the complaint is sufficient, but requested leave to amend if
the court holds otherwise.

According to Judge Sedwick's ruling, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/lDwhudfrom Leagle.com, the defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted. Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed without
prejudice. Plaintiffs may file a properly supported motion to
amend provided it is filed no more than 21 days from the date of
this order. If a timely motion to amend is not filed, this case
will be closed. However, failure to file a timely motion to amend
will not preclude plaintiffs from filing a new action based on a
sufficient complaint more than 21 days from the date of this
order, Judge Sedwick added.

Jewyl A Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy James Christian,
Tiffany & Bosco PA & Richard Glenn Himelrick, Tiffany & Bosco PA.

Chad Monroe, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy C Manifold --
manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
Francis M Gregorek -- gregorek@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP, Marisa C Livesay -- livesay@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Patricia Nicole Syverson --
psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC,
Rachele R. Rickert -- rickert@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP & Gregory Mark Nespole -- nespole@whafh.com --
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Page Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Glenn Himelrick --
rgh@tblaw.com -- Tiffany & Bosco PA.

Alan G Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Glenn Himelrick,
Tiffany & Bosco PA.

Maria L Castro, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jesse S Johnson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Dessaules Law Group, Rachel W Maron,
Dessaules Law Group, Stephen R Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Elizabeth A Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Patricia Nicole Syverson, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC.

Robert W Karrasch, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jesse S Johnson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Dessaules Law Group, Rachel W Maron,
Dessaules Law Group, Stephen R Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Elizabeth A Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Patricia Nicole Syverson, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC.

Ralph E Brownfield, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jesse S Johnson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Dessaules Law Group, Rachel W Maron,
Dessaules Law Group, Stephen R Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Elizabeth A Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Nuverra Environmental Solutions Incorporated, Defendant,
represented by Brian Michael McQuaid -- brian.mcquaid@squirepb.com
-- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Kerryn Leigh Holman --
kerryn.holman@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP &
Joseph C Weinstein -- joe.weinstein@squirepb.com -- Squire Sanders
Boggs (US) LLP.

Richard J Heckmann, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael
McQuaid, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph C Weinstein, Squire
Sanders Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP.

Mark D Johnsrud, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael McQuaid,
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph C Weinstein, Squire Sanders
Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP.

Jay Parkinson, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael McQuaid,
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph C Weinstein, Squire Sanders
Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP.

W Christopher Chisholm, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael
McQuaid, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph C Weinstein, Squire
Sanders Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP.

Charles R Gordon, Defendant, represented by Joseph C Weinstein,
Squire Sanders Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP.


OMEGA FLEX: "Schoelwer" Plaintiff Refiled Case in May 2014
----------------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that two putative class
action cases have been filed against the Company; one in U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida titled Hall v.
Omega Flex, Inc. and one in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio titled Schoelwer v. Omega Flex, Inc.  In both
cases, the lead plaintiffs claimed that they are exposed to an
increased likelihood of harm if one of the plaintiffs' houses that
contain TracPipe CSST is struck by lightning, that could damage
the CSST causing a release of fuel gas in the house and causing a
fire.  However, none of the lead plaintiffs have suffered any
actual harm.  In January 2014, the judge in the Hall case granted
the Company's motion to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims due
primarily to a lack of jurisdiction because there is no actual
case or controversy posed by these claims.  The plaintiff in
Schoelwer voluntarily dismissed her claims in January 2014, but
refiled the case in May 2014 alleging purely economic damages
(i.e., no personal injury or property damage).  The Company does
not believe that the Schoelwer Claim has any legal merit, and is
therefore vigorously defending that Claim.

Omega Flex is a manufacturer of flexible metal hose, which is used
in a variety of applications to carry gases and liquids within
their particular applications.


PALM WEST: "Bravo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Bravo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Palm West Corp., just one more restaurant corp., Palm
Restaurant Inc., Palm NY Downtown, LLC, Palm Management Corp.,
"XYZ Corp." d/b/a The Palm Bar & Grill, Walter Ganzi, Jr., and
Bruce Bozzi, Sr., Case No. 1:14-cv-09193 (S.D.N.Y., November 19,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Palm Restaurants throughout New
York,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
              nmelito@fslawfirm.com


PARADISE MANOR: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Sonia Tolentino, Elvira Malapit, Concepcion Cabato, Agustina
Duran, Leticia Leonardo Villaspir, and Melinda Menor v. Lynda G.
Miguel and David R. Miguel, individually and together dba Paradise
Manor, Case No. 5:14-cv-05151 (N.D. Cal., November 20, 2014) is an
action for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
associated violations of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants jointly own and operate the business known as
Paradise Manor, which is a collection of four assisted living
facilities.  Three of these facilities are in Cupertino, and one
is in San Jose, California.  The Defendants provide care services
for the elderly.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Removes "Harris" Suit to Florida District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Harris v. Performance Food Group,
Inc., Case No. 14-CA-010761, was removed from the 13th Judicial
Circuit, in and for Hillsbourough County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-02913-SDM-EAJ to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of failure to pay overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          100 S Ashley Dr., Suite 2200
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 513-3218
          Facsimile: (813) 512-3211
          E-mail: jay.lechner@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Keith L. Hammond, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1285
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 246-8440
          Facsimile: (407) 246-8454
          E-mail: hammondk@jacksonlewis.com


PRO-MARK CONTRACTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Terry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Pro-Mark Contracting, LLC d/b/a Professional Markings,
and Ryan Kinley, Case No. 1:14-cv-02542 (N.D. Ohio, November 19,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.

Pro-Mark Contracting, LLC provides line painting and striping
services throughout Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      17410 Dorchester
      Cleveland, OH 44119
      Telephone: (440) 498-9100
      E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Suits Over Flushable Butt Wipes Continue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Procter & Gamble, Costco and Kimberly-Clark cannot flush a pair of
proposed class actions accusing them of selling commode-clogging,
flushable wipes, reports Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling entered on November 14.

Attorneys for the companies asked U.S. District Judge Jack
Weinstein to dismiss the complaints, or at least deny plaintiffs'
class action certification request.  He denied both.  "I'm not
going down the class certification road," he said, but gave
attorneys 60 days to plead their cases on the issue.

D. Joseph Kurtz filed his proposed federal class action against
Kimberly-Clark and Costco in Brooklyn this past February.

Anthony Belfiore named Procter & Gamble in the class action he
filed in Nassau County Supreme Court in May.  That case was
removed to Brooklyn in July.

"Because flushable wipes do not disintegrate immediately upon
flushing, like toilet paper, they cause serious problems," Kuntz
said in his lawsuit.  Instead, the wipes allegedly clogged toilets
and pipes, and flooded people's homes.

"The class would not have purchased the flushable wipes if they
knew that flushing [them] would cause the pipes to become clogged
in sewer or septic systems," the complaint states.

Attorneys for the companies called the complaints "fundamentally
flawed," and urged the judge to deny certification because it
would encourage plaintiffs to lean on them as they continue to
"try the cases until they get a win."


PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT: "Szczurek" FDCPA Case Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
In JOSEPH SZCZUREK, v. PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a
FINANCIAL RECOVERIES, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-4790, (E.D. Penn.),
Professional Medical filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).  Mr. Szczurek
brought his action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., based on the wording
of several collection letters sent to him beginning on June 17,
2014. Plaintiff also made class action allegations.

In his memorandum dated November 17, 2014, District Judge Stewart
Dalzell held that "[t]here are no disputed issues of material
fact. The question of whether the least sophisticated debtor would
be confused or misled by a debt collector's notice is a question
of law for us to decide. The least sophisticated debtor, reading
the entire notice he is sent, would not be confused or misled by
that one sentence in defendant's letter, nor would that one
sentence so overshadow the validation notice as to render the
defendant's collection practices or communications unfair or
unconscionable. Defendant is entitled as a matter of law to
judgment on the pleadings, and we will dismiss plaintiff's
Complaint in its entirety."

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/niRcs1from
Leagle.com.

JOSEPH SZCZUREK, Plaintiff, represented by ARKADY ERIC RAYZ,
KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC & GERALD D. WELLS, III -- gwells@cwg-law.com
-- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP.

PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, represented by RICHARD
J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS,
P.C. & JENNIFER TATUM ROOT -- jroot@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN
KREKSTEIN & HARRIS.


PROSUPPS USA: Accused of Wrongful Labeling of ProSupps PS Whey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Mena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ProSupps USA, LLC, a Texas corporation, Case No. 3:14-
cv-02748 (S.D. Cal., November 19, 2014), engaged in an unfair and
deceptive business practices, specifically by misrepresenting the
nature and quality of ProSupps PS Whey on the Product label.

ProSupps USA, LLC is a pharmaceutical preparation company that
specializes in dietary supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, California 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111;
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS, LLP
      1515 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-1300
      Facsimile: (215) 851-8092
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


QR ENERGY: Class Suit Over Breitburn Merger at Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
QR Energy, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class action
lawsuit over the merger with Breitburn Energy Partners LP is at a
preliminary stage.

Following the July 24, 2014 announcement that the Partnership and
Breitburn Energy Partners LP had entered into a definitive merger
agreement, purported unitholders of the Partnership filed putative
class action lawsuits, on behalf of the common unitholders of the
Partnership, 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 the Partnership, our general partner, the members
of our general partner's board of directors, Breitburn, Breitburn
GP and Merger Sub.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder Action each allege that
the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, good faith, and independence owed to the
Partnership's unitholders by allegedly approving the Merger
Agreement at an unfair price and through an unfair process.
Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder Action specifically
allege that the director defendants failed to maximize the value
of the Partnership and took steps to avoid competitive bidding,
failed to properly value the Partnership, acted in bad faith and
for improper motives, and ignored or failed to protect against
numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the Merger. The
plaintiffs further allege that Breitburn, Breitburn GP and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by
the director defendants.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder Action further allege
that the named defendants violated Section 14(a), and SEC Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by disseminating a false and materially
misleading proxy statement in connection with the Merger.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder Action seek, among other
relief, to enjoin the Merger, rescission in the event the Merger
is consummated, an order directing defendants to account to
plaintiffs and other members of the putative class for all damages
caused by their alleged breaches, and an award of costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.


RADDATZ LAW: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lipscomb" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Lipscomb, Kimberly McLaughlin, Margaret O'Brien, and
Felicia Pate, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Raddatz Law Firm, PLLC, Mark R. Raddatz, Esq., and
Edward L. Pugh II, Esq., Case No. 1:14-cv-01958 (D.D.C., November
19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants use unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Raddatz Law Firm, PLLC is a law firm in Washington, District
of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary Elizabeth Borja, Esq.
      WILEY REIN LLP
      1776 K Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 719-7000
      Facsimile: (202) 719-7049
      E-mail: MBorja@wileyrein.com

         - and -

      Chinh Q. Le, Esq.
      Heather M. Latino, Esq.
      LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
      1331 H. Street, N.W., Suite 350
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 628-1161
      E-mail: cle@legalaiddc.org
              hlatino@legalaiddc.org


RANCHO CORDOVA: Dec. 15 Status Conference Set in "B.O.L.T." Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. has continued to
December 15, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., the status conference (Pretrial
Scheduling) set in the lawsuit B.O.L.T., an association of
motorcycle riders, brought against the City of Rancho Cordova, et
al.

The status conference was previously set for November 10, 2014.

The judge found that the parties' Joint Status Report (JSR) filed
October 27, 2014, revealed that the case is not ready to be
scheduled.  Although this is a putative class action, Plaintiffs
do not address in the JSR when they will seek class certification.

The judge directs that a further joint status report shall be
filed no later than 14 days prior to the newly scheduled Status
Conference, in which the parties shall propose a briefing schedule
on Plaintiffs' proposed motion for class certification and address
whether the action should otherwise be scheduled pending decision
on that motion. In the event the parties opine the matter should
be scheduled, they shall address in the further joint status
report their proposals for such scheduling in accordance with
Local Rule 240. Plaintiffs shall also address in the joint status
report when they will seek leave to file the First Amended and
Supplemental Complaint referenced in the JSR.

The case is B.O.L.T., an unincorporated association of motorcycle
riders and enthusiasts; MARK TEMPLE, an individual; NOREEN
McNULTY, an individual; WARREN PEARL, an individual; LYLE
DUVAUCHELLE, an individual; GLENN OSBORN, an individual; JEFFREY
RABE, an individual; DAVID ZALITSKIY, an individual; WILLIAM
LANGHORNE, an individual; THOMAS BELL, an individual; ROBERT
BALTHORPE II, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RANCHO
CORDOVA, a political subdivision of the state of California;
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a political subdivision of the state of
California; RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT, an independent legal
agency of the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and the CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA;
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; MICHAEL GOOLD, in his
official capacity as the Chief of Police of the CITY OF RANCHO
CORDOVA; RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE TRAFFIC SERGEANT G. LANE, in his
individual and official capacity as Supervisor of the Traffic
Division; SCOTT R. JONES, in his official capacity as the SHERIFF
of the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER S.
CARRDOZZO (badge number 480); RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER M.
JAMES (badge number 507); RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER S. PADGETT
(badge number 1174), Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-01588-GEB-DAD,
(E.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Nov. 5, 2014 Order Continuing the Status Conference
is available at http://is.gd/IIB4Qofrom Leagle.com.

B.O.L.T. and the Individual Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel
M. Karalash, Strategic Law Command & Gary William Gorski --
usrugby@gmail.com -- of the Law Offices of Gary W. Gorski.

City of Rancho Cordova and the other Defendants are represented by
Terence John Cassidy -- tcassidy@porterscott.com -- of Porter
Scott, APC.


REMAX INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Parlavecchio, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Remax, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:14-cv-07288-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., November 22, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RICK'S CABARET: Strippers Get $10.8MM Over Dance Dollars Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
On their way to trial in a minimum-wage dispute, Rick's Cabaret
strippers will have $10.8 million in their G-strings before their
trial even starts, thanks to a November 14 ruling that endorses
their expert witness and their view on "Dance Dollars," according
to Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Sabrina Hart and Reka Furedi represent more than 1,900 current and
former dancers suing the Midtown Manhattan strip club since 2009.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer took the club's corporate
owners -- Rick's Cabaret International, RCI Entertainment (New
York) and Peregrine Enterprises -- to task last year for wiggling
out of their minimum-wage obligations under state and federal
labor law.

That ruling quoted Rick's President Eric Langan as saying:
"without the girls, we're just selling overpriced beers at a
sports bar with bad TVs."

Engelmayer gave the class their back minimum wages, and much more,
in a November 14 ruling that says the bosses stiffed them on their
hard-earned tips paid with "Dance Dollars," which customers buy
when they want to use a credit card instead of cash.

A customer has to swipe $24 on a card to receive a $20 voucher,
but that translates to just $18 for the dancer when she cashes
out.

Engelmayer ruled that this misleads the customers about where
their tips are going.

"A reasonable customer paying that dancer $20 (or more) in cash
would have expected, accurately, that the dancer would keep the
entire amount," he wrote (parentheses in original).  "There is no
sound reason to conclude that a customer who chose to pay in Dance
Dollars would have viewed these payments as any less a gratuity to
be retained by the dancers."

Although Dance Dollars have a disclaimer printed on them stating
they are "not valid for gratuities," Engelmayer doubted that "a
customer in the sybaritic setting of an exotic nightclub would
choose or have the focus to read (let alone absorb) this
disclaimer."

("Sybaritic," or pleasure-seeking, derives from the ancient Greek
city of Siberis, now located in Italy, renowned for its hedonistic
inhabitants.)

Engelmayer also noted that the prose of the disclaimer is "far
from clear."

"A reasonable customer, mindful that the Dance Dollar functioned
as an alternative to paying the dancers in cash, could reasonably
conclude that the disclaimer meant only that a Dance Dollar was
not valid for use to pay gratuity for drinks or other items
purchased in the club," the 51-page opinion states.

Engelmayer's ruling additionally green-lights the esteemed
economist whom the strippers have tapped to testify on their
behalf.

David Crawford, a fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's
prestigious Wharton School of Business, wants to bring his 35-plus
years of experience in litigation to present his modeling of
137,880 "Clubtrax" records.

The economist's report on this data is "evenhanded, reasonable,
and intellectually rigorous," Engelmayer found.

Rick's complicated Crawford's work by keeping lousy time records,
the court found.

"Had defendants' time records been complete, the task, in fact,
would have been wholly mechanistic," Engelmayer wrote.  "The gaps
in the records, however, called upon Dr. Crawford to exercise
judgment as to what reliable proxies would be for the missing data
(e.g., log-out times).  The issue for the court is whether Dr.
Crawford's methodology to fill these lacunae is reliable.  It is."

Granting the women partial summary judgment, Engelmeyer cited that
data in awarding them $10,866,035.

The sum is roughly $8 million less than the strippers sought.

Meanwhile, the judge promised to set a trial date over the
remaining damages "shortly."

A lawyer for Rick's Cabaret declined to comment, and the lawyers
for the women did not immediately return a request for comment.

The case is Sabrina Hart and Reka Furedi v. Rick's Cabaret
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-03043-PAE-RLE, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


ROUSE'S ENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Denial in "Ticknor" Case Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three plaintiffs in ROBERT TICKNOR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. ROUSE'S ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a Louisiana Limited Liability
Company, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-30550 filed a motion to
certify the case as a class action against a grocery store chain
for alleged violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act. The district court denied certification on
predominance and superiority grounds.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, on November 18,
2014, affirmed the ruling the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying certification on the basis of predominance
and superiority.

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's opinion is available at
http://is.gd/MgnV2Hfrom Leagle.com.


RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kendy Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:14-cv-
07268-KM-MAH (D.N.J., November 21, 2014) is brought over alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net


S. KATZMAN PRODUCE: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "McMahon" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan McMahon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. S. Katzman Produce, Inc. and Stephen Katzman, an
individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-09188 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of buying and selling
wholesale quantities of produce in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avrohom Y. Gefen, Esq.
      VISHNICK MCGOVERN MILIZIO LLP
      3000 Marcus Avenue
      Lake Success, NY 11042
      Telephone: (516) 437-4385
      Facsimile: (516) 437-4395
      E-mail: agefen@vmmlegal.com


SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorgie Franks, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-02838-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla.,
November 13, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed
Class are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendant for overtime
work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay.

Ms. Franks worked for Samsung as a non-exempt Field Sales Manager
from January 2013 until October 2014.

Samsung is a Delaware Limited Liability Company headquartered in
Richardson, Texas.  Samsung researches, develops and markets a
variety of personal and business communications products
throughout North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHUFF INT'L: Faces Merger Class Suit in Delaware Chancery Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arlen Diercks, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Schuff International Inc., Philip A. Falcone, Keith M.
Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, James Rustin Roach, D. Ronald
Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, and HC2 Holdings, Inc., Case No. 10359-
VCL (Del. Ch. Ct., November 17, 2014) accuses the Defendants of
breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with HC2's
acquisition of all the outstanding stock of Schuff.

Schuff is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Phoenix,
Arizona.  Schuff operates as a steel fabrication and erection
contractor primarily in the United States.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Some of the
Individual Defendants are also directors and officers of HC2.

HC2 is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Herndon, Virginia.
HC2 operates as a holding company of operating subsidiaries
primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom.  HC2 has
been, at all relevant times, the majority and controlling
stockholder of Schuff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike
          Building C, Suite 305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957
          Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
          E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
                  cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

               - and -

          Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
          Arvind Khurana, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 504-8054
          E-mail: kbronson@milberg.com
                  akhurana@milberg.com


SERVICE SOURCE: Accused of Exaggerating Financial Assets
--------------------------------------------------------
In a merger announcement, Service Source and Scout Analytics
exaggerated their financial assets by a factor of 700, a class
action claims in California Federal Court.


SIMPLICITY BANCORP: Faces Class Action Relating to Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Simplicity Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Stephen
Bushansky filed on October 10, 2014, a stockholder class action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California
against the Company, the directors of the Company and HomeStreet.
The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all of the
Company's public stockholders, excluding the directors of the
Company. The complaint alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders by failing to
take adequate measures to ensure that the interests of
Simplicity's stockholders are properly protected and by conducting
a merger process that prevents competitive bidding. The complaint
further alleges that HomeStreet aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors. The lawsuit
seeks to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company's
stockholders and/or rescission of the proposed merger transaction.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is meritless and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations.


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jann Holland and Russ Holland, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No.
6:14-cv-03487 (W.D. Mo., November 19, 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:

      Gregory W. Aleshire, Esq.
      ALESHIRE ROBB, P.C.
      2847 Ingram Mill Rd, Suite A-102
      Springfield, MO 65804
      Telephone: (417) 869-3737
      Facsimile: (417) 869-5678
      E-mail: info@aleshirerobb.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Vukadinovic" Suit Over Airbag Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mickey Vukadinovic, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06648
(E.D. Pa., November 19, 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:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market St Ste 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 923-9300
      Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
      E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com


TEMPOSITIONS INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Liotta v. Tempositions, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09274
(S.D.N.Y., November 21, 2014) seeks vindication for the
Defendant's alleged blatant violations of the Plaintiff's rights
pursuant to the anti-gender discrimination provisions of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law and the
New York City Human Rights Law.

Tempositions is an active New York domestic business corporation
headquartered in New York City.  Tempositions is a privately owned
full service staffing agency offering temporary, contract temp-to-
hire, and direct hire services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cherice P. Vanderhall, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
          E-mail: cpv@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


TEMPUR-SEALY INT'L: Court Enters Discovery Order in "Todd" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In ALVIN TODD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-04984-JST, (N.D. Cal.),
before the Court is a Joint Discovery Letter Brief, filed on
November 10, 2014, wherein the parties seek the Court's
intervention to resolve discovery disputes relating to: (1)
production of historical versions of Defendants' website and
social media pages; (2) production of contact information of
potential class members; (3) the time frame of responsive
documents; and (4) delays in Defendants' production of documents.

Plaintiffs' initial Complaint, filed on October 25, 2013, and
operative Second Amended Complaint, filed on August 29, 2014,
allege misrepresentations and omissions by Defendants Tempur-Sealy
International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC that their
mattresses and pillows were "formaldehyde free," "free of harmful
[volatile organic compounds (VOCs)]," had only a "slight odor"
that would last a "few days," and were "hypoallergenic."  The
Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order in this case on
September 16, 2014. The parties represent that they have attempted
to resolve all discovery disputes without the Court's
intervention, but that they are unable to resolve these remaining
issues.

On November 17, 2014, District Judge Jon S. Tigar issued an order
directing Defendants to produce all documents responsive to
Plaintiffs' website and social media requests that are in their
possession, custody, or exclusive control, regardless of whether
they are publicly available.  Defendants must produce contact
information of potential class members who made relevant purchases
and/or registered their warranties since January 1, 2007.
Production of documents that Defendants have agreed to provide,
including "(i) organizational charts; (ii) communications related
to VOCs, allergens, formaldehyde, hypoallergenic [materials],
odor, actual or suspected allergic reactions, off-gassing; (iii)
communications with Carmichael Lynch Spong, Blackstone Group and
Stevenson Group; and (iv) a summary/chart of concerns and
complaints by consumers," must be limited to documents dating from
January 1, 2007. Defendants must produce responsive documents
within seven days of the date of the order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/sI69Jhfrom Leagle.com.

Alvin Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and
Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Brian Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Robbie Simmons, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Thomas Comiskey, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Toni Kibbee, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Tina White, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and
Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G
Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen
Stewart, P.C.

Johnny Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Keith Hawkins, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Patricia Kaufman, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Alan Kaufman, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen
Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Sara Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and
Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark
Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Jerry Kucharski, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP &
Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Julie Davidoff, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen
Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Ericka Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP &
Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Kurt Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen
Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Melody Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen
Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Diane Kucharski, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP &
Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Tracey Palmer, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen
Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C.

Tempur-Sealy International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron
Lewis Renfro, Call & Jensen, Mark Lemar Eisenhut, Call & Jensen,
Matthew Ryan Orr, Call & Jensen, Daniel Jay Gerber, Rumberger Kirk
& Caldwell, P.A., Darren McCartney, Rumberger Kirk Caldwell &
Douglas Bruce Brown, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, P.A.

Tempur-Sealy International, Inc., formerly doing business as
Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Samantha Crawford Duke, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell.

Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron
Lewis Renfro, Call & Jensen, Mark Lemar Eisenhut, Call & Jensen,
Matthew Ryan Orr, Call & Jensen, Daniel Jay Gerber, Rumberger Kirk
& Caldwell, P.A., Darren McCartney, Rumberger Kirk Caldwell,
Douglas Bruce Brown, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. & Samantha
Crawford Duke, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell.


TESLA MOTORS: Trial Court Dismissed Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Tesla Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the trial court,
upon the motion of Tesla and CEO Elon Musk, dismissed a class
action complaint with prejudice, and indicated that a formal
written order will be forthcoming.

In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant
to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint, made claims against Tesla and
its CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the
basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk
made false and/or misleading representations and omissions,
including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was
brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013
and November 17, 2013. On September 26, 2014, the trial court,
upon the motion of Tesla and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, and indicated that a formal written order will be
forthcoming.

Tesla Motors designs, develops, manufactures and sells high-
performance fully electric vehicles and advanced electric vehicle
powertrain components.


TGI FRIDAYS: Removes "Grace" Suit to New Jersey District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Grace v. T.G.I. Fridays, Inc., et
al., Case No. BUR L 2286 14, was removed from the Burlington
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Camden).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-07233-RBK-AMD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wesley Glenn Hanna, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SANDER D. FRIEDMAN, LLC
          125 North Route 73
          West Berlin, NJ 08091
          Telephone: (856) 988-7777
          E-mail: wgh@sanderfriedmanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew S. Schultz, Esq.
          LECLAIR RYAN
          One Riverfront Plaza
          1037 Raymond Boulevard, 16th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 491-3600
          E-mail: matthew.schultz@leclairryan.com


THREE TWENTY FIVE: Faces "Xenos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Anastasios Xenos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. Three Twenty Five Restaurant Corp., d/b/a
Dafni Greek Taverna, and George Andriotis, in his individual and
professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-09205 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate Dafni Greek Taverna restaurant
located at 325 W. 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory N. Filosa, Esq.
      FILOSA LAW FIRM, PLLC
      111 John Street, Suite 2510
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212)256-1780
      E-mail: gfilosa@filosalaw.com


TREE.COM INC: Expects Administration of Settlement in 4th Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tree.com Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
expects administration of the settlement in the case, Boschma v.
Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.),
to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2014.

On May 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against Home Loan Center, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that HLC
sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but
failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other
things, that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative
amortization could occur and that the loan had a prepayment
penalty. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs
asserted violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act,
violations of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all individuals who,
between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007, obtained option ARM loans
through HLC on their primary residences located in California, and
seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class
certification, but have filed a total of eight complaints in
connection with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints
has been dismissed by the federal and state courts. The plaintiffs
filed the eighth complaint (a "Second Amended Complaint") in
Orange County (California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010
alleging only the fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims.

As with each of the seven previous versions of plaintiffs'
complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April
2010. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10,
2011, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and
directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case was
remanded to superior court.

During 2013, the parties agreed to a $450,000 settlement, which
was approved in 2013. A nominal payment into the settlement fund
was made in late 2013.

The Company expects administration of the settlement to be
completed by the fourth quarter of 2014. In July 2014, the
settlement fund was fully funded. The impact of the settlement was
not material.


TREE.COM INC: "Dijkstra" Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Tree.com Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Plaintiffs in the
case Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc.
et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV), filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal.

On November 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action
in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry
Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges
that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West
Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the
practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision
of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to
close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory
judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation
of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"),
violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act,
civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all
defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc.
have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in
October 2011.

On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class
certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment,
contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class
included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after
November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose
loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of
a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia.

On February 26, 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each
party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class
Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment
with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and
violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary
judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied
HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims
applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"),
HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC
and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June
2014.

In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the
amount of $2.8 million. A reserve of $2.8 million has been
established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated
balance sheet as of September 30, 2014, of which some or all may
be covered by insurance. HLC filed a notice of appeal in August
2014 and in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Requests in "O'Connor" Suit Ruled on
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, Defendant, Case No. C-13-03826 (EMC) DMR
(N.D. Cal.), a California district court entered an order on joint
discovery letter.

Plaintiffs Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy, David Khan, Matthew
Manahan, Wilson Rolle, Jr., and William Anderson sought to
represent a class of drivers who provide passenger car service in
California for customers who hail rides using Uber Technologies
Inc.'s mobile phone application. Plaintiffs allege that Uber
misclassifies drivers as independent contractors and forces
drivers to bear the expenses of their employment, including
vehicle expenses and gas. They also allege that Uber discourages
passengers from tipping drivers by advertising that the fare
includes a gratuity, but that Uber does not pay drivers the full
amount of the gratuity built into the fare.

In a joint discovery letter, Plaintiffs sought to compel further
responses to 15 requests for production (RFPs), broken down into
four categories of documents. Uber also sought an order compelling
Plaintiffs to provide further documents in response to its RFPs on
the grounds that they have not produced all responsive documents
in their "possession, custody, or control."

In a Nov. 6, 2014, Order available at http://is.gd/tESJGO
avialable at Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu ruled that:

-- Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents is
    granted in part and denied in part. Uber was to produce
    additional documents discussed by November 10, 2014; and

-- Uber's motion to compel is granted in part and denied in
    part. Plaintiffs were to serve supplemental responses to
    Uber's RFPs and produce documents by November 10, 2014.

Douglas O'Connor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Weber, Esq. --
Bweber@llrlaw.com of Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C.; Matthew David
Carlson, Carlson Legal Services; Sara Smolik, Lichten and Liss-
Riordan, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com --
of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Thomas Colopy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Carlson, Carlson
Legal Services, Sara Smolik, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C. &
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Matthew Manahan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David
Carlson, Carlson Legal Services & Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Wilson Rolle, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-
Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

William Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-
Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Jon
Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com & Caitlin Victoria May --
cmay@morganlewis.com ; Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP; John C.
Fish, Jr. -- jfish@littler.com of Littler Mendelson, PC; Stephen
A. Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Stephen Luther Taeusch --
staeusch@morganlewis.com of Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Travis Kalanick, Defendant, represented by Robert Jon Hendricks,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson,
PC & Stephen Luther Taeusch, Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Ryan Graves, Defendant, represented by Robert Jon Hendricks,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson,
PC & Stephen Luther Taeusch, Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Caren Ehret, Movant, represented by Myron Milton Cherry --
mcherry@cherry-law.com -- of Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC.


US AGRICULTURE DEP'T: Choctaw Nation Can't Share in Bias Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
A pair of Native American groups will have no say in how $380
million left over from a discrimination lawsuit will be
distributed, reports Philip Janquart at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

Several class action lawsuits were filed by African American,
Native American, Latino and female farmers against the U.S.
Department of Agriculture between 1997 and 2000.  They allege
years of discriminatory practices that denied them the same
benefits as white farmers.

The cases all resulted in settlement agreements.

After a decade of litigation, the Native American class was
awarded a $680 million settlement.  Over $380 million remained
after disbursements where made, the class making a motion to amend
the settlement to distribute the funds to designated Cy Pres
beneficiaries that provided agricultural, business assistance or
advocacy services to Native American farmers.

Two Native American tribes, however, sought to intervene in the Cy
Pres distribution after a 2013 status report revealing the left
over money.

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and its affiliated Jones Academy
Foundation, sought to intervene on the basis that the amended
distribution provision would adversely affect their opportunity to
receive Cy Pres funds.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said the Choctaw have no legal
right to intervene.

"Because they lack standing under Article III and seek to raise
legal rights of others in violation of the doctrine of prudential
standing, the Choctaw movants are not entitled to intervene," he
said in a memorandum opinion.

The Choctaw argued that their injury was the lost opportunity to
compete for the funds, but Sullivan disagreed.

"In light of the Choctaw Nation's failure to qualify as a 'non-
profit organization' under the agreement . . . any opportunity to
compete using the joint proposal on which [they] rely is
illusory," he said.  "In any event, the Choctaw Movants lose no
opportunity to compete under the modification."

The Great Plains claimants said they wanted the distribution
agreement amended to distribute the left over money to class
members who have already received awards, such as themselves.
Sullivan, however, shot that idea down, saying they have already
given notice that they have satisfied their claims.  Sullivan also
cited the group's failure to object or appeal the Cy Pres
provision of the settlement agreement.

Further, they committed to filing for an award under the
agreement's "Track A" provision, which granted members of the
class a maximum cash award of $50,000, and acknowledged that they
"forever and finally release the USDA from any and all claims and
causes of action that have been or could have asserted . . . in
the case."

Sullivan said they were clearly given notice that unclaimed funds
would be donated to one or more organizations that have provided
direct assistance to Native Americans.

"Because the Great Plains claimants retain no legal claim to the
fund, their desire that the agreement be modified to provide for
additional payments to previously successful class members, while
understandable, is not a legal interest that faces imminent
invasion," Sullivan said.  "Accordingly, they lack standing."

The case is Marilyn Keepseagle, et al. v. Tom Vilsack, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Case No. 99-3119 (EGS), in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.


VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Faces "Sanborn" Suit Over High Electricity Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Sanborn, on behalf of herself and  all others similarly
situated v. Viridian Energy, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01731 (D.
Conn., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendant engaged in
an unfair and deceptive scheme of charging residential consumers
an extraordinarily high premium rate for electricity regardless of
fluctuations in the underlying market price.

Direct Energy Services, LLC provides electricity supply services
within the State of Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL, LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Telephone: (860) 493-6295
      Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
      E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com


WEST 44TH STREET: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sisois Giannakos and Dejan Stefanov, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. West 44th Street Restaurant LLC,
d/b/a Kellari Taverna and Stavros Aktipis, Case No. 1:14-cv-09189
(S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Kellari Taverna Restaurant, located
at 19 West 44th Street in Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
      E-mail:  maimon@jhllp.com


XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS: Remand of Painkiller Case Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
When attorneys sought coordination of several propoxyphene actions
in state court, they actually proposed that the cases be tried
jointly by a federal judge, the en banc 9th Circuit ruled on
November 18, 2014, reports Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service.

In addition to multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of
Kentucky, there are more than 40 lawsuits pending in California's
state courts against Teva Pharmaceuticals and Xanodyne
Pharmaceuticals over the pain reliever formerly marketed as
Darvocet and Darvon.  Safety concerns got the drugs pulled from
the market in 2010.

Lawyers heading up much of the litigation asked the California
Judicial Council in 2012 to coordinate the state-court proceedings
under a local rule of civil procedure.  Teva and Xanodyne
meanwhile tried to remove the cases to federal court under the
"mass-action provision" of the Class Action Fairness Act.

The companies argued that the cases became a "mass action" subject
to federal jurisdiction when the plaintiffs' lawyers proposed a
joint-trial in their coordination petition.

Finding that the petition for coordination was not the same as a
proposal for a joint trial, U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez
remanded the cases to state court.

A three-judge appellate panel affirmed, but the 9th Circuit agreed
to rehear the issue before an 11-judge panel.

That panel reversed on November 18 in a 9-2 ruling.

"We conclude that plaintiffs' petitions for coordination are
proposals for joint trial," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the
majority.

The use of the phrases "for all purposes" and "all of the actions"
had transformed the coordination proposal, according to the
ruling.

The majority rejected claims by the plaintiffs that one must
"expressly request" a joint trial to qualify as a mass action
under the CAFA.

Judge Marsha Berzon joined Judge Johnnie Rawlinson in a dissent
challenging this finding.

Admitting that the case was "fairly close," Rawlinson argued that
the majority had ignored the "well-established premise that
removal is disfavored when determining federal jurisdiction, and
that any doubt that exists when considering removal statutes
should be construed against removal."

With this in mind, the court should have affirmed, as the
"plaintiffs' petition for coordination stopped short of requesting
a joint trial as contemplated by the plain language of the
statute," Rawlinson wrote.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Romo, Corber, et al., are represented by:

          Louis M. Bograd, Esq.
          Andre M. Mura, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION, P.C.
          777 6th Street NW, Suite 520
          Washington, DC 20001-3723
          Telephone: (202) 944-2803
          Facsimile: (202) 965-0920
          E-mail: lou.bograd@cclfirm.com
                  Andre.mura@cclfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
          SILL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          14005 N. Eastern Ave.
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 509-6300
          Facsimile: (405) 509-6268

               - and -

          Andrew N. Chang, Esq.
          Stuart B. Esner, Esq.
          ESNER, CHANG & BOYER
          234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 750
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 535-9860
          Facsimile: (626) 535-9859
          E-mail: achang@ecbappeal.com
                  sesner@ecbappeal.com

               - and -

          Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq.
          SANGUINETTI LAW
          1970 Broadway, Suite 700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 622-8207
          Facsimile: (510) 291-9742
          E-mail: elise@sanguinettilaw.com

Defendant-Appellant Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. is represented
by:

          Jay Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Daniel A. Bress, Esq.
          Danielle R. Sassoon, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
                  daniel.bress@kirkland.com
                  danielle.sassoon@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Ginger Pigott, Esq.
          Amy B. Alderfer, Esq.
          Karin L. Bohmholdt, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: pigottg@gtlaw.com
                  alderfera@gtlaw.com
                  bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Lori G. Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria D. Lockard, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          3333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (678) 553-2100
          Facsimile: (678) 553-2212
          E-mail: cohenl@gtlaw.com
                  lockardv@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Elliot H. Scherker, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
          E-mail: scherkere@gtlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is represented
by:

          Karen Woodward, Esq.
          Hall R. Marston, Esq.
          Christopher P. Norton, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          801 S. Figueroa Street, 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5556
          Telephone: (213) 426-6900
          Facsimile: (213) 426-6921
          E-mail: karen.woodward@sedgwicklaw.com
                  hall.marston@sedgwicklaw.com
                  christopher.norton@sedgwicklaw.com

               - and -

          Linda E. Maichl, Esq.
          Michael J. Suffern, Esq.
          ULMER & BERNE LLP
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2800
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 698-5000
          Facsimile: (513) 698-5001
          E-mail: lmaichl@ulmer.com
                  msuffern@ulmer.com

Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
and PhRMA are represented by:

          Jeremy B. Rosen, Esq.
          HORVITZ & LEVY LLP
          15760 Ventura Blvd., 18th Floor
          Encino, CA 91436-3006
          Telephone: (818) 995-0800
          Facsimile: (818) 995-3157
          E-mail: jrosen@horvitzlevy.com

Amicus Curiae Washington Legal Foundation is represented by:

          Richard Abbott Samp, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION
          2009 Massachusetts Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 588-0302
          Facsimile: (302) 588-0386
          E-mail: rsamp@wlf.org

Amicus Curiae American Association for Justice is represented by:

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          ARBOGAST LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          11400 W Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 477-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2309
          E-mail: david@arbogastlawpc.com

Amicus Curiae Product Liability Advisory Council is represented
by:

          John Beisner, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371-7000
          Facsimile: (202) 393-5760
          E-mail: john.beisner@skadden.com

The appellate cases are Margalit Corber, et al. v. Xanodyne
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 13-56306; and Judith Romo, et al.
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 13-56310, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The District Court cases are Margalit Corber, et al. v. Xanodyne
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-09986-PSG-E; and Judith
Romo, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-
02036-PSG-E, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.


ZYNGA INC: Court Vacates Scheduled Hearing in "DeStefano" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the court issued an order
vacating the previously scheduled hearing and taking the motions
under submission in the case DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al.

The Company said, "On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class
action captioned DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-
04007-JSW, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, and certain
of our current and former directors, officers, and executives.
Additional purported securities class actions containing similar
allegations were filed in the Northern District. On September 26,
2012, the court consolidated various of the class actions as In re
Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW.
On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2014,
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and provided plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint."

"The lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31,
2014. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 14, 2012 and July 25, 2012. The First
Amended Complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including
attorneys' fees.

"The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
on May 2, 2014, and briefing on the motion was completed in June
2014. On September 15, 2014, the court issued an order vacating
the previously scheduled hearing and taking the motions under
submission."


ZYNGA INC: Case Management Conference in "Reyes" Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the court issued an order
vacating the previously scheduled case management conference in
the case Reyes v. Zynga Inc., et al.

The Company said, "a purported securities class action captioned
Reyes v. Zynga Inc., et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San
Francisco County Superior Court. The action was removed to federal
court, and was later remanded to San Francisco County Superior
Court. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements
in connection with an April 2012 secondary offering of Class A
common stock. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons
who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to
the secondary offering.

"On June 10, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to stay the
action and a demurrer arguing that the complaint should be
dismissed because the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims.

"On August 26, 2013, the court issued orders overruling the
demurrer and granting the motion to stay all deadlines in the
action pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the federal
securities class action.

"On September 29, 2014, the court issued orders denying a motion
to continue the stay of the action and overruling a demurrer
arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

"On October 15, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the
California Court of Appeal seeking review of the denial of the
motion to stay and of the trial court's ruling that it had
jurisdiction to hear the claims. On October 23, 2014, the Court of
Appeal issued an order requesting additional briefing on the
petition.

"On November 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed a preliminary opposition
to the writ petition. The defendants' reply brief in support of
the writ petition was due on November 10, 2014. A case management
conference in the trial court had been scheduled for November 5,
2014 to discuss the schedule for further proceedings, including
the schedule for briefing on the plaintiff's motion for class
certification. On November 3, 2014, the court issued an order
vacating the previously scheduled case management conference and
instructing the parties to contact the court on November 10, 2014
to propose a new date."


ZYNGA INC: Court Takes Motion to Dismiss Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the court took the Company's
motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint and a motion
to stay discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending under
submission.

The Company said, "On April 4, 2013, a purported class action
captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our
current and former directors, officers, and executives. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered
into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's
shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who
were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary
offering. On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. On March 6, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the
motion to dismiss is pending. A hearing on the motions was held on
August 22, 2014, and the court took the motions under submission."


                              *********

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  * * *