CAR_Public/141203.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, December 3, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 240


                             Headlines

37-54 MEAT & PRODUCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued Over Misleading Company Product Reports
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
AGFEED INDUSTRIES: December 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ALL DIMENSIONS: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

AMERICAN IDOL: Judge Dismisses Racial Discrimination Class Action
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Faces Red Light Camera Ticket Class Actions
APPLE INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Suit Over Text Messages
APPLE INC: Price-Fixing Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Judge Rejects Mistrial Motion in Nexium Suit

AUSTRALIA: Animal Rights Group to Intervene in Export Ban Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Trims Claims in Mortgage Fee Class Action
BARRETT BUSINESS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Wash.
BITCASA INC: Users Told to Pay $99 to Extend Time to Remove Data
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jury Awards $18.5MM Verdict in Pelvic Mesh Suit

BRAND 2 INVESTMENTS: Sued Over Deceptive Product Label, Suit Says
CABLE EQUIPMENT: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CABLECOM LLC: Faces "Hatton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Bonus
CANADA: Proceedings Begin in Class Suit Over Residential Schools
CARING FAMILY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CASH RESERVES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Froney" Suit Claims
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Network Malfunction
CHRYSLER GROUP: Weitz & Luxenberg Files TIPM Class Action
CLOUD 10 CORP: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Suit Over Failure to Protect Consumers Info

CONTINUCARE MDHC: Faces "Restrepo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CREDIT PROTECTION: Sued in Arizona For Making Unsolicited Class
DENSO CORP: Sued Over Vehicle Wire Harness Systems-Price Fixing
DONKU LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DOS TOROS: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Sued for Suppressing Employees Salary
DUPONT CO: Seeks Dismissal of Paint Price-Fixing Class Action
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Class Lacks Standing to Object to Reorganization
EXPERIAN SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Meal Premiums
FIDELITY CAPITAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kakavand" Suit Claims

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: 3rd Circuit to Weigh on Reverse-Payment Issue
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Court Narrows Claims in Diaz & Valencia Suit
GROCERY OUTLET: Sued Over False Claim in Child Resistant Lighters
GUCCI AMERICA: Accused of Misclassifying Interns in New York
HANGER INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas

HARVEST VALLEY: Faces "Espinosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HEALTHCARE INVESTMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HOME TOWN BANK: 5th Cir. Revives "Mabary" EFTA Case
HOUSE OF DELAROSA: Faces "Darvalics" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ICARE CREDIT: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims

INTERLINE BRANDS: Settles TCPA Class Action for $40 Million
INTERSTATE HOTELS: Faces Wage Class Action in California
ISTANBUL TURKISH: "Balde" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
J&R RAYYAN: Faces "Tobar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JAMBA JUICE: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Period, Class Claims

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: More Evidence on Mesh Side Effects Emerges
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Tosses Baby Powder Economic Loss Suit
LEVEL ONE MARKETING: Deceives Class With Free Products, Suit Says
MAXIMUS INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Class Suit by Fired Workers
MAZDA MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Engine Valve Defect Class Action

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Laws
NAT'L AUSTRALIA: All Customers Can Join Class Action Over Fees
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued for Limiting Athletes Monetary Aid
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: $1-Bil. Deal Called a Failure by Opponents

NATURE'S WAY: C.D. Cal. Judge Rules on Discovery Motion
NAZMA LLC: "Godinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW HORIZONS: Sued in Florida Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NORCOLD INC: Plaintiffs Lawyer Seeks More Discovery
OAKLAND RAIDERS: Raiderette Opts Out of Class Action Settlement

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces Probe Over Illegal Foreclosure Practices
OILTANKING PARTNERS: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Partnership
PERFECT DELIVERY: Faces "Doherty" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PHARMACIA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of School PCB Class Action
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices

PROMOTION SOURCE: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RATAN R PARK: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RIGHTSCORP INC: Faces "Reif" Suit Over Violation of TCPA & FDCPA
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
SECOND LOOK: Has Invaded Plaintiff's Privacy, "Lopez" Suit Says

SEPHORA USA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Alleged Racial Discrimination
SMOKE CHEAP: "Khalil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Faces Suit Over Shuttered Nuke Plant
SPEEDWAY LLC: Faces "Curington" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STRATFORD UNIVERSITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

SUZUKI MOTOR: Not Liable in Suit Over Defective ATV, Jury Rules
T-MOBILE USA: Mich. Suit Goes to Jury Trial on Arbitration Clause
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Bourne" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Schafle" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Back" Suit Over Defective Airbags

TAKATA CORP: Faces "Fishman" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Go" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Rickert" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Retains Dechert to Head Airbag Defect Suit Defense
TAKATA CORP: Senators Call for Independent Air Bag Defect Probe

TWENTY FOUR 7: "Lyons" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Taps Hogan Lovells to Review Privacy Program
VELOX TRANSPORT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
VERIZON NY: Faces Suit Over Municipal Construction Surcharge
VIBRAM USA: Class Action Claims Reach More Than 150,000

WESTERN FEDERAL: Sued by Workers in California Over Unpaid OT
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Judge Upholds Exclusion of Expert Witness
YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ZILLOW INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
ZYNGA INC: Founder Must Face Class Action Over Stock Sale

* Class Suit Rulings Fuel Supreme Court's Pro-Business Reputation
* Marsh LLC Launches Consumer Class Action Settlement Insurance


                            *********


37-54 MEAT & PRODUCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orfelina Cuenca, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 37-54 Meat & Produce, Inc., (d/b/a Associated), and
Jose Collado, Case No. 1:14-cv-06820 (E.D.N.Y., November 20,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for the hours over 40 per week.

37-54 Meat & Produce, Inc. owns and operates a supermarket located
at 37-54 90th Street, Jackson Heights, New York 11372.  The
Company is owned by Jose Collado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued Over Misleading Company Product Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul-Hassan Mohammed Abdul-Hassan, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Aeterna Zentaris Inc., David A.
Dodd, Juergen Engel, and Dennis Turpin, Case No. 3:14-cv-07225
(D.N.J., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
safety and efficacy of the Company's drug products, which caused
the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflate price.

Aeterna Zentaris Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in
the development of novel treatments in oncology and endocrinology.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Aeterna
Zentaris Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP on Nov. 17 disclosed that it has
filed a securities fraud class action against Aeterna Zentaris
Inc. and certain of its senior executives in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The case alleges that the defendants made materially false or
misleading statements with respect to the safety and efficacy of
the Company's drug Macrilen(TM).  A November 6, 2014, press
release by the Company brought these facts to light by announcing
that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter refusing to
approve the Company's New Drug Application because of "the lack of
complete and verifiable source data for determining whether
patients were accurately diagnosed with AGHD."

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased shares of Aeterna Zentaris between and including
June 26, 2012 and November 5, 2014.  If you are a member of the
Class and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, then you must move
the Court no later than January 12, 2015.  You are, however, under
no obligation to move for appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you would like to discuss this investigation, or if you have
any questions concerning your rights as a potential lead
plaintiff, you may contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham or Philip T. Taylor
of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP toll free at (800) 440-8986,
or via e-mail at jabraham@aftlaw.com or ptaylor@aftlaw.com

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, which is based in New York and
has an office in California, has extensive experience in
shareholder and securities class action cases.


AGFEED INDUSTRIES: December 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
AGFEED INDUSTRIES, INC. ("AGFEED") SECURITIES (STOCK SYMBOL: FEED)
DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 16, 2009 THROUGH AND INCLUDING
SEPTEMBER 29, 2011, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all current and former
directors and officers of AgFeed during the Class Period, members
of their families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or
had a controlling interest.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, that a settlement of
the above-captioned class action has been proposed.  A hearing
will be held on December 8, 2014, at 12:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Todd J. Campbell, United States District Judge, at the
courthouse for the United States District Court, Middle District
of Tennessee, Nashville Division, Courtroom 874, 801 Broadway,
Nashville, Tennessee 37203 for the purpose of determining, among
other things: (1) whether a Settlement Class should be certified
for purposes of the Settlement and whether Class Plaintiffs and
their counsel have adequately represented the Class Members; (2)
whether the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the
Defendants for Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000) should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and
adequate; (4) whether the Court should permanently enjoin the
assertion of any claims that arise from or relate to the subject
matter of the Action; (5) whether the Action should be dismissed
with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (6) whether the
application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved; and (7) whether the Lead Plaintiffs'
application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be
granted.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired AgFeed Securities between
March 16, 2009 through and including September 29, 2011, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof.
If you have not received the detailed Notice Of Proposed
Settlement Of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees And
Expenses, And Final Approval Hearing and Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting the
Claims Administrator, by mail at: Blitz v. AgFeed, Industries,
Inc., c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 3207, Portland, OR.
97208-3207; by telephone at: 800-625-7675; or by visiting the
Settlement website www.AgFeedSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
December 31, 2014 establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice by no later
than November 23, 2014.  Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed and
served in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice
no later than November 24, 2014.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Class:

          Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
          Pomerantz LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Ste. 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: jbsilverman@pomlaw.com

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE
CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


ALL DIMENSIONS: Faces "Arias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Arias, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. All Dimensions Landscaping Inc. (d/b/a All Dimensions
Landscaping), and Glenn Dalton, Case No. 1:14-cv-06827 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 20, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime compensation for the hours over 40 per week.

All Dimensions Landscaping Inc. is a landscaping company owned by
Glenn Dalton, located at 2035 Straight Path Dix Hills, NY, 11746.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


AMERICAN IDOL: Judge Dismisses Racial Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge in New York has dismissed a class action
filed by 10 disqualified contestants who alleged the reality show
"American Idol" systematically discriminates against blacks with
criminal records.

The suit was filed following the highly publicized
disqualification of contestant Jermaine Jones during a 2012
episode of the singing competition for failing to disclose that he
had four outstanding arrest warrants.  It was after that episode
that the plaintiffs -- who participated on "American Idol" between
2003 and 2010 -- had reason to believe they had been disqualified
due to their race, according to their complaint.

On Nov. 20, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the
Southern District of New York dismissed nine of the men's claims
as time-barred under various statutes of limitation.  As for the
10th, she found that Chris Golightly's disqualification wasn't due
to discrimination but rather because of his involvement in a
musical group in violation of the show's rules that contestants be
amateurs.

"While the complaint asserts that defendants disqualified
Golightly because he was an African-American man with a criminal
record, it offers no facts beyond this bare allegation of racism
to show that either Golightly's race or his criminal record
motivated his disqualification," she wrote.  "As the complaint
details, Golightly had been under contract as a member of a boy
band named DREAMS, although he was allegedly released from the
contract before auditioning for 'American Idol'; defendants
consequently disqualified him for failing to disclose this
contract."

Plaintiffs attorney James Freeman, a solo practitioner in New
York, said his clients planned to appeal.

"Faced with insurmountable evidence of a gross statistical
disparity between the disqualifications of white and black
contestants over a ten-year period, the district court simply
declined to entertain the case on the merits," he wrote in an
email to The NLJ.  He disagreed that a statute of limitations
applied to his case, calling the decision "unconstitutional."
Furthermore, Judge Buchwald's adoption of the "injury" rule in
deciding the case on the statute of limitations isn't relevant in
today's world, in which "displays of overt racist are no longer
prevalent."

"The district court's decision in the American Idol case stands
for the proposition that the most dangerous class of racist who
premeditates his injurious conduct runs free, whereas the
knucklehead who spews out racial epithets in the workplace is held
liable," he wrote.  "Such a rule, as adopted by the district court
here, cannot be the law of the land."

Daniel Petrocelli, chairman of the business trial and litigation
practice at O'Melveny & Myers, who represents all the defendants,
declined to comment.

In 2012, a federal judge in Nashville dismissed a similar case
filed by two black contestants over casting decisions on the
dating shows "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette."

The "American Idol" suit was brought in 2013 against the show's
production companies, broadcaster 21st Century Fox Inc. and
executive producers Nigel Lythgoe and Ken Warwick, whom they
accused of exploiting the plaintiffs' criminal records to rig the
contests and perpetuate a racial stereotype against blacks   The
plaintiffs also sued sponsors including Ford Motor Co. and The
Coca-Cola Co.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Faces Red Light Camera Ticket Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that on the
heels of an appellate ruling putting the brakes on red-light
camera tickets, South Florida lawyers have been rushing to file
class action lawsuits seeking to reimburse those who paid the
tickets.

Additionally, Broward County Court Judge Robert Lee, head of the
civil division, has set case management conferences for all cities
with pending red-light camera tickets.  His memo said, "The court
shall consider whether to dismiss all pending red-light camera
citations" in light of the appellate ruling.  "Facts of individual
cases will not be addressed," Judge Lee stated.

In mid-October, the Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed a
Hollywood ticket issued in 2011, saying the city cannot delegate
its legal authority to issue traffic tickets to a private, for-
profit third party.

Class action lawsuits have been filed in Broward, Palm Beach and
Miami-Dade state courts and federal court against Florida cities
and American Traffic Solutions Inc., the Arizona vendor that runs
red-light traffic ticket programs for municipalities.

Miami attorney Edward Guedes -- eguedes@wsh-law.com -- who
represents Hollywood and other cities named in the lawsuits,
blasted them as premature.  Mr. Guedes of Weiss Serota Helfman
Cole Bierman & Popok has appealed the Fourth District ruling.

"These plaintiffs attorneys are all rushing into court, presumably
because they want to be the first ones with their foot in the door
before the ink has even dried on the Hollywood decision," he said.
"These suits are considerably premature since we don't even know
if the Fourth DCA will be upheld.  I guess they all want to claim
a piece of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow."

Ervin Gonzalez -- Ervin@Colson.com -- of Colson Hicks Eidson in
Coral Gables teamed up with Marc Wites -- MWites@wklawyers.com --
of Wites & Kapetan in Lighthouse Point to file lawsuits in state
court on behalf of ticketed motorists.  The lawsuits filed Oct. 30
largely cite the appellate ruling as grounds for the suit, quoting
at length from the ruling.

Vendor ATS removed the suits to federal court, and the plaintiffs
attorneys are seeking to return them to state court.

Mr. Wites disputes Mr. Guedes' assertion that the lawsuits are
premature, saying: "We don't think there has been a rush to
judgment.  We think the appellate ruling is the correct ruling,
and we think it will stand, and we don't think justice for those
people who have been improperly ticketed needs to wait."

Delegated Authority

Mark Gold, owner of the Ticket Clinic, teamed up with the Fort
Lauderdale law firm of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos &
Lehrman, to file a class action suit in U.S. District Court in the
Northern District of Florida.  The lawsuit filed Oct. 29 targets
24 Florida cities, the state and ATS.  Unlike the state lawsuits,
the federal one does not cite the appellate ruling but makes a
similar argument -- it's unconstitutional for private vendors to
assume the functions of public agencies by administering traffic
tickets.

"The municipal defendants delegated their police powers and
outsourced them to a for-profit, nongovernmental corporation,
which routinely made fundamental determinations regarding traffic
citations that involved the use of red-light cameras," the
complaint said.

Lawsuits have also been filed in South Florida federal courts
against ATS by the Boca Raton law firm Friedman Rosenwasser &
Goldbaum, the Miami firm Podhurst Orseck, the national class
action firm Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll and others.  Those
suits do not target cities.

Mr. Gold expressed annoyance with the number of lawyers filing
class actions since the ruling.

"Every single opinion -- positive opinion -- that has come out of
the circuit, the county and the appellate court has come out of
our efforts," he said.  "The Ticket Clinic has put in thousands of
hours defending cases and obtaining public records, holding
depositions . . . and now all these ticket lawyers are trying to
get credit for it   We've been fighting this good fight for years,
and now all these vultures are coming out and riding on our
coattails."

Hollywood City Attorney Jeffrey Sheffel said he's confident the
city will ultimately prevail.  Its position is that a police
officer ultimately decides whether a ticket will be issued, not
the vendor.

"We think the Fourth simply ruled inaccurately and incorrectly,"
he said.


APPLE INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Suit Over Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed some, but not all claims in a class action
accusing Apple of intercepting and failing to deliver text
messages sent from iPhones to non-Apple cell phones.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted in part and denied in part
Apple's motion to dismiss on Nov. 19.

Lead plaintiff Adam Backhaut in May accused Apple of violating the
federal Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and California unfair competition and consumer laws.

Backhaut claimed that if an iPhone user using the iMessage app
switched to a non-Apple phone, text messages to that user would
disappear because Apple would divert the message to its iMessage
system. Since the user no longer had iMessage, he wouldn't get the
text.

Apple filed a motion to dismiss the claims in August.

Koh found on November 19 that the plaintiffs did not adequately
make arguments to support legal action under the federal Stored
Communications Act, because the law protects stored
communications, not communications in transit from sender to
recipient.

However, the plaintiffs did sufficiently argue under the Wiretap
Act, which prohibits the interception of communications, Koh
ruled.

The judge dismissed the plaintiff's unfair competition claims that
stemmed from Stored Communications Act arguments, but allowed the
claims stemming from the Wiretap Act to stay.  She gave plaintiffs
21 days to file an amended complaint.

Koh on Nov. 10 allowed a similar case regarding lost text messages
to proceed.

The case is Adam Backhaut, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:14-
cv-02285-LHK, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.

                           *     *     *

Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Judge Koh tossed
an array of additional claims brought under the Stored
Communication Act, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
the claims brought under California's Unfair Competition Law that
weren't tied to Wiretap Act violations.  However, she did so
without prejudice, giving plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.

"We're very pleased with the order, because it validates the basic
premise of the case," said Joshua Ezrin of Audet & Partners, who
represents the plaintiffs in the Wiretap Act suit.

Plaintiffs in that case originally filed suit in May over the
iMessage glitch.  Introduced as part of Apple's 2011 iPhone
update, iMessage allows users to send messages to each other while
bypassing the text messaging systems of cellular carriers.  Apple
users who later switched to non-Apple devices, though, had their
phone numbers stuck in the iMessage system. That kept ex-iPhoners
from receiving messages sent by current iPhone users.

The Wiretap Act suit was filed the day after lawyers at The
Katriel Law Firm sued for tortious interference based on the same
glitch.  Even though both sets of plaintiffs and Apple argued
against consolidating the cases, Judge Koh combined them into a
single action last week.

Lawyers at Morrison & Foerster are defending Apple in both cases.
MoFo's David Walsh didn't immediately respond to messages.
Mr. Ezrin pointed out that Judge Koh is familiar with both the
issues in the case and with Apple.  Judge Koh, of course, has
overseen Apple's smartphone and tablet patent war with rival
Samsung.  She's also previously overseen proposed class actions
brought under the Wiretap Act against Google and Yahoo.  "She
definitely has very sophisticated understanding of these
theories," Mr. Ezrin said.


APPLE INC: Price-Fixing Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge on Nov. 21 gave final approval to the unusual
settlement reached between Apple, 33 states and class action
counsel in the electronic book price-fixing litigation.

Ahead of an all-or-nothing appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit on Southern District Judge Denise Cote's 2013
liability finding against the computer giant, the judge approved
the settlement reached in June that calls for Apple to pay $450
million should her ruling be upheld.

Judge Cote said that was a fair amount given the risks in the
litigation and the effort put forth by 33 state attorneys general
in a parens patriae action and plaintiffs lawyers prosecuting the
case as a class action under In re: Electronic Books Antitrust
Litigation, 11-md-02293.

Part of the effort, she said, was expended in responding to a
change in tactics by Apple, which had initially sought a speedy
trial and a resolution of the multi-district litigation but then
was found liable in 2013.

"Apple essentially did an about face in this litigation," she
said.  "[A]fter it lost, it changed tactics and decided it would
do everything in its power to prevent these actions from reaching
a final judgment."

The company filed a series of appeals and "class counsel made an
evaluation they could expect continued [delays], and Apple is a
well-funded client that was able to deliver on that strategy," so
it was in the best interests of the class to pursue settlement.
Under what Judge Cote called a "highly unusual" deal, if Apple
fails at the Second Circuit, the company will pay $400 million to
consumers and another $50 million in attorney fees.

Should the circuit vacate Judge Cote's liability verdict and
instruct her to hold a retrial on liability, Apple will pay only
$50 million to consumers and $20 million in fees.  The company
will pay nothing if the circuit throws the case out or if the same
result is reached at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oral arguments on the appeal are scheduled to be heard on Dec. 15.
Appearing before Cote on Nov. 21 were class counsel Steve Berman
and Jeff Friedman, partners at Hagens Berman Sobel Shapiro LLP;
Kit Pierson -- kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- partner at Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll; and Assistant Attorney General Gary
Becker, representing the State of Connecticut.

Appearing for Apple were Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partners Cynthia
Richman -- crichman@gibsondunn.com -- and Gail Lees --
glees@gibsondunn.com

Judge Cote found in July 2013 that Apple conspired to fix e-book
prices after the judge heard evidence that consumers were hit with
a price spike almost immediately after the company entered into a
corrupt price-fixing scheme in 2010 with the five publishers:
Hachette, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Penguin, and Macmillan
(NYLJ, July 1, 2013).

The judge issued an injunction in September 2013 barring Apple
from entering into any agreement with publishers for "most favored
nation" status and from communicating "the status of its
contractual negotiations with any other e-book publisher," as to
business plans, strategies, agreements with retailers and
agreements with authors (NYLJ, Sept. 9, 2013).

The five publishers in the cases all went on to reach settlements
for a total of $166 million, but Apple dug in until it reached it
settlement in June, just a few months before a scheduled trial on
damages.

The plaintiffs' damages expert had pegged the damages suffered by
consumers at $280 million.  When trebled, and when subtracting the
$166 million already paid by the publishers, the maximum recovery
at a damages trial would have been $674 million, Judge Cote said
in her Aug. 1 opinion giving preliminary approval to the
settlement.  The terms of the settlement are unusual in that they
are fixed to the kind of decision comes out of the Second Circuit
and what kind of remand, if any, the court might order.

The plaintiffs' lawyers told Judge Cote that prior to her
preliminary approval, they believed there would be no "remand
scenario," but they cited consumer protections built into the
settlement agreement should a remand be ordered: where the remand
is not "on the merits" or where the remand is "on administrative
or non-substantive grounds that do not, or could not, affect the
liability finding."

On Nov. 21, Judge Cote said Apple significantly delayed resolution
of the case by a number of tactics, including a motion to remand,
a motion to stay the damages trial, and, at the circuit, an appeal
of her class certification decision and the pursuit of stay by
order of the circuit -- all of which were denied.

She also credited the fact that the attorney fees were separately
negotiated and will not come from the fund for compensating
consumers.  Class counsel, she added, put up over $1.5 million of
its own money in costs, and the quality of representation had been
"excellent" both by class counsel and the states.

In the end, the judge said, she was faced with only a handful of
objections in a case in which class notice had been sent to some
23 million consumers.  She said there were two reasons for
reaching a settlement that has a Court of Appeals contingency
built into the terms -- with the first being that class counsel
felt "strongly" that the liability ruling would be affirmed.

"The future will tell whether that's right or wrong," she said.
The second reason, she said, was that more delays were on the
horizon.

"The judgment of the class to get paid sooner rather than later
and Apple's decision to delay this litigation should not prevent
consumers from benefitting from this litigation," she said.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Judge Rejects Mistrial Motion in Nexium Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a Boston federal judge on Nov. 20 rejected a mistrial motion but
was weighing a directed verdict for the defense in an antitrust
class action against AstraZeneca PLC and two generic drug
companies.

The alleged conspiracy concerns AstraZeneca's "pay for delay"
settlement with one competitor, a similar deal with another, and
all the defendants' collusion to push back the generics' market
entry to May 2014.

Billions of dollars are at stake in In re Nexium Antitrust
Litigation, which concerns AstraZeneca PLC's Nexium
gastrointestinal drug. The generic co-defendants are Ranbaxy
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.  Another
co-defendant, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc., has settled
.
The plaintiffs include consumers, employee benefit funds,
pharmacies and grocery companies.

On Nov. 18, U.S. District Judge William Young issued a ruling
allowing the jury to consider whether AstraZeneca's alleged $700
million "pay for delay" settlement to keep Ranbaxy out of the
generic market until May 2014 could be a basis for imposing
antitrust liability.

That "is in direct conflict with the legal framework upon which
Ranbaxy has relied in preparing for this trial and trying this
case," Ranbaxy argued in a written motion.

The plaintiffs have argued that AstraZeneca's arrangement with
Ranbaxy was part of an antitrust conspiracy that also delayed
Teva's generic drug launch.  They claim that Ranbaxy and Teva
otherwise would have formed a partnership to bring a generic drug
to market before May 2014.

During the Nov. 20 hearing, Judge Young denied Ranbaxy's motion
from the bench without explanation.  He then turned to a Teva
motion seeking a directed verdict.  The plaintiffs haven't proven
that AstraZeneca made a "large and unjustified payment to Teva,"
argued Laurence Schoen -- LASchoen@mintz.com -- a partner at
Boston's Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo.

Judge Young asked Mr. Schoen whether it would make sense for him
to rule on the directed-verdict motion following a jury verdict.
"In a case of this magnitude . . . maybe it's prudential to wait
and lower that boom," Judge Young said.

Mr. Schoen replied that, based on what he said was a weak
plaintiffs case, it would be better not to waste the jury's time.
"They have not come close to meeting their burden of proof," he
said.

AstraZeneca's lawyer, John Schmidtlein -- jschmidtlein@wc.com --
a partner at Washington's Williams & Connolly, argued the jury
hasn't heard testimony from a single Ranbaxy or Teva executive
since the case began on Oct. 20. "A case of this magnitude cannot
be allowed to go forward under those circumstances," he said.

Thomas Sobol, a Boston partner at Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro who represents the plaintiffs, insisted: "The evidence
qualitatively more than enables the jury to conclude Teva and
AstraZeneca entered into an arrangement that included a payment
that included full release of Prilosec liability."

According to the plaintiffs' court papers, after Teva launched a
generic version of AstraZeneca's Prilosec, another
gastrointestinal drug, and lost an infringement case, the two
sides agreed that Teva would pay a "nonmaterial" amount for past
infringement.  The plaintiffs claim that "the true purpose and
effect" of that arrangement was to delay Teva's generic
competition to Nexium until May 2014.

"This is the first time we've really seen the real life way these
deals get struck [presented] in front of an American jury,"
Mr. Sobol said.

Judge Young said he needed to reflect on the briefs and that he
hoped to issue a ruling on Nov. 21.


AUSTRALIA: Animal Rights Group to Intervene in Export Ban Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Bettles, writing for Stock & Land, reports that Animals
Australia is attempting to intervene in the Federal Court class
action claim against the Commonwealth over the 2011 Indonesian
live cattle export ban.

The animal rights group played a central role in sparking the
suspension, after taking video footage of animal cruelty from
selected Indonesian abattoirs which dominated the emotive ABC Four
Corners broadcast of May 31, 2011.  That television program
triggered an unprecedented public reaction underpinning the second
suspension order on June 7 by then Agriculture Minister Joe
Ludwig, initially prescribed for six months.

Minter Ellison lawyers are now handling a class action claim
seeking a potential $1 billion in damages for cattle producers and
other businesses that suffered financial losses from the snap
trade cessation.  The litigation, headed by Brett Cattle Company,
Northern Territory, is alleging the Minister's second Control
Order was "invalid" in its claim for "misfeasance" of public
office.

Ahead of the claim's first directions hearing in Sydney on
Nov. 14, Animals Australia wrote to Minter Ellison outlining their
intentions to be an intervener in the litigation, saying was
giving consideration to some form of participation, whether as
"amicus curiae ('friend of the court') or intervener", under rule
9.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Animals Australia legal counsel Shatha Hamade told Fairfax Media
her client notified the Federal Court it was considering filing a
motion to participate in the matter of the class action being
taken against the Commonwealth, "relating to the five-week
suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia in 2011".

"Animals Australia wants to ensure that in this important matter,
the Judge has all relevant information before him relating to the
widespread cruelty being inflicted on Australian cattle in
Indonesia and the degree of knowledge of related parties," she
said.

Ms. Hamade said the degree of knowledge related to parties
involved in the decision-making process of the ban.

However, she declined to say what the next steps would be on the
potential intervention following the directions hearing.

"As these matters relate to legal proceedings before the Federal
Court it is not appropriate for me to provide detailed responses
to your questions," she said.

Categories of loss

Animals Australia has a stated aim to ban live animal exports,
despite the government introducing tougher animal welfare
regulations in all export markets following the suspension, via
the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS).

Andrew Gill, partner at Minter Ellison's Canberra office, who is
running the class action matter, declined to comment to Fairfax
Media on Animals Australia's move to intervene in the claim.

However, at the  directions hearing it's understood the court
asked both parties to begin considering how damages will be
calculated, a request which the Commonwealth did not argue
against.

It's believed up to 30 categories of loss are likely to be
established to compensate cattle producers and allied businesses
that suffered sudden income loss and other damages due to the ban.

The Commonwealth has also been directed to make a statement on its
defense of the claim by December 19, which Minter Ellison can
reply to by February 6, 2015, ahead of the next appearance of the
parties on February 20.

Second claim likely to merge

McCullough Robertson's Trent Thorne has also been working on a
second class action claim for the suspension which is now expected
to merge with the Minter Ellison claim.

Mr. Thorne told Fairfax Media there was little doubt the attempt
to intervene on the claim was "a cynical attempt on the part of
Animals Australia to get further media exposure -- nothing more".

He said a 'friend of the court' generally appeared in court
proceedings to provide information that may assist with
determination of a particular case.

Mr. Thorne said the court would first need to consider the
question of liability in the suspension decision, on which Animals
Australia may not have capacity to inform.

"Aside from the material in the Four Corners program, I would
query what further information Animals Australia would have in its
possession that would assist the court on the question of
liability," he said.

"Animals Australia is a lobby group, first and foremost -- it will
certainly not be considered by the court as an expert in the field
of animal husbandry or animal welfare.

"Animals Australia states that it wants to highlight 'the degree
of knowledge of related parties' but this will be almost
impossible to prove unless they have cogent, contemporaneous
evidence in the form of video footage or emails."

Mr. Thorne said parties to the class action include companies and
individuals throughout the supply chain.  But he said Animals
Australia "cannot surely be suggesting that trucking companies,
feed suppliers, helicopter pilots, vets, etcetera were aware of
what was happening in Indonesian abattoirs".

"Critically, the main parties to the proceeding -- cattle
producers -- had no idea what was happening in Indonesian
abattoirs," he said.

"Senator Ludwig acknowledged to an ABC journalist on May 31, 2012:
'The producers had no line of sight . . . (they) now have a line
of sight from where their cattle go into the export markets and
what happens to their cattle at the end'."

Another legal source who asked not to be named said the animal
rights group's attempts to claim 'friend of the court' status was
futile.

"The court doesn't need friends like that and it would be an
insult to the judge; they've got no standing and no hope," the
source said.

'Worst ever decision': Abbott

Prime Minister Tony Abbott responded to the news of the class
action by saying Labor's decision to suspend the live cattle trade
was perhaps the worst ever decision any Australian government has
ever made.

But he also said the government had to be very careful in assuming
that everyone with a claim against the Commonwealth had a claim
that has to be met.

Mr. Abbott said the interests of justice had to be served along
with the interests of taxpayers, and therefore the Commonwealth
would run the case as a best practice litigant.

It's understood a best practice litigant would mean the
Commonwealth, as party to any litigation, would need to adhere to
rules regarding proper conduct and avoid poor practices like
deliberately delaying proceedings to try and exhaust the other
party's finances.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Trims Claims in Mortgage Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge on Nov. 17 trimmed the bulk of the claims in a class action
suit alleging that Bank of America NA and Nationstar Mortgage
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state trade
laws by imposing excessive fees on improperly defaulted mortgages.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed with prejudice claims
that Bank of America improperly put mortgage loans in default
status and subsequently charged inflated and unauthorized fees,
saying that the alleged practices took place after Nationstar
acquired the mortgages.  The judge also dismissed with prejudice
claims that Nationstar violated Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, since the law applies to goods and services, not real estate.

The judge's ruling axed the plaintiffs' claims against Bank of
America, although she said that they may seek leave to amend their
claims for breach of good faith and dealing and for civil
conspiracy.

Judge Bloom dismissed with prejudice named plaintiff Sarah
Drennan's claims that Nationstar violated the FDCPA, ruling that
since her mortgage was put into default by Nationstar after the
mortgage company obtained it from the bank, Nationstar is not
considered a debt collector by the law.

The judge left plaintiff Sarah Alhassid's FDCPA claim against
Nationstar standing, since she alleges that her reverse mortgage
was placed in default by Bank of America before it was transferred
to Nationstar.

"Nationstar insists, somewhat cynically, that because Alhassid
alleges that the placement of her loan in default was improper,
she cannot maintain that Nationstar acquired her loan already in
default," Judge Bloom wrote.  "Nationstar misses the point.
Plaintiffs allege that Alhassid's loan should not have been placed
in default, but that it was, and was treated as such by Bank of
America and then by Nationstar."

The judge preserved the plaintiffs' claims that Nationstar
violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, since
they allege that Nationstar tried to collect fees it was not
legally owed and billed them for unauthorized services it never
performed.

Alhassid and Drennan filed suit against Bank of America and
Nationstar in February, alleging that they engaged in a multi-year
scheme to profit off of mortgage borrowers by wrongfully placing
the loans in default status and then, with the default as pretext,
charging excessive fees.

Alhassid claimed that Bank of America obtained her reverse
mortgage of her Florida condo in 2007.  Under the terms of her
agreement, Alhassid was excused from having to pay for property
insurance as long as her condominium association maintained a
satisfactory blanket insurance policy, according to the order.

The agreement also required her to pay property taxes.

"During the relevant period, Alhassid never missed a tax payment,
and satisfied her property insurance coverage obligations through
timely condominium fee payments to her condominium association,
which maintained the requisite property insurance," the judge
wrote.  "Nevertheless, in 2009, Bank of America notified Alhassid
by letter that she had missed 'one or more of these tax or
insurance payments' and unilaterally sought and purchased force-
placed flood insurance for Alhassid's property."

Nationstar then acquired the mortgage and began adding various
"unnecessary and unauthorized charges" to Alhassid's loan balance,
according to the order.  Nationstar served Alhassid with a
foreclosure lawsuit in January, the judge said.

Ms. Drennan also claimed that Nationstar added unauthorized
charges to her mortgage, but it was already in default when Bank
of America sold it, according to the order.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Louis Goodman of the Law
Offices of Herssein and Herssein PA, Iris Joy Herssein of Wolfson
& Grossman, Reuven T. Herssein, Maxwell Miller Nelson and Geoff
Hirshberg of The Herssein Law Group and Maury Lorne Udell --
mudell@bmulaw.com -- of Beighley Myrick & Udell PA.

Bank of America is represented by Christopher Stephen Carver and
Brendan Herbert -- brendan.herbert@akerman.com -- of Akerman
Senterfitt, David S. Kantrowitz -- dkantrowitz@goodwinprocter.com
-- Matthew G. Lindenbaum -- mlindenbaum@goodwinprocter.com -- and
David L. Permut of Goodwin Procter LLP.

Nationstar is represented by Nathaniel Mark Edenfield and Alan
Graham Greer -- agreer@richmangreer.com -- of Richman Greer PA.

The case is Alhassid v. Bank Of America, N.A. et al., case number
1:14-cv-20484 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.


BARRETT BUSINESS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 17 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Barrett Business Services, Inc. and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Western District of Washington, at Tacoma, and
docketed under 14-cv-05912, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Barrett securities between
February 12, 2013 and October 29, 2014, inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Barrett securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 5, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Barrett is a provider of business management solutions, combining
human resource outsourcing and professional management consulting
for its operational platform.  The Company's integrated platform
is built upon its purported expertise in payroll processing,
employee benefits, workers' compensation coverage, risk management
and workplace safety programs, and human resource administration.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
that the Company under accrued its self-insured workers'
compensation reserves; (2) that, as a result, the Company
overstated its earnings; (3) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 28, 2014, after the market closed, BBSI revealed that
in the third quarter of 2014, the Company recorded an additional
increase to its self-insured workers' compensation reserve of $80
million, or $47.9 million after tax, which effectively wiped out
the Company's past five years of pretax earnings.  According to
the Company, the increase represented approximately 38% of the
Company's total workers' compensation reserve, bringing the
liability up to $208.3 million at September 30, 2014.  Taking into
account the effect of this expense, the Company reported a net
loss in the third quarter of 2014 of $37.8 million compared to net
income of $9 million in the year-ago quarter.

On this news, shares of Barrett fell $26.18 or almost 59%, on
unusually heavy volume, to close at $18.28 on October 29, 2014.

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


BITCASA INC: Users Told to Pay $99 to Extend Time to Remove Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
man who sued a cloud-storage service for ending its unlimited data
storage plan is getting what he asked for -- kind of.

Shawn Romack filed a class action suit against Bitcasa, less than
a month after the company announced it would end its "Infinite"
storage plan.  The man claims that Bitcasa breached its contract
with users by forcing them to either accept a new, more expensive
plan by Nov. 15 or to start deleting their data.

But Bitcasa only gave customers 23 days to delete their data
before it did so for them -- an announcement that prompted
Romack's request for an injunction, since he claims to have about
8 terabytes to remove.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted the temporary
restraining order, barring Bitcasa from deleting anybody's data
until at least Nov. 20.  But Alsup also reminded Romack that no
class had yet been certified.

Romack reported to the court on Nov. 18 that he had removed just
two to three of his nearly 7.7 terabytes of data in five days with
his computer running "virtually 24/7."

According to Bitcasa, 7.7 terabytes is enough to store 1.6 million
songs, 2.7 million photos, or 4,000 high-definition movies.

In a ruling issued on November 19, Alsup narrowed the scope of the
Romack's "vast injunction" request by holding that the man can get
individual relief from Bitcasa's deletion only if he pays another
$99 for a one-month extension under a new data plan.  That way,
he'll have time to download his data, Alsup said.

If Romack chooses that route, the court can make a decision later
regarding money and whether the company owes Romack a refund,
Alsup added.

"Money damages will solve this problem, if there is one," he
wrote.

The judge also ruled that Romack did not show evidence that a
classwide injunction is needed.

"The certification question remains for another day," he wrote.
"Putative class members, of course, can pay $99 for a one-month
extension as well."

However, Alsup also noted that Bitcasa's lawyers couldn't promise
that if Romack pays for the extension, his data wouldn't be lost
in a "migration process."  So he ordered the company to preserve
and help migrate Romack's files if the man pays the $99 fee.

In a separate order, the judge denied Bitcasa's request to seal
documents with information about the data and statistics the
company collects and how much it pays to rent servers from Amazon
Web Services.

The case is Shawn Romack, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bitcasa, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05005-WHA,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jury Awards $18.5MM Verdict in Pelvic Mesh Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal jury in West Virginia on Nov. 20 awarded $18.5
million against Boston Scientific Corp. in the second verdict in
federal court over one of its pelvic mesh devices.

The verdict came a week after a federal jury in Florida issued a
$26.7 million verdict against the company for providing
insufficient warnings about the risks of its Pinnacle mesh device.

On Nov. 19, a California appeals court upheld a $5.5 million award
in the first jury verdict against pelvic mesh device manufacturer
C.R. Bard Inc.  The West Virginia trial, which took place in
Charleston, involved four women who sued over Boston Scientific's
Obtryx sling, which they claimed caused them nerve damage,
infections and pain during sex.  The verdict included $4 million
in punitive damages -- $1 million to each plaintiff.

"In these cases, the jurors clearly understood that Boston
Scientific moved too quickly in bringing its product to market,
and that it used inappropriate materials while at the same time
failing to warn doctors and patients about the risks involved,"
said Harry Bell of The Bell Law Firm in Charleston, one of seven
law firms that represented the women.

Kelly Leadem, a spokeswoman for Boston Scientific, which was
represented at trial by Jon Strongman, a partner at Kansas City,
Mo.'s Shook, Hardy & Bacon, said in an emailed statement: "We are
committed to providing safe, high-quality products for patients
with pelvic floor disorders. We disagree with the verdict based on
the strength of our evidence and will vigorously pursue post-trial
motions and appeal."

Both of the Boston Scientific trials, which began on Nov. 3, are
included in multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge
Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia.  U.S.
District Judge Irene Berger of the Southern District of West
Virginia handled the case in Charleston, while Goodwin oversaw the
Florida trial in Miami.

The Miami trial involved the cases of four women who sued after
being implanted with the device.  It was the first federal
bellwether trial against Boston Scientific, one of seven
manufacturers of pelvic mesh that face about 60,000 lawsuits
across the country.  The devices are used to treat pelvic organ
prolapse and urinary incontinence.

Boston Scientific lost a $73.4 million verdict in Texas state
court and won two others in Massachusetts state court this year.
Bard, another pelvic mesh manufacturer, lost its appeal of an
award that a jury in Bakersfield, Calif., rendered in 2012 for
Christine Scott and her husband, Roy Scott.  Christine Scott
suffered pain during sex and lost control of her bowels after
eight surgeries to reduce erosion from a Bard Avaulta Plus device
that she'd had surgically implanted in 2008.  The jury found Bard
60 percent at fault and Ms. Scott's surgeon 40 percent.

On Nov. 19, a panel of the California Fifth District Court of
Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting all of Bard's arguments,
which included claims of attorney and juror misconduct.  But the
panel also, in an unpublished section of its opinion, criticized
plaintiffs attorney Eugene "Gene" Lorenz, whom Bard accused of
prejudicial misconduct based on negative comments he made about
the trial judge's fairness and competency.

"It would be nice if you'd read some of our memos," Mr. Lorenz
told Kern County Superior Court Judge William Palmer at one point,
according to the panel's opinion.  "But you know the plaintiffs
don't get much time here."  Following several of the judge's
rulings, he said of his clients: "They deserve some better brand
of justice than what is going on here."

"There is no possible justification for the insulting tone and
disparaging content of these remarks, which clearly crossed the
line that separates advocacy from contempt," Associate Justice
Bert Levy wrote.  Judge Palmer had admonished Mr. Lorenz but
didn't cite him for contempt.

Mr. Levy wrote that, "if Mr. Lorenz reflects back on what he said
to the trial judge, he should feel a sense of shame and regret and
consider himself fortunate that the trial judge refrained from
summarily finding him in contempt."

Mr. Lorenz, a solo practitioner in Bakersfield, said there were no
hard feelings between him and Palmer.  "That's the way it is.  I
don't try cases in a passive way," he said of the panel's finding.

The panel also rejected the Scotts' argument that the
apportionment to her surgeon should be wiped out due to incorrect
jury instructions.

Because the jury found that the surgeon's negligence wasn't a
factor in Scott's problems, the judgment was reduced to $3.6
million.

Mr. Lorenz said: "Our clients are satisfied. We realized we were
taking on a lot being the first case out, but we did it. We won."
Michael Brown -- mkbrown@reedsmith.com -- a partner in the Los
Angeles office of Reed Smith who represented Bard, said his client
was "evaluating its options in terms of further review of the
court's decision."

"As you can see from the opinion itself, there were a number of
issues that permeated the trial that did not relate to the care
and treatment of Ms. Scott but nevertheless resulted in errors
committed during the trial that allowed the jury to find against
Bard," Mr. Brown wrote in an emailed statement.

Back in federal court, Bard moved on Oct. 21 to disqualify one of
the plaintiffs' experts, Dr. Neeraj Kohli, because he testified
for Bard in the Scott trial.  A hearing on that motion was
scheduled for Nov. 21.


BRAND 2 INVESTMENTS: Sued Over Deceptive Product Label, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Porter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Brand 2 Investments, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09301 (N.D.
Ill., November 19, 2014), alleges that the product label of
MuscleMeds Bioengineered Beef Protein Isolate Carnivor makes a
series of false claims regarding the ingredients in and efficacy
of the Product, specifically the nature of the protein content.

Brand 2 Investments, LLC is a distributor of whey protein
products.

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: 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 -

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


CABLE EQUIPMENT: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Gutierrez, Ernesto Nuevo, Cynthia Recondo, and other
similarly situated individuals v. Cable Equipment Services, Inc.
and Charles F. Appeldoorn, Case No. 1:14-cv-24413 (S.D. Fla.,
November 19, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Cable Equipment Services, Inc. provides cable equipment services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CABLECOM LLC: Faces "Hatton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Bonus
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jayson Hatton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cablecom, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01459 (E.D. Wis.,
November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay bonus payments earned by the employees by retroactively
changing the formula used to calculate bonus payment.

Cablecom, LLC provides construction, technical, and engineering
services for telecommunication applications in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
      Yingtao Ho, Esq.
      THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM SC
      1555 N River Center Dr-Ste 202, PO Box 12993
      Milwaukee, WI 53212
      Telephone: (414) 271-4500
      Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
      E-mail: nde@previant.com
              yh@previant.com


CANADA: Proceedings Begin in Class Suit Over Residential Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that proceedings began on Nov. 18 in a class-
action lawsuit against the Government of Canada on behalf of
survivors of residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Lawyers, class members and reporters poured into Courtroom No. 5
at Supreme Court in St. John's in the morning.  The court
continues in session this afternoon.

Ches Crosbie, one of the leading plaintiff lawyers, said during a
short break that he expects the trial to be delayed.

The class action was started after Prime Minister Stephen Harper
officially apologized to residential school survivors in 2007, but
left out survivors in this province.  The same survivors were
excluded from a massive settlement that was reached.

While the survivors are suing the Government of Canada, the
Government of Canada is suing the International Grenfell
Association, the Moravian Church and the Moravian Union.

The Telegram is following this case and will continue to report
updates.


CARING FAMILY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Garcia and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Caring Family Corp. and Hannia Iriarte, Case No. 1:14-
cv-24457 (S.D. Fla., November 23, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASH RESERVES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Froney" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carneisha Forney, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cash Reserves LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-09011
(C.D. Cal., November 20, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Cash Reserves LLC is in the business of consumer debt buying and
recovery or collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Network Malfunction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Nov. 19 disclosed that a purported class
action was filed against the Company and another cellular operator
receiving hosting services from the Company, by plaintiffs
alleging to be subscribers of the defendants, claiming
compensation for non monetary damages in connection with
allegations that the defendants, unlawfully and in violation of
their license and their agreement with their subscribers, failed
to provide service to their subscribers during the previously
reported network malfunction that the defendants suffered on
November 6, 2014.  The total amount claimed from the defendants,
if the lawsuit is certified as class action is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS72 million (although under the
calculations detailed elsewhere in the lawsuit- -- approximately
NIS 720 million), of which approximately NIS 60 million (under the
said calculations -- approximately NIS 606 million) is attributed
to the Company.  At this early stage the Company cannot assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.

                     About Cellcom Israel

Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is the largest Israeli
cellular provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.010
million subscribers (as at September 30, 2014) with a broad range
of value added services including cellular and landline telephony,
roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers
abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video,
mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically
advanced infrastructure.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Weitz & Luxenberg Files TIPM Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Weitz & Luxenberg on Nov. 17 announced the filing of a class
action lawsuit in federal court against Chrysler Group LLC.  The
nationally respected personal injury and mass tort law firm said
it seeks to hold the Big Three automobile maker accountable for
economic losses suffered by owners and passengers of Chrysler cars
and trucks that stalled, caught fire or sustained other
potentially life-endangering malfunctions due to a faulty onboard
computer.

The lawsuit alleges that Chrysler knew about and fraudulently
concealed the defectiveness of its Totally Integrated Power
Module -- TIPM, for short.

Chrysler sought as far back as 2005 to hide the magnitude of the
TIPM defect from consumers and initiated only limited vehicle
recalls, the complaint alleges.

Despite knowing about the defect, Chrysler continued installing
faulty TIPMs in vehicles until the 2014 model year, according to
the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The TIPM is an integral component of many Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep
models on the road today, Weitz & Luxenberg said.  The device
controls and distributes power to all of a vehicle's electrical
functions.  Prone to sudden failure, a vehicle's TIPM poses a
serious safety issue, placing the driver and passengers at risk of
harm, the complaint indicates.

A failed TIPM causes malfunctioning of airbags, headlights,
brakes, horns, wipers, windows, door locks and other components
that rely on electrical functions, Weitz & Luxenberg explained.
Worse, a failed TIPM can cause a vehicle's engine to shut down
unexpectedly while driving at high speeds, the firm said.

"Millions of consumers who have bought into this brand have
suffered harm because of Chrysler and its faulty Totally
Integrated Power Module," the complaint alleges.

Owners of defective TIPM-equipped Chrysler vehicles suffer
economic losses in part because the device is expensive to
replace, costing upward of $1,000, Weitz & Luxenberg said.

Also, because of the sheer number of vehicles requiring a new
TIPM, consumers are forced to make do without their vehicles for
many days and even weeks while their vehicles sit in the shop and
wait for a replacement TIPM to be shipped, the firm said.

Adding insult to injury, the defect caused many motorists to incur
unnecessary costs to replace non-defective parts that
malfunctioned because of the faulty TIPM, Weitz & Luxenberg noted.

Participating in the class-action with Weitz & Luxenberg is the
law firm of Baron & Budd.

Note: A previous version of this press release indicated that Fiat
Chrysler is party to the action filed by Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is not named in the complaint.  Chrysler
Group, LLC, the defendant in the suit, is a subsidiary of Fiat
Chrysler.

                   About Weitz & Luxenberg

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. -- http://www.weitzluxenberg.com/-- is a
personal injury law firms.  Weitz & Luxenberg's numerous
litigation areas include: mesothelioma, defective medicines and
devices, environmental pollutants, consumer protection, accidents,
personal injury and medical malpractice.


CLOUD 10 CORP: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Matthews and Lasere Reid-Smith, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Cloud 10 Corp, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00646 (W.D.N.C, November 19, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Cloud 10 Corp is a subsidiary of Transcom Worldwide North America
that customer care, sales, technical support and credit management
services through our extensive network of contact centers and
work-at-home agents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Davis, Esq.
      BELL, DAVIS & PITT PA
      227 W. Trade St., Suite 2160
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Telephone: (704) 227-0400
      Facsimile: (704) 227-0178
      E-mail: ward.davis@belldavispitt.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Suit Over Failure to Protect Consumers Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Veciana, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and as Parent and Natural Guardian of M.V., a minor, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, et al., Case No.
8:14-cv-02893 (M.D. Fla., November 19, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to implement basic security procedures
and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personal
information.

Community Health Systems, Inc. owns and operates general acute
care hospitals in numerous states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andy Dogali, Esq.
      Geoffrey Edward Parmer, Esq.
      DOGALI LAW GROUP, PA
      101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 289-0700
      Facsimile: (813) 289-9435
      E-mail: adogali@dogalilaw.com
              gparmer@msn.com


CONTINUCARE MDHC: Faces "Restrepo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Antonio Restrepo and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Continucare MDHC, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-24456
(S.D. Fla., November 23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.

Continucare MDHC, LLC owns and operates a health care center in
Miami Dade, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT PROTECTION: Sued in Arizona For Making Unsolicited Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fabiola Ordonez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Credit Protection Association LP, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02581 (D. Ariz., November 23, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Credit Protection Association LP is in the business of collecting
debt from Arizona consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DENSO CORP: Sued Over Vehicle Wire Harness Systems-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc., et al., v. Denso Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-14451 (E.D. Mich., November 21, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants engaged in a massive, more than
decade-long conspiracy to unlawfully fix and artificially raise
the prices of Vehicle Wire Harness Systems.

The Defendants are dealers of medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks,
buses, commercial vehicles, construction equipment, mining
equipment, agricultural equipment, and railway vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne A. Mack, Esq.
      J. Manly Parks, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS LLP
      30 S. 17th Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 979-1000
      Facsimile: (215) 979-1020
      E-mail: wamack@duanemorris.com
              jmparks@duanemorris.com


DONKU LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Duran-Juarez, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. Donku Landscaping Services, Inc., and Julie
Donku, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-09334 (N.D. Ill., November
21, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Donku Landscaping Services, Inc. is a landscaping company owned
and operated by Julie Donku.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOS TOROS: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Perez, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Dos Toros LLC d/b/a Dos Toros, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-09183 (S.D.N.Y., November 18, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dos Toros LLC owns and operates Dos Toros Restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Sued for Suppressing Employees Salary
-----------------------------------------------------------
Van Phan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., Pixar, Lucasfilm,
Ltd., The Walt Disney Company, Digital Domain 3.0, Inc.,
Imagemovers LLC; Imagemovers Digital, Sony Pictures Animation,
Inc., and Sony Pictures Imageworks, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-05150
(N.D. Cal., November 20, 2014), arises out of an established
conspiracy to suppress the compensation of the Defendants'
employees, specifically by entering into agreements not to
actively solicit each other's employees and to fix their
employees' salary ranges.

The Defendants are companies that are involved in creating visual
effects and animation for motion pictures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, 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
              swilliams@cpmlegal.com
              azapala@cpmlegal.com
              etran@cpmlegal.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Lucy G. Massopust, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              lmassopust@gustafsongluek.com


DUPONT CO: Seeks Dismissal of Paint Price-Fixing Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, reports that DuPont Co. on
Nov. 17 urged a California federal judge to dismiss a putative
class action brought over an alleged price-fixing scheme involving
a paint ingredient, saying the indirect purchasers have failed to
fix the flaws that led to the judge's recent dismissal of most of
their claims.

About a month after U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman agreed
to dismiss antitrust claims asserted under the laws of states
where the plaintiffs didn't reside and didn't buy products
involved in the suit -- and where the defendants weren't located,
DuPont and other chemical makers said in their motion to dismiss
that the indirect purchasers still haven't alleged antitrust
injury and do not meet the adequacy requirement for Rule 23 class
certification.

"Plaintiffs' amendment does not sufficiently remedy the flaws in
the [first amended complaint] and thus should likewise be
dismissed," the motion says.  "Plaintiffs' allegations remain so
vague and conclusory that the highly attenuated link between their
purported injuries and any act of defendants is insufficient to
support either plaintiffs' Article III or antitrust standing."

After Judge Freeman found in September that the indirect
purchasers didn't have standing to bring claims in all 32 states
included in the suit over the alleged scheme to fix the price of
titanium dioxide, the plaintiffs, including Los Gatos Mercantile
Inc. and others, filed a second amended complaint.

The revised complaint narrowed the scope of the relevant product
market to "architectural coatings," but DuPont argues that the
revision doesn't fix the inherent problems of the complaint. Even
that, the company says, encompasses thousands of products with
different formulations and concentrations of titanium dioxide.

"Likewise, plaintiffs' new causation allegations remain vague,
conclusory, and in fact demonstrate that it would be impossible to
trace the effect -- if any -- of defendants' purported conspiracy
down every level of every manufacturing and distribution chain to
merchants and consumers," the motion says.  "And while they add
named plaintiffs from various states, plaintiffs fail to correct
the deficiencies in their state law claims."

The plaintiffs sued DuPont, Kronos, Huntsman International LLC and
Cristal USA Inc. in March 2013, saying the companies schemed to
manipulate the pricing of titanium dioxide starting in early 2002.

The competitors allegedly held secret meetings during which they
exchanged sensitive commercial information on their sales,
production, supply and pricing, all with the goal of artificially
driving up the cost of the substance and allocating shares of the
U.S. market.

The claims bore a close resemblance to the allegations raised
against the manufacturers by a group of titanium dioxide buyers in
2010 in Maryland federal court.

A class of direct purchasers in that case, led by Haley Paint Co.,
Isaac Industries Inc. and East Coast Colorants LLC, was certified
two years later, and subsequently the alleged co-conspirators all
reached settlements, with DuPont forking over the largest amount
-- $72 million.

The last remaining defendants, Cristal and Kronos, settled the
case in September 2013, paying $50 million and $35 million,
respectively, to resolve the claims.

The defendants tried to extricate themselves from the newer
indirect purchaser class action, arguing that it was riddled with
flaws and trying to cast doubt on the conspiracy claims.

The manufacturers told the court in January that it was suspicious
that such a far-reaching scheme "somehow escaped government
investigation" and that the buyers of titanium dioxide products
paid inflated prices, considering the market for the pigment is
characterized by large, sophisticated customers "who exercise
enormous negotiating and pricing leverage."

On Sept. 22, Judge Freeman said that dismissal of the claims
asserted under laws of states in which no plaintiff resides or has
purchased products "best comports with the court's understanding
of Article III requirements."

The judge also trimmed some antitrust claims and claims under
state unjust enrichment and consumer protection laws, with leave
to amend, according to the decision.

In October, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint,
streamlining the relevant product market and calling for the
certification of a class each of merchants and consumers.

However, DuPont and the others said, those two classes rest on a
great deal of speculation because the plaintiffs' damages would be
extremely and particularly difficult to apportion.

"Calculation of damages in indirect purchaser suits is notoriously
unwieldy and speculative given that the alleged overcharges have
to be traced through all of the manufacturing, distribution and
retail channels," the motion says.

DuPont and the chemical makers also said the plaintiffs' claims
still fail under the laws of various states in which they allege
the anticompetitive injury occurred.

The plaintiffs and proposed class are represented by Ben F. Pierce
Gore of Pratt & Associates, Sandra Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca
LLP, and Don Barrett and Charles Barrett.

DuPont and the other defendants are represented by Crowell &
Moring LLP, Arnold & Porter LLP, Locke Lord LLP and Vinson &
Elkins LLP.

The case is Los Gatos Mercantile Inc. et al. v. DuPont Co. et al.,
case number 3:13-cv-01180, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Class Lacks Standing to Object to Reorganization
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a putative class representative pursuing a securities
class action against an energy supplier lacks standing to object
to the company's bankruptcy reorganization, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled.

U.S. District Judge J. Garvan Murtha, a Vermont federal judge
sitting by designation, wrote that the lead plaintiff should have
moved for class status in bankruptcy court under Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 9014.

"Because the bankruptcy proceeding was a contested matter, [the
lead plaintiff], to have standing to opt out or object on behalf
of the putative securities class, was required to request class
representative status under Rule 9014," Judge Murtha said.

Dynegy Holdings LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dynegy Inc.,
filed for bankruptcy in November 2011.  Dynegy Inc. followed its
subsidiary into Chapter 11 reorganization.  The bankruptcy
organization released all nondebtor third parties, including the
individual defendants in the securities lawsuit, from liability
unless parties opted out.

Stephen Lucas, lead plaintiff in a proposed securities class
action against Dynegy, activist shareholder Carl Icahn and other
defendants, said he opted out of the release of liability in the
bankruptcy for himself and the putative class.  As a result, the
court found that Lucas was not affected by the bankruptcy court's
authorization of the release of liability, and lacked standing to
object to the reorganization plan on his own behalf or that of the
class.


EXPERIAN SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Meal Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Rubio, Individually, and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Experian Consumer Direct; Consumerinfo.Com,
Inc.; Experian Consumer Services; Experian Services Corp.; and
Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2014-00756516 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Orange Cty., November 17, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid
wages (overtime and meal and rest premiums), restitution,
interest, penalties, attorney's fees and costs for the Defendants'
alleged systematic and uniform violation of the California Labor
Code.

According to its Employee Handbook, Experian is the market leader
for online credit reports, scores and monitoring products
delivered directly to consumers.  The Company is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland, and has operational headquarters in Costa Mesa,
California, and Nottingham, United Kingdom.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE LLP
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  jbeligan@bisnarchase.com


FIDELITY CAPITAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kakavand" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashkan Kakavand and Niloufar Sadeghi, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Fidelity Capital Holdings,
Inc., a.k.a. Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-
01837 (C.D. Cal., November 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
used unfair and unconscionable means in connection with the
collection of alleged debt.

Fidelity Capital Holdings, Inc. is a full service collection
agency based in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mike@kazlg.com
              mona@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: 3rd Circuit to Weigh on Reverse-Payment Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the Third Circuit grappled on Nov. 19 with whether pharmaceutical
companies that settle patent litigation for terms other than cash
payments can still fall under the specter of the U.S. Supreme
Court's ruling in FTC v. Actavis that allowed for antitrust
scrutiny of large reverse-payment settlements.

The threshold issue in In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust
Litigation was whether reverse-payment settlements, often referred
to as pay-for-delay deals, that do not include cash payments can
even be deemed a type of large payment that would implicate the
rule of reason analysis the Actavis court outlined to determine
whether reverse-payment deals are anti-competitive.

As Senior Judge Jane R. Roth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit said on Nov. 19, the court wasn't really looking to
see whether a deal between brand-name manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline
and generic drugmaker Teva Pharmaceuticals over the $2 billion
epilepsy drug Lamictal violated antitrust law.  Rather, at this
stage the court was just examining whether it was the type of deal
that invoked the Actavis rule of reason analysis.

If there is something of value conferred in the settlement beyond
what was at stake in the patent litigation, Judge Roth asked GSK
lawyer Barbara Mather of Pepper Hamilton, isn't that enough
to begin a review?

The deal struck between GSK and Teva included the delay of Teva's
entry into the generic Lamictal market for three years in
consideration for GSK's agreement not to put an authorized generic
version of its own on the market during the six-month exclusivity
period Teva would have under patent law as the first generic to
the market.

Judge Thomas L. Ambro said one of the key concerns in the case is
the definition of "payment."  He said lawyers are told in the
first semester of contracts law to think of payments as some form
of consideration.  He said Black's Law Dictionary defines the term
as money or something else of value. Judge Ambro questioned Teva
attorney Jay P. Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland
& Ellis as to why the GSK-Teva deal wasn't a payment in that it
included something of value.

Lawyers for the defendants argued a finding in favor of the
plaintiffs would require every reverse-payment settlement to
undergo the rule of reason analysis laid out by the Actavis court,
leading to a "terrible result" that will "discourage" settlements.

The defense argued there were aspects of the deal that were
pro-competitive, including GSK's discounting of its brand-name
drug to generic prices during Teva's exclusivity period.  Defense
counsel said that just because a deal could be more pro-
competitive than it is doesn't mean it is anti-competitive or
deserving of antitrust scrutiny.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission, which
argued as an amicus on behalf of the plaintiffs, said GSK's
agreement not to have an authorized generic was equivalent to a
cash payment.

"The generic received something very valuable for which it had no
claim in the patent litigation," Mark S. Hegedus argued for the
FTC.

In throwing out the plaintiffs' complaint, U.S. District Senior
Judge William H. Walls of the District of New Jersey "elevated
form over substance" and created a "road map" for pharmaceutical
companies to avoid Actavis scrutiny.

Judge Roth asked Mr. Hegedus whether there was a better term for
payments that aren't payments. He said he wasn't sure there was
one except for perhaps "consideration."

Bruce E. Gerstein of Garwin Gerstein & Fisher in New York
represented the plaintiffs, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. and King
Drug Co. of Florence.  He said the major flaw with Judge Walls'
decision was that there "is really no basis for him to hold that
there is an immunity [from antitrust review] for settlements in-
kind."

Mr. Gerstein said the no-authorized-generic agreement was the
"currency" in this case.  He said that was worse than just paying
cash to delay the entry of the generic version of the drug,
because in this case, aside from the three-year delay, there was
an additional six months where Teva had generic exclusivity.  The
plaintiffs argued that generics could charge a higher generic
price when they are not competing against the brand-name generic
version under the no-authorized-generic agreement.

Senior Judge Anthony Scirica told Gerstein the Actavis court said
some reverse-payment settlements would be OK under antitrust law.
Gerstein agreed, but said that could only be determined after a
rule of reason analysis.  Judge Gerstein said the plaintiffs just
have to show the possibility of an antitrust violation and said,
in this case, Teva has admitted the deal was a "quid pro quo" in
exchange for dropping the patent litigation.

Mr. Lefkowitz said federal patent law gave GSK the right to grant
an exclusivity license.

Roth asked how the deal could be considered to be within the scope
of the patent at issue.  Mr. Lefkowitz said Teva got what it was
permitted to out of the patent litigation.  He said companies like
Microsoft and Google settle patent infringement litigation all the
time for terms not at stake in the litigation.  He gave as an
example a company accepting as consideration a separate patent
portfolio in exchange for dropping an infringement claim.
Mr. Lefkowitz said that if the Supreme Court wanted all reverse
payments to be subject to antitrust review, it would have said so
in its Actavis decision.

There was a debate as to the importance of the failure of the
plaintiffs to include in their complaint a specific dollar amount
the no-authorized-generic agreement was worth.  The defense said
that was fatal to the complaint, but the plaintiffs said there was
plenty of evidence to show a significant value was passed on to
Teva even if the plaintiffs didn't add up the numbers.  They
argued that Walls didn't base his decision to dismiss on that
basis anyway.


GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Court Narrows Claims in Diaz & Valencia Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tena Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah, Central Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case SAGRARIO DIAZ
and FLORENCIA VALENCIA, PlaintiffS, v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING
INTERNATIONAL, INC. aka ALTIVITY PACKAGING., Case No. 2:13-CV-
00238-TC (D. Utah)

Plaintiffs Sagrario Diaz and Florencia Valencia work at a Graphic
Packaging International, Inc. plant in Salt Lake City, Utah, as
inspectors. Both Plaintiffs were injured while working at GPI and
both filed for workers' compensation benefits. When GPI terminated
both Plaintiffs, they filed a complaint against GPI claiming that
GPI wrongfully discharged them in retaliation for exercising their
rights under Utah's Workers' Compensation Act.

GPI has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that
Plaintiffs cannot make out a prima facie case of retaliatory
discharge. GPI also argues that, even if Plaintiffs can establish
a prima facie case, they cannot show that GPI's reasons for
discharge were a pretext for the alleged retaliation. Defendant
also filed a motion to severe parties and claims.

Plaintiff filed a verified Rule 56(d) Motion to Deny Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment.

Judge Campbell held that:

     1. GPI's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and
denied in part. The motion is granted for Ms. Valencia's claims,
which are dismissed with prejudice. The motion is denied for Ms.
Diaz's claims.

     2. In light of the court's ruling on the motion for summary
judgment, GPI's Motion to Sever Parties and Claims is denied as
moot.

     3. The Plaintiffs' Verified Rule 56(d) Motion to Deny
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is also denied as moot.

A copy of Judge Campbell's order and memorandum decision dated
November 5, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/PsDCf0from
Leagle.com.

Sagrario Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by David S. Head, ARROW
LEGAL SOLUTIONS GROUP PC & Loren M. Lambert, ARROW LEGAL SOLUTIONS
GROUP.

Florencia Valencia, Plaintiff, represented by David S. Head, ARROW
LEGAL SOLUTIONS GROUP PC & Loren M. Lambert, ARROW LEGAL SOLUTIONS
GROUP.

Graphic Packaging, Defendant, represented by Darin L. Mackender,
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP, Kathleen Weron Toth, MANNING CURTIS
BRADSHAW & BEDNAR LLC & Ruth N. Mackey, FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP.

Liberty Mutual Group, Movant, represented by Adam C. Buck, Esq.,
abuck@swlaw.com -- and Matthew L. Lalli, Esq. -- mlalli@swlaw.com
-- at SNELL & WILMER.


GROCERY OUTLET: Sued Over False Claim in Child Resistant Lighters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Grocery Outlet, a chain
store, sells Click N Flame lighters with the false claim that they
have a "child resistant safety button," a class action claims in
the San Diego County Court.


GUCCI AMERICA: Accused of Misclassifying Interns in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Huggins, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Gucci America, Inc., or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by Gucci America, Inc., Case No.
161446/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., November 18, 2014) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of each
and every other person, who worked for the Defendant as interns in
New York State and were misclassified as exempt from minimum wage
requirements.

Gucci America, Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation
headquartered in Fifth Avenue, New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Kara Miller, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad St., 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  kmiller@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


HANGER INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Hanger, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Western
District of Texas, and docketed under 14-cv-01026, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Hanger
securities between August 1, 2013 and August 7, 2014, inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Hanger securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 12, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Hanger, headquartered in Austin, Texas, is a leading provider of
orthotic and prosthetic ("O&P") patient care services and is a
major distributor of O&P devices in the United States.

The Complaint alleges that on August 5, 2014, after the close of
the market, the Company announced that it was delaying the release
of its second quarter fiscal year 2014 earnings.  Thereafter, on
August 7, 2014, the Company reported that earnings per share had
plummeted 23.1% from $0.52 per share to $0.40 per share from the
same quarter in 2013, and that its estimate of earnings per share
for fiscal year 2014 had dropped from $2.01 to $2.11 to $1.60 to
$1.70.  The Company attributed this sharp decline to the severe
pressure placed on the Company due to the increase in Recovery
Audit Contractor ("RAC") audits of its reimbursement claims.  The
Company further announced that the Company's accounts receivable
over 120 days had dramatically increased by $14 million year over-
year due to the impact of increased RAC audits; that the Company's
operating costs had increased $8 million for the year, $4.2
million of which was attributable to an increase in bad debt; and
that the Company's same-stores sales growth had contracted by
1.5%, similarly attributable to a slow-down in authorization and
payments.

On this news, shares of Hanger fell $7.39 per share, or
approximately 25%, to close at $22.48 per share on August 8, 2014
on heavy trading volume.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


HARVEST VALLEY: Faces "Espinosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Espinosa, Osdany Perez and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Harvest Valley, Inc. and Barry Rosa,
Case No. 1:14-cv-24455 (S.D. Fla., November 23, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a meat company in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEALTHCARE INVESTMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Jason Parker, Carolyn A. England, Buffy R. Dulaney,
William D. McGee, Maisie L. Slaughter, and Carrie Hannah Borden,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Healthcare Investment Group, Inc. d/b/a First Response Ambulance,
David Childers, and Jason Tindal, Case No. 5:14-cv-02247 (N.D.
Ala., November 20, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work perform in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a laboratory and diagnosis center
in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dawn Stith Evans, Esq.
      Rex W. Slate, Esq.
      GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
      505 20th Street North, Suite 1000
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 503-4509
      Facsimile: (205) 226-2357
      E-mail: devans@gseattorneys.com
              kjent@wigginschilds.com

         - and -

      Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
      Rocco Calamusa Jr., Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building, 301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
      Telephone: (205) 314-0549
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: kjent@wigginschilds.com
              Rcalamusa@wcqp.com


HOME TOWN BANK: 5th Cir. Revives "Mabary" EFTA Case
---------------------------------------------------
Senior Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reverses the dismissal and remands
the lawsuit filed by Lisa Mabary against Home Town Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff Lisa Mabary sued Home Town Bank, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, alleging that Home Town
violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act or EFTA by failing to
post an external notice of fees on its automatic teller machines.
The EFTA requires any ATM operator who imposes a fee on users to
provide notice that a fee will be charged and the amount. The
notices must be posted in two places, at the ATM machine and on
the screen of the ATM or on a paper printout before the
transaction is completed. Plaintiff filed a motion for
certification and sought to represent a class of persons to be
defined as follows: All persons who: (1) were charged a "terminal
fee" at ATMs operated by Defendant when such persons made an
electronic fund transfer and/or balance inquiry where, (2) no
notice indicating that such fee was to be charged was posted on or
at the outside of the ATM machine.

While the case is pending before the lower court, Congress
unanimously enacted H.R. 4367, an amendment to EFTA. The EFTA
amendment repealed the provision on posted notice requirement,
leaving only the screen notice requirement.

The district court denied Mabary's motion for class certification
and dismissed her suit with prejudice. Having determined that
Mabary's claim did not survive the passage of H.R. 4367, the
district court also concluded that unnamed class members could not
become parties to the litigation on the basis of a class claim
that no longer existed. Plaintiff's appealed.

The appellate court vacated the denial of class certification.

The appellate case is LISA MABARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOME
TOWN BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee., No. 13-20211 (5th Cir.).  A
copy of Judge Higginbotham's decision dated November 5, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/EHIbxDfrom Leagle.com.

The Fifth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judged E. Grady Jolly,
Leslie H. Southwick and Senior Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham


HOUSE OF DELAROSA: Faces "Darvalics" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Darvalics v. House of Delarosa LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and Judith Greenberg, individually, Case No.
0:14-cv-62633 (S.D. Fla., November 18, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours within a work week.

House of Delarosa LLC provides interior and exterior painting
procedures to commercial and residential purpose.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 727-8570
      Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


ICARE CREDIT: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Plumcreek Animal Clinic, a Texas corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
iCare Credit Solutions, LLC, d/b/a iCare Financial, a Georgia
limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-03702 (N.D. Ga.,
November 18, 2014), seeks to recover the Defendant's practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles.

iCare Credit Solutions, LLC markets and sells credit and financial
assistance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julia A. Merritt, Esq.
      JULIA A. MERRITT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
      450 Tensas Trace
      Milton, GA 30004
      Telephone: (404) 840-8261
      Facsimile: (678) 820-5990
      E-mail: julia@juliamerrittlaw.com

         - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      201 South Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


INTERLINE BRANDS: Settles TCPA Class Action for $40 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that Interline Brands
Inc. will pay $40 million to a class lead by Craftwood Lumber Co.
to settle a suit alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by faxing at least 1,500 advertisements, the
parties said on Nov. 14, with plaintiffs' attorneys seeking no
more than $12 million.

According to a notice of lodging of the proposed settlement
agreement, the parties said they had reached a deal and are
preparing for its possible approval to be presented to the court
on Dec. 8.  An earlier purported settlement in the junk fax case
was struck down by the court in September.

"Interline Brands has reached a settlement to resolve a lawsuit
against the company related to the sending of fax advertisements,"
Chairman and CEO Michael Grebe said in a Nov. 17 statement.  "The
settlement, which is still subject to court approval, removes all
present and future liability for the company related to the
lawsuit.  As a leading national distributor with approximately
$1.7 billion of annual revenue, Interline Brands is well-
positioned to deliver continued growth, improved profitability and
stable cash flow generation."

The deal came after U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve ruled in
late September that there was not sufficient evidence that the
plaintiffs, led by Craftwood, and Interline had agreed on a
settlement to end the TCPA litigation because the term sheet from
their mediation did not have all of the required information for a
legitimate settlement.

"The term sheet fails to include several terms that are material
to a class action settlement," the order said.  "The most glaring
omission is the amount per claim -- what Interline would pay each
fax recipient or for each fax transmission."

According to the order, Interline cannot argue that it is not
required to disclose how much it would pay each plaintiff or that
there need only be a standard for determining that information and
not an actual number.

"The provisions upon which Interline relies are not true
parameters because they are not specific enough to allow a court
to reasonably imply the missing claim amount," the order said.
"The court cannot simply 'derive [it] mathematically,' as
Interline submits."

In October 2013, the plaintiffs and Interline attempted to resolve
the case through mediation but failed.  The next month, Interline
tried to tell the court the settlement had been successful and
attempted to show the court the term sheet.  However, Craftwood
objected and said showing the sheet would violate a
confidentiality agreement.

Analyzing declarations from the mediation, the court found that
the mediator had made a proposal to Interline under which the
parties would resolve the case with $60 million going toward the
class award on a "claims-made" basis, in addition to $8 million in
attorneys' fees.

Interline agreed but wanted to add its own terms that would
protect it from actually paying $60 million, according to court
documents.  Craftwood also made some changes to the term sheet and
ultimately signed it.

"The parties never directly discussed the term sheet that day,"
the order said.  "After they executed it, the 'teams' reconvened
to shake hands and left shortly thereafter.  The parties did not
discuss settlement any further before leaving."

Interline then sent a settlement proposal to Craftwood, which
offered a different proposal in response that would allow for
$72.53 for each fax transmission, about a tenth of the amount
Craftwood had proposed.  Craftwood rejected the proposal, and the
parties were unable to agree on a settlement.

Nevertheless, at the November status hearing, Interline "informed
the court that the parties had a final settlement as embodied in
the term sheet," the order said.

But the court said that Interline cannot claim there was a
settlement when the necessary terms of a settlement were not met,
according to the order.

Craftwood is represented by Charles Darryl Cordero --
cdc@paynefears.com  of Payne & Fears LLP, Charles Robert Watkins
-- charlesw@gseattorneys.com -- of Guin Stokes & Evans LLC and
Scott Zygmunt Zimmermann -- szimmermann@wsgr.com -- of the Law
Offices Of Scott Zimmermann.

Interline is represented by Paul D. Bond --
daniel.bond@kirkland.com -- and Andrew B. Clubok --
andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Isaac J.
Colunga -- isaac.colunga@icemiller.com -- Thomas J Hayes --
thomas.hayes@icemiller.com -- and Bart T. Murphy --
bart.murphy@icemiller.com -- of Ice Miller LLP.

The case is Craftwood Lumber Co. v. Interline Brands Inc., case
number 1:11-cv-04462, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


INTERSTATE HOTELS: Faces Wage Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney and Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, report that
a California man hit hotel management company Interstate Hotels &
Resorts Inc., which operates Hilton, Sheraton, Crowne Plaza,
Marriott and Westin-branded hotels in the state, with a putative
class action on Nov. 14 alleging a slew of state labor law
violations, including failure to pay overtime wages, provide meal
breaks and pay minimum wage.

Raymond Unutoa, a security guard at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel &
Suites in Los Angeles, which is managed by Interstate and fellow
defendant Today's IV Inc., alleges the company had him work shifts
longer than five hours, including working 12-hour shifts during
large events, without providing a 30-minute meal break, and failed
to pay him one hour of wages at his regular rate in compensation
for each missed meal period, violating state labor law.

Mr. Unutoa brings the suit as an "aggrieved employee" under
California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, which
allows a private citizen to pursue civil penalties on behalf of
the state's Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  Seventy-five
percent of the recovery from a PAGA action goes to the agency, and
the remainder to the aggrieved employees.

Interstate failed to pay and illegally calculated overtime wages
for its non-exempt employees, maintained illegal meal and rest
period policies, failed to pay all wages due to discharged or
quitting employees, and failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, in violation of the California Labor Code, as well as
the California Business and Professions Code prohibiting unfair
business practices and Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders,
according to the complaint.

The suit claims Interstate failed to pay minimum wage by allowing
or requiring employees to work off the clock and while on break,
among other practices, according to the complaint.  The company
also didn't pay all wages due to former employees within 72 hours
of quitting or immediately if they were fired, the complaint
states.

Interstate also failed to indemnify employees for costs related to
their work duties, including expenses for uniforms, cellphone
usage, and gas and mileage when using their own vehicles on
company business, according to the complaint.

Mr. Unutoa seeks to represent a class of all current and former
non-exempt employees who worked for the defendants in California
within the past four years.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and liquidated damages, disgorged
profits from Interstate's alleged unfair business practices,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and certification of the suit
as a class action.

In April, Hilton Worldwide Inc. was hit with a similar putative
class action in California, alleging the company failed to pay
overtime premiums or provide rest and meal periods, and allowed or
required employees to work off the clock.

The plaintiff is represented by Matthew J. Matern of Matern Law
Group.

The case is Unutoa v. Interstate Hotels & Resorts Inc. et al.,
case number BC563943, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


ISTANBUL TURKISH: "Balde" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thierno Mohamed Balde, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated v. Istanbul Turkish Grill, Inc., and Masis
Prigian and Ahmet Guldeste, each in their individual and
professional capacities, Case No. 3:14-cv-01393 (N.D.N.Y.,
November 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Turkish restaurant located in
Johnson City, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


J&R RAYYAN: Faces "Tobar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Tobar, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. J&R Rayyan Enterprise, Inc. dba Upper Crust Bagels,
and Michael H. Rayyan. Case No. 1:14-cv-09290 (N.D. Ill., November
19, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JAMBA JUICE: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Period, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Arteaga and Jessica Glover, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and the California general public v.
Jamba Juice Company, a California corporation; and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. BC564304 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., November 19, 2014) accuses the Defendants of, among other
things, failure to provide the Plaintiffs with the required meal
and rest period, or pay them an additional hour of premium wages
for each meal period and rest period not provided.

Jamba Juice Company is a California corporation that routinely
conducts business in the County of Los Angeles.  The Plaintiffs
are ignorant of the true names or capacity of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Glick, Esq.
          Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 387-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 387-7872
          E-mail: sglick@glicklegal.com
                  ajenkins@glicklegal.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: More Evidence on Mesh Side Effects Emerges
-------------------------------------------------------------
PM's Stephanie Smail reports that more evidence has emerged about
the potentially devastating side effects from products used to
support weak pelvic floor muscles.

Last year, PM reported that hundreds of women had joined a class
action against the medical giant Johnson and Johnson after they
suffered painful complications from tape or mesh implants.

Now, Shine Lawyers are pursuing a class action against another
manufacturer, American Medical Systems.

Kirsty Ann Datar had issues with incontinence after the birth of
her fourth child.

In 2005, a doctor recommended she have a surgical sling -- or
transvaginal mesh -- implanted in her pelvis.

She started experiencing chronic pain about 12 months later.

After years of pain, a visit to a gynaecologist revealed the
transvaginal mesh had eroded through the wall of her vagina.  She
says she had to fly to the United States to get it removed.

Shine Lawyers is investigating six pelvic mesh or tape products
made by American Medical Systems, including Mrs. Datar's surgical
sling.

Rebecca Jancauskas is a partner with the firm.

Ms. Jancauskus said "These products are made of polypropylene.
They're implanted inside the pelvis, and these products have not
performed as they should have performed, and they've caused an
array of complications that have had devastating effects on
women's lives."  She says Shine Lawyers is pursuing a class action
on behalf of women who have received American Medical Systems
products and suffered painful side effects.

Ms. Jancauskus said "We've received inquiry from around 120 women
that we have confirmed have received the implants that we're
currently investigating.  We've received an additional amount of
inquiry from probably 400 women, and we're in the process of
investigating what implants they have and discerning whether they
have the implants that are the subject of this claim."

In 2011, serious complications prompted the United States Food and
Drug Administration to issue warnings about pelvic mesh.

But Mrs. Datar says she wasn't warned about the potential side-
effects.   She says she hopes the class action will help other
women who are suffering.

The American Medical Systems case isn't the first of its kind.
Last year, hundreds of women joined a class action against Johnson
and Johnson over its pelvic mesh and tape implants.

At the time the medical giant had pulled its mesh products off the
market, but some tape products were still available.

Ms. Jancauskus says the six American Medical Systems products her
firm is investigating are still available in Australia.

Ms. Jancauskus said "There's great concern expressed by the women
who contact us.  They question why these products were approved
and why variants of them continue to be used and sold.  But that's
not the subject of this action; we're focused here on the harm
that's been suffered by women historically."

PM contacted American Medical Systems for comment about its
products and information about how many women suffer side effects,
with no response.

Mrs. Datar is calling for all transvaginal mesh products to be
suspended in Australia until it's clear how many women suffer side
effects.

The products have already been banned in Scotland after patients
complained of painful complications.

Mrs. Datar says it's time to review the use of the products in
Australia too.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Tosses Baby Powder Economic Loss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that a Missouri judge has
dismissed a class action lawsuit seeking economic damages related
to the purchase of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder, which the
plaintiffs claimed they would not have purchased had they been
aware of a risk of ovarian cancer associated with the product.

Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri granted a defense motion to dismiss the suit
Nov. 13, ruling that it failed to allege that the plaintiffs
suffered any ascertainable loss as a result of buying the product.


LEVEL ONE MARKETING: Deceives Class With Free Products, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Level One Marketing Group
deceptively lures customers with "free" weight-loss products and
then charges them monthly for it, a class action claims in Miami-
Dade County Court.


MAXIMUS INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Class Suit by Fired Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fired workers can proceed with a class action claiming a call
center hired them "under the guise of long-term employment,"
knowing it would be only short term, reports Philip A. Janquart at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling entered on
November 19, 2014.

Lead plaintiff Regis Harvey et al. sued Maximus Inc., which
operates call centers around the world.

In 2013, General Dynamics Information Technology awarded Maximum a
$100 million contract to operate U.S. call centers as public
points of contact for health insurance exchanges under the
Affordable Care Act.

That same year, Maximus began hiring "limited service" employees
and "regular capacity" employees to work as call center
representatives.  More than 1,800 were employed to work at Boise's
call center, alone.

Harvey and two other named plaintiffs say they were hired as
regular capacity, at-will employees.  They filed the class action
after Maximus fired them in January this year.  They say they were
fired as part of a reduction in force, but were misled about the
duration of the jobs from the beginning.

Maximus began advertising for customer reps at its Boise center in
June 2013 through job fairs held in conjunction with the Idaho
Department of Labor, according to the complaint.

"Maximus told plaintiffs during their initial interviews for
employment . . . that 'regular capacity' employees would remain
employed after the first open enrollment period to service future
enrollment periods through duration of the . . . contract,"
according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs claim they quit other jobs or passed up on other
jobs to work for Maximus, which offered them jobs "under the guise
of long-term employment" that would serve as "career"
opportunities.

Maximus filed a motion to dismiss claims of fraudulent and
negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel, claiming the
plaintiffs failed to state a claim or plead fraud with
particularity.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill on November 19 dismissed the
negligent misrepresentation claim, but let the fraudulent
misrepresentation and promissory estoppel claims stand.

"Plaintiffs have presented a plausible argument they reasonably
relied on Maximus' representation that they would be 'regular
capacity' employees with an indefinite period of employment,"
Winmill wrote.  "Plaintiffs have offered documents, which suggest
that Maximus knew at the time employment was offered that it was
for a limited period of time, even if the duration was not exactly
defined.  Plaintiffs have also shown substantial harm, evidenced
by their termination from Maximus and from leaving or forgoing
other secure employment."

The case is Regis Harvey, et al. v. Maximus Inc., Case No.
1:14cv00161BLW, in the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho.


MAZDA MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Engine Valve Defect Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe and Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, report that
Mazda Motor of America Inc. asked a New Jersey federal court on
Nov. 17 to gut a proposed class action accusing it of concealing
an engine valve system defect in certain Mazda vehicles, saying
the majority of the suit's claims have not been adequately pled
and must be thrown out.

Lead plaintiff James Stevenson satisfied pleading requirements in
order to bring individual warranty claims -- because the automaker
allegedly wouldn't fix his car under a warranty -- but it says all
other claims, including class claims, are based on murky
allegations that offer no details or evidence the corporation knew
about the defect when it sold him the car.

"Simply put, this court should dismiss all of plaintiff's claims,
except for his breach of express warranty and [Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act] claim to the extent they relate to whether [Mazda]
properly denied . . . extended warranty coverage," the company
said.

The putative class action, filed in August, leveled five warranty
and consumer fraud claims against Mazda after it revealed some of
its vehicles' engines have faulty continuous variable valve-timing
assemblies, causing the engine's timing chain to loosen or detach,
which can lead to partial or total engine failure.

Mr. Stevenson alleges that when he bought his 2008 Mazda CX7 from
a New Jersey dealership in 2009, a Mazda representative concealed
facts about the defect.  Mr. Stevenson says that although the
defect is covered under Mazda's warranty, the automaker refuses to
repair it.

The company did not know of the defect at the time the car was
sold to Stevenson and he has not proved otherwise, Mazda said.

Five consumer complaints filed with the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration offered as evidence of its
knowledge prove nothing because they merely prompted an
investigation into the potential defects, the company said.

Additionally, a technical service bulletin the company issued in
2007 did not apply to Mr. Stevenson's vehicle and the first time
such a bulletin showed potential defects in his specific car was
published in 2012, two and a half years after he bought the car.

Also, all warranty claims should be dismissed because
Mr. Stevenson's car problems first arose 3,500 miles after its
warranty's mileage limit was reached, Mazda said, refuting
Mr. Stevenson's contention that in November 2013 when the vehicle
experienced an engine valve-related failure, Mazda still owed him
coverage under the warranty.

Mr. Stevenson's suit was filed less than two months after a
similar putative class action over the alleged defect was
dismissed in California.  On July 3, a judge tossed the suit
without prejudice but gave the lead plaintiff time to file an
amended complaint, saying the plaintiff hadn't specified when she
purchased the vehicle for warranty purposes but that there is a
basis for declaratory relief.

Mazda's motion on Nov. 17 asked the court to dismiss the suit's
New Jersey consumer fraud law claims and breach of implied
warranty and fraudulent concealment claims.  It also argued that
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and express warranty claims should
be dismissed to the extent they relate to an alleged promise
Mazda's vehicles would be defect-free.

Mazda does not comment on pending litigation.

The lead plaintiff is represented by Mitchell Breit --
mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons Hanly Conroy, by T.
Christopher Tuck -- ctuck@rpwb.com -- of Richardson Patrick
Westbrook & Brickman LLC and by Terry W. West and Bradley C. West
of The West Law Firm.

Mazda is represented by Michael L. Mallow -- mmallow@loeb.com --
of Loeb & Loeb LLP.

The suit is Stevenson v. Mazda Motor of America Inc., case number
3:14-cv-05250, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Smith, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01792 (W.D.
Wash., November 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is in the business of consumer
debt buying and recovery or collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Cunanan, Esq.
      DC LAW GROUP NW LLC
      101 Warren Ave N
      Seattle, WA 98109
      Telephone: (206) 494-0400
      Facsimile: (855) 494-0400
      Email: matthew@dclglawyers.com

        - and -

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Midland Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and American Infosource, L.P., a Texas limited
partnership, Case No. 1:14-cv-09277 (N.D. Ill., November 19,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendants operate a nationwide debt collection business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Telephone: (708) 974-2900
      Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
      E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
              mephilipps@aol.com
              angiekrobertson@aol.com


NAT'L AUSTRALIA: All Customers Can Join Class Action Over Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that a multi-million dollar class action
against National Australia Bank over unfair fees will be open to
the lender's entire customer base following a Federal Court order.

The Federal Court on Nov. 18 approved orders sought by NAB and law
firm Maurice Blackburn that are intended to help facilitate a
settlement of the matter.

In a statement, Maurice Blackburn said NAB customers who haven't
already joined the class action could now sign on to take part
between November 25 and January 27.

NAB said it was looking to do the right thing by customers by
taking the step towards settling the case.

The case could see NAB pay out an estimated $40 million to around
30,000 customers.

Maurice Blackburn senior associate Paul Gillett encouraged other
banks to follow NAB's lead.

"We welcome NAB's common-sense approach in exploring the
resolution of the bank fees class action against it, and we
encourage other banks to follow suit," he said.

The NAB case is one of a string of actions being brought by
Maurice Blackburn against Australian banks, including the
Commonwealth, ANZ and Westpac, over excessive fees.

Earlier this year, the Federal Court ruled ANZ had illegally
imposed penalties for late payments on credit cards.

Those charges -- made when a customer missed a minimum credit bill
payment -- were either $20 or $35, representing a mark-up of up to
7,000 per cent on actual costs of as low as 50 cents.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued for Limiting Athletes Monetary Aid
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenyata Johnson, Barry Brunetti, and Dalenta Jameral "D.J."
Stephens v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-05126 (N.D. Cal., November 19, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants engaged in a contract, combination, or conspiracy to
unreasonably restrain trade by limiting the monetary amount of
grants-in-aid given to the college athletes.

National Collegiate Athletic Association describes itself as an
unincorporated not-for-profit educational organization.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

         - and -

      Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      1101 Market St., Suite 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 864-2800
      E-Mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: $1-Bil. Deal Called a Failure by Opponents
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Football League's offer to former players suffering
from concussion-borne degenerative diseases fails to address the
most prevalent illnesses, players who defected from the deal told
a federal judge on November 19, 2014, reports Andrew Thompson at
Courthouse News Service.

If U.S. District Judge Anita Brody approves it, the NFL's $1
billion settlement would provide up to $5 million per player,
depending on a variety of factors.

Christopher Seeger, an attorney for players who support the
league's offer, urged the judge to grant final approval at a
November 19 morning hearing.

"At the end of the day, this was a science-driven case," Seeger
said.

The settlement, which Brody approved preliminarily in July,
provides awards for four conditions: amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, Parkison's, Alzheimer's, and dementia.  The latter
category is subdivided by severity, dementia 1.5 and dementia 2.

Steve Molo represnts opponents of the agreement, who say the
convoluted deal obscures how little money players will actually
receive.

For this group, the settlement lacked basic science, and excludes
symptoms of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, a
devastating form of dementia that is only possible to diagnose in
an autopsy.

The settlement offers more money for younger players suffering
from the listed conditions, decreasing the award substantially as
they age, the objectors claim.

A 25-year-old with ALS would receive $5 million, but that amount
dwindles to the tens of thousands of dollars by the time the
player reaches his 70s.

Some players have argued that its earliest symptoms, such as
suicidality and aggression, are seen in the earlier stages, long
before a postmortem reveals the presence of telltale proteins in
the brain.

The league would still compensate those who died from CTE before
July 7, 2014.

The NFL and the settlement proponents say that mood-based symptoms
are too nonspecific to attribute to football.  Seeger said that of
the effects of CTE, "the most serious and common ones are
compensated."

This is not enough, former NFL player Eugene Moore told Judge
Brody.

"Class counsel has, with all due respect, failed the players and
their families," Moore said during the hearing.  "By allowing the
elimination of CTE and overly broad releases, they fail.  It was
almost as if there was some sort of alternative universe in which
all the figures were constructed."

Moore and the lawyers complained that the settlement figures for
players, in addition to age, relied on the number of games played
during season, ignoring the injuries occurring during training.

"My educated guess is that from the beginning of training camp
through pre-season, the amount of impact you take through those
six to eight weeks is at least 50 percent of the total," Moore
said.

The NFL's lead counsel, Brad Karp, said the offer has "been
scrutinized more closely and publicly than any class settlement in
history."

"The league could have fought these claims, successfully fought
these claims, in my view," said Karp, but added that the NFL
ultimately "decided to do the right thing."

While the current proposed settlement is uncapped, Judge Brody
rejected an earlier offer settlement that would have the NFL shell
out $760 million over the course of 20 years.


NATURE'S WAY: C.D. Cal. Judge Rules on Discovery Motion
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California granted in part and denied in
part plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery in the case LAWRENCE
NADLER, et al., v. NATURE'S WAY PRODUCTS, LLC et al., No. EDCV 13-
100-TJH-KKX (C.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Nature's Way
Products, LLC and subsequently filed a motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint or SAC
alleging these legal claims: (1) violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (2) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law; (3) violation of California's False Advertising
Law; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach of implied
warranty of merchantability; and (6) violation of the federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC or, in the alternative, to
strike portions of the SAC. The District Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss
and motion to strike.

On April 11, 2014, Defendants filed an Answer to the SAC.  On
September 26, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Memorandum to
their Motion for Class Certification, to address "evidentiary
issues raised" by Comcast v. Behrend, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct.
1426, 185 L. Ed. 2d 515 (2013).  October 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed
the Motions to Compel -- one for Defendant Nature's Way, and one
for Defendant Schwabe.

On October 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to
extend the factual discovery cutoff date from October 8, 2014, to
December 26, 2014.  Defendants opposed that ex parte application.
On October 13, 2014, Defendants filed a Joint Supplemental
Memorandum in Opposition to the instant Motions to Compel.
On October 16, 2014, the District Court granted Plaintiffs' ex
parte application, extending the discovery cutoff date to the
later of December 31, 2014, or 30 days after this Court rules on
the Motions to Compel.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Kato's order dated November 5, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/vnKv5Afrom Leagle.com.

Lawrence Nadler and Mikie Bell, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Alexis M Wood, Esq. --
alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Beatrice Skye Resendes, Esq. --
skye@consumersadvocates.com -- and Ronald A Marron -
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- at Law Offices of Ronald A Marron
APLC

Natures Way Products LLC, Defendant, represented by Alexis Miller
Buese, Esq. -- alexis.buese@sidley.com -- Amy P Lally, Esq. --
alally@sidley.com -- Emily Zackrison Culbertson, Esq. --
eculbertson@sidley.com -- Leah E Abeles, Esq. --
lsolomon@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP.


NAZMA LLC: "Godinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Godinez, on behalf of himself and a class of those
similarly situated v. Asifali Karowalia, Nazma, LLC, Afia & Raaia
Business LLC, Nabi & Raaia, LLC, AK & ZM Investments, Inc, Afia &
Wahhab, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01039 (W.D. Tex., November 18,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a food service establishment and a
grocery store in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Jonathan Moss, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
      6609 Blanco Rd., Ste 260
      San Antonio, TX 78216
      Telephone: (210) 308-6222
      Facsimile: (210) 308-6223
      E-mail: philip@equaljusticecenter.org

         - and -

      Aaron Johnson, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
      510 S. Congress Ave., Ste. 206
      Austin, Texas 78704
      Telephone: (512) 474-0007, ext. 104
      Facsimile: (512) 474-0008
      E-mail: ajohnson@equaljusticecenter.org


NEW HORIZONS: Sued in Florida Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Williamson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc., a
Florida corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-14468 (S.D. Fla., November
21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc. owns and operates many
residential and outpatient mental health and substance abuse
facilities in Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie and Indian River
Counties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Charles Copeland, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND P.A.
      824 W Indiantown Rd
      Jupiter, FL 33458
      Telephone: (561) 691-9048
      Facsimile: (866) 259-0719
      E-mail: ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com


NORCOLD INC: Plaintiffs Lawyer Seeks More Discovery
---------------------------------------------------
Forbes' Daniel Fisher reports that the lawyer embroiled in
litigation over exploding recreational-vehicle refrigerators -- a
dispute that pits him against both the manufacturer, Norcold, and
plaintiff lawyers who want to complete a $33 million class-action
settlement -- has asked the court for permission to seek more
financial information from the company's owner.

Lawyer Terrence Beard filed a request on Nov. 14 in advance of a
December hearing to determine the fate of the class-action
settlement, which would end all consumer-fraud and warranty claims
against Norcold and its closely held parent, Dyson-Kissner-Moran
Corporation (DKM).  Mr. Beard is seeking the information after a
DKM spokesman told me recently that there was no risk of
bankruptcy for the company, undercutting the claim that DKM can't
afford to pay more to settle claims covering more than 500,000
allegedly defective refrigerators.

The company sought to put distance between itself and the FORBES
article in a letter to Mr. Beard, saying spokesman Larry Weis "is
not an employee of defendants and they do not share confidential
details of their financial condition with him."

Both plaintiff lawyers and DKM have suggested in court that the
firm controlled by the wealthy Dyson family of New York can't
afford to pay more than $33 million, which works out to about $57
per class member.  If the company has more money, either from
insurance or internal assets, lawyers could seek it in settlement
negotiations.  The current agreement was hammered out after six
mediation sessions that included the exchange of some financial
information.

Mr. Beard, in his request for more discovery, says he estimates
Norcold has sold more than 1.5 million refrigerators since the
mid-1990s for revenue of $3 billion and a net profit of $1.5
billion.  He bases his estimate upon sales figures the company has
filed with the court, plus an estimated manufacturing cost of $870
versus average sale price of $2,000 per refrigerator.

Norcold says Mr. Beard is unqualified to perform such financial
calculations and his estimates are "grossly inaccurate" without
providing any further information.  The company supplied the sales
data and manufacturing cost, however, so the only areas for error
might include dealer markups and overhead costs not included in
the manufacturing cost estimate.

Mr. Beard also wants more information about DKM's insurance
coverage and transactions with the controlling Dyson family.  The
company's chief financial officer, Mark Chamberlain, said in a
deposition DKM hired Capstone Advisory Group in 2009 to help
arrange several refinancings that left "essentially all assets
worth securing" pledged to lenders.

The company also told lawyers its insurers have refused to cover
claims in the class action.  Mr. Beard said he is skeptical, since
DKM said it had $125 million in coverage in an individual lawsuit
he brought, and a CNA unit both represented DKM and paid the
$500,000 settlement in that case.  While DKM said it received
denial letters from the insurers refusing coverage for the claims
in the class action, Mr. Beard said, "the idea that DKM would
simply accept a denial letter from their insurance carrier, and
never challenge the denial thereafter, was unbelievable."

The proposed class action settlement would end mass warranty
claims but not individual lawsuits over fire damage and injuries
allegedly caused by Norcold refrigerators.  So perhaps the company
is telling the truth when it says it has enough money to pay the
settlement and no insurance for it, leaving unspoken the
assumption that it is reserving its remaining cash and insurance
coverage for settling individual claims.  It has paid out more
than $60 million on those claims since 2001, according to a claims
register the company provided the court.


OAKLAND RAIDERS: Raiderette Opts Out of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Fernandez, writing for Oakland Raiders, reports that a
Raiderette who sued the Oakland Raiders over the wages she was
paid is rejecting a settlement in another cheerleader's lawsuit,
saying it doesn't do enough to fix what she calls the misogynistic
culture of the NFL.

Caitlin Y. had danced in the front of the Raiderettes'
cheerleading line for three years.  Now, ever since she sued the
Raiders and the NFL in June, she says she has been relegated to
the second row.

"I'm not in the front anymore," the 27-year-old ballet dancer told
NBC Bay Area in an exclusive interview.  "I've been put in the
back.  But that's OK.  It's all about being part of the team."

Caitlin, who has accused the team and the league of wage theft and
"deplorable" working conditions, formally opted out of a $1.25
million class-action settlement Monday in a fellow cheerleader's
suit, saying it doesn't go far enough.

"It doesn't include the entire NFL," Caitlin, who works as the PR
director for a family-run Mountain View skin care company,
explained.  "It's a league-wide issue that affects cheerleaders on
all teams, not just ours.  By accepting this, the NFL gets off the
hook."

Caitlin -- who like many other NFL cheerleaders prefers not to use
her last name, for fear of stalking -- wants to push harder for
the Raiders and the NFL to pay more, and pay it evenly among
cheerleaders across the league.

Her decision to opt out means she will not take the roughly
$20,000 owed to her as part of the class action settlement
tentatively reached in September, her lawyer Drexel Bradshaw
explained.  In the formal "objection" filed in Alameda County
Superior Court, her attorneys argue that the Raiderettes as a
whole are "owed millions and millions."

Specifically, the legal filing says the class action underpays the
Raiderettes somewhere between $1.5 million and $2.7 million -- or
at least $17,000 per Raiderette per year.  The lawyers plan to
argue this in court on Feb. 26 during a class action hearing.

"This is far, far from over," he said.

The Raiders have repeatedly declined comment, as has the NFL,
whose spokesman and attorneys have not returned calls and emails.
The NFL has argued in court, however, that the labor dispute was
solely between the cheerleaders and the Raiders, and that the
league does not belong in the suit.

Caitlin will not pinpoint a dollar amount that she thinks she
should be paid.  But she says the class action amount -- roughly
$5,000 a year for each year worked for each of the 90 cheerleaders
-- is not enough and doesn't address the root of the problem.

But she and her lawyer both say that the Raiderettes should be
paid more than minimum wage, which was $9 in Oakland at the time.

"These women should be paid more than the Raiders' mascot, who
makes $45,000 a season, plus a pension," Mr. Bradshaw said.  "They
are obviously athletes and classical dancers, and to pay them $9
an hour is laughable.  The guy pouring beer at the concession
stands makes more than that."

Mr. Bradshaw said Caitlin is rejecting the payout because the
settlement doesn't address the "misogynous" nature of the NFL,
which has come under fire for how it responds to domestic violence
accusations against players.

The settlement, if approved by the court, would resolve a similar
wage suit brought by another Raiderette, Lacy T., in January and
would include 90 other cheerleaders.  That suit, the first of its
kind in the country, was the force behind a new contract that
ensures the Raiderettes make $9 an hour for all hours they work --
not just for games.

Even as Caitlin opts out of the class-action settlement in that
suit, she and her co-plaintiff -- Jenny C., a former Raiderette
who now lives in Las Vegas -- plan to keep pursuing their joint
suit against the NFL.  Their suit accuses the league of violating
antitrust laws by "acting in concert with teams to depress the
wages of all NFL cheerleaders."

Lacy's lawyer, Sharon Vinick of Oakland, isn't quite sure why
Caitlin wouldn't buy in to the class action.  "We obviously
believe it's an outstanding settlement," she said.  Ms. Vinick
added while she agrees that the Raiderettes are still "woefully
underpaid," she does not think the Raiders have a legal mandate to
pay them more, and that there is no legal basis for suing the NFL,
because "the women don't work for the NFL."

But a labor expert sees it differently.

"It's understandable that some cheerleaders might find the
settlement inadequate," said San Francisco State University
Professor and Director of Labor and Employment Students John
Logan.  "The settlement . . . puts the cheerleaders, who have a
high-profile job in a multi-billion dollar industry, on the same
level of poverty-wages as WalMart or McDonald's workers.  WalMart
and McDonald's workers deserve more, and it's not hard to
understand why some NFL cheerleaders believe they deserve more."

While she does want more.  Caitlin will not discuss the details of
how she's being treated on the team as she pursues her legal
claims.  She would not disparage the Raiders or her fellow
cheerleaders.  She insisted she doesn't mind that she doesn't
dance in the front anymore; she just wants to dance and get paid
fairly for it.

"I know that I'm lucky to have this job," she said.  "I love this
job.  I love being a cheerleader, and I love the Raiders.  But
that doesn't mean I can't be treated with respect or paid
adequately for the skills that I've trained for my whole life and
I use on game day."


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces Probe Over Illegal Foreclosure Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Arnold, writing for NPR, reports that Ocwen Financial Corp.
is facing an investigation by regulators and a new lawsuit over
its treatment of homeowners facing foreclosures.  The class-action
suit alleges that Ocwen has been charging marked-up, illegal fees
and unfairly pushing homeowners into foreclosure.

Ocwen, one of the nation's largest mortgage servicers, collects
mortgage payments from American homeowners.

There's some irony in Ocwen's case because for years the company
claimed to be better than the country's biggest banks at avoiding
foreclosures. Ocwen even trademarked the slogan "Helping
homeowners is what we do!"

As a "specialty servicer," the company's executives said it had
computer systems and policies that were specially designed for
working with homeowners who had fallen on hard times and were
having trouble paying.  Since the housing crash, Ocwen's chairman,
William Erbey, has become a billionaire as the company has grown.

But now regulators are investigating Ocwen -- not for helping
homeowners, but for hurting them.

New York state's top financial regulator, Benjamin Lawsky,
recently expanded an investigation into the company.  One issue:
thousands of back-dated letters that made it appear that
homeowners had missed their window to get help avoiding
foreclosure.

Ocwen has pledged to work with regulators and fix the back-dated
letter problem. But the investigation has sent Ocwen's stock price
swooning -- down more than 60 percent year to date.  And now
there's this new lawsuit on behalf of homeowners.

The lawsuit alleges that Ocwen has been charging marked-up and
illegal fees as well as engaging in deceptive business practices.

Gary Klein is one of the lead attorneys representing the
homeowners in the case, which has been filed in a federal court in
Florida and is seeking class-action status.

Mr. Klein says there's a pattern.  It usually starts with a small,
fixable problem -- a mix-up with an escrow account, or a homeowner
misses a few payments.

"People have a relatively small and manageable default, something
that they could correct, but because Ocwen adds charges in such
large amounts, the problem becomes almost unsolvable," Mr. Klein
says.

The lawsuit alleges that some of those fees Ocwen is charging are
illegal.  It says Ocwen charged Nugent and Hopkins late fees that
it wasn't permitted to charge under the terms of the mortgage.
The suit says Ocwen also forced upon the couple a second insurance
policy through one of its own affiliates. And it alleges that the
company has been improperly steering profits to itself through
this affiliate company.

Benjamin Lawsky, the top regulator at the New York State
Department of Financial Services, recently released documents
about his department's investigation.

Those documents show that regulators are looking into thousands of
loan-modification letters that likely caused homeowners
"significant harm" because Ocwen back-dated them.  Back-dating the
letters made it look like the homeowners had missed their chance
to try to avoid a foreclosure.

On an investor conference call, Erbey, Ocwen's chairman, pledged
to work with regulators.  "One of our goals is to keep people in
their homes whenever possible," he said.  "Ocwen is creating a
review and remediation process for borrowers potentially impacted
by the letter-dating mistake the company has made."

As far as the homeowner lawsuit, Ocwen offered the following
statement: "Ocwen is currently reviewing the lawsuit and will
vigorously defend itself against the claims asserted.  Because the
litigation remains pending, Ocwen declines to comment further at
this time."


OILTANKING PARTNERS: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Partnership
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Oiltanking Partners, LP, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-
03343 (S.D. Tex., November 20, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's attempt to sell the Partnership to Enterprise Products
Partners LP and Enterprise Products Holdings LLC by means of an
unfair process and for an unfair price.

Oiltanking Partners, LP is engage in the independent terminaling,
storage, and transportation of crude oil, refined petroleum
products, and liquefied petroleum gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM LLP
      Ste 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-7720
      Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
      E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

         - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500

          - and -

      Vincent Wong, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT WONG
      39 East Broadway, Suite 304
      New York, NY 10002
      Telephone: (212) 425-1140


PERFECT DELIVERY: Faces "Doherty" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Doherty, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Perfect Delivery Services LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-07236 (D.N.J.,
November 20, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation for the hours over 40 per week.

Perfect Delivery Services LLC is a courier company that delivers
medical products to medical offices, hospitals and other
facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Jamey Krakower, Esq.
      KRAKOWER DICHIARA LLC
      77 Market Street, Suite 2
      Park Ridge, NJ 07656
      Telephone: (201) 746-6333
      Facsimile: (347) 765-1600
      E-mail: tk@kdlawllc.com


PHARMACIA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of School PCB Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that Pharmacia Corp.
asked a Massachusetts federal judge on Nov. 17 to dismiss a
Massachusetts town's proposed class action alleging the company
manufactured polychlorinated biphenyls used in window caulk in
schools, saying the town has no proof that it made the PCBs or
that they ever reached toxic levels.

Pharmacia said the town of Lexington cannot claim breach of
warranty because it failed to provide expert evidence that the
window caulk at Estabrook Elementary School was defectively
designed or inadequately warned against PCBs, and that the
inherent danger of PCBs is itself hotly disputed.  The town also
cannot prove that the PCBs found in the window caulk -- which was
installed in the school in 1961 -- was made by Pharmacia,
according to its motion for summary judgment.

"For all Lexington knows, the PCBs and/or window caulk was
manufactured in Europe, Asia or elsewhere and imported into the
United States," Pharmacia said.  "Lexington admits, however, that
the caulk was installed no later than 1961.  PCBs were legal and
useful products at the time."

Pharmacia said that both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and Lexington admit that the levels of airborne PCBs found in the
school present no risk of harm, and that in the 50 years since the
caulk installation, no one claimed to be sick from it.

"Lexington's reliance on the EPA's 2009 recommendations adopted
decades after a perfectly legal and useful product was installed
in a building as the basis or standard to render the product
unreasonably dangerous is faulty," Pharmacia said.  "Lexington
must prove that this defect caused its injury, not that some
federal agency's recommendations in a press release caused its
injury."

The northeast Massachusetts town filed suit against Pharmacia in
2012 alleging the companies violated state consumer protection
laws by withholding warnings about PCBs and downplaying their
toxicity in order to protect its "very profitable" PCB business.

At the time of the installation, Pharmacia was known as Monsanto
Co. Since 2000, it has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer
Inc.

Lexington claims it only learned about the possible dangers of
PCBs after the EPA sent a press release to school administrators
in 2009, recommending that they take steps to reduce PCB exposure
from caulk used in buildings between 1950 and 1978.

Pharmacia said the town knew about the presence of PCBs in caulk
because of regulatory laws issued by the EPA in the 1970s and
because its chair of the Board of Health had decades of experience
researching PCBs.

Pharmacia said that the town's claims are barred by a three-year
statute of limitations, since the town knew about PCBs in caulk in
schools when the health board chair published and distributed an
article on the subject in 2004.

Citizen inquiries prompted by the 2009 EPA press release led town
officials to order PCB testing and remediation, according to
Pharmacia.

"Only after engaging in costly and unnecessary remediation did it
file suit against Pharmacia, attempting to shift the burden of its
costly and necessary remediation onto someone else," Pharmacia
said.   "Since Lexington waited years to act, its action is time-
barred."

Pharmacia is represented by Richard P. Campbell, Richard L.
Campbell -- rlcampbell@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Brandon L.
Arber and Diana A. Chang -- dchang@campbell-trial-lawyers.com --
of Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC and Carol A. Rutter --
carol.rutter@huschblackwell.com -- and Robyn D. Buck --
robyn.buck@huschblackwell.com -- of Husch Blackwell LLP.

Lexington is represented by Melissa C. Allison, Scott P. Lewis and
Kevin D. Batt -- kbatt@andersonkreiger.com -- of Anderson &
Kreiger LLP; Robert S. Chapman -- rchapman@eisnerlaw.com -- and
Jon-Jamison Hill -- jhill@eisnerlaw.com -- of Eisner Kahan Gorry
Chapman Ross & Jaffe; Kevin J. Madonna of Kennedy & Madonna LLP;
and Esther L. Klisura -- eklisura@sherleff.com -- of Sher & Leff
LLP.

The case is Lexington, Town of v. Pharmacia Corporation et al.,
case number 1:12-cv-11645, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Luparello, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., A
New York corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-06835 (E.D.N.Y., November
21, 2014), alleges that the Defendant used false, deceptive,
misleading, unconscionable, and other illegal practices, in
connection with their attempts to collect an alleged debt.

Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. is in the business of collecting
delinquent consumer debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
      KLEINMAN, LLC
      626 RXR Plaza
      Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
      Telephone: (516) 522-2621
      Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
      E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


PROMOTION SOURCE: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Alfa Torres, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. Promotion Source Corporation, and Lucia Morales
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-09300 (N.D. Ill., November 19,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Promotion Source Corporation is a Florida-based marketing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RATAN R PARK: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Rivera v. Ratan R Park LLC d/b/a Ramada Inn, Paterson Hotel,
LLC d/b/a Howard Johnson, Ratan Hotel Management, LLC, Preyash
Modi and Parimal Gandhi, Individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-07213
(D.N.J., November 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants own and operate hotels in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Building 2, Suite 220, 168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


RIGHTSCORP INC: Faces "Reif" Suit Over Violation of TCPA & FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen J. Reif and Isaac A. Nesmith, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Rightscorp, Inc., a Nevada
Corporation, f/k/a Stevia Agritech Corp., Rightscorp, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, Christopher Sabec, Robert Steele, Craig
Harmon, Dennis J. Hawk, and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:14-cv-
09032 (C.D. Cal., November 21, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and Fair Debt Collection Practice Act.

Rightscorp, Inc. provides monetization services for copyright
owners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Morgan E. Pietz, Esq.
      THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
      3770 Highland Avenue, Suite 206
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 424-5557
      Facsimile: (310) 546-5301
      E-mail: mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Drew E. Pomerance, Esq.
      Anne S. Kelson, Esq.
      Jesse B. Levin, Esq.
      ROXBOROUGH, POMERANCE, NYE & ADREANI
      5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 250
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 992-9999
      Facsimile: (818) 992-9991
      E-mail: dep@rpnalaw.com
              ask@rpnalaw.com
              jbl@rpnalaw.com


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Bruyn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Carolyn J. Logan and Adam
C. Derbyshire, Case No. 1:14-cv-09226 (S.D.N.Y., November 20,
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.

Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. develops and markets prescription
pharmaceutical products and medical devices for the prevention and
treatment of gastrointestinal diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      122E 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

         - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


SECOND LOOK: Has Invaded Plaintiff's Privacy, "Lopez" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Lopez, individually and, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Second Look, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-02398 (C.D. Cal.,
November 20, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's illegal actions
of employing certain recording equipment in order to record
telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of the
Plaintiff, in violation of California Penal Code, thereby invading
privacy.

Second Look, Inc., is in the business of debt collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Alexander H. Lim, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (951) 784-7773
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              alex@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq. (SBN: 296829)
      Kazerouni Law Goup, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mona@kazlg.com


SEPHORA USA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Alleged Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xiao Xiao, Jiali Chen, Man Xu, Tiantian Zou, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals v. Sephora USA,
Inc., and LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
09181 (S.D.N.Y., November 18, 2014), arises out of the Defendants'
unlawful discriminatory conduct of blocking and deactivating
accounts of customers of perceived Chinese/Asian descent based on
the ill-founded and discriminatory belief that all Chinese/Asian
customers abuse discount sales to engage in bulk purchasing for
re-sale.

Sephora USA, Inc. is a retail cosmetics chain that operates
approximately 1,900 stores in 29 countries worldwide, with over
360 stores across North America.

LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. owns Sephora USA, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeanne Christensen, Esq.
      IMBESI CHRISTENSEN
      450 Seventh Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212)736-5588
      Facsimile: (866) 830-7484
      E-mail: ichristensen@lawicm.com

         - and -

      Douglas H. Wigdor, Esq.
      David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Elizabeth Chen, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
              dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
              echen@wigdorlaw.com

                           *     *     *

Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
amid public backlash against racially biased "stop-and-frisk"
police practices, "Sephora has brazenly taken" so-called "shop and
frisk" to the Internet, four woman claim in a federal class
action.

The allegations come after the beauty retailer blamed "excessive
online traffic" for bringing down its Web site on Nov. 6 during
the annual 20-percent-off sale for Sephora's most loyal shoppers.
Like travelers with mileage rewards, Sephora's "Beauty Insiders"
can accumulate points with every purchase that give them certain
benefits.

Lead plaintiff Xiao Xiao says that customers in the premium level
of Sephora's program are called Very Important Beauty, or VIB,
insiders.  They acquire membership by spending at least $350 in a
calendar year.  There is an even more exclusive level, called VIB
Rouge, for customers who spend at least $1,000 in a calendar year,
according to the complaint.

Xiao says it was during a special five-day sale event for these
VIB and VIB Rouge shoppers that the Web site crashed.

In a statement on its Facebook page the next morning after service
was restored, Sephora warned that it was cracking down on the
gaming of its client-loyalty program.

"We have, indeed, de-activated accounts due to reselling -- a
pervasive issue throughout the industry and the world," the still-
active Facebook post says.

Xiao and three other shoppers of Chinese descent say they are some
of the "thousands" whom Sephora bumped solely because their names
or email addresses look Asian.

"Shockingly," Sephora honed in email addresses with Asian-sounding
names, and blocked Chinese and other Asian web domains such as
qq.com, 126.com and 163.com, according to the complaint.

Yet, more than 95 percent of deactivated accounts belong to
customers in the United States, the women say.

"These customers were not 'bulk buyers' or entities involved in
'retail re-selling' of Sephora products," the complaint states.
"Rather, they were predominately individuals, many making cosmetic
purchases between $350 and $999 in a calendar year who did not
even qualify for the highest tier of membership, VIB Rouge."

Even basic-tier "Beauty Insiders" allegedly found their accounts
blocked.

"Clearly, customers who failed to purchase even $350 worth of
items in a calendar year were not involved in 'bulk purchases' or
retail re-sales of Sephora products," the 28-page complaint
states.

So-called "shop and frisk," in which retailers discriminate
against minority shoppers, has become something of a media
sensation, according to the complaint.

Xiao says "Sephora has brazenly taken this practice to the
Internet."

The deactivation of accounts belonging to customers "of perceived
Chinese/Asian descent [is] based on the ill-founded and
discriminatory belief that all Chinese/Asian customers abuse
discount sales to engage in bulk purchasing for re-sale," the
complaint states.

Xiao, a Manhattanite, says a federal judge should order Sephora to
pay the class punitive damages for the loss of their rewards
points, and for the "humiliation" that its actions caused.

The class also alleges equal-rights violations and breach of
contract.

In an email statement, Sephora said that the lawsuit
"significantly distorts the facts in this matter."

"We look forward to defending our actions in court," Sephora said.
"Among other points, we intend to make very clear that clients
from a number of countries around the world have been impacted by
a temporary block we needed to place on accounts in order to
restore the functionality of our site during a surge of activity
by resellers during a promotional event two weeks ago."


SMOKE CHEAP: "Khalil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yousef Khalil, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Smoke Cheap, Inc. a Florida Profit Corporation, Monah
Zahreddine, Yousef Malkeya, Fahim Malkeya, and Jade J. Nasrallah,
Case No. 8:14-cv-02884 (M.D. Fla., November 18, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants sell low priced cigarettes, premium cigars, tobacco
products, beer, and liquor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Faces Suit Over Shuttered Nuke Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Southern California Edison
and the California Public Utilities Commission have
unconstitutionally taken $3.7 billion from customers for the
shuttered San Onofre nuclear power plant, ratepayers say in a
federal class action.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, in northern San Diego
County, was shut for good in the summer of 2013 after a failed
$700 million attempt to replace steam generators.  The plant is
awaiting decommissioning.

Edison owns 78 percent of the plant; San Diego Gas & electric owns
20 percent of it.

Lead plaintiff Citizens Oversight claims that since January 2012,
the Utilities Commission and Edison have forced Edison's and
SDG&E's customers "to pay more than $700 million for the failed
steam generator project and $3 billion or more for the failed
power plant."

Citizens Oversight and eight named plaintiffs call this an
unconstitutional taking of private property without just
compensation.  Their November 13 lawsuit claims the
unconstitutional taking began in January 2012, "the month the
generators died and the plant stopped producing electricity."

The complaint cites a previous lawsuit, from July 2013, in which
SDG&E blamed Mitsubishi for the failed steam generator
installation.  Citizens Oversight claims the defendants had good
reason to believe that the installation would fail.

They seek a court order returning at least $3 billion to the
shuttered plant's 17.4 million customers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maria Severson, Esq.
          AGUIRRE & SEVERSON LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 780-2752
          Toll Free: (877) 834-2027
          Facsimile: (619) 876-5368
          E-mail: mseverson@amslawyers.com


SPEEDWAY LLC: Faces "Curington" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Curington, Amber Ray, and Margaret Griffin, Individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Speedway, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Marathon Petroleum
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00329 (E.D.
Tenn., November 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime hours in excess of 40 hours per week.

Speedway, LLC is the fourth largest chain of company-owned and -
operated gasoline and convenience stores in the U.S. Speedway has
approximately 1,490 convenience stores in nine states.

Marathon Petroleum Corporation is one of the largest petroleum
product refiners, marketers and transporters in the United States

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & CANTRELL
      262 German Oak Drive
      Cordova, TN 38018
      Telephone: (901) 754-8001
      Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
      E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com


STRATFORD UNIVERSITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anyalewechi Nkululeko, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Stratford University, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-01558 (E.D. Va., November 18, 2014), seeks to recover the
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Stratford University, Inc. is a for-profit educational institution
with campus facility locations in Virginia and Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC.
      836 Bonifant St
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


SUZUKI MOTOR: Not Liable in Suit Over Defective ATV, Jury Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Suzuki will not be held liable for an allegedly defective four-
wheeled all-terrain vehicle that flipped onto and severely injured
the 14-year-old driver, an Allegheny County jury has determined.
The jury in Dolata v. Suzuki Motor found the 2004 model Suzuki
QuadSport the injured plaintiff was riding was not defective
despite claims that a design flaw of the throttle allowed it to
jam in the acceleration position.

The plaintiffs had additionally alleged that the ATV had a high
center of gravity with no rollover, or driver retention system;
however, plaintiffs' theories based on crashworthiness were
dismissed by the court before trial.

Defense attorney Clem C. Trischler -- CCT@Pietragallo.com -- of
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti said a lack of hard
evidence indicating dirt caused the jam, and testing showing the
debris inside the throttle did not cause the crash, was an
important factor in swaying the jury.

"Those were two of the most compelling factors that drove the
decision," Mr. Trischler said.  "I certainly think the jury
reached a correct result and I think the verdict was a vindication
of the quality and design of the Suzuki throttle system."

The plaintiffs' attorney, James Waldenberger --
jim.waldenberger@KlineSpecter.com -- of Kline & Specter, declined
to comment, except to say that there were no plans to appeal.

Bohn Cycle Shop was an additional defendant in the case, which
came to a verdict Nov. 14.

According to the plaintiffs' pretrial memo, on May 13, 2007,
Jessica Dolata was driving the ATV near her home in Jefferson
Hills, Pa., when the throttle stuck, causing the vehicle to
"uncontrollably gain speed."  Ms. Dolata lost control, and the
quad drove up a steep incline, the memo said.  According to the
memo, Ms. Dolata was thrown off the ATV before it flipped over and
then crushed her.

Following the crash, the memo said, the throttle continued to run
and the wheels continued to spin.  Ms. Dolata's father, Joseph
Dolata, who was driving a similar vehicle nearby, pulled the quad
off Jessica Dolata, and once it was upright, the vehicle continued
to drive itself until Joseph Dolata was able to shut it off, the
memo said.

The ATV, according to the memo, had been negligently designed
because it allowed dirt and debris to accumulate in the throttle.
Mechanical engineer Kai J. Baumann testified for the plaintiffs at
trial, Mr. Trischler said.  According to Mr. Trischler, Mr.
Baumann said dirt was found inside the ATV's throttle case, and
opined that it had been allowed to enter due to inadequate seals.
Mr. Baumann further said Suzuki's use of a drain hole in the
design was also a defect, Mr. Trischler said.  Mr. Baumann added
the jam caused Jessica Dolata to lose control of the ATV.

However, according to Suzuki's pretrial memo, Ms. Dolata had been
careless, and, while attempting to keep pace with a friend who was
riding a dirt bike in front of her, she allowed the ATV to veer
onto a steep hill.

"Ignoring her personal responsibility for this crash, plaintiffs
hope to present a product defect claim which is focused on the
suggestion that this incident resulted from a struck throttle,"
the memo said.  "There is simply no credible evidence to suggest
that the throttle system malfunctioned in any way."

Suzuki argued the ATV was flawlessly designed, and that it worked
properly for many years before the accident.  The memo noted that
previous owners were set to testify that the vehicle had operated
without any problem before the accident.

Suzuki also intended to raise the issue that the ATV that
Ms. Dolata was driving was made for users over the age of 16;
however, that was kept out of the case at trial, Mr. Trischler
said.

Two defense experts testified before the jury regarding liability.
Metals expert Gary Fowler examined the throttle case and found no
evidence to suggest that the dirt caused any jamming within the
mechanism, Mr. Trischler said.  Design expert Kris Kubly testified
that the design was appropriate for an off-road vehicle, and
opined that the cause was improper steering, Mr. Trischler said.

According to the plaintiffs' pretrial memo, Ms. Dolata's right
femur and hip were fractured in the crash, and she additionally
suffered vascular necrosis of the femoral head.  She also
developed reflex sympathetic dystrophy, and scarring, the memo
said.  In the days following the accident, she underwent three
surgeries, including an open reduction and internal fixation
procedure, a hip relocation and a hip socket reconstruction
surgery.  In February 2009, she also underwent a right total hip
arthroplasty, the memo said.

"Jessica's injuries will cause her a lifetime of pain in her back,
hip and right leg, limb weakness, and potential for future
revision surgeries as a result of wearing of the components of her
total right hip arthroplasty," the memo said.

The memo estimated her future medical costs to be about $1.1
million.

After a two-week trial, the jury before Judge W. Terrence O'Brien
found the ATV was not defectively designed.


T-MOBILE USA: Mich. Suit Goes to Jury Trial on Arbitration Clause
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sean F. Cox of the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, denied defendants' motion in the case Marquidia
Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Stella Recovery, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case No. 13-13829 (E.D. Mich.)

Plaintiff purchased cellular phones and SIM cards from a company
called Interstate Communications, Inc. ("Interstate"), for her
personal use. Interstate is an indirect dealer for T-Mobile, in
that it sold T-Mobile products and services but is not a T-Mobile
Corporation owned. Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 Petition for
Bankruptcy and she included her overdue T-Mobile account in the
amount of $1,203.77 in her bankruptcy petition. Plaintiff was then
discharged. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Stellar, on behalf of
defendant T-Mobile contacted her repeatedly after she was
discharge, attempting to collect her $1,203.77 T-Mobile debt.

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that alleges these
claims against Defendants: "Count I -- Violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act," asserted against Defendant Stellar;
"Count II -- Violation of the Michigan Occupational Code," which
asserts a claim against Defendant Stellar; "Count III -- Violation
of the Michigan Collection Practices Act," which asserts a claim
against Defendant Stellar; "Count IV -- Violation of the Federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.
against both Defendants"; "Count V -- Invasion of Privacy by
Intrusion upon Seclusion," which is asserted against both
Defendants.

Defendant T-Mobile filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Claims while defendant Stellar filed a Motion to Adopt and Join
Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Stay Claims.

T-Mobile does not contend that Plaintiff signed the 2004 Terms and
Conditions which contains an arbitration clause, either on paper
or electronically. Nor does it appear to assert that Plaintiff
orally accepted the Terms and Conditions. Rather, according to
Christopher Muzio, T-Mobile's custodian of records, Plaintiff
activated T-Mobile service and used the service. By doing so, she
accepted the 2004 Terms and Conditions.

Judge Cox retains T-Mobile's motion under advisement and proceeds
summarily to a jury trial on the limited question of whether or
not plaintiff and T-Mobile entered into an agreement to arbitrate.
She, however, denies defendant Stellar's Motion to Join in its
entirety.

A copy of Judge Cox opinion and order dated November 5, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/KkrY5xfrom Leagle.com.

Marquidia Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Peter F. Barry, Esq.
-- pbarry@lawpoint.com -- at Barry & Slade, LLC; and Stephen A.
Thomas, Esq., at Stephen A. Thomas, PLC
Stellar Recovery Inc., Defendant, represented by Marilyn C.
Naiman-Kohn, Esq., and Steven A. Siman, Esq., at Law Offices of
Steven A. Siman PC

T-Mobile USA, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Derin
Bronson Dickerson -- derin.dickerson@alston.com -- and Kristine M.
Brown -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird; and Lara L.
Kapalla -- kapalla@millercanfield.com -- & Sonal H. Mithani --
mithani@millercanfield.com -- at Miller, Canfield.


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Bourne" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------
Donna Bourne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-07227
(D.N.J., 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:

      Donald A. Soutar, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5785
      E-Mail: dsoutar@weitzlux.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Schafle" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schafle, Sian Schafle, Ted Pepin, Nancy Wade, Karen
Serrano, Stephen Pokiniewski, Helen Pokiniewski, James Mcdonough,
James Thompson and Ruth Thompson, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:14-cv-06628 (E.D. Pa., November 18, 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:

      Larry E. Coben, Esq.
      ANAPOL SCHWARTZ WEISS COHAN FELDMAN & SMALLEY PC
      1710 Spruce St
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 735-1130
      E-mail: lcoben@anapolschwartz.com

         - and -

      Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
      ANAPOL SCHWARTZ
      1710 Spruce Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 735-2098
      Facsimile: (215) 875-7701
      E-mail: sweiss@anapolschwartz.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Back" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel K. Back, individually and on behalf of all other Kansans
similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:14-
cv-01388 (D. Kan., November 20, 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:

      Deborah B. McIlhenny, Esq.
      Mark B. Hutton, Esq.
      Andrew W. Hutton, Esq.
      HUTTON & HUTTON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      8100 East 22nd Street North, Building 1200
      Wichita, KS 67226
      Telephone: (316) 688-1166
      Facsimile: (316) 686-1077
      E-mail: debs.mcilhenny@huttonlaw.com
         mark.hutton@huttonlaw.com
         andy.hutton@huttonlaw.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Fishman" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------
Charles Fishman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-
cv-07244 (D.N.J., November 20, 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:

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
      Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
      Eric H. Jaso, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      550 Broad Street
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 639-9100
      Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
      E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
              sweiss@seegerweiss.com
              dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
              ejaso@seegerweiss.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Go" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------
Kristen Go, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08970
(C.D. Cal., 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:

      Jack W. Lee, Esq.
      Derek G. Howard, Esq.
      Aron K. Liang, Esq.
      Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
      MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
      360 Post Street, 8th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone:  (415) 788-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
      E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com
              dhoward@minamitamaki.com
              aliang@minamitamaki.com
              seant@minamitamaki.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Rickert" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Rickert and Robert Schmidt, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-01420 (M.D. Fla., 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:

      Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq.
      THE WILNER FIRM
      444 E. Duval Street
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 446-9817
      Facsimile: (904) 446-9825
      E-Mail: RLantinberg@wilnerfirm.com

         - and -

      Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
      Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
      Stacey Kelly Breen, Esq.
      Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-Mail: schmidt@whafh.com
              pollack@whafh.com
              breen@whafh.com
              brown@whafh.com


TAKATA CORP: Retains Dechert to Head Airbag Defect Suit Defense
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Baxter, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Takata
has confirmed its retention of Dechert chairman Andrew Levander to
oversee the embattled Japanese auto parts company's outside
counsel efforts as it copes with a bevy of legal issues emanating
from the alleged production of defective airbags.

Reuters first had the news late on Nov. 18 of Takata's hire of
Dechert, noting that Levander will lead teams of lawyers from the
firm handling a criminal probe, congressional inquiry and class
action litigation against the company over faulty inflators that
cause airbags to explode and send shrapnel into vehicles that can
kill or maim drivers and passengers.

A Dechert spokeswoman told The Am Law Daily that besides Levander
-- who took the leadership reins at Dechert four years ago --
three others from the firm have taken the lead for Takata:
litigation partners Steven Bradbury, Hector Gonzalez and David
Bernick.  Messrs. Bradbury and Gonzalez were set to represent
Takata executives on Nov. 20 at a hearing before a U.S. Senate
Commerce Committee seeking testimony on the company's defective
airbags.

Mr. Gonzalez, who is based in New York, left Mayer Brown for
Dechert in July 2011.  The Litigation Daily, a sibling
publication, named Gonzalez a Litigator of the Week earlier this
year for his work representing Bank of New York Mellon in
mortgage-backed securities litigation that led to an $8.5 billion
settlement with Bank of America.

Mr. Bradbury, who is based in Washington, D.C., joined Dechert in
July 2009 after serving as head of the U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, where he once argued in favor
of the legality of waterboarding terrorist detainees, as noted by
sibling publication The Legal Intelligencer.  Before joining the
Justice Department in 2004, Bradbury was a partner at Kirkland &
Ellis.

Mr. Bernick, another former Kirkland litigation partner, joined
Dechert in August 2013 after a brief stint at Boies, Schiller &
Flexner.  Mr. Bernick, who spent two years earlier this decade as
general counsel of Philip Morris International, has taken the lead
representing Takata in the more than 20 product liability class
action suits filed against the company as a result of its airbag
fiasco.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a Seattle-based plaintiffs firm that
last year secured a $1.6 billion settlement from Japanese auto
giant Toyota over faulty accelerators, is one of several firms
that have filed class actions against Takata.  Toyota is one of
several automakers -- others include Chrysler, Ford and Honda --
being asked by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
this week to recall additional vehicles in order to replace
potentially defective Takata airbag inflators.

Don Schiemann serves as general counsel for TK Holdings, the
Auburn Hills, Mich.-based U.S. unit of Takata.  He did not respond
to a request for information on the names of any other outside
firms retained by Takata.  The airbag affair isn't the company's
only pressing legal issue.

Takata is also dealing with a seatbelt price-fixing probe by the
Justice Department's Antitrust Division that has resulted in
criminal charges against 35 executives, four of whom have pleaded
guilty.  Last year Takata agreed to pay $71.3 million to settle
the charges against the company.  A plea agreement with the
Justice Department shows that Takata retained Williams & Connolly
to handle the matter.

Dechert may be reached at:

     Andrew J. Levander, Esq.
     Dechert LLP
     1095 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10036-6797
     Tel: 212 698 3683
     Fax: 212 698 3599
     E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com


TAKATA CORP: Senators Call for Independent Air Bag Defect Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Takata Corp. on Nov. 20 came under Senate pressure to initiate an
independent investigation into a deadly air bag safety defect,
following a news report that the Japanese automobile parts maker
covered up the problem.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the top Republican on the
Commerce Committee, told a top Takata executive during a hearing
that it would "make sense" for the company to begin an
investigation similar to the probe into a faulty ignition switch
that Jenner & Block chairman Anton Valukas conducted for General
Motors Co. this year.  The request drew support from Sen. Bill
Nelson, D-Fla., and other senators.

Hiroshi Shimizu, Takata's senior vice president for global quality
assurance, made no commitment to an independent probe, but said
his company has investigated the defect that allegedly has caused
five deaths.

"I think there's a real concern here that perhaps it isn't as
independent as it could be," Mr. Thune said of Takata's
investigation.

Recalls of air bags cover about 7.8 million U.S. cars and trucks,
including vehicles from Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and Chrysler Group
LLC, which sent senior executives to testify during the hearing.
The New York Times reported that Takata intentionally concealed
information about the problem, a claim the manufacturer disputes.
Shimizu said Takata started investigating the defect in 2005.  But
it wasn't aware of the problem in 2004, as the Times reported, he
said.

Takata has worked closely with federal regulators, automakers and
others in addressing concerns about the air bags, Mr. Shimizu
said. The company supports full transparency, he added.

"We are deeply sorry about each of the reported instances in which
a Takata air bag has not performed as designed and a driver or
passenger has suffered personal injuries or death," Mr. Shimizu
said. "Our sincerest condolences go out to all those who have
suffered in these accidents and to their families."

The hearing came three days after the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration demanded a nationwide recall of Takata air
bags. Cars and trucks in hot and humid climates, such as Southern
states, were the only vehicles subject to the past Takata recalls.
Shimizu declined to say whether Takata supports a nationwide
recall.  "It's hard for me to answer 'yes' or 'no,' " he said.
A federal grand jury in New York is investigating the defect.

Plaintiffs lawyers, mostly representing consumers seeking economic
damages, have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to coordinate pretrial hearings in more than a dozen
lawsuits stemming from the problem before U.S. District Judge
James King in the Southern District of Florida.  Judge King is
handling one of the first class actions filed.

"Hopefully, [the] Senate's hearings will focus attention on the
problem and start a discussion about how it can be fixed," Newsome
Melton founding partner Rich Newsome, a lawyer for one of the
plaintiffs, said in a written statement.  "If not, we will surely
have another problem in the near future with yet another company
and another defective product where people are needlessly injured
and killed."


TWENTY FOUR 7: "Lyons" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Delroy Lyons, Francisco Mercado, Luis Martinez, Jose Salazar,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Twenty Four 7 Contracting Corp., Twenty Four 7 Installations,
Inc., Carl Russo, William Seidita, and ABC Companies (1-10), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide warehousing, delivery, assembly and
installation services of office furniture, including office panel
system, desks, cubicles, chairs, file cabinets and other modular
office furniture.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Smith, Esq.
      SMITH EIBELER, LLC
      119 Avenue At The Common
      Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
      Telephone: (732) 935-7246
      E-mail: rsmith@smitheibeler.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Taps Hogan Lovells to Review Privacy Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. has retained Hogan Lovells to review the
company's data privacy program after a series of recent events
raised questions about what the ride-sharing behemoth does with
passengers' information.

The Hogan Lovells audit will be led by Washington, D.C. partner
Harriet Pearson -- harriet.pearson@hoganlovells.com -- who served
as security counsel and chief privacy officer at IBM Corp. until
2012.

"I am an Uber user and know first-hand the benefits it brings,"
Pearson said in a statement.  "Trust founded on confidentiality
and information security lies at the very heart of Uber's business
and we will be working with the team to review and reinforce where
appropriate its policies and systems."

Uber has endured a blitzkrieg of criticism since Buzzfeed reported
on Nov. 17 that Emil Michael, Uber's senior vice president of
business, suggested publicly that the company could dig up dirt on
unfriendly reporters and share personal details about one
particularly critical journalist.  He later apologized and
attempted to walk back those comments, saying they were borne of
frustration and didn't reflect his actual views or Uber's
practices.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick took to Twitter on Nov. 18 to apologize
for Michael's remarks, which he said were "a departure from our
values and ideals."

The company also announced on Nov. 18 that it is investigating a
company executive who tracked a reporter's movements in an Uber
vehicle without her knowledge or permission.

U.S. Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota responded to the news on Nov. 19
by publicly demanding answers from Mr. Kalanick about what
passenger information the company collects, who can access it and
how it is maintained.

While not mentioning the incidents, Uber spokeswoman Natalia
Montalvo said on the company's blog on Nov. 20 that Hogan Lovells
"will conduct an in-depth review and assessment of our existing
data privacy program and recommend any needed enhancements so that
Uber can ensure that we are a leader in the area of privacy and
data protection."


VELOX TRANSPORT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Marquez v. Velox Transport Services, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
24383 (S.D. Fla., November 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Velox Transport Services, LLC is a transport company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


VERIZON NY: Faces Suit Over Municipal Construction Surcharge
------------------------------------------------------------
Mendel Weider, Yossi Levitin, Bowling Green Associates L.P., 111
John Realty Corp., Gem Net Inc., and Madison Title Agency, LLP, On
Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated v. Verizon
New York Inc., Case No. 510881/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty.,
November 18, 2014) is brought on behalf of all residential and
business customers of the Defendant, who have been unlawfully
charged and paid a "Municipal Construction Surcharge" to the
Defendant as a result of an alleged unlawful scheme.

Verizon is a private, non-governmental New York corporation
headquartered in New York City.  Verizon and its related companies
provide telecom services for residents of New York State,
including local telephone service, long distance calling, business
communications, managed network services, Internet connections, IT
services like systems integration, digital television services and
other data services.

The Plaintiffs represented by:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Mark D. Smilow, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com
                  msmilow@weisslawllp.com


VIBRAM USA: Class Action Claims Reach More Than 150,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Matt McCue, writing for Runner's World, reports that more than
150,000 claims were received in the class action suit against
Vibram USA, and claimants can expect to receive between $8 and $9
per pair of Vibram FiveFingers reportedly purchased, according to
court documents reviewed by Runner's World Newswire.

After reviewing 95 percent of the claims submitted in the Bezdek
vs. Vibram USA class action lawsuit, Heffler Claims Group, the
independent case administrator, has submitted a declaration to the
Massachusetts court detailing its findings, per the court's
request.

As of October 31, Heffler had received 154,927 timely claims
representing 279,570 pairs of FiveFingers.  Under the terms of the
suit, claimants could seek recompense for buying FiveFingers
between March 21, 2009 and May 27, 2014.

In 2012, Valerie Bezdek brought the case against Vibram,
contesting that the company deceived consumers by advertising that
the footwear could reduce foot injuries and strengthen foot
muscles, without basing those assertions on scientific evidence.
In May, Vibram agreed to settle the case.  Vibram CEO Mike
Gionfriddo has said the company does not admit fault, but went to
settlement to avoid future legal costs.

The majority of the claims, 67 percent, were for two pairs of
FiveFingers, the maximum number in the suit for which no proof of
purchase was required.  Less than a third of the claims, 28
percent, were for one pair, while 3 percent of the claims were for
more than two pairs. (Two percent of the claims were for zero pair
of shoes.)

Based on the claims reviewed to date, Heffler anticipates that
approximately 4 percent to 5 percent of the claims will be
rejected, which Heffler noted is less than the typical 10 percent
defect rate in a class action suit.  Using this rejection rate,
Heffler believes that there will be approximately 268,570 pairs of
shoes vying for a slice of the $3.75 million settlement award.

Of the $3.75 million settlement fund, class members will split
$2,262,726.  Assuming valid claims for 268,570 pairs of shoes, the
remedy per shoe will be $8.44 per pair. (That monetary figure
could vary slightly based on the ultimate number of valid claims
received and interest earned on the $3.75 million currently in an
escrow account at Huntington Bank.) Due to the large number of
claims, that figure is less than the $20 to $50 per pair that the
case filings in May mentioned as a reasonable sum for claimants to
expect to receive.

Ms. Bezdek and Brian DeFalco, two named plaintiffs in the case,
have requested that they each receive $2,500.  A third named
plaintiff, Ali Safavi, has asked for $1,500.

The remaining money in the settlement fund -- approximately $1.48
million -- will likely be paid out to Heffler Claims Group and the
attorneys for the plaintiffs.  Heffler anticipates billing
$483,955 for the administrative work it has conducted to process
the claims.

Multiple law firms have represented the claimants.  The firms have
requested the maximum amount of fees that they can earn according
to the settlement terms, which is 25 percent of the $3.75 million,
or $937,500.  The attorneys have asked for additional $61,674 to
cover business expenses related to the case.  According to a
declaration submitted by lead class counsel Janine Pollack of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz on November 12, the lawyers
representing the class provided 2,492.25 hours of work for a
billable total of $1.36 million.

The lawsuit, which was filed two years ago, is still pending final
court approval.


WESTERN FEDERAL: Sued by Workers in California Over Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Western Federal Credit
Union stiffed workers for overtime, a class action claim in
California Superior Court.


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Judge Upholds Exclusion of Expert Witness
----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a federal judge has upheld the exclusion of an expert
witness in class actions alleging that WhiteWave Foods Co.
misleadingly claims its Horizon milk is infused with an Omega-3
fatty acid that helps brain health.

U.S. District Joan Lenard of the Southern District of Florida
agreed with U.S. Magistrate Judge John O'Sullivan's order
excluding the testimony of Richard Bazinet, an expert in
nutritional neuroscience.  Judge Lenard said Judge O'Sullivan had
not misapplied a court rule, case law or a statute.

Judge O'Sullivan ruled that Mr. Bazinet should be excluded, among
other reasons, because he could not extrapolate the results of
five randomized controlled trials involving 49 healthy women and
658 healthy children to every consumer in six states that
purchased the dairy products.  Judge O'Sullivan also found that
the plaintiffs never addressed the extrapolation argument when the
defendants moved to strike Mr. Bazinet as an expert.

Judge Lenard rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Mr. Bazinet
relied upon evidence from non-randomized controlled trials that
required no extrapolation.

She also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Mr. Bazinet's
testimony is admissible because the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has issued a new final rule on DHA, the exact
Omega-3 fatty acid supplement at issue in Horizon milk.  FDA wants
to bar manufacturers of food and dietary supplements from claiming
that their products are "high in," "rich in" or an "excellent
source of" Omega-3 fatty acids.

"Assuming . . . that the FDA ruling says what plaintiffs claim it
says -- which defendant hotly disputes -- it would only 'support'
an argument that plaintiffs never made in opposition to
defendant's Daubert motion," the judge said.  "It is therefore
immaterial to Judge O'Sullivan's ruling, and his refusal to
consider it is not contrary to law."


YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Peterson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 6:14-cv-00066
(S.D. Tex., November 22, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, LLC is an oilfield services
company providing a variety of services, including hydrostatic
pressure testing for drilling, production and pipeline
applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZILLOW INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Freeman, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Zillow, Inc., a Washington
corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-
01843 (C.D. Cal., November 19, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Zillow, Inc. is an online home and real estate marketplace for
homebuyers, sellers, renters, real estate agents, mortgage
professionals, landlords, and property managers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
      Gregory Levon Kirakosian, Esq.
      Tyler Michael Ross, Esq.
      Mark John Geragos, Esq.
      GERAGOS AND GERAGOS APC
      644 South Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
      Telephone: (213) 625-3900
      Facsimile: (213) 625-1600
      E-mail: meiselas@geragos.com
              greg@geragos.com
              tyler@geragos.com
              mark@geragos.com

         - and -

      Bobby Samini, Esq.
      Matthew Michael Hoesly, Esq.
      Nicole C. Prado, Esq.
      SAMINI SCHEINBERG PC
      949 South Coast Drive Suite 420
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 724-0900
      Facsimile: (949) 724-0901
      E-mail:  bsamini@saminilaw.com
               mhoesly@saminilaw.com
               nprado@saminilaw.com

                           *     *     *

Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a pair of
employment suits filed in the Central District of California
blasts Zillow Inc. for allegedly failing to pay overtime, denying
meal breaks and retaliating against an employee.

The suits were brought by Mark Geragos, a Los Angeles lawyer
famous for representing A-list celebrities including Michael
Jackson, Winona Ryder, Nicole Ritchie and Chris Brown.  His firm,
Geragos & Geragos, has teamed up with Costa Mesa firm Samini
Scheinberg.

The first suit is a wage-and-hour class action accusing Zillow of
cheating at least 120 full-time, hourly employees in California
out of overtime pay.  Potential class members are current and
former sales consultants, who sold brokers advertising on Zillow's
online real estate database.

Ben Meiselas, an associate with Geragos & Geragos, said his firm
decided to take the case after hearing stories of the company's
poor working conditions.

"Zillow is like a modern-day boiler room," Mr. Meiselas said.
"These talented young kids right out of college stand in what they
call a 'pit' for hours.  The Zillow supervisors literally take
their chairs away and make them stand up because it's more
productive."

Zillow spokeswoman Katie Curnutte declined to comment on the
litigation in an email, but said the company takes any allegations
about its work environment seriously.

"Our people are our most important asset," she wrote, "and we are
committed to providing a safe and productive work environment for
everyone."

Plaintiffs lawyers contend Zillow used an illegal system that
automatically recorded an 8:00 a.m. start time and 4:00 p.m. end
time for all employees' shifts, even though managers intimidated
employees and demanded they work longer hours.  Managers prevented
employees from changing their automatically recorded hours,
according to the suit, unless it was to account for a sick day or
missed work.

And Zillow required employees to clock out for meal and rest
breaks, according to the complaint, even when employees were made
to work through their breaks.

Plaintiffs lawyers allege Zillow should have known better.
"Zillow is and was advised by skilled lawyers and other
professionals, employees, and advisors with knowledge of the
requirements of the [Fair Labor Standards Act] and California's
wage and hour laws," the lawyers wrote.

A second suit accuses Zillow of retaliating against a
whistleblower who alerted company executives that unlicensed real
estate agents were consulting with Zillow clients, and that people
in the office were using forged contracts.  Ashley Boehler, who
began work as an inside sales consultant in 2012, emailed upper
management in Seattle and informed them of the fraudulent
behavior.  Management eventually fired certain Zillow employees as
a result of Ms. Boehler's tip, according to the complaint.
Afterward, Ms. Boehler experienced retaliation that included being
written up and issued poor reviews, being stripped of potentially
lucrative sales accounts, and being micromanaged while he worked.

Ms. Boehler sued to "stop the abuse of power occurring within
Zillow's offices," according to the complaint.

Mr. Meiselas said employment regulations can get lost in the
excitement of beginning a new enterprise, such as Zillow.  When
that happens, it's the company's employees who suffer.

"In this new age of social networking, media websites, and other
online convenience sites like Zillow and Trulia," Mr. Meiselas
said, "they need to play by the same rules and the same labor code
that other companies abide by."

It's been a bad month for Zillow -- the company was accused in
late October of copying another real estate network's "Coming
Soon" feature.  That suit, filed in the Northern District of
California, claims Zillow launched the copy-cat feature after
ending investment talks with Top Agent Network Inc.


ZYNGA INC: Founder Must Face Class Action Over Stock Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Russell-Kraft, writing for Law360, reports that the
founder of video game company Zynga Inc. won't be able to dodge a
putative class action alleging he unfairly waived a lockup
agreement in order to sell $192 million of his holdings almost two
months before other pre-IPO stockholders, a Delaware Chancery
judge ruled on Nov. 14.

Judge Andre Bouchard partially denied Mark Pincus' motion to
dismiss the suit against him, finding that although the plaintiffs
failed to show the investment banks who underwrote the IPO had
aided and abetted the alleged scheme, they adequately stated a
claim against company's board of directors for breach of fiduciary
duty.

The plaintiffs, led by investor Wendy Lee, allege Mr. Pincus and
Zynga's board violated their fiduciary duty by selectively waiving
lockup restrictions before the company's December 2011 IPO,
thereby allowing certain stockholders to sell a portion of their
shares nearly two months before the rest and at a significantly
higher price.

"The obligation Lee seeks to enforce is for the director
defendants to not receive personal benefits inconsistent with the
standard of conduct of fiduciaries under Delaware law," Judge
Bouchard wrote.  "She alleges that the director defendants gave
themselves improper benefit inconsistent with their duty of
loyalty to Lee and the putative class.  In my view, this is
quintessentially a fiduciary duty claim."

Ms. Lee brought the case in April 2013 on behalf of a putative
class of pre-IPO investors who allege they were harmed by not
being allowed to participate in the company's secondary offering.

Before the IPO, Zynga's directors, officers and employees and most
pre-IPO investors agreed to lockup restrictions preventing them
from selling their stock until after May 28, 2012, according to
court documents.  But in March 2012, Zynga's directors decided to
modify the agreement to allow certain stockholders to sell their
shares early, creating four staggered lockup expiration dates.

Mr. Pincus and three other directors were allowed to sell before
the secondary offering, which they did.

But after the secondary offering, Zynga's stock began to decline,
from an offering price of $12 per share on April 3 to a closing
price of $8.46 on May 1, when the lockup provisions expired on 114
million nonexecutive employee shares, according to court
documents.

The plaintiffs allege that the directors would have received $100
million less in proceeds had they been required to wait until
after the secondary offering to sell their shares.

The plaintiffs are represented by Elizabeth M. McGeever --
emmcgeever@prickett.com -- and J. Clayton Athey --
jcathey@prickett.com -- of Prickett Jones & Elliott PA and Ethan
D. Wohl -- ewohl@wohlfruchter.com -- of Wohl & Fruchter LLP.

Zynga and its directors were represented by Danielle Gibbs --
dgibbs@ycst.com -- and Nicholas J. Roher -- nrohrer@ycst.com -- of
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor; and Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com
-- Anna Erickson White and Kevin A. Calia of Morrison & Foerster
LLP.

Gregory V. Varallo -- varallo@rlf.com -- of Richards, Layton &
Finger and Bruce D. Angiolillo -- bangiolillo@stblaw.com -- of
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett represented Morgan Stanley and Goldman
Sachs.

The case is Wendy Lee v. Mark Pincus et al., case number 8458, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.


* Class Suit Rulings Fuel Supreme Court's Pro-Business Reputation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Supreme Court's reputation as pro-business is fed by
rulings restricting class litigation and the emergence of a cadre
of veteran high court advocates who have gained the court's trust
and clients from the business world, Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle
of The National Law Journal said during a panel discussion in Las
Vegas.

Although the justices often give a "friendly ear" to business
concerns, Mr. Mauro said, business does not always win.  In
Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, for example, "a lot of energy
and firepower" from the business community was aimed at
overturning a 1988 precedent that made it easier for shareholder
plaintiffs to bring securities class actions against companies.
The court on June 23 declined to overturn that precedent.

But Mr. Mauro also pointed to the growing domination of the
court's docket by veteran advocates whom the justices have grown
to trust.  The justices and their law clerks pay attention to
filings by these familiar faces; consequently, corporate clients
frequently turn to these lawyers.

Ms. Coyle and Mr. Mauro, veteran Supreme Court reporters,
addressed a group of attorneys attending the NLJ's Elite Trial
Lawyers ceremony in Las Vegas on Nov. 13 and 14.  For the first
time this year, the NLJ and affiliate Law.com recognized 50 law
firms for creative and substantial work on the plaintiffs side.
Coyle noted pro-business and pro-employer rulings, often divided,
involving class actions.  "The court has consistently raised the
bar for plaintiffs pursuing class actions," she said.  For
example, in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the court held that mere
"notice pleading" no longer would satisfy Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. Plaintiffs must now show a "plausible entitlement to
relief."

And Comcast v. Behrend, she said, extended the "rigorous analysis"
standard developed in the 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores v.
Dukes to Rule 23(b)(3) that predicates class certification on a
finding that common questions predominate over individual ones.
The combination of Wal-Mart and Comcast, Ms. Coyle said, increase
the burden on plaintiffs at the certification stage.

Finally, in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, a 5-4
majority held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements
would be strictly enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act,
Ms. Coyle said.  Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent that "to a
court bent on diminishing the usefulness of Rule 23, everything
looks like a class action, ready to be dismantled."

Lawyers attending the panel discussion questioned whether the U.S.
Supreme Court would accept a petition that BP PLC filed over its
$9.2 billion settlement for economic losses stemming from the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  In BP Exploration & Production v.
Lake Eugenie Land & Development, the company argues that the
existing interpretation of the settlement, upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, violates the Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 and Article III of the Constitution by
awarding damages businesses that sustained no economic injuries.
Coyle declined to predict whether the justices would grant review,
but said it appears that at least five justices have a strong
interest in reining in class actions.

Also noteworthy is the court's "extraordinary proliferation" of
decision-making through emergency orders, stays and denials of
review in recent months, Mr. Mauro said.  The court prides itself
as being an institution that explains its decisions, but these
judgments it often issues without any explanation.  "One thing
that is quite striking is the extent to which the court is ruling
by not ruling," he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's future plans triggered a question
from the lawyers.  In numerous interviews last summer, including
one with Coyle for the NLJ, Judge Ginsburg made very clear that
she intends to work for as long as she is able.  According to
Ms. Coyle, no other justice appears ready to step down. Ginsburg's
health is good, Coyle said, and she is exercising her influence
when she is the senior justice in dissent.  "I think she enjoys
that authority."

Asked whether the composition of the Supreme Court would figure in
the 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Mauro said: "Unfortunately,
no." That issue energizes certain constituencies, but the general
public seems to view it as too abstract -- it's hard to draw a
direct line between who is president and the direction of the
Supreme Court, Mauro said.

Editor in Chief Beth Frerking noted that 2016 might be different,
citing abortion rights as one issue that could make the
composition of the Supreme Court a rallying point in the
presidential campaign.


* Marsh LLC Launches Consumer Class Action Settlement Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Livingston, writing for Business Insurance, reports that
Marsh L.L.C. has launched a consumer class action settlement
insurance product that transfers the settling company's ultimate
payout in a class action lawsuit to the insurer.

The consumer class action settlement insurance offers up to $100
million in coverage, Marsh said on Nov. 18 in a statement.  A
spokesman for the company declined to disclose the A-rated
insurer.

With the coverage, a company pays a fixed premium once a class
action settlement is reached, and that settlement is transferred
to the insurer, according to the statement.

The insurance may be purchased when the lawsuit is filed or when a
settlement is reached, Marsh said.

"Most companies that have purchased (the coverage) pay for it
contemporaneously with settling the agreement," Matt Schott,
senior vice president of financial and professional liability for
Marsh, told Business Insurance.  "In this way, they have
certainty" as to the cost of the settlement.

The consumer class action settlement insurance applies only to
settlement costs and does not cover legal expenses, nonmonetary
damages or class representative fees, Marsh said on its website.

"With the addition of social media, claims aggregators and online
settlement promotion sites, companies seeking to settle consumer
class action litigation cannot accurately predict their potential
settlement exposure (or) expected payout," Jack Flug, managing
director of financial and professional liability, said in the
statement.  With class action settlement insurance, "companies can
insure their multimillion-dollar settlement liability, limiting
their exposure by fixing their loss to the amount paid in
premium."


                              *********

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  * * *