CAR_Public/141229.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 258


                             Headlines

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: La. Supreme Court Denies Writ to Appeal
AFNI INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
AMERICAN ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces "Doncouse" Suit Alleging ADA Violations
APOLLO GROUP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Investor's Class Suit

APPLE INC: Five Sub Plaintiffs in iTunes Antitrust Suit Submitted
APPLE INC: Seeks to End Decade-Old iTunes Antitrust Class Suit
APPLE INC: Wins Jury Verdict in iTunes Antitrust Class Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Wis. Judge Denies Class Cert. in FCRA Suit
BLUE EARTH: Faces "Cianci" Class Action in C.D. Calif.

BLUE SHIELD: Sued for Not Amending Error That Overcharged Members
BOSTON MARKET: W.D. Pa. Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss ADA Suit
BROOKFIELD DTLA: Parties to Merger Suit in Settlement Talks
CAFEPRESS INC: Desmarais and Jinnah Lawsuits Consolidated
CANNAVEST CORP: Court Has Not Appointed Lead Plaintiff

CARGILL INC: Agrees to Pay $6.1-Mil. to Settle Sweetener Dispute
CAVALRY SPV: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CB FINANCIAL: Hearing Date Not Yet Set in Notice of Appeal
CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Settlement in "Howard" Action Now Final
CHILDREN'S CREATIVE: Calif. Court OKs "Hernandez" Settlement

CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against TCPA Litigation
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against LIBOR Litigation
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Court Clarifies Coverage in Policy Claims
CUBIST PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Adverts

DIALOGIC INC: Faces "Bushansky" Class Action in NJ State Court
DINEEQUITY INC: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Watkins" Suit
DOLE PACKAGED: Dismissed From Frozen Berries and Fruit Cups Suit
EL PALACIO DE LA COMIDA: Removes "Subiaurt" Suit to S.D. Florida
ELDORADO RESORTS: Plaintiffs in Merger Suit to Dismiss Claims

ENOVA INT'L: Nev. Court Has Not Ruled on Summary Judgment Motion
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: "Rangi" Suit Stayed Pending Global Mediation
FLINT, MI: Judge Declines Retirees' Bid to Revise Prior Order
FOOT LOCKER: Court Amends Class Cert. Ruling in "Osberg" Suit
FOUR OAKS: Class Action in N.D. Georgia Dismissed

G&S PORT: Violates Americans with Disabilities Act, Suit Claims
GEICO INDEMNITY: Removes "Perez" Suit to Florida District Court
GENTIVA HEALTH: Seeks to Drop Bailey Plaintiffs for Misjoinder
GENTIVA HEALTH: Status Conference in "Wilkie" Case Set for June
GENTIVA HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Files Cert. Bid in Securities Suit

HOOPER HOLMES: Objects to Judge's Recommendation to Certify Class
HOOPER HOLMES: Settled Individual Claim With Named Plaintiff
HOUSTON AMERICAN: Parties Reach Agreement to Settle Class Suit
IBIO INC: Faces "Pena" Class Action in Delaware
IMH FINANCIAL: Completes Issuance of Settlement Notes

INDIANAPOLIS: Summary Judgment Order in "Cox" Suit Reversed
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Parties in Securities Case Engaged in Discovery
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against "Banes" Securities Class Suit
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against "Tarapara" Class Action
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against "Jindal" Class Action

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against "Gallien" Class Action
JOE'S CRAB: Employees' Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Initial Public Offering
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Notice of Class Action Certification Mailed
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Paid $0.7 Million to Settle Class Action

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Pines Nursing Home Class Action
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Reached Settlement in Merger Class Action
MANDALAY DIGITAL: Appeal in Class Action Now Under Review
MCCABE WEISBERG: SDNY Court Narrows "Jones-Bartley" FDCPA Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Lane" Suit to Tennessee District Court

MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Miller" Suit to Tennessee District Court
MEKKA MIAMI: Removes "Abarca" Suit to Florida District Court
NATIONAL WATER: NJ Court Approves $250,000 Deal in "Mulroy" Suit
MICHAEL HAINES: Tenn. App. Affirms Ruling in "Haiser" Suit
NY COMMUNITY BANCORP: E.D.N.Y. Judge Narrows "Garnet-Bishop" Suit

NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY: Settlement in "Shepard" Suit Has Final OK
ONE ON ONE MARKETING: Faces Suit in S.C. for Violating TCPA
OVERLAND STORAGE: Entered Into MOU to Settle Consolidated Action
P.F. CHANG'S: Court Dismisses Two Suits Over Security Breach
PENNSYLVANIA: Doctor's Bid to Dismiss "Sanchez" Suit Granted

PLASMATECH BIOPHARMA: 3rd Circuit Remands Case to District Court
PLASTIC2OIL INC: Further Briefing Okayed to Support Settlement
QC HOLDINGS: North Carolina Supreme Court Refused to Hear Appeal
QC HOLDINGS: Settlement of British Columbia Case to be Finalized
QC HOLDINGS: Trial in Calif. Case Scheduled for Early 2016

RALPHS GROCERY: Appeals Court Flips Ruling on Arbitration Bid
RCS CAPITAL: Final Approval Hearing Set for January 9
RCS CAPITAL: Lead Plaintiffs File Direct Class Action Complaint
REMINGTON ARMS: M.D.N.C. Judge Dismisses "Maxwell" Suit
RIVERSIDE, CA: Sued for Seizing Newborn Baby Without Reason

ROCKET FUEL: Faces Two Class Actions Over Public Offering
SAFEWAY INC: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Rodman" Suit
SCORES HOLDING: Has $59,084 Class Action Settlement Receivable
SKLAR-MARKIND: "Brown" FDCPA Suit to Proceed in Arbitration
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Paid $2,200,000 to Settle "Lewy" Class Action

SONY COMPUTER: Court Refuses to Dismiss Suit Over 'Killzone' Game
SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Expects Discovery to be Completed This Month
STATE FARM: Crawford's Auto Center Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
SWS GROUP: Parties Reach MOU to Settle Consolidated Action
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: 3d Cir. Flips in Part Ruling in "Judon" Suit

TREMOR VIDEO: Files Reply in Support of Case Dismissal Bid
UNI-PIXEL INC: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Litigation
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Trims Suit Over Employee Benefit Plan
US HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Sued by Arapaho Tribe Over Obamacare Issues
USI INC: Faces "P & S" Class Suit in Connecticut District Court

VERIZON NEW YORK: Removes "Weider" Class Suit to E.D. New York
WALGREEN CO: Accused of Hiding Malfeasance Claims Made by Ex-CFO
WEST ASSET: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
WILSHIRE CONSUMER: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says


                            *********


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: La. Supreme Court Denies Writ to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed a writ to appeal to the
Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied on October 3, 2014,
rendering a Third Circuit's decision in the Company's favor final.

On March 20, 2013, the Company was served with a Class Action
Petition for Damages and Penalties for Arbitrary and Capricious
Behavior filed in the 13th Judicial District Court, Parish of
Evangeline, Louisiana against USAgencies Casualty Insurance
Company (USAgencies), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AIC. The named
plaintiffs allege that the denial of their first-party property
damage claim based on USAgencies' policy exclusion for driving
under the influence of alcohol was arbitrary and capricious, and
that USAgencies' enforcement of the subject policy exclusion
violates Louisiana public policy. On August 2, 2013, the Court
ruled that USAgencies' policy exclusion violated Louisiana public
policy and was unenforceable. USAgencies pursued an appeal of this
ruling in the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

On June 4, 2014, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal
entered its opinion reversing the lower court ruling and finding
in favor of USAgencies on all claims. Plaintiff filed a writ to
appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied on October
3, 2014, rendering the Third Circuit's decision in the Company's
favor final. This matter is now closed.


AFNI INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
consumers v. AFNI, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07339-ENV-RML (E.D.N.Y.,
December 17, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Adjustment Bureau, Inc., and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:14-cv-07852-ES-MAH (D.N.J., December 17, 2014) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

American Adjustment Bureau, Inc., is a foreign corporation with
its principal executive office located in Waterbury, Connecticut.
AAB is a corporation that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile
and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which
is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.  The Doe
Defendants are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com


AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces "Doncouse" Suit Alleging ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graciela Bretschneider Doncouse v. American Apparel Retail, Inc.,
a California Corporation, d/b/a American Apparel, and The Andrews
Organization, Inc., a New York Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-
09986-PGG (S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2014) is brought for injunctive
relief, attorneys fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New
York State Human Rights Law.

Ms. Doncouse suffers from a disability causing her to be a
paraplegic.  She is wheelchair-bound and uses a wheelchair for
mobility.

The Defendants are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.  American Apparel Retail,
Inc., is the lessee and operator of the real property, and the
owner of the improvements where the Subject Facility is located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: Brad@markslawfirm.net


APOLLO GROUP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Investor's Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims that the for-profit education company Apollo Group inflated
its worth with lies and sketchy recruitment tactics failed to
impress the 9th Circuit on December 16, reports Tim Hull at
Courthouse News Service.

The ruling comes more than four years after the U.S. General
Accountability Office embarrassed 15 for-profit colleges with a
report detailing how they encouraged undercover investigators
posing as potential students to falsify financial aid information,
or supplied inaccurate information about tuition costs and
accreditation.

Investors in Arizona-based Apollo, which owns the ubiquitous
University of Phoenix, brought a deluge of class actions that
false financial reports and inflated student-recruitment numbers
were to blame for the $46 million in stock sold between May 2007
and October 2010.

U.S. District Judge James Teilborg consolidated the actions in
Phoenix but ultimately dismissed them after finding that the
investors had failed state a valid claim for securities fraud.

In affirming December 16, the 9th Circuit found that the
statements and misrepresentations in question were mere "business
puffing."

The investors' complaint lacked sufficient detail to meet the
relatively high bar for pleadings in such securities actions, the
court found, also citing the failure to show that Apollo acted
with an evil mind, misstated financial numbers, or used deceptive
recruiting tactics as a general, companywide rule.

"'Puffing' concerns expressions of opinion, as opposed to
knowingly false statements of fact," Judge Milan Smith wrote for a
three-judge panel.  "The statements the plaintiffs allege Apollo
made are inherently subjective 'puffing' and would not induce the
reliance of a reasonable investor."

The evidence of wrongdoing that the plaintiffs offered meanwhile
did not show "widespread deception" on the part of the company,
the court found.

"The plaintiffs rely on statements by various anonymous employees
and executives who suggest that they personally witnessed faulty
recruiting or attended meetings where Apollo representatives
discussed marketing to unfit students," Smith wrote.  "The
plaintiffs do not provide specificity about these meetings and do
not discuss what made students unfit.  Instead, the plaintiffs
rely on generalizations about groups of people, such as the
homeless or veterans, who were supposedly unreliable students.  At
best, the plaintiffs' allegations reveal isolated instances of
faulty recruitment, rather than widespread deception, which would
be necessary to establish fraudulent intent or reckless ignorance
based on a holistic analysis."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622 7100
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Linda T. Coberly, Esq.
          William P. Ferranti, Esq.
          Benjamin L. Ellison, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: lcoberly@winston.com
                  bferranti@winston.com

               - and -

          David B. Rosenbaum, Esq.
          OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
          2929 North Central Avenue, 21st Floor
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2793
          Telephone: (602) 640-9345
          Facsimile: (602) 640-9050
          E-mail: drosenbaum@omlaw.com

The appellate case is Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, et
al. v. Apollo Group Incorporated, et al., Case No. 12-16624, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
trial court case is Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, et
al. v. Apollo Group Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01735-
JAT, in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona.


APPLE INC: Five Sub Plaintiffs in iTunes Antitrust Suit Submitted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys suing Apple in a decade-old antitrust case lost two lead
plaintiffs in the middle of trial -- but they have backups, they
told a federal judge on December 9, reports Arvin Temkar at
Courthouse News Service.

Class attorneys submitted five replacement options for a new lead
plaintiff on December 8 night and early December 9 morning.

"We believe these people will satisfy all the requirements to be
adequate class representatives," attorney Patrick Coughlin told
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

The class action claims that certain iTunes updates prevented iPod
users from playing music bought from competing music services.
The trial, on its seventh day, could be delayed for a few days as
attorneys vet the potential plaintiffs.

The plaintiff dilemma began on the first week of December, when
class attorneys dismissed one of the lead plaintiffs because she
didn't purchase an iPod within the 2006 to 2009 class period.  On
December 8 Rogers dismissed the remaining plaintiff for the same
reason, and told class attorneys to find a replacement by Dec. 9.

On December 9, Apple's attorney William Isaacson, with Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, asked Rogers to dismiss two of the potential
replacements because they were not submitted until December 9
morning.

"There's no excuse for this," he said.

Rogers denied the request, but appeared frustrated at the
situation.

"I will consider the additional two, but it is done," she said.
"There is no one else."


APPLE INC: Seeks to End Decade-Old iTunes Antitrust Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple took yet another tack December 10 to end an antitrust class
action accusing the giant of monopolizing the music download
market, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service.

In a motion for judgment as a matter of law filed December 10,
Apple argued that class attorneys haven't made a case with enough
legal basis to convince the jury that the company violated
antitrust laws.

The suit claims that certain iTunes updates between 2006 and 2009
prevented iPod users from playing music bought from competing
music services.  Much of the case centers around a program called
Harmony, which allowed songs purchased from the RealPlayer Music
Store -- an Apple competitor -- to be played on iPods, bypassing
Apple's music protection code.  Updates to iTunes later made it
impossible for those songs to work on iPods.

In its new motion, the company argued that plaintiffs haven't
offered any evidence to show the iTunes updates weren't actual
improvements.  Apple personnel have testified at trial that the
updates were necessary to fix security flaws.

At the beginning of the trial U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers instructed jurors to decide whether the updates were
"genuine product improvements," and Apple pointed to several of
the benefits the updates provided in its motion.

"iTunes 7.0 and 7.4 added numerous valuable features, such as full
length movies, downloadable games for iPods, and the ability to
transfer songs from iPods to one's desktop computer," Apple
attorneys wrote.

The company also argued that an economics expert called by the
plaintiffs during trial didn't make a sufficient argument that
there was an iPod price increase due to Apple's alleged monopoly.

Furthermore, Apple lawyers said, "it is the law of this case that
Apple's decision to design the iPod to work exclusively with
iTunes instead of interoperating with other software was lawful,
and that Apple had no duty to assist RealNetworks or others in
enabling or maintaining interoperability with the iPod."

Meanwhile, plaintiffs' attorneys were scrambling to find a new
class representative when two lead plaintiffs were dismissed from
the case during the trial for not having purchased an iPod during
the class period.

Rogers told class attorneys at the beginning of the week to find a
replacement by December 9.

The Associated Press reported December 10 that class attorneys
have proposed adding Barbara Bennett, a 65-year-old business
consultant from Massachusetts, as the new named plaintiff.

Apple Inc. is represented by:

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
          Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
                  kdunn@bsfllp.com
                  mgoodman@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          John F. Cove, Jr., Esq.
          Kieran P. Ringgenberg, Esq.
          Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq.
          Maxwell V. Pritt, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 874-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
          E-mail: jcove@bsfllp.com
                  kringgenberg@bsfllp.com
                  mdearborn@bsfllp.com
                  mpritt@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          David C. Kiernan, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com

The case is The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
4:05-cv-00037-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Division.


APPLE INC: Wins Jury Verdict in iTunes Antitrust Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Arvin Temkar reports that a
jury sided with Apple in a decade-long antitrust class action that
accused the tech giant of monopolizing the digital player market
and overcharging for iPods.

The verdict came December 16 morning after only three hours of
deliberation following a two-week trial, which included
appearances by Apple execs and a much-anticipated video deposition
by late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.  Closing arguments in the
case ended December 15 afternoon.

Plaintiffs representing a class of an estimated 8 million
consumers and 500 businesses accused Apple of using an iTunes
update to prevent iPods from playing music purchased from
competing music stores.  Attorneys for consumers said the update
kept users locked into Apple products, allowing the company to
sell iPods for inflated prices between 2006 and 2009.

But Apple argued that the update allowed iTunes to play movies and
show album art, and bolstered security in a system that "had flaws
everywhere," according to an expert who testified for the company.

The plaintiffs claimed $350 million in damages, which could have
amounted to a potential $1 billion award.

The jury found that iTunes update 7.0 was a genuine product
improvement, which federal antitrust law allows even if it hurts
rivals.

The case is known as The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 05-CV-0037 YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

                           *     *     *

Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
attorneys gave closing arguments December 15 afternoon, the final
day of a two-week trial over whether Apple iTunes updates between
2006 and 2009 kept iPods from playing music purchased from
competing music stores.  Attorneys for consumers say the updates
kept users locked in to using Apple products, allowing the company
to sell iPods for inflated prices.

The decade-old case has gone through a number of twists since
beginning on Dec. 4.

In the middle of the trial, the two class representatives who
brought the suit were dismissed because they did not purchase
iPods during the class period.

Class attorneys substituted a new class representative, Barbara
Bennett, in the second week of December.  She represents an
estimated eight million consumers and 500 businesses.

In another shift, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
instructed jurors to focus on only one software update to iTunes,
iTunes 7.0.  Initially, the case revolved around both the 7.0 and
7.4 software updates.

Nevertheless, the heart of the case remains the same -- jurors
must determine whether the update in question was a "genuine
product improvement."

Rogers reminded jurors that under antitrust law a "genuine product
improvement" cannot be considered anticompetitive, regardless of
its impact on a competitor.

"A company has no general legal duty to assist its competitors,
including by making products interoperable, licensing to
competitors, or sharing information," Rogers told the jury.

Much of the case centers around a program called Harmony, which
allowed songs purchased from the RealPlayer Music Store -- an
Apple competitor -- to be played on iPods by bypassing Apple's
music protection code.  Updates to iTunes later made it impossible
for those songs to work on iPods.

In closing arguments, Apple attorney William Isaacson, of the firm
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, maintained that iTunes 7.0 was the
single most significant update since iTunes launched in 2001. It
included a variety of features including a cover-art gallery and
the ability to play movies, as well as sorely needed security
upgrades, he said.

But class attorney Patrick Coughlin, of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, used an analogy to remind jurors the real issue rests in
coding that prevented access to music from third parties.

"If a Snickers bar came out and it had more chocolate would it be
better?  Naturally you'd say 'yes.'  But if that Snickers bar had
a preservative in it that was toxic, that would not be an improved
Snickers bar," Coughlin said.

Isaacson countered that there is no evidence that Harmony users
ever complained about how songs interacted with the iPod.

"This is all made up at this point," the Apple attorney said.
"It's lawyer argument, that's what it is."


BANK OF AMERICA: Wis. Judge Denies Class Cert. in FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the Western District of
Wisconsin granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case
entitled JON GERMAIN and AMBER RHY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Defendant., No. 13-CV-676-BBC (W.D. Wis.)

Plaintiffs Jon Germain and Amber Rhy contended that defendant Bank
of America, N.A. violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1681-1681 by obtaining their consumer reports without a
permissible purpose after plaintiffs had discharged their
mortgages with defendants in bankruptcy. Plaintiffs argue that
because their credit relationship ended with defendant as soon as
their mortgages were discharged, defendant had no legitimate
reason to obtain their consumer reports.

Bank of America maintained three policies in obtaining review on
consumer reports:

     -- it obtained consumer reports from a consumer reporting
agency, for all customers who had adjustable rate mortgages to see
how extended such customers were on credit and to determine their
ability to pay their mortgages. Defendant did this without regard
to whether the consumer's debt had been discharged in bankruptcy.

     -- defendant obtained consumer reports on an "ad hoc" basis
with respect to individuals for whom it did not have a recent
credit score; these individuals included customers whose mortgages
had been discharged in bankruptcy. Defendant included these
individuals so that it could determine their eligibility for loan
modification and loss mitigation programs.

     -- defendant reviewed the consumer reports of customers whose
mortgages had been discharged but who were in "loss mitigation"
and attempting to avoid foreclosure through measures such as a
deed in lieu of foreclosure.

Plaintiffs seek to certify three classes under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3), corresponding to the three different reasons defendant
asserts as authority for its review of plaintiffs' consumer
reports: (1) a class of plaintiffs who had adjustable rate
mortgages but whose debts had been discharged in bankruptcy; (2) a
class of plaintiffs who were subject to defendant's "ad hoc"
policy of reviewing all accounts for which it lacked recent
consumer report data; and (3) a class of plaintiffs who undertook
post discharge "loss mitigation" activities such as seeking a deed
in lieu of foreclosure.

Defendant contends that it did have a legal purpose for each
review it made of plaintiffs' consumer reports and, for that
reason, was not in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Act.
Defendant moved for summary judgment.

Judge Crabb granted defendant's motion for summary judgment,
expressing that plaintiffs have failed to show that defendant
obtained plaintiffs' consumer reports without legal purpose.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied since
plaintiffs' claims lack of merit, which means plaintiffs are not
proper class representatives.

A copy of Judge Crabb's opinion and order dated November 7, 2014
is available at http://is.gd/OLJBWqfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs represented by:

     Eric Leighton Crandall, Esq
     CRANDALL LAW OFFICES, SC
     251 S Knowles Ave.
     New Richmond, WI 54017
     Telephone: 715-246-1010

          - and -

     Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
     CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
     367 Commerce Court
     Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
     Telephone: 612-200-1495
     Facsimile: 651-704-0907

          - and -

     Thomas John Lyons, Sr.
     LYONS LAW FIRM PA
     367 Commerce Court
     Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
     Telephone: 651-770-9707 or 1-800-477-6910
     Facsimile: 651-704-0907

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by David S. Reidy
-- dreidy@reedsmith.com -- Marc Albert Lackner --
mlackner@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP; and Rachel Anne
Graham -- rachel.graham@quarles.com -- Valerie L. Bailey-Rihn --
val.bailey@quarles.com -- at Quarles & Brady LLP


BLUE EARTH: Faces "Cianci" Class Action in C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
Blue Earth, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
lawsuit, captioned "Jordan Cianci, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Blue Earth, Inc., Johnny R.
Thomas (an executive officer), Brett Woodard (an executive
officer) and John Francis (a non-executive officer)", was filed on
October 24, 2014, in United States District Court Central District
of California (Case No. 2:14-cv-08263) against Blue Earth, Inc.
and the aforementioned officers of the Company.  The complaint is
based, in large part, on the allegations contained in an anonymous
article posted on October 21, 2014 on the website
"SeekingAlpha.com".  The Company has previously responded to the
"SeekingAlpha" allegations in a press release dated October 21,
2014 and refuted the veracity of the claims made in the article.
The Company believes the claims contained in the complaint are
without merit and will vigorously defend this matter.


BLUE SHIELD: Sued for Not Amending Error That Overcharged Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Shield of California knew a computer glitch overcharged
members for prescription drugs but failed to inform customers or
correct the errors, according to a class action lawsuit, reports
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff David Hoffman on December 12 sued California
Physician's Service dba Blue Shield of California, in Superior
Court.

Hoffman claims that Blue Shield's computer system failed in late
September, affecting its members' prescription-drug benefit.

As a result of this error, when insured members bought a brand-
name prescription drug, "Blue Shield's computer system treated the
member's applicable prescription-drug deductible as if it had been
completely unsatisfied," Hoffman claims.  "In addition, the system
thereafter failed to allow any further purchases of prescription
drugs to accumulate toward the deductible for members."

Hoffman claims that Blue Shield learned of the computer problem
shortly after it occurred -- that members who had satisfied their
prescription-drug deductible would be overcharged, and that it
would take weeks to repair the problem.

But Blue Shield chose not to inform members about the error, the
complaint states.

"It did not notify members that they had been overcharged for
brand-name prescriptions that had been filled after the problem
manifested in its computer system," Hoffman claims.  "Nor did it
warn them that, until the problem was rectified, they would be
overcharged when they filled brand-name prescriptions."

As a result of the error, Hoffman says he paid $245.82 for Nexium
in October instead of $70, and paid $320 for Celebrex in October
instead of $70.

"Hundreds of thousands of Blue Shield members have been similarly
affected by the computer-system error and have been overcharged
for their prescriptions because Blue Shield's computer system
failed to recognize that their deductibles had been satisfied,"
Hoffman says in the complaint.

Blue Shield declined to comment December 15.

Hoffman seeks class certification, restitution, an injunction, and
damages and punitive damages for breach of contract, tortious
breach of faith, fraudulent concealment, and business code
violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Ehrlich, Esq.
          THE EHRLICH LAW FIRM
          16130 Ventura Blvd., Suite 610
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 905-3970
          Facsimile: (818) 905-3975
          E-mail: jehrlich@ehrlichfirm.com


BOSTON MARKET: W.D. Pa. Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss ADA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell denied defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case SARAH HEINZL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOSTON MARKET
CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-997 (W.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Sarah Heinzl has a mobility disability and is limited in
the major life activity of walking, causing her to be dependent
upon a wheelchair for mobility. Plaintiff frequently visited
defendant Boston Market property. During one of her visit, she
experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk due to excessive
slopes in a purportedly accessible parking space and access aisle.

Plaintiff brought an action against defendant alleging violations
of Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 12181 to 12189. Specifically, she alleges that Boston
Market's facilities are not fully accessible to and independently
usable by individuals who use wheelchairs for mobility, as she
does, because of various barriers in the parking lot.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,
challenging plaintiff's standing to bring the action. Plaintiff
then filed an amended complaint.  Defendant again filed a motion
to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint.

Magistrate Judge Mitchell denied defendant's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint expressing that plaintiff has satisfied the
requirements of standing, both under the intent to return test and
under the deterrent effect test.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Mitchell's Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated November 7, 2014, is available at is http://is.gd/ghws64
from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Sarah Heinzl represented by:

     Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH LTD
     PNC Park
     115 Federal Street, Suite 210
     Pittsburgh, PA 15212
     Telephone: 412-322-9243
     Facsimile: 412-231-0246

Defendant Boston Market Corporation represented by:

     Julie R. Trotter, Esq.
     Melinda Evans, Esq.
     Michael S. Orr, Esq.
     CALL & JENSEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Telephone: 949-717-3000
     Facsimile: 949-717-3100
     E-mail: jtrotter@calljensen.com
             mevans@calljensen.com


BROOKFIELD DTLA: Parties to Merger Suit in Settlement Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the parties to the merger-related litigation sent a
joint letter to the Maryland State Court stating that since the
June 18 meeting, the parties have commenced discussions towards a
possible resolution of the lawsuit, requesting that the court
temporarily refrain from deciding the pending motion to dismiss to
facilitate the discussions, and stating that the parties will
report to the court within 45 days of the October 21 letter
regarding the status of their discussions.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger
Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed against
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield DTLA,
Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust
Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the
"Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P.,
and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.
Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"),
and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the
"Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on
April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three
lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-
C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso
Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013,
respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two
lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No.
24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et
al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and
July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock
Actions," together with the Common Stock Actions, the "Merger
Litigations").

In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by
failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and
ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action further
alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breaches
of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors,
and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust,
Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.

On June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical,
amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an
amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well as
the Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the SEC on May 21,
2013 is false and/or misleading because it fails to include
certain details of the process leading up to the merger and fails
to provide adequate information concerning MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s financial advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the
Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached
the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG
preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement
that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. On July 15,
2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions filed a joint
amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board
of directors failed to disclose material information regarding
BPO's extension of the tender offer.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
merger has been consummated, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and
the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"), regarding a proposed
settlement of all claims asserted therein. The parties
subsequently entered into a stipulation of settlement dated
November 21, 2013 providing for the release of all asserted
claims, additional disclosures by MPG concerning the merger made
prior to the merger's approval, and the payment, by defendants, of
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $475,000.

After a hearing on June 4, 2014, the California State Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement,
and entered a Final Order and Judgment, awarding plaintiffs'
counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $475,000,
which was paid by MPG Office LLC on June 18, 2014. BPO is seeking
reimbursement for the settlement payment from MPG's insurers.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the
Maryland State Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added
additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new
preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred
shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion
concluded on February 28, 2014.

At a hearing on June 18, 2014, the Maryland State Court heard oral
arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss and reserved
judgment on the decision. On October 21, 2014, the parties sent a
joint letter to the Maryland State Court stating that since the
June 18 meeting, the parties have commenced discussions towards a
possible resolution of the lawsuit, requesting that the court
temporarily refrain from deciding the pending motion to dismiss to
facilitate the discussions, and stating that the parties will
report to the court within 45 days of the October 21 letter
regarding the status of their discussions.

While the final outcome with respect to the Merger Litigations
cannot be predicted with certainty, in the opinion of management
after consultation with external legal counsel, any liability that
may arise from such contingencies would not have a material
adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or
liquidity of Brookfield DTLA.


CAFEPRESS INC: Desmarais and Jinnah Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
CafePress Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Desmarais and
Jinnah class action lawsuits were consolidated into one litigation
matter.

The Company said, "On July 10, 2013, a complaint captioned
Desmarais v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-522744 was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo naming as
defendants the Company, certain of our directors, our former chief
executive officer, our former chief financial officer and certain
underwriters of our IPO. The lawsuit purports to be a class action
on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally
alleges that the registration statement for the IPO contained
materially false or misleading statements. The complaint purports
to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
seeks unspecified damages and other relief."

On July 14, 2013 a similar compliant making substantially
identical allegations and captioned Jinnah v. CafePress Inc., et
al. CIV-522976 was filed in the same court against the same
defendants.

In the second quarter of 2014, the cases were consolidated into
one litigation matter.


CANNAVEST CORP: Court Has Not Appointed Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------
CannaVEST Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of November 3,
2014, the Court has not issued a ruling appointing a lead
plaintiff in the class action lawsuits and the Company has not yet
answered the Complaint, but management intends to vigorously
defend the allegations.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint  (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs.  Ms. Sallustro
alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares
of the Company's common stock for a total investment of
$15,791.00.  The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K
and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on
April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended
previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000
were restated to $1,082,375 -- reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).
Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share."

Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different
individuals have filed a motion asking to be designated the lead
plaintiff in the litigation.  The Court scheduled a hearing on
August 14, 2014 to consider the motions for designation as lead
plaintiff.  The other individuals seeking lead plaintiff
designation are:  Wayne Chesner; Anamaria Schelling; Mark
Williams; Otilda LaMont; Jane Ish and Steve Schuck.  After a
hearing held on August 14, 2014, the Court took the matter under
submission.

As of November 3, 2014, the Court has not issued a ruling
appointing a lead plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Company has not yet
answered the Complaint, but management intends to vigorously
defend the allegations. An estimate of the possible loss cannot be
made at this time.


CARGILL INC: Agrees to Pay $6.1-Mil. to Settle Sweetener Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Cargill agreed to pay $6.1 million to settle a class action
accusing it of falsely advertising its synthetic Truvia sweetener
as natural.

U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi approved the settlement on
December 8, which includes $1.83 million in attorneys' fees.

Four lawsuits were brought against Cargill in 2013, claiming the
agribusiness behemoth intentionally misled consumers by
advertising Truvia as a natural sweetener primarily manufactured
from the stevia plant.

Truvia, however, is "largely a synthetic and chemically produced"
product, according to the May 2014 consolidated complaint.

"As part of a scheme to make Truvia more attractive to consumers,
boost its sales and ultimately increase its profits, Cargill uses
terms such as 'Nature's Calorie-Free Sweetener' and 'Truvia
sweetener comes from nature,' and natural imagery such as the
leaves of stevia plants in labeling, advertising and marketing,"
according to the 52-page complaint.

Cargill teamed up with Coca-Cola to develop the sweetener,
unveiling Truvia in 2008 and revealing that it was made with an
extract of the stevia plant, Rebaudioside A, according to lead
plaintiff Denise Howerton.

"Reb A is not the natural crude preparation of stevia, but rather
is a highly chemically processed and purified form of stevia leaf
extract," the complaint states.  "Cargill describes the process of
obtaining stevia leaf extract as 'similar to making tea,' but does
not tell the consumer that Cargill adds ethanol, methanol, or
rubbing alcohol to this so called 'tea' in a patented multi-step
process to purify it."

Howerton sued Cargill for fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of
implied and express warranty under Hawaii, California and Florida
state laws.  The class sought preliminary and permanent
injunctions, corrective advertising and information campaigns,
restitution, disgorgement and damages.

The parties agreed on a preliminary settlement in June this year,
and were granted final approval Dec. 8.

Aside from the $6.1 million settlement fund, Cargill has 90 days
from the date of Kobayashi's order to change its Truvia labeling
and provide more information to consumers about the product's
ingredients.

"The court has reviewed the memoranda, the objections and the
applicable law and finds the settlement agreement fair, reasonable
and adequate," Kobayashi wrote.

The consolidated lawsuit is Denise Howerton, et al. v. Cargill,
Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00336-LEK-BMK, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Hawaii.


CAVALRY SPV: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Ridgeway, individually and as Class Representative for all
others similarly situated v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC and Cavalry
Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04025-LMM-WEJ (N.D. Ga.,
December 18, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT, STOLZ, LLC
          345 West Hancock Avenue
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile: (866) 766-9245
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 350-5900
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


CB FINANCIAL: Hearing Date Not Yet Set in Notice of Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
CB Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that defendants
in a class action complaint filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal the
dismissal ruling.  A hearing date has not been set.

On April 21, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned Sutton v.
FedFirst Financial Corp., et al., was filed under Case No.
24C14002331, the Circuit Court in Baltimore City, Maryland,
against FedFirst Financial, each of Fed First Financial's
directors, and CB Financial Services, Inc. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the FedFirst Financial directors breached
their fiduciary duties to FedFirst Financial and its stockholders
by agreeing to sell to CB Financial without first taking steps to
ensure that FedFirst Financials stockholders would obtain
adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances,
by agreeing to terms with CB Financial that benefit themselves
and/or CB Financial that discouraged other bidders.  The plaintiff
also alleges that CB Financial aided and abetted the FedFirst
Financial directors' breeches of fiduciary duties.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from
consummating the merger, as well as attorneys' fees and certain
other damages.

On June 20, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a Motion to Dismiss the complaint.  On July 29, 2014, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an additional claim
that the Form S-4 filed by CB Financial in connection with the
merger contains material misstatements and omissions.  FedFirst
Financial and CB Financial amended their Motion to Dismiss to
address the additional claims.  A hearing was held on the Motion
to Dismiss on September 19, 2014, and the court dismissed all
claims to all defendants with prejudice.

On October 17, 2014, the defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to
appeal the dismissal ruling.  A hearing date has not been set.

CB Financial believes the factual allegations in the complaint, as
amended, are without merit and is defending vigorously against the
allegations in the complaint.


CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Settlement in "Howard" Action Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court
approved the settlement, which is now final, in the class action
lawsuit filed by Francis Howard.

On October 12, 2012, Francis Howard ("Howard"), individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit
against the Company, Michael D. Pruitt, Eric S. Lederer, Michael
Carroll, Paul I. Moskowitz, Keith Johnson (the "Individual
Defendants"), Merriman Capital, Inc., Dawson James Securities,
Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants"), and Creason & Associates
P.L.L.C. ("Creason"), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  The class action lawsuit alleges violations
of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all Defendants,
violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against only
the Underwriter Defendants, and violations of Section 15 against
the Individual Defendants.

On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
alleging similar claims to those previously asserted.  On March
17, 2014, the parties signed a settlement agreement for a total of
$850,000, with $837,500 to be paid on behalf of the Company by its
insurance carrier, and $12,500 to be paid by Creason.

On August 14, 2014, the Court approved the settlement, which is
now final.  As a result, all claims against the Company have been
dismissed with prejudice.


CHILDREN'S CREATIVE: Calif. Court OKs "Hernandez" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, in an order dated Dec. 11, 2014, granted
final approval of a settlement in the class action lawsuit styled
MARIA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHILDREN'S CREATIVE LEARNING
CENTERS; KNOWLEDGE LEARNING CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 13-02246 LHK (N.D. Calif.).

The Plaintiff Class includes all current and former employees of
Defendants Children's Creative Learning Center, Inc., and
Knowledge Universe Education LLC (formerly known as Knowledge
Learning Corporation) who worked as Head Teachers, Co-Teachers,
Floater Teachers, Assistant Teachers, and Program Specialists at
Defendants' San Jose (Cisco) Facility or Mountain View Facility at
any time between August 13, 2008, and May 16, 2014.

The Settlement provides a definite, immediate financial benefit of
$700,000, with an average net settlement payment of approximately
$2,190 per Plaintiff Class Member for all of the 232 Class Members
who have not chosen to opt out of the Settlement.

The Court also granted the Plaintiff's motion for an award of
$168,750 in attorneys' fees and $5,000 in litigation costs, and
granted the Plaintiff's motion for a class representative service
payment in the amount of $7,500.

A full-text copy of Judge Koh's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/vYSF7Cfrom Leagle.com.

STEVEN M. TINDALL, Esq. -- stindall@rhdtlaw.com -- and ROSHA K.
JONES, Esq. -- rjones@rhdtlaw.com -- at RUKIN HYLAND DORIA &
TINDALL LLP, San Francisco, California, ARTHUR A. NAVARETTE, Law
Offices of Arthur A. Navarette, San Jose, CA, Attorneys for
Individual and Representative Plaintiff Maria Hernandez.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against TCPA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment
No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the Company is a defendant in a purported class action
complaint filed in December 2013 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The named plaintiff purports to
represent a "national class" of customers who allegedly received
automated calls to their cell phones from the bank or its agents,
without customer consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The Company is vigorously defending this matter.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Defending Against LIBOR Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment
No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 14, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the Company is a defendant in lawsuits in which
allegations have been made that its parent company, RBS Group,
manipulated U.S. dollar LIBOR to the detriment of the Company's
customers. The lawsuits include a purported class action on behalf
of borrowers of the Company whose interest rates were tied to U.S.
dollar LIBOR. The plaintiffs in these cases assert various
theories of liability, including fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The
Company is vigorously defending these matters.


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Court Clarifies Coverage in Policy Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George Jarrod Hazel of the District Court of Maryland
granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and
denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the case
entitled W.C. AND A.N. MILLER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant Case No. GJH-14-00425 (D.
Md.)

International Benefits Group (IBG) instituted a bankruptcy
proceeding in 2006. During IBG's bankruptcy proceeding, IBG's
Bankruptcy Trustee commenced an adversary proceeding in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, naming as
defendants, among others: Haymount Limited Partnership (HLP); the
two general partners of HLP - Westminster and Haymount; Edward J.
Miller, Jr., president of Haymount and chairman of Miller; and
John A. Clark, vice president of Westminster and president of The
John A. Clark. Judgment was entered in favor of the Trustee
against HLP and others in the amount of $4,469.158.00.

Miller purchased a Policy from Continental Casualty Company
sometime in 2010. The Policy provided coverage for claims made
between November 1, 2010 and November 1, 2011.

On October 29, 2010, the same Trustee initiated a second action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
naming as defendants several of the same parties named in the 2006
Adversary Proceeding, including HLP, Edward J. Miller Jr., and
John A. Clark. The complaint goes on to describe a number of
actions allegedly taken by the defendants that, according to the
Trustee, were done to transfer HLP's assets in order to make them
unavailable to satisfy the $4,469,158 judgment from the 2006.

On November 10, 2010, Miller provided notice to Continental -- its
insurer -- of the 2010 Lawsuit and informed Continental that it
believed it was entitled to coverage under its Policy. Despite
Miller's demand, however, Continental advised Miller that it
believed the Policy did not provide coverage for the 2010 Lawsuit.
According to Continental, Miller's Policy only provided coverage
for those "Claims" first made during the Policy Period of November
1, 2010 to November 1, 2011. Because, as Continental contends, the
"Claim" serving as the basis for the 2010 Lawsuit was first made
on March 17, 2006, the date on which the 2006 Adversary Proceeding
was commenced, prior to the inception of the Policy, the 2010
Lawsuit did not trigger coverage. As such, Continental informed
Miller that it would not provide a defense or defense costs to
Miller or any of its affiliated persons or entities named as
defendants in the 2010 Lawsuit.

Miller filed a suit against Continental claiming that Continental
violated its insurance contract with Miller by refusing to provide
coverage to reimburse Miller for costs associated with the defense
of the 2010 Lawsuit.

Continental filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings while
Miller filed a motion for summary judgment.

Judge Hazel granted Continental's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  Miller's motion for summary judgment is denied. He
explains that the 2006 Adversary Proceeding and the 2010 Lawsuit
are logically and causally connected by the common scheme to avoid
paying monies to IBG for its role in the Haymount Project, the two
events are "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" that must be treated as a
single "Claim" which is deemed made on the date on which the
earliest such Claim was first made.  The earlier "Claim" -- the
2006 Adversary Proceeding -- was made in 2006 when the adversary
complaint was served on Mr. Miller and HLP. As such, the 2010
Lawsuit is not covered under the Policy because it constitutes a
"Claim" that was made four years prior to the inception of the
Policy on November 1, 2010.

A copy of Judge Hazel's Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 2014
is available at http://is.gd/iOsnrRfrom Leagle.com

W.C. and A.N. Miller Development Company, Plaintiff and Counter
Defendant, represented by Paul J Kiernan -- paul.kiernan@hklaw.com
-- at Holland and Knight LLP

Continental Casualty Company, Defendant and Counter Claimant,
represented by Ashley Eiler -- aeiler@wileyrein.com -- Richard A
Simpson -- rsimpson@wileyrein.com -- Theodore A Howard --
toward@wileyrein.com -- at Wiley Rein LLP


CUBIST PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cubist Pharmaceuticals is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Merck, for
$102 a share or $8.4 billion, shareholders claim in a class action
in Delaware Chancery Court.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Adverts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helping Hand Caregivers Ltd., an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Mid Wilshire Consulting, Inc. d/b/a Social Wellness,
a California corporation, Brian J. Kang, an individual, and John
Does 1-12, Case No. 1:14-cv-10127 (N.D. Ill., December 17, 2014)
seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief arising out of
unsolicited advertisements sent by fax.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants sent advertisements by
fax to promote catered seminars about "wellness" in the workplace,
including the fax for a "Lunch N Learn" seminar."  The Plaintiff
contends that the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
prohibits a person from sending an advertisement by fax without
the recipient's prior express invitation or permission.

Helping Hand Caregivers Ltd. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Lake County, Illinois.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business in Orange County, Florida.  Mid
Wilshire Consulting, Inc., doing business as Social Wellness, is a
California Corporation with its principal place of business in Los
Angeles County, California.  Brian J. Kang is a resident of Santa
Clara County, California.  The Doe Defendants are currently
unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


DIALOGIC INC: Faces "Bushansky" Class Action in NJ State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dialogic Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on or around
October 28, 2014, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Morris County, against the Company, its directors, Parent and Sub,
captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Dialogic Inc., et al.  The lawsuit
alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders, and that the other
defendants aided and abetted those breaches, by seeking to sell
the Company through an allegedly unfair process for an unfair
price on unfair terms.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things,
equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of a merger
transaction, rescission of the Merger Agreement (to the extent it
already is implemented), and attorneys' fees and costs.
Additional stockholders of the Company may file additional
lawsuits that seek similar relief based on similar allegations.
The Company is unable to estimate any possible loss or range of
loss at this early stage in the case.


DINEEQUITY INC: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Watkins" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
an order by the New Jersey district court dismissing a class
action lawsuit brought by Candice Watkins against DineEquity, Inc.
et al.

DineEquity is the parent company of Applebee's International, Inc.
and International House of Pancakes, LLC. The menus on defendants'
restaurants contain lists of drinks and beverages but do not have
prices on it.

Candice Watkins filed a putative class action in New Jersey state
court on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all customers
who purchased beverages with undisclosed prices at Defendants'
restaurants in the State of New Jersey. Watkins's state court
complaint alleged that omitting beverage prices from restaurant
menus violates both the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.
Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-2, et seq., and Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act or TCCWNA.

Defendants removed the case to federal court.  Watkins then filed
a first amended complaint and dropped her CFA claim, leaving only
a single count under the TCCWNA.

The District Court granted Defendants' motion under
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, without prejudice, finding that Watkins failed to state
a viable claim for relief.

In response, Watkins filed both a motion for reconsideration and a
Second Amended Complaint. Defendants again moved to dismiss.

In an order and accompanying opinion, the District Court denied
the motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing the First
Amended Complaint, and granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, with
prejudice, the Second Amended Complaint, observing that "the
Second Amended Complaint contains no new factual allegations that
plausibly present a claim for liability under the TCCWNA."

Watkins appealed. She contends that the District Court erred in
holding that the omission of beverage prices from restaurant menus
could not give rise to liability under the TCCWNA.

Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie, who wrote the Third Circuit decision,
rejected Watkins' arguments and affirmed for substantially the
same reasons set forth by the District Court.

The appellate case is entitled CANDICE WATKINS, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, v. DINEEQUITY, INC.;
APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a Applebee's Neighborhood Bar
and Grill, d/b/a International House of Pancakes, Inc., and
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES, LLC, d/b/a IHOP, No. 13-1359 (3d
Cir.).  A copy of Judge Vanaskie's opinion dated November 7, 2014
is available at http://is.gd/xqk3Effrom Leagle.com.

Counsel to Watkins:

     Sander D. Friedman, Esq.
     Wesley Hanna, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF SANDER D. FRIEDMAN, LLC
     West Berlin, NJ
     Tel: (856) 988-7777

DineEquity et al. are represented by John B. Kearney --
kearneyj@ballardspahr.com -- Christopher N. Tomlin -
tomlinc@ballardspahr.com -- at -- Ballard Spahr LLP, Cherry Hill,
NJ -- Robert N. Hochman -- rhochman@sidley.com -- Theodore R.
Scarborough -- tscarborough@sidley.com -- Matthew D. Taksin --
mtaksin@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, Counsel
for Appellee

The Third Circuit Panel consists of Judges Joseph A. Greenaway,
Thomas I. Vanaskie and Jane Richards Roth.


DOLE PACKAGED: Dismissed From Frozen Berries and Fruit Cups Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jonny Bonner reports that a
federal judge rejected a narrowed class action against Dole, which
allegedly touted frozen berries and fruit cups as "all natural."

Lead plaintiff Chad Brazil sued Dole Packaged Foods in San Jose
Federal Court, in 2012.

Brazil claimed that 38 Dole products labeled as "all natural
fruit" contained "synthetic ingredients," including ascorbic and
citric acid.

Companies must refrain from the "all natural" tag under Food and
Drug Administration regulations, Brazil said, if a product
contains "unnatural ingredients such as added color, [or]
synthetic and artificial substances."

Brazil claimed Dole's products were mislabeled because they
contained ingredients that precluded use of the term "natural."

Brazil cited a 12-ounce bag of Dole mixed fruit, which used "the
phrase 'all natural fruit' even though this product contains the
following artificial ingredients: ascorbic acid, citric acid,
malic acid and added flavors."  Dole filed motions to dismiss
original and amended complaints.

Dole Food Co. was removed from the lawsuit as a result.  Dole's
frozen blueberries and smoothie shaker products, which Brazil
testified that he never purchased, were also dismissed.

The narrowed lawsuit cited 10 products: "(1) Tropical Fruit (can),
(2) Mixed Fruit (cup), (3) Diced Peaches, (4) Diced Apples, (5)
Diced Pears, (6) Mandarin Oranges, (7) Pineapple Tidbits, (8) Red
Grapefruit Sunrise, (9) Tropical Fruit (cup), (10) Mixed Fruit
(bag)."

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted Brazil's request for class
certification in part, in June.

Koh allowed a plaintiff class of Californians who purchased Dole
fruit products bearing the "all natural fruit" label, from
April 11, 2008, and denied Brazil's request for a nationwide
class.

"Dole does not dispute that a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy," Koh wrote.  "Here, the value of each individual
claim is likely small, such that the only practical way for this
case to proceed is as a class action.  Moreover, neither party has
raised any issues related to efficiency, and the court finds that
this dispute is more efficiently resolved as a class action."

On December 8, Koh granted Dole's request for summary judgment,
ruling the company's "all natural fruit" label was not misleading
to reasonable consumers under California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL).

Brazil "has confirmed that his UCL unlawful claim requires a
finding that Dole's 'all natural fruit' label violated the Sherman
Law by misleading reasonable consumers," the 13-page ruling
states.  "Because the court has found no genuine dispute as to
whether Dole's 'all natural fruit' label statement was misleading
to reasonable consumers, the court necessarily must find no
genuine dispute as to whether the Sherman Law was violated on that
very basis.  With no predicate violation on which to rely,
Brazil's UCL unlawful claim must fail." (Citation omitted.)

Koh said that when allowed the opportunity to offer evidence in
response to Dole's interrogatories, Brazil declined the
invitation, vowing to do so later in expert reports.

"Those expert reports have come and gone, and they contain no
evidence of a likelihood of deception," the ruling states.
"Furthermore, the only survey evidence Brazil cites is in Brazil's
opposition to the instant summary judgment motion and relates to
the issue of materiality of food labels."

Dole said, and Koh agreed, that Brazil offered no evidence that
citric acid and ascorbic acid, the two allegedly synthetic
ingredients found in the challenged products, "would not normally
be expected to be in" those products, as FDA definition requires.

"As binding Ninth Circuit precedent makes clear, 'a few isolated
examples of actual deception are insufficient' to survive summary
judgment," Koh wrote. "Where, as here, a plaintiff offers one
isolated example of deception -- i.e., Brazil's -- summary
judgment must be granted."

The case is Chad Brazil, an individual, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dole Packaged Foods,
LLC, Case No. 5:12-cv-01831-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


EL PALACIO DE LA COMIDA: Removes "Subiaurt" Suit to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Subiaurt v. El Palacio de la
Comida LLC, et al., Case No. 14-29637 CA 01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24747-JLK to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Miguel Armenteros, Esq.
          MIGUEL ARMENTEROS, P.A.
          1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 377-0086
          Facsimile: (305) 397-1136
          E-mail: miguel@pbyalaw.com


ELDORADO RESORTS: Plaintiffs in Merger Suit to Dismiss Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado Resorts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a
merger class action separately moved to voluntarily dismiss their
claims.

In connection with the merger of Eldorado Resorts LLC ("Resorts"),
and MTR Gaming Group, Inc. ("MTR Gaming"), three class action
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of MTR challenging
the Merger. All three cases were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery. The first case was filed on September 23, 2013 and is
captioned Harris v. MTR Gaming Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 8937-
VCG (the "Harris Case"); the second case was filed on September
27, 2013 and is captioned Julian v. MTR Gaming Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. 8950-VCG (the "Julian Case"); and the third case was
filed on October 14, 2013 and is captioned Morse v. MTR Gaming,
Inc., et al., Case No. 9001 (the "Morse Case"). These cases, which
purported to be brought as class actions on behalf of all MTR
stockholders, excluding the members of MTR's board of directors,
alleged, among other things, that the consideration to be received
by MTR stockholders in connection with the merger was inadequate
and that MTR's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. On
August 25, September 17, and October 9, 2014 Plaintiffs separately
moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims.


ENOVA INT'L: Nev. Court Has Not Ruled on Summary Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enova International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court in Nevada has
not yet ruled on this motion in the class action filed by Flemming
Kristensen.

On March 8, 2013, Flemming Kristensen, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against the Company and other
unaffiliated lenders and lead providers. The lawsuit alleges that
the lead provider defendants sent unauthorized text messages to
consumers on behalf of the Company and the other lender defendants
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint
seeks class certification, statutory damages, an injunction
against "wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying all
liability.

On March 26, 2014, the Court granted class certification. On
October 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment,
and the court has not yet ruled on this motion.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's claims in the complaint
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: "Rangi" Suit Stayed Pending Global Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of
California granted the parties' joint motion to stay proceedings
in the case RAVINDER RANGI and MELISSA C. MACIAS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendants, CIV. No. 2:14-01919 WBS AC
(E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Ravinder Rangi and Melissa Macias brought this putative
class action lawsuit against Examsoft, asserting various causes of
action including breach of contract and negligence in connection
with the alleged failure of defendant's testing software. The
parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings in light of an
agreement between them and other plaintiffs in various related
cases around the country to engage in global mediation. The
parties request a stay of proceedings until February 13, 2015.

Judge Shubb in his order dated November 6, 2014, which is
available at http://is.gd/GHGiezfrom Leagle.com, granted the
parties' joint motion to stay proceedings and the proceedings in
the action is also stayed until February 13, 2015. The parties
shall file a joint status report pursuant to Local Rule 240 with
this court no later than February 13, 2015, including a report on
the status of their mediation efforts.  If the action is not
finally resolved at the conclusion of the stay, a Status
Conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and
Local Rule 240 shall be held on March 2, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in
Courtroom 5.

Ravinder Rangi and Melissa C. Macias represented by Daniel P.
Mensher -- dmensher@kellerrohback.com -- Gretchen Freeman Cappio -
- gcappio@kellerrohback.com -- Havila C. Unrein --
hunrein@kellerrohback.com -- Lynn Lincoln Sarko --
lsarko@kellerrohback.com; and Matthew J. Preusch --
mreusch@kellerrohback.com -- at Keller Rohrback, LLP.

ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Ashley E. Littlefield --
Ashley.littlefield@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis


FLINT, MI: Judge Declines Retirees' Bid to Revise Prior Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, denied plaintiffs' emergency motion
to amend a prior order in the case JOHN WELCH, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. MICHAEL BROWN, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 12-13808 (E.D.
Mich.)

Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of retirees whose health
benefits have been altered by a plan proposed by the Emergency
Manager of the City of Flint. Flint filed a motion to modify
preliminary injunction, which the court granted in part, allowing
the Flint Emergency Manager to make limited changes to retirees'
health benefits.

Plaintiffs have filed an Emergency Motion to Amend/Correct the
Court's Order.  They request the court to add the following
language to each paragraph of its previous order:

     "Nothing in this order shall be construed to permit the City
of Flint to change or modify the City of Flint's obligations under
the permanent injunction issued in the case of Yurk et al. V. City
of Flint and Dicks, et al. v. City of Flint, being Case No. 01-
71149-NZ and Case No. 00-69878-NZ before the Honorable Judge
Archie L. Hayman of the Seventh Circuit Court for the County of
Genesee, Michigan. Nothing in this order shall be construed to
permit the City of Flint to change or modify the City of Flint's
obligations under the consent judgment entered in the consolidated
cases of Menosky, et al. v. City of Flint and Ashley, et al. v.
City of Flint,being Case No. 10-CV-11894 and Case No. 11-cv-12588
before the Honorable Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the Eastern
District of Michigan."

Judge Tarnow denied plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Amend Order,
expressing that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to
modify state-court orders, and he is unaware of any authority
granting the Court the power to modify an order of another sitting
United States District Judge.  Granting Plaintiffs' Motion would
be, at best, redundant and, at worst, unauthorized.

"If Plaintiffs wish to enforce the orders they reference in Yurk,
Dicks, Menosky, or Ashley, they must pursue whatever remedies are
available to them before the appropriate courts and judges, Judge
Tarnow said.

A copy of Judge Tarnow's order dated November 6, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/sL8MLofrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Alec S. Gibbs, Esq.
     Gregory T. Gibbs, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY T. GIBBS
     717 S. Grand Traverse Street
     Flint, MI 48502
     Telephone: (810) 239-9470
     Facsimile: (810) 235-2468
     Email: gibbsale@gmail.com
            greggibs51@sbcglobal.net

Counsel for Defendants:

     John C. Clark, Esq.
     Stephen J. Hitchcock, Esq.
     GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C.
     101 West Blg Beaver Road, 10th Floor
     Troy, MI 48084-5280
     Telephone: (248) 457-7000
     Facsimile: (248) 457-7001
     Email: jclark@gmhlaw.com
            sjh@gmhlaw.com

          - and -

     Brian M. Schwartz, Esq.
     Michael A. Alaimo, Esq.
     Richard Warren, Esq.
     MILLER, CANFIELD
     840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 150
     Troy, MI 48098
     Telephone: 248-879-2000
     Facsimile: 248-879-2001
     E-mail: schwartzb@millercanfield.com
             alaimo@millercanfield.com
             warren@millercanfield.com

          - and -

     Peter M. Bade, Esq.
     CITY OF FLINT LEGAL DEPARTMENT
     Room M307 3rd Floor
     1101 S. Saginaw Street
     Telephone: (810)766-7146
     Facsimile: (810)232-2114


FOOT LOCKER: Court Amends Class Cert. Ruling in "Osberg" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of
New York granted plaintiff's motion to amend a prior class
certification ruling in the case entitled, GEOFFREY OSBERG, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FOOT LOCKER, INC., et al., Defendants., No. 07-CV-
1358 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff Geoffrey Osberg initiated a suit against defendant Foot
Locker Inc., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.  Of the four causes of action only two remain -- the
alleged violation of ERISA Section 102(a); and the alleged
violations of Section 404(a). These allegations seek plan
reformation on the basis that defendant made false and material
misstatements and omissions in its adoption of the 1995 pension
plan amendment.

Defendant asserts that for claims based on misrepresentation,
plaintiffs must prove individualized reliance. Plaintiffs argue
that reliance is not a required element of either claim.

On September 24, 2014, the Court certified a class in the ERISA
action.  After further briefing, including submission of materials
to the Second Circuit in connection with a petition for review
under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(f), the Court notified the parties that
it would reconsider its prior decision -- but in doing so, it was
not suggesting that it would necessarily alter its initial
determination. In addition, plaintiffs have separately moved for
the Court to amend its class certification ruling to include Count
Three, the Section 102 "Summary Plan Description" claim, in such
certification.

Judge Forrest granted plaintiff's motion and the following class
is certified: "All persons who were participants in the Foot
Locker Retirement Plan as of December 31, 1995, who had at least
one Hour of Service on or after January 1, 1996 (as defined under
the Plan), and who were either paid a benefit from the Plan after
December 31, 1995, or are still entitled to a benefit from the
Plan; and the beneficiaries and estates of such persons and
alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order."

A copy of Judge Forrest's Opinion and Order dated November 7, 2014
is available at http://is.gd/LYGbI0from Leagle.com.

Geoffrey Osberg, Plaintiff, is represented by:

     Eli Gottesdiener, Esq.
     GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM, PLLC
     498 7th Street
     Brooklyn, NY 11215
     Telephone: (718) 788-1500
     Facsimile: (718) 788-1650
     Email: info@gottesdienerlaw.com

Foot Locker, Inc. and Foot Locker Retirement Plan, Defendant, are
represented by:

     Michael Todd Mobley, Esq.
     Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
     Howard Shapiro, Esq.
     Nichole A. Eichberger, Esq.
     Page Griffin, Esq.
     Robert W. Rachal, Esq.
     PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
     Eleven Times Square
     Eighth Avenue & 41st Street
     New York, NY 10036-8299
     Telephone: 212-969-3000
     Facsimile: 212-969-2900
     Email: mmobley@proskauer.com
            mrumeld@proskauer.com
            howshapiro@proskauer.com
            neichberger@proskauer.com
            rrachal@proskauer.com


FOUR OAKS: Class Action in N.D. Georgia Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class
action lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff prior to a ruling on the Bank's motion
to dismiss and the class action lawsuit in the Southern District
of Florida has been stayed pending arbitration of the plaintiff's
claims against the Bank's co-defendants.

In October 2013, multiple putative class action lawsuits were
filed in United States district courts across the country against
a number of different banks based on the banks' alleged role in
"payday lending". Four of these lawsuits, pending in the Northern
District of Georgia, the Middle District of North Carolina, the
District of Maryland, and the Southern District of Florida, name
the Bank as one of the defendants. The lawsuits allege that, by
processing Automated Clearing House transactions indirectly on
behalf of "payday lenders," the Bank is illegally participating in
an enterprise to collect unlawful debts and is therefore liable to
plaintiffs for damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act. The lawsuits also allege a variety of
state law claims.

The Bank moved to dismiss each of these lawsuits. The District of
Maryland granted the motion and dismissed the case; that ruling is
on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. The Middle District of North Carolina granted the motion
in part and denied it in part.

The lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff prior to a ruling on the Bank's motion
to dismiss. The lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida has
been stayed pending arbitration of the plaintiff's claims against
the Bank's co-defendants.


G&S PORT: Violates Americans with Disabilities Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katarzyna Cichon v. G&S Port Chester LLC, G&S Port Chester Retail
1 LLC, G&S Port Chester Retail Management 1, Inc., Panera, LLC and
Take Home The Bread, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09981 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 18, 2014) opposes the alleged pervasive, ongoing and
inexcusable disability discrimination by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief,
as well as monetary damages and attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses to redress the Defendants' unlawful disability
discrimination against the Plaintiff, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

G&S Port Chester LLC, G&S Port Chester Retail 1 LLC and G&S Port
Chester Retail Management 1, Inc. own or lease the properties
located at 1 Westchester Avenue and 10 Westchester Avenue in
Westchester County, New York.

Panera, LLC and Take Home the Bread, LLC are licensed to do and do
business in New York.  They operate and lease the Property located
at 10 Westchester Avenue from the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen H. Parker, Esq.
          Adam S. Hanski, Esq.
          Robert G. Hanski, Esq.
          PARKER HANSKI LLC
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 248-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 248-5600
          E-mail: ghp@parkerhanski.com
                  ash@parkerhanski.com


GEICO INDEMNITY: Removes "Perez" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Perez, et al. v. GEICO Indemnity
Company, et al., Case No. 14-004053 CA 01, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami
Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24781-MGC to the proceeding.

According to the Plaintiffs, GEICO has not complied with Florida
Statutes Sections 627.727(1)-(9), in that GEICO does not "fully
advise" purchasers of motor vehicle insurance about UM/UIM
coverage prior to their purported selection of the lowest limits
of UM/UIM coverage or rejection of that coverage.  Plaintiff
Ricardo Perez contends that he and each of the putative class
members are entitled to significantly higher coverage limits,
i.e., stacked UM/UIM coverage limits equal to the bodily injury
coverage limits that he and each member of the putative class
selected.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg Alan Silverstein, Esq.
          SILVERSTEIN, SILVERSTEIN, SILVERSTEIN, P.A.
          20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 504
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 935-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 935-3214
          E-mail: gsilverstein@ssspa-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Francis Augustine Zacherl, III, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          Miami Center, Suite 1500
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347-7305
          Facsimile: (305) 347-7705
          E-mail: fzacherl@shutts.com

               - and -

          James P. Terpening, III, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 227-8156
          Facsimile: (813) 227-8256
          E-mail: jterpening@shutts.com


GENTIVA HEALTH: Seeks to Drop Bailey Plaintiffs for Misjoinder
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company filed its answer and a motion to drop the Bailey
plaintiffs for misjoinder in a class action lawsuit.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against the Company in which five former employees
("Plaintiffs") alleged wage and hour law violations. The former
employees claimed they were paid pursuant to "an unlawful hybrid"
compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and an hourly
basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to
overtime pay. Plaintiffs alleged continuing violations of federal
and state law and sought damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), as well as under the New York Labor Law and North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").

On October 8, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 13, 2011, the
Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of
the FLSA claims as a collective action.

On May 26, 2011, the Court bifurcated the FLSA portion of the suit
into a liability phase, in which discovery closed on January 15,
2013, and a potential damages phase, to be scheduled pending
outcome of the liability phase. Following a motion for partial
summary judgment by the Company regarding the New York state law
claims, Plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss those claims in a
filing on December 12, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a North Carolina state law class for NCWHA claims
on January 20, 2012.

On August 29, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a North Carolina state law class. The Company
filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims
under the NCWHA on March 22, 2012, which the Court granted on
January 16, 2013.

On February 14, 2013, the Company filed two motions for partial
summary judgment with regard to the Company's liability for
Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a
motion for partial summary judgment in their favor with regard to
the Company's liability. On July 26, 2013, the Court denied the
Company's motion for summary judgment with regard to the Company's
liability for Plaintiffs' FLSA claims and granted Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment.

On November 4, 2013, the Court denied the Company's motion to
amend the District Court's July 26 Order to certify two legal
issues for immediate interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. In its Order, the Court established a 30-day
deadline for the Company to file its motion for decertification of
the FLSA collective action class, which the Company then filed on
December 4, 2013.

On April 18, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the
Company's motion for decertification and dismissing the opt-in
plaintiffs from the lawsuit without prejudice. On the same day,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the Court's Order to delay the
effective date of the dismissal of the opt-in plaintiffs' claims
for 60 days, until June 17, 2014. On May 8, 2014, the Court
entered an Order granting Plaintiffs' motion to amend, thereby
extending the effective date of dismissal through June 17, 2014.

On June 17, 2014, approximately 194 of the former 999 opt-in
plaintiffs who had been dismissed from this case filed a new
Complaint against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia as a separate, follow-on
lawsuit with identical claims captioned Cynthia Bailey et al. v.
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. Plaintiffs amended their Complaint
on July 30, 2014 to add an additional 217 plaintiffs to the
lawsuit. These were individuals who had been dismissed from the
Rindfleisch lawsuit and who wished to continue to pursue their
claims.

Given the filing of the follow-on lawsuit, at the June 19, 2014
settlement conference in the Rindfleisch lawsuit, it was
determined that this case would be stayed and administratively
closed pending the outcome of global mediation of both lawsuits,
which took place on September 12, 2014. The parties were unable to
resolve the Rindfleisch and Bailey matters at the September 12
global mediation; however, they continue to engage in settlement
negotiations notwithstanding. If there is no settlement which
resolves all issues in the Rindfleisch lawsuit, this lawsuit will
be re-opened upon the request of either party, so long as the
request is made within 90 days following the September 12, 2014
mediation.

The Company filed its answer and a motion to drop the Bailey
plaintiffs for misjoinder on October 10, 2014.

Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are seeking attorneys' fees, back wages
and liquidated damages going back three years from the filing of
the complaint under the FLSA.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Status Conference in "Wilkie" Case Set for June
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a status
conference is scheduled for June 22, 2015, in the class action
complaint entitled Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California against the Company in which a former employee alleged
wage and hour violations under the FLSA and California law. The
complaint alleged that the Company paid some of its employees on
both a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt
status and entitling them to overtime pay. The complaint further
alleged that California employees were subject to violations of
state laws requiring meal and rest breaks, overtime pay, accurate
wage statements and timely payment of wages. The plaintiff sought
class certification, attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties and
damages going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years on
the state wage and hour claims.

The Company denies the plaintiff's allegations but, following a
March 2012 mediation, agreed to pay a total settlement amount of
$5 million to settle the collective and class action claims. The
federal district court granted final approval of the settlement on
March 26, 2013, and funds were disbursed to the participating
class members, 99 percent of whom timely negotiated their
settlement checks. The unclaimed wages will escheat to the State
of California, and any balance remaining will be distributed to a
cy pres beneficiary at the conclusion of the escheat process.

A status conference is scheduled for June 22, 2015, at which time
the parties will present a final accounting of the settlement
fund, and the court is expected to approve distribution of the
residual to the cy pres beneficiary and dismiss the case.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Files Cert. Bid in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the lead
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification in the Federal
Securities Class Action Litigation.

Between November 2, 2010 and October 25, 2011, five shareholder
class actions were filed against Gentiva and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Each of these
actions asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") in connection
with the Company's participation in the Medicare Home Health
Prospective Payment System ("HH PPS"). Following consolidation of
the actions and the appointment of Los Angeles City Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiff, on April 16, 2012, a
consolidated shareholder class action complaint, captioned In re
Gentiva Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York. The complaint, which named Gentiva and certain
current and former officers and directors as defendants, asserted
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act, as well as
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"),
in connection with the Company's participation in the HH PPS. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's public
disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company
improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to
patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates
under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the
price of Gentiva's common stock during the period between July 31,
2008 and October 4, 2011.

On June 15, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On March 25, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint in accordance with
the court's rulings as set forth in its March 25 order. On May 10,
2013, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint, and, on June 24, 2013, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.

On September 19, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss. As a result of the court's
decision, the named current officers and directors were dismissed
from the action, and certain claims against Gentiva and a former
officer and a former officer/director remained. On October 3,
2013, the remaining defendants moved for partial reconsideration
of the court's September 19 order.

On December 10, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part
the remaining defendants' motion for partial reconsideration. As a
result of the court's decision, Gentiva and the former officer
were dismissed from the action, and only a Section 10(b) claim
against the former officer/director remains. On January 9, 2014,
the former officer/director filed an answer to the consolidated
amended class action complaint.

On January 28, 2014, lead plaintiff filed a motion for the entry
of final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. On March 3, 2014, the court granted in part and denied
in part lead plaintiff's motion under Rule 54(b), granting the
motion to the extent lead plaintiff sought final judgment for the
claims brought pursuant to the 1933 Act as to all defendants, and
denying the motion to the extent lead plaintiff sought final
judgment for the claims brought pursuant to the 1934 Act as to all
defendants other than the former officer/director.

As a result of the court's decision, on March 6, 2014, the court
entered final judgment in favor of all defendants on lead
plaintiff's claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act. On
October 17, 2014, lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

Given the preliminary stage of the action, the Company is unable
to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any,
arising from the action on the business, financial condition,
results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the
Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for the
action at this time. The defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously in the action.


HOOPER HOLMES: Objects to Judge's Recommendation to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
submitted its objections to the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge to conditionally certify the class of all
contract examiners.

On May 24, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to pay
overtime compensation to a purported class of certain independent
contractor examiners who, the complaint alleges, should be treated
as employees for purposes of federal law. The complaints seek
award of an unspecified amount of allegedly unpaid overtime wages
to certain examiners. The Company filed an answer denying the
substantive allegations therein. On August 1, 2014, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation to conditionally certify
the class of all contract examiners from August 16, 2010 to the
present. On August 29, 2014, the Company submitted its objections
to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

If the Magistrate's decision stands, notice will be sent to
contractors who performed work for the Company within this time
period. The claim is not covered by insurance, and the Company is
incurring legal costs to defend the litigation which are recorded
in continuing operations. This matter relates to the former
Portamedic service line for which the Company retained liability.


HOOPER HOLMES: Settled Individual Claim With Named Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a complaint was
filed on July 30, 2013, against the Company in the California
Superior Court, San Bernadino County, on behalf of a putative
class of employees alleging, among other things, that the Company
failed to pay wages and other compensation as required by state
law. The complaint seeks award of an unspecified amount of damages
and penalties. The Company has denied all of the allegations in
the case and believes them to be without merit. The Company
settled the individual claim with the named plaintiff in July 2014
with prejudice.  As a part of the settlement, the named plaintiff
agreed to dismiss the class claims, without prejudice.


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Parties Reach Agreement to Settle Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
parties in the shareholder class action suit reached an agreement
in principle to settle the consolidated lawsuit.

On April 27, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the Company and certain of its executive officers: Steve Silverman
v. Houston American Energy Corp. et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-1332.
The complaint generally alleges that, between March 29, 2010 and
April 18, 2012, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in making materially false and misleading statements including
certain statements related to the status and viability of the
Tamandua #1 well on the Company's CPO 4 prospect. Two additional
class action lawsuits were filed against us in May 2012. The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.

On September 20, 2012, the court consolidated the class action
lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff and on November 15, 2012
the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint, among other things, expanded the putative class period
to November 9, 2009 to April 18, 2012 and added allegations
challenging a November 2009 estimate concerning the CPO 4
prospect.

On January 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and, on
August 22, 2013, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal of
the dismissal of the complaint.

On July 15, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the dismissal of the case. The appellate court ruling
focused on the sufficiency of the pleadings in the case, made no
determination regarding the merits of the factual allegations, and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

In October 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated lawsuit. The settlement, which provides
for a $7,000,000 payment, is expected to be fully funded by the
Company's insurance and is subject to preliminary and final
approval of the court. Some discovery will continue prior to
preliminary and final court approval.

The Company believes it is probable that the court will approve
the settlement and related $7,000,000 payment. As a result, the
Company has recorded a litigation settlement payable as of
September 30, 2014 of $7,000,000.

"Though the Company believes the likelihood of approval of the
settlement is probable, we cannot predict with certainty the
outcome of the litigation, and if the settlement is not finally
approved by the Court, we believe that we have meritorious
defenses to the claims in the amended complaint," the Company
said.

Based on the agreement in principal to settle the case and the
Company's anticipated receipt of insurance proceeds to fully fund
the settlement, the Company recorded on its balance sheet a
contingent liability in the amount of $7,000,000 and an offsetting
contingent asset of $7,000,000 to reflect the anticipated receipt
of insurance proceeds to cover the settlement.  For statement of
operations purposes, the contingent loss and contingent gain were
netted resulting in no gain or loss.


IBIO INC: Faces "Pena" Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------
iBio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative class action
captioned Juan Pena, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated vs. iBio, Inc. and Robert B. Kay was filed on
October 24, 2014, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.  The action alleges that the Company and its
Chief Executive Officer made certain statements in violation of
federal securities laws and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages.  The plaintiff and its counsel solicit shareholders of
the Company to join the action and also seek to have the plaintiff
appointed lead plaintiff.  Neither defendant has been served with
the Complaint and therefore no response to the Complaint has been
made.  The Company has advised its insurers of this activity and
intends to vigorously defend against any claims if this action
continues.  The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
Complaint and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss
nor estimate a range of possible loss.


IMH FINANCIAL: Completes Issuance of Settlement Notes
-----------------------------------------------------
IMH Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the during the
nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company completed the
issuance of certain subordinated unsecured notes payable to
participating shareholders in exchange for 1,268,675 shares of
Common Stock pursuant to the legal settlement of a shareholder
class action lawsuit, and recorded this treasury stock purchase at
$4.9 million, representing the estimated fair value of such shares
at the date of the transaction.

The Company said, "At December 31, 2013, we presented this amount
in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as the
fair value of puttable shares pursuant to legal settlement in
mezzanine equity, with an offsetting reduction of paid-in capital.
The amounts of shares redeemed were recorded in treasury stock
when the notes were formally issued and stock acquired in the
second quarter of 2014."

"Also, during the nine months ended September 30, 2014, we
completed the purchase of 319,484 shares of Class B Common Stock
held by an affiliate of NW Capital at a purchase price of $2.5
million, or $8.02 per share, in connection with the restructure
and partial refinancing of the NW Capital note payable described
in note 7. We recorded $0.5 million of the total purchase price as
treasury stock based on the fair value of the common stock as of
the purchase date, and $2.0 million as a component of the debt
termination charge in the condensed consolidated statement of
operations during the nine months ended September 30, 2014."


INDIANAPOLIS: Summary Judgment Order in "Cox" Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed an order granting summary
judgment in favor of Owen and Evelyn Cox in their lawsuit against
the City of Indianapolis.

Owen Cox and Evelyn Cox initiated a class action against the City
of Indianapolis, claiming that the City acted illegally in the
course of changing its method for financing sanitary sewer
improvement projects. The trial court entered summary judgment for
the plaintiffs and awarded damages and prejudgment interest.

The City financed neighborhood sewer improvements under the
"Barrett Law," which authorizes municipalities to recover the
costs of sewer projects by dividing the costs among the properties
that benefit and imposing assessments on the owners. In January
2001, the City determined that the Coxes would be assessed $9,075
for a sewer improvement project in their neighborhood of which the
latter paid in two payments. The City then developed a new
financing plan called the Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP).
As the City prepared to launch STEP, it had to decide what to do
about installment payments not yet payable under the Barrett Law
system. It chose to forego these future payments. On October 31,
2005, the City-County Council passed General Ordinance No. 107-
2005, which enacted STEP. On December 7, 2005, the City's Board of
Public Works passed a resolution forgiving Barrett Law debts due
and owing from the date of November 1, 2005 forward.

The Coxes learned that their neighbors who had been paying on
installment plans had been relieved from doing so. A year later,
in December 2006, the Coxes sent the City a demand for refund with
interest of "all payments which they made, which were required to
be made on or after November 1, 2005." The City denied their
request.

The Coxes subsequently filed a "Claim Form" with the Marion County
Auditor requesting a "partial refund" in the amount of $4,537.50.
The Auditor notified the Coxes that they should direct their claim
to the Department of Public Works (DPW). The Coxes then sent the
form to DPW, but the record does not indicate what response it
gave, if any.

The Coxes filed suit on April 30, 2007, in the Marion Superior
Court. They alleged that the City's refusal to refund a portion of
their assessment violated Indiana Code section 36-9-39-17. They
requested a pro rata refund comparable to the forgiveness provided
to those with unpaid installment plan debts. They requested
certification of a class of similarly-situated property owners,
and the trial court agreed to certify the class. The Coxes moved
for partial summary judgment, asserting a claim under the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. The City removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, which eventually granted
summary judgment to the Coxes on their constitutional claim but
found against them on their claim under Indiana Code section 36-9-
39-17.

Meanwhile, a similar case styled as City of Indianapolis v. Armour
wended its way through the appellate process in Indiana's courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court eventually resolved that case, concluding
that the City did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by
refusing to grant pro rata refunds to citizens who had paid their
assessments in lump sums while forgiving installment payments due
after STEP's enactment.

After the Supreme Court handed down Armour, the District Court
vacated its previous grant of summary judgment to the Coxes on
their Equal Protection claim. The court further vacated its grant
of summary judgment to the City on Indiana Code section 36-9-39-17
and remanded that claim back to state court. On remand, the
parties again filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The court granted the Coxes' motion for summary judgment and
denied the City's cross-motion. It determined that the City
violated Indiana Code section 36-9-39-17 or, in the alternative,
violated an "implied contract," by failing to refund a pro rata
share of the Coxes' payments.  The court also ordered the City to
pay the class $2,783,702.59 as damages plus prejudgment interest
at 8% per annum, starting on November 1, 2005.

Indianapolis appealed.

The appellate court concluded that Cox's claims are barred. She is
not entitled to summary judgment on her statutory and Indiana
constitutional claims. The appellate court reversed the trial
court's grant of summary judgment to Cox and remanded with
instructions to grant the City's Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The appellate case is entitled THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA,
and THE INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Appellants-
Defendants, v. EVELYN COX, Appellee-Plaintiff., No. 49A02-1309-PL-
792 (Ind. App.).  A copy of Judge Shepard's opinion dated November
7, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/31DDPdfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Indianapolis et al. are:

     Alexander P. Will, Esq.
     Maggie L. Smith, Esq.
     FROST BROWN TODD LLC
     201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900
     Indianapolis, IN 46204-4236
     Tel: 317-237-3800
     Fax: 317-237-3900
     E-mail: awill@fbtlaw.com
             mlsmith@fbtlaw.com

          - and -

     Andrew P. Seiwert
     Office of Corporation Counsel
     City-County Building, 1601
     200 E. Washington St.
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Tel: (317)327-4055

Attorneys for the Coxes:

     William T. Rosenbaum, Esq.
     ROSENBAUM LAW, P.C.
     8555 River Road, Suite 310
     Indianapolis, IN 46240
     Tel: (317) 660-4402

          - and -

     Stephen J. Hyatt, Esq.
     HYATT & ASSOCIATE
     6100 North Keystone, Suite 203
     Indianapolis, IN 46220
     Tel: 317-259-6600

The Panel for the Court of Appeals of Indiana consists of Judges
Randall T. Shepard, Paul D. Mathias and Rudolph R. Pyle III.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Parties in Securities Case Engaged in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company filed its answer to the second amended complaint in the
ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation denying all
of the plaintiffs' claims and the parties are currently engaged in
discovery.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the caption: William Koetsch,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT
Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch Litigation").  On
April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against us and two of our current executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York under the following caption: Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity
Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al (the "MLAF Litigation").
On July 25, 2013, the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation
and MLAF Litigation under the caption: In re ITT Educational
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Securities
Litigation"), and named the Plumbers and Pipefitters National
Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs."

"On October 7, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the
Securities Litigation, and on January 15, 2014, a second amended
complaint was filed in the Securities Litigation. The second
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

     * our failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, 2009 RSA
and PEAKS Program;

     * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;

     * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading;

     * making the above statements intentionally or with reckless
disregard for the truth;

     * engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of our
common stock;

     * deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs
and the purported class, regarding, among other things, our
artificially inflated statements of financial strength and
understated liabilities; and

     * causing our common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members
to purchase our common stock at inflated prices."

The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008
through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and such
equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

According to the Company, "On July 22, 2014, the district court
denied most of our motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims
for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. On
August 5, 2014, we filed our answer to the second amended
complaint denying all of the plaintiffs' claims and the parties
are currently engaged in discovery. All of the defendants have
defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves vigorously
against the allegations made in the second amended complaint."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against "Banes" Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a
complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed on
September 30, 2014, against the Company and two of its current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under the caption: David Banes,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation").

The Company said, "The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

     * misleading investors regarding the integrity of our
financial reporting, including the reporting of the PEAKS Trust;

     * knowingly or recklessly making materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material adverse
facts about our business operations and prospects, including that:

     * our financial statements contained errors related to the
accounting of the PEAKS Trust and the PEAKS Program; and

     * we lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting;

     * knowingly or recklessly engaging in acts, transactions,
practices and courses of business that operated as a fraud or
deceit upon the plaintiff and the purported class;

     * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in
connection with the purchase and sale of our common stock;

     * deceiving the investing public, including the plaintiff and
the purported class; and

     * artificially inflating and maintaining the market price of
our common stock and causing the plaintiff and other putative
class members to purchase our common stock at artificially
inflated prices."

The putative class period in this action is from April 26, 2013
through September 19, 2014. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified damages, interest, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court
deems proper. All of the defendants have defended, and intend to
continue to defend, themselves vigorously against the allegations
made in the complaint.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against "Tarapara" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a
complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed on
October 3, 2014, against the Company and two of its current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under the caption: Babulal Tarapara,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT
Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Tarapara Litigation").

The Company said, "The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by knowingly or
recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and failing
to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations,
prospects and financial results. In particular, the complaint
alleges that:

     * we failed to consolidate the PEAKS Trust in our
consolidated financial statements;

     * our consolidated financial statements contained errors
related to the accounting of the PEAKS Trust and PEAKS Program;

     * we improperly accounted for our guarantee obligations under
the PEAKS Guarantee;

     * our financial results were overstated;

     * we lacked adequate internal and financial controls;

     * our consolidated financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times;

     * we artificially inflated and maintained the market price of
our common stock, causing the plaintiff and other putative class
members to purchase our common stock at artificially inflated
prices;

     * we deceived the investing public, including the plaintiff
and the purported class; and

     * we employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in
connection with the purchase and sale of our common stock."

The putative class period in this action is from February 26, 2013
through September 18, 2014. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things:

     * the designation of this action as a class action;

     * an award of unspecified compensatory damages, including
interest;

     * an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees; and

     * such other relief as the court deems proper.

All of the defendants have defended, and intend to continue to
defend, themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the
complaint.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against "Jindal" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a
complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed on
October 9, 2014, against the Company and two of its current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under the caption: Kumud Jindal,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Jindal Litigation").

The Company said, "The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by knowingly or
recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and failing
to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations,
prospects and financial results. In particular, the complaint
alleges that:

     * our financial statements contained errors related to the
accounting of the PEAKS Trust and PEAKS Program;

     * we lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting;

     * our financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times;

     * we engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of
business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the plaintiff
and the purported class;

     * we employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in
connection with the purchase and sale of our common stock; and

     * we artificially inflated and maintained the market price of
our common stock, causing the plaintiff and other putative class
members to purchase our common stock at artificially inflated
prices."

The putative class period in this action is from April 26, 2013
through September 19, 2014. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. All
of the defendants have defended, and intend to continue to defend,
themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the
complaint.

On November 7, 2014, the parties in the Banes Litigation, Tarapara
Litigation and Jindal Litigation filed a stipulation to
consolidate the Tarapara Litigation and Jindal Litigation into the
Banes Litigation.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against "Gallien" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a
complaint was filed on December 17, 2013, against the Company in a
purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles under the following
caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James Rayonez, an
individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ITT
Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation").

The Company said, "The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
February 13, 2014. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that under California law, we:

     * failed to pay wages owed;

     * failed to pay overtime compensation;

     * failed to provide meal and rest periods;

     * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

     * engaged in unlawful business practices; and

     * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act.

"The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17,
2013. The amended complaint seeks:

     * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other
losses;

     * general damages;

     * pay for missed meal and rest periods;

     * restitution;

     * liquidated damages;

     * statutory penalties;

     * interest;

     * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

     * civil and statutory penalties;

     * injunctive relief; and

     * such other and further relief as the court may deem
equitable and appropriate.

"We have defended, and intend to continue to defend, ourselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint."


JOE'S CRAB: Employees' Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss of the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Seven, reversed a lower
court order that denied class certification in a lawsuit by
employees of Joe's Crab Shack (JCS) restaurants.

The appellate case is entitled, ROBERTO MARTINEZ et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JOE'S CRAB SHACK HOLDINGS et al.,
Defendants and Respondents, No. B242807 (Cal. App.).

Roberto Martinez, Lisa Saldana, Craig Eriksen and Chanel Rankin-
Stephens are current or former employees of different Joe's Crab
Shack (JCS) restaurants in California. Martinez filed the original
complaint seeking to represent a class of salaried managerial
employees who worked at JCS restaurants in California, alleging
they had been misclassified as exempt employees and were entitled
to overtime pay. The trial court denied Martinez's motion for
class certification on the ground he was not an adequate class
representative. Martinez did not appeal that order. The trial
court permitted Saldana, Eriksen and Rankin-Stephens to join the
lawsuit as named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs moved for certification of
a class consisting of all persons employed by Defendants in
California as a salaried restaurant employee in a Joe's Crab Shack
restaurant at any time since September 7, 2003.

The trial court denied the motion for class certification on the
grounds plaintiffs had failed to establish (1) their claims were
typical of the class, (2) they could adequately represent the
class, (3) common questions predominated the claims, and (4) a
class action is the superior means of resolving the litigation.
The first two findings were based on plaintiffs' inability to
estimate the number of hours spent on individual exempt and
nonexempt tasks and their admission the amount of time spent on
particular tasks varied from day to day. As to the third and
fourth findings, the court acknowledged the existence of common
questions of law and fact, but concluded there remained
significant individual disputed issues of fact relating to the
amount of time spent by individual class members on particular
tasks.

Plaintiffs appealed.

Presiding Justice Perluss, in his opinion dated November 10, 2014,
which is available at http://is.gd/XNzIi6from Leagle.com,
reversed the order denying class certification and remanded the
cause for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants:

     Matthew Righetti, Esq.
     John Glugoski, Esq.
     RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
     456 Montgomery St., Ste. 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: 415-983-0900
     Facsimile: 415-397-9005

Counsel for Defendants and Respondents Crab Addison, Inc. and
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.:

     Michael S. Kun, Esq.
     Ted A. Gehring, Esq.
     EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
     Telephone: 310-556-8861
     Facsimile: 310-553-2165

Counsel for Defendant and Respondent Landry's Restaurant, Inc.

     Mary E. Lynch, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MARY E. LYNCH
     18301 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1060
     Irvine, CA 92612
     Telephone: (949) 229-5529
     Facsimile: (949) 231-5810

          - and -

     Charles F. Barker, Esq.
     Karin Dougan, Esq.
     SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
     333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: 213-620-1780
     Facsimile: 213-620-1398
     E-mail: cbarker@sheppardmullin.com
             kvogel@sheppardmullin.com

The panel for the Court of Appeals of California, Second District
for Division Seven consists of Presiding Justice Dennis M.
Perluss, Justice Fred Woods and Judge John Segal of the Los
Angeles Superior Court.


JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Initial Public Offering
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a failure by Chinese beauty company Jumei to divulge compliance
concerns hurt investors, a federal class action alleges, pointing
to a 38 percent nosedive in shares.

When Leo Ou Chen's 3-year-old company launched its mobile
application in 2012, it had a respectable $21.8 million in sales,
the complaint filed on December 12 states.  Shareholder Chao Lu
says the number ballooned to $233.2 million the next year, and
then to $483 million in 2013.

Unknown to investors before Jumei's May 2014 initial public
offering, however, was that Jumei had been benefitting from
relatively lax regulation by the Chinese government, according to
the complaint.

Lu says this changed in the months leading up to the IPO as
China's State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC)
instituted new and more stringent "measures for the administration
of online commodities trading," and a new consumer-protection law
took effect.

The new requirements allegedly meant big changes for Jumei, where
"the online distributors (sic) also acts as a marketplace platform
that provides service to third-party merchants."

Lu says Jumei told prospective investors in its registration
statement that it was "currently in compliance with . . .
regulations in all material aspects."

While touting its strong base of 1,700 suppliers and third-party
merchants, however, Jumei "failed to disclose that certain of
those 'third-party merchants' were actually unauthorized 'brand
distributors' and/or 'resellers' who Jumei could not continue to
do business with once it became a publicly traded company," the
complaint states.

Also omitted was the credit for Jumei's past business successes
"to purchasing counterfeit or fake product and knockoffs from
dubious third-party distributors and resellers, which Jumei then
sold at premium prices," the complaint states.

Though Jumei boasted "strong 'steady'growth in China's beauty
products industry and rapid growth in online sales in recent years
. . . in reality the Chinese internet beauty industry was rife
with counterfeit and fake product offerings and knockoffs that
threatened the nascent industry by damaging the reputation of
Chinese internet sellers like Jumei," the complaint continues.

Jumei was "spending tens of thousands of dollars" in early 2014 on
special equipment it needed to test for authenticity under the new
regulations, but it kept that from shareholders as well, Lu says.

The new regulations required Jumei to eliminate dubious third-
party merchants and resellers from its marketplace, but the
company concealed that it would thus "be forced to offer
significant cash incentives to dump a lot of the dubious
inventory," according to the complaint.

In addition to "a reduced product selection" from the pared-down
suppliers, Jumei was faced with increasing "product costs going
forward, reducing the high gross margins the company had
previously been able to achieve pre-IPO through sales of less
legitimately sourced product," the complaint states.

In the last full quarter before its IPO, Jumei made $154.9 million
in sales, and the $280 proceeds of the IPO cast it as a success,
according to the complaint.

But Lu says the impact of the new regulations led to disappointing
results thereafter, with the gross profit margin decreasing to 22
percent from 25.9 percent the year before.

Lu says American Depository Shares in Jumei were trading at below
$14 at the time of the complaint's filing, "an approximately 38
percent decline from the IPO price."

Lu filed the complaint against Jumei, its executives and its board
in Manhattan where the company's shares trade on the New York
Stock Exchange.

Also named as defendants are Goldman Sachs and other underwriters
that Lu says "shared approximately $19.6 million in fees
collectively.

These underwriters, including Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC;
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; China Renaissance Securities (Hong
Kong) Ltd.; Piper Jaffray & Co.; and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.;
conducted "drafting sessions" with Jumei's lawyers and conducted a
roadshow in New York, the complaint states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 S Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 454-7724
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Notice of Class Action Certification Mailed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, that
notice of class action certification and class members' right to
opt out of the lawsuit was mailed to all of the Company's current
and former California hospital employees.

Four wage and hour class action lawsuits are currently pending
against the Company in federal district court for the Central
District of California, and are being addressed together by the
court. Each case pertains to alleged errors made by the Company
with respect to regular pay and overtime pay calculations, waiting
times, meal period waivers and wage statements under California
law. On March 13, 2013, the court conditionally certified five
classes of the seven total classes sought for certification for
discovery purposes and declined to certify two others. Notice of
class action certification and class members' right to opt out of
the lawsuit was mailed to all of the Company's current and former
California hospital employees. The Company intends to vigorously
defend these claims.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Paid $0.7 Million to Settle Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, that
a wage and hour class action lawsuit against the Company alleging
violations of federal and state wage and hour laws is pending in
federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. This
lawsuit pertains to the Company's previous automatic meal break
deduction practice for non-exempt employees in the Company's
hospitals located outside California. The court granted
conditional class certification in part on June 11, 2013. This
lawsuit has been settled in principle by the Company's agreement
to pay $0.7 million to claimants from the Company's five Illinois
hospitals, plaintiffs' attorney's fees and certain administrative
costs, subject to reaching a written settlement agreement and
obtaining court approval.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces Pines Nursing Home Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, that
a purported class action complaint was filed on January 6, 2014,
in the United States federal district court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division, against the Company and one
of its subsidiaries.  The lawsuit, styled Pines Nursing Home, et
al., v. Polaris and RehabCare Group, Inc., et al., alleges that
one of the Company's subsidiaries sent "junk" faxes in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005. The complaint seeks damages, statutory
fines and penalties, attorneys' fees and an injunction prohibiting
such conduct in the future. The Company disputes the allegations
in the complaint and will defend this lawsuit vigorously.


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Reached Settlement in Merger Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company and all other parties to the class action litigation
entered into an agreement which, if consummated, will settle the
litigation.

The class action lawsuit was commenced on May 30, 2014, in Santa
Clara County Superior Court, State of California, on behalf of
Cadillac Partners and others similarly situated, naming as
defendants, MabVax Therapeutics, the Company and the company's
directors, Hudson Bay Capital Management LP, Bio IP Ventures LLC,
Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., and Hudson Bay IP Opportunities
Master Fund LP. The suit alleged the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary
duties, in connection with the Company's Merger with MabVax
Therapeutics. In support of their purported claims, the plaintiff
alleged, among other things, that the Company's board has
historically failed to fulfill its fiduciary duty to its
stockholders, and claiming with respect to the Series B Private
Placement and the Merger, the such transactions involved an
inadequate sales process and included preclusive deal protection
devices, and that the Company's board of directors would receive
personal benefits not available to its public stockholders as a
result of the Merger. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the Merger
and obtain damages as well as attorneys' and expert fees and
costs.

On June 29, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement (the "Settlement"), pursuant to which the Company
agreed to file with the SEC certain supplemental disclosures in
connection with the Merger. The Settlement is subject to certain
confirmatory discovery to be undertaken by the plaintiff and to
the parties' agreement on the payment of the plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 16, 2014, the Company and all other parties to the
litigation entered into an agreement which, if consummated, will
settle the litigation (the "Proposed Settlement"). Among many
other terms, under the Proposed Settlement the Company and all
defendants will receive a broad release of any and all claims
pertaining to the Series B Private Placement, the Merger, the
prior disclosure and a wide variety of other matters. The Proposed
Settlement also calls for the parties to ask the court to, among
other things, enter orders enjoining other stockholders from
bringing similar actions, certifying the putative settlement
class, and approving the Proposed Settlement as a fair, final, and
binding resolution of the litigation. Under the Proposed
Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have expressly
denied the allegations of the complaint and denied engaging in any
other misconduct, nor will any of them make any payment or in any
respect amend the negotiated terms of the since-consummated Series
B Private Placement and Merger. Finally, under the Proposed
Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have not agreed
to pay any legal fees, or reimburse any expenses, allegedly
incurred by the plaintiffs who filed the complaint; instead, the
Company expects that counsel for those plaintiffs will present any
such disputed claim for legal fees and expenses to the court for
resolution.


MANDALAY DIGITAL: Appeal in Class Action Now Under Review
---------------------------------------------------------
Mandalay Digital Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the appeal
in a class action lawsuit is now under review and pending
judgment.

The Company said, "On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the
amount of NIS 19.2 million or $5.3 million was filed in the Tel-
Aviv Jaffa District Court against Coral Tell Ltd. an Israeli
company which owns and operates a website offering advertisements
and Coral Tell Ltd is currently being sued in a class action
lawsuit regarding phone call overages and has served a third party
notice against Logia and two additional companies for our alleged
involvement in facilitating the overages. The suit relates to a
service offered by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to
display a virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of
their real cellular number. The plaintiff claims that calls were
charged for the connection time between two segments of the call,
instead of the second segment alone; that the caller was charged
even if the advertiser did not answer the call (as the charge
began upon initiation of the first segment); and that the caller
was charged for text messages sent to the advertiser, although the
service did not support delivery of text messages."

"We have no contractual relationship with this company. We believe
the lawsuit is without merits and a finding of liability on our
part remote. After conferring with advisors and counsel,
management believes that the ultimate liability, if any, in the
aggregate will not be material to the financial position or
results or operations of the Company for any future period; and no
liability has been accrued.

"On November 25, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the
parties to submit their position as to whether the defendant
(applicant) has a right to appeal the Israeli District's Court
decision or must request the Israeli Supreme Court to grant a
right to appeal.

"On December 25, 2013, after reviewing the parties' positions, the
Israeli Supreme Court ordered the respondents (Cellcom, Logia,
Ethrix) to submit their response to defendant's petition to grant
the right to appeal, by January 26th, 2014. Appellant responded
thereafter and the appeal is now under review and pending
judgment. Usually, in petitions such as this the Israeli Supreme
Court makes a judgment based on the parties' written responses.
Such judgment may take between several weeks to several months."


MCCABE WEISBERG: SDNY Court Narrows "Jones-Bartley" FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to
dismiss the case, MUREEN JONES-BARTLEY, on behalf of herself and a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. McCABE,
WEISBERG & CONWAY, P.C., Defendant., No. 13-CV-4829 (S.D.N.Y.).

Defendant, on behalf of a third-party mortgage company, sent a
letter to plaintiff regarding a residential mortgage debt that
defendant has been attempting to collect from the plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed a complaint and alleges that the letter fails to
comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or FDCPA in
four ways:

     -- the Complaint alleges that the letter violates 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692g(a)(1) because the letter provides notice only of the
total principal due as of the date of the notice, whereas the
amount of the debt owed would include accrued but unpaid interest
and other fees and charges, which generally amount to thousands of
dollar;

     -- the Complaint alleges that the letter violates 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692g(a)(2) because the letter completely fails to
disclose who the current owner of the debt is;

     -- the Complaint alleges that the letter violates 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692(e) because the letter does not specify that the
debtor has 30 days after receipt of the letter to dispute the
debt, but rather states that the recipient has 30 days to dispute
the debt, making the most logical interpretation 30 days from the
date of the letter; and

     -- the Complaint alleges that the letter violates 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692g(a)(3) because the letter states that notification of
a dispute within the 30-day period must state the nature of the
dispute as to the amount due or any part thereof, despite the lack
of a statutory requirement to do so.

Plaintiff requested a promotion conference to discuss her
anticipated motion for class certification, and motion to enter
and continue her motion for class certification.

Defendant submitted a two-part response to Plaintiff's letter.
First, Defendant filed a document entitled "Offer of Judgment
Pursuant to [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 68 and second defendant submitted a
letter purporting to comply with the Court's order to respond to
the substance of Plaintiff's pre-motion letter. Although
defendant, in its letter, had previously agreed to plaintiff's
request for a pre-motion conference, defendant opposed plaintiff's
request. Specifically, defendant stated that it believed that
plaintiff's proposed motion for class certification would not be
necessary in light of the offer of judgment in an amount to
compensate plaintiff for the maximum statutory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs incurred to date. In defendant's view,
the action is no longer justiciable because plaintiff's individual
claim is moot as a result of the offer of judgment sufficient to
make plaintiff, who admittedly suffered no actual damages and
sought only to obtain statutory damages, whole.

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). With
regard to the 12(b)(1) motion, defendant argues that the Court no
longer has subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint because
the offer of judgment provides compensation to plaintiff for the
maximum statutory damages, and therefore there is no longer a
justiciable claim. In the alternative, defendant argues that, to
the extent plaintiff's FDCPA claims are based on two of the four
FDCPA violations alleged in the Complaint, the Court should
dismiss the FDCPA claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because
plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

Judge Karas denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Rule (12)(b)(1), and granted in part and denied in
part defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).  He said plaintiff may proceed in the case under the
first, second and fourth theories of FDCPA liability identified in
her complaint.

A copy of Judge Karas's opinion and order dated November 6, 2014
is available at http://is.gd/qrUFibfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

          - and -

     Tiffany Nicole Hardy, Esq.
     EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
     20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: 312-739-4200
     Facsimile: 312-419-0379

Counsel for Defendant:

     Edmund Kean John, Esq.
     SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
     Two Liberty Place, 28th Flr.
     50 S. 16th St.
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Tel: 215-299-4319


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Lane" Suit to Tennessee District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Lane v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-005310-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
03001 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was injured by her physician's off-
label use of Medtronic's Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered
Fusion Device.  Infuse is a Class III medical device whose design,
manufacturing method, and labeling were specifically approved by
the Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the agency's
Premarket Approval process.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          Facsimile: (502) 753-1601
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  lcronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Laura Yaeger, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4796
          E-mail: LYaeger@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Miller" Suit to Tennessee District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Miller v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-005279-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02998 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by his physician's off-
label use of Medtronic's Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered
Fusion Device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          Facsimile: (502) 753-1601
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  lcronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Laura Yaeger, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4796
          E-mail: LYaeger@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
          CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MEKKA MIAMI: Removes "Abarca" Suit to Florida District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Abarca v. Mekka Miami Group
Corp., et al., Case No. 14-28612-CA-01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24766-MGC to the
proceeding.

The complaint seeks damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Julie Wynne Allison, Esq.
          JULIE W. ALLISON PA
          1814 NE Miami Gardens Drive, Suite 801
          Miami, FL 33179
          Telephone: (305) 792-2554
          E-mail: julie@allisonlaw.net


NATIONAL WATER: NJ Court Approves $250,000 Deal in "Mulroy" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Mulroy filed a lawsuit in May 2012 in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, asserting claims
under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a, et
seq. and the New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.25,
et seq. on behalf of himself and a putative class.  Specifically,
the Plaintiff claimed that his former employer, Defendant --
National Water Main Cleaning Company of New Jersey -- had failed
to pay its employees for travel time to various jobsites and that
the Company paid an incorrect prevailing wage rate to its
employees in New Jersey.  The Defendant removed the case to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in
June 2012.

In March 2014, the parties entered into a Class Action Settlement,
which provides for a maximum gross payment of $250,000, deposited
into a segregated account for the benefit of the Class, in
exchange for the release of all claims.

The parties filed a motion for final approval of the class action
settlement.  The parties seek approval of: (1) the Class Action
Settlement; (2) an attorneys' fee award in the amount of $100,000;
and (3) an incentive award for the named Plaintiff in the amount
of $10,000.  A Fairness Hearing was held on October 23, 2014.
Only one objection was received.

In an opinion dated Dec. 12, 2014, Magistrate Judge Mark Falk of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approves
the Settlement and grants Plaintiff's fee requests.

The case is JOHN MULROY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL WATER MAIN CLEANING
COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-3669 (WJM)
(MF)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Falk's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/4xaGmVfrom Leagle.com.

JOHN MULROY, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by RAVI SATTIRAJU, THE SATTIRAJU
LAW FIRM, P.C..

NATIONAL WATER MAIN CLEANING COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant,
represented by CHRISTOPHER H. LOWE, SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP.


MICHAEL HAINES: Tenn. App. Affirms Ruling in "Haiser" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A group of property owners sued another group of property owners
in the Chancery Court for Cumberland County.  Both groups
contested which was the legitimate Board of Directors for the
community association.  The Plaintiffs sought, among other things,
declaratory relief as to the rights and responsibilities of the
parties.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action
certification.  The Trial Court, finding that the Plaintiffs had
failed to establish the requirements of typicality and adequacy of
representation, denied the Plaintiffs' request for class
certification.  The Plaintiffs appeal the denial of class
certification.

Finding no abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee,
Knoxville, affirmed the Trial Court in an opinion dated Dec. 12,
2014.

The appeals case is GARY HAISER, ET AL. v. MICHAEL HAINES, ET AL.,
NO. E2013-02350-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/CnFDpOfrom Leagle.com.

Melanie E. Davis, Maryville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Gary
Haiser, Joel Matchak, John Moore, Gerald Nugent, and Renegade
Mountain Community Club, Inc.

Gregory C. Logue and Lindy D. Harris, Knoxville, Tennessee, for
the appellees, Michael McClung, Phillip Guettler, and Moy Toy,
LLC.


NY COMMUNITY BANCORP: E.D.N.Y. Judge Narrows "Garnet-Bishop" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the Eastern District of New York
granted, in part, and denied, in part, defendants' partial motion
to dismiss and denied defendants' motion to strike in the
consolidated case entitled, NATALIE GARNET-BISHOP, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, No. 12-CV-2285 (ADS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.)

To evaluate its employees' job performance, New York Community
Bank (NYCB) branch management allegedly used transactional
surveys, which counted the number of transactions that each
employee consummated while working at an NYCB branch, as well as
performance ratings. These evaluations, together with an
employee's disciplinary history, were used by the NYCB's human
resources department to make personnel decisions. NYCB terminated
more than 400 employees including plaintiffs' in this case.
Following the termination, the Plaintiffs were told by NYCB
management that their terminations were a result of poor past
performance reviews.

Thirty-one former NYCB employees, whose employment was terminated,
filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint
alleges, among other matters, that their terminations were the
result of employment discrimination based on age, race, national
origin, gender and/or disability and retaliation in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section
2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"); the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 621, et seq.(the "ADEA"); and the American
With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq. (the
"ADA"). The Plaintiffs also assert a claim pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 42 USC Section 2101,
et seq. (the "WARN Act") and its New York state equivalent, New
York Labor Law Section 860, et seq. (the "state WARN Act"). The
Plaintiffs further assert state law causes of action against the
Defendants for violation of the New York State Human Rights Law,
N.Y. Exec. Law Section 296 (the "NYSHRL"), intentional infliction
of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional
distress.

Defendants moved to dismiss certain of the Plaintiffs' claims
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) and (6), including: (1)
claims against the Individual Defendants; (2) the Title VII
retaliation claims against the Corporate Defendants; (3) the
intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent
infliction of emotional distress claims against the Corporate
Defendants; (4) the Plaintiffs' NYSHRL claims against the
Corporate Defendants; and (5) various federal and state law claims
by some of the individual Plaintiffs against the Corporate
Defendants.

Defendants also moved to strike certain documents, which were
appended to the plaintiffs' opposition brief.

Judge Spatt granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
partial motion to dismiss and denied defendants motion to strike
certain documents.

A copy of Judge Spatt's Memorandum and Order dated November 6,
2014 is available at http://is.gd/6LKIzHfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs Natalie Garnett-Bishop, Kathleen Warshun and Lynette
Tiger are represented by:

     Ann Willoughby, Esq.
     245 Hillside Ave.
     Willston Park, NY 11596
     Telephone: 516-739-0177

Plaintiffs Donana Cappello, Donna Berchiolli, Shannon Byrnes,
Theresa Falco, Leslie Morency, Marie Alexander, Katia Page,
Celeste McCormack, Audrey Zuckerman, Candice Petrancosta, and
Addolorate Quiles are represented by:

     Patrick W. Johnson, Esq.
     PATRICK W. JOHNSON, P.C.
     9118 3rd Ave.
     Brooklyn, NY 11209
     Telephone: 718-748-5530

Plaintiffs Dee Cooper Jones, Claire Byrnes, Ilene Branfman,
Geraldine Collins, Helen Arniotes, Gina Decrescenzo, Samantha
Zielinski, and Diann Titus are represented by:

     Andrew G. Sfouggatakis, Esq.
     Theodore Pavlounis, Esq.
     THEODORE PAVLOUNIS, ESQ., P.C.
     172 Gravesend Neck Road
     Brooklyn, NY, 11223
     Telephone: (718) 787-1430

Defendants represented by:

     Amy Ventry-Kagan Esq.
     Robert M. Wolff, Esq.
     James P. Smith, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     Oswald Centre
     1100 Superior Avenue East-20th Floor
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Telephone: (216) 696-7600
     Facsimile: (216) 696-2038
     Email: aventry@littler.com
            rwolff@littler.com
            jpsmith@littler.com


NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY: Settlement in "Shepard" Suit Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis of the Southern District of New
York granted plaintiffs' request for final approval of the class
action settlement in the case JONELLE SHEPARD, YVETTE (GARCIA)
VELEZ, AND SHAREMAH LAMOTTE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN B. RHEA, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-7220 (RLE) (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs Jonelle Shepard, Yvette Garcia Velez, and Sharemah
Lamotte are participants in the New York City Housing Authority
("NYCHA") Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program; they
instituted this action as a putative class action under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of themselves and as
representatives of all participants in the Program who have
requested a Section 8 transfer voucher to be issued on an
emergency basis and have not yet received NYCHA's approval to move
into a new apartment.  Plaintiffs claimed that NYCHA's failure to
timely process Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
Participants' requests to transfer apartments violated the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, the United States Housing Act of 1937 and its
implementing regulations, and NYCHA's own policies, and sought
injunctive and declaratory relief.

After exchanging document discovery and engaging in extensive
negotiations, including negotiations mediated by the Court, the
Parties reached a settlement.

On January 31, 2014, the Court entered an Order preliminarily
certifying the settlement class, preliminarily appointing the
Legal Aid Society and Latham and Watkins, LLP as class counsel,
scheduling a fairness hearing for March 20, 2014, and authorizing
notice of hearing to be provided to members of the plaintiff
class.  The Court held a fairness hearing on April 21, 2014.
Defendants did not appear at the fairness hearing. On April 12,
2014, Defendants informed the Court that they had failed to appear
as a result of a calendaring error, and in any event, "agreer[d]
with plaintiffs' counsel that the settlement is reasonable and
fair to all members of the class."  There were no objections at
the fairness hearing.



Plaintiff requested the court for final approval of the class
action settlement.

In granting final approval to the Settlement, the Court certified
the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b)(3) for settlement purposes: "(1) all participants in the
Program ("Tenants") who request or have requested emergency
transfers due to either an un-remedied life-threatening or
designated hazardous housing quality standard ("HQS") violation or
a holdover proceeding in Housing Court based on a landlord's
choice not to renew a lease."

The "Effective Date" of the settlement shall be five business days
after the date of the Order if no party appeals the Order. If a
party appeals the Order, the "Effective Date" of the settlement
shall be the day after all appeals are finally resolved.

The terms of the settlement include new policies and procedures
with respect to emergency transfer requests to 1) un-remedied
life-threatening hazardous HQS violations, or 2) holdover
proceedings in Housing Court based on a landlord's choice not to
renew a lease. The terms also provide for a monitoring by an
independent auditor.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Ellis's Opinion and Order dated
November 7, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/1KZPwUfrom
Leagle.com.

Jonelle Shepard, Yvette (Garcia) Velez, Shareman Lamotte,
Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Adriene L. Holder, Esq.
     Ellen Beth Davidson, Esq.
     Judith A. Goldiner, Esq.
     Sebastian Daniel Riccardi, Esq.
     THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
     199 Water Street
     New York, NY 10038
     Telephone: 212-577-3300
     Facsimile: 212-509-8761

          - and -

     Christopher R. Harris, Esq.
     Gina Rose Gencarelli, Esq.
     Kathleen Moria Brennan, Esq.
     Paul Anthony Serritella, Esq.
     LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
     885 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022-4834
     Telephone: 1-212-906-1200
     Facsimile: 1-212-751-486
     Email: christopher.harris@lw.com
            Paul.serritella@lw.com

John B. Rhea, and The New York City Housing Authority, Defendants,
represented by:

     Steven Jay Rappaport
     Donna Marie Murphy
     New York City Housing Authority
     250 Broadway
     New York NY 10007
     Tel: 212-306-3000


ONE ON ONE MARKETING: Faces Suit in S.C. for Violating TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. One on One Marketing LLC d/b/a Degree Search, Virginia
College LLC and Education Corporation of America, Case No. 2:14-
cv-04782-DCN (D.S.C., December 18, 2014) alleges violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance Shealy Boozer, Esq.
          BOOZER LAW FIRM
          1331 Park Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 608-5543
          E-mail: lsb@boozerlawfirm.com


OVERLAND STORAGE: Entered Into MOU to Settle Consolidated Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overland Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiffs and
the Company Defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding
(the "Memorandum of Understanding") to settle the Consolidated
Action and Merger Actions.

In May 2014, the Company announced that it had signed an agreement
and plan of merger by and among the Company and Sphere 3D. Since
the merger was announced, four separate putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, all of its
directors, and Sphere 3D in the California Superior Court in and
for the County of San Diego. Three of the lawsuits also named
Cyrus Capital Partners, the majority shareholder of the Company,
as a defendant. On June 25, 2014, the Superior Court entered an
order providing for the consolidation of all cases relating to the
Company's decision to enter into the merger agreement with Sphere
3D. These cases have been consolidated before a single judge and
are referred to as In re Overland Storage Inc., Shareholders
Litigation, Lead Case No. 37-2014-00016017-CU-SL-CTL. On July 30,
2014, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and conflicts of
interest against the Company's directors relating to the merger
process, the terms of the merger agreement, and the consideration
to be received by Company shareholders under the terms of the
merger agreement. The lawsuit alleges that the other defendants
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties by
the Company's directors. The relief sought includes an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the proposed merger, rescission of
the merger to the extent already implemented or rescissory
damages, damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 13, 2014, the plaintiffs and the Company Defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") to settle the Consolidated Action and Merger
Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding provides, among other
things, that additional disclosures would be made concerning the
analysis performed by the Company's financial advisor relating to
the proposed merger, the Company's management projections, and the
circumstances leading up to the proposed merger.

While the Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit,
and the Company specifically denies the allegations made in the
lawsuits and maintains that it and the other defendants committed
no wrongdoing whatsoever, to permit the timely consummation of the
proposed merger, and without admitting the validity of any
allegations made in the lawsuits, the Company concluded that it is
desirable that the Consolidated Action and Merger Actions be
resolved. The proposed settlement of the Consolidated Action and
Merger Actions, which is subject to confirmatory discovery and
court approval, provides for the release of all claims against the
defendants relating to the proposed merger and the allegations in
the Consolidated Action and Merger Actions. There can be no
assurance that the settlement will be finalized or that the
Superior Court will approve the settlement.


P.F. CHANG'S: Court Dismisses Two Suits Over Security Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Attempts by hackers to use credit card information stolen from
P.F. Chang's does not demonstrate actual financial injury, reports
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

Two class actions filed earlier this year had claimed that lax
security at P.F. Chang's China Bistro allowed hackers to steal the
credit and debit card numbers of up to 7 million customers.

Since the restaurant allegedly waited nine months to tell
customers about the security breach, the class said they failed to
take timely measures to protect their financial information,
enabling hackers to make unauthorized purchases on their credit
cards.

U.S. District Judge John Darrah dismissed the complaints in the
second week of December, however, based on the failure to connect
the security breach to actual injury.

"Plaintiffs claim they overpaid for the products and services
purchased from defendant," Darrah wrote.  "Plaintiffs argue that
the cost of the food they purchased implicitly contained the cost
of sufficient protection of PII [personal identity information].
As this court has held before, this argument is unpersuasive."

Indeed, lead plaintiff John Lewert did not show that the credit
card he used at P.F. Chang's incurred any fraudulent charges.

Though four unauthorized charges totaling $61.89 were attempted
using his card number, Lewert's bank, Chase, declined the charges
and notified Lewert of the fraudulent activity, the court found.

Lewert's fellow lead plaintiff, Lucas Kosner, similarly did not
have any money taken out of his account after the theft of his
debit card number, and did not pay any fees resulting from the
attempted fraud, according to the ruling.

"In order to have suffered an actual injury, plaintiffs must have
had an unreimbursed charge on their credit or debit cards," Darrah
said.  "Plaintiffs do not allege any successful charges, let alone
reimbursed charges."

Kosner claimed that the breach deprived him of the ability to use
his affected debit card for two to three days, but Darrah said
that neither the status of "simply being without a debit card,"
nor the inability to accrue rewards points on the card, qualifies
as an injury.

While the theft of financial information from P.F. Chang's may
expose customers to identity theft in the future, they cannot sue
for a speculative future injury, according to the ruling.

The cases are John Lewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., Case
No. 14-cv-4787, and Lucas Kosner v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro,
Inc., Case No. 14-cv-4923, both in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.


PENNSYLVANIA: Doctor's Bid to Dismiss "Sanchez" Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jose Sanchez, is an inmate who is currently confined in
the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in the
State Correctional Institution at Fayette.  The Plaintiff
initiated a lawsuit on July 11, 2013, by the filing of a Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, with an attached civil
rights complaint.  By Order entered July 12, 2013, the case was
dismissed without prejudice as the Plaintiff had failed to provide
the necessary financial paperwork required under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(a)(2).  The Plaintiff thereafter resubmitted a Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis attaching the required
financial paperwork, and a new complaint.  The motion was granted,
the case was reopened on August 15, 2013, and the Complaint filed.

Defendant Dr. Herbik filed a Motion to Dismiss For Failure to
State A Claim, with brief in support, while defendants Susan
Berrier, Brian V. Coleman, Pamela Filchek, Tom Hivanic, Rhonda
House, K. Randolph, and Dorina Varner -- the "Commonwealth
Defendants" -- filed a Motion To Dismiss For Failure to State a
Claim, with brief in support.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated Dec. 11, 2014, Magistrate
Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania granted the Motion filed by Defendant
Herbik, holding that the allegations in the Amended Complaint
clearly demonstrate that the Plaintiff received medical treatment
for his health needs, although he disagrees with the course of
treatment.  Magistrate Eddy granted the Commonwealth Defendants'
Motion to the extent that the Plaintiff's claims of deliberate
indifference to his medical needs will be dismissed.

The case is JOSE SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN V. COLEMAN, et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2: 13-CV-0982 (W.D. Pa.).  A full-
text copy of Magistrate Eddy's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/BMxZmOfrom Leagle.com.

JOSE SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

BRIAN V. COLEMAN, Defendant, represented by Robert A. Willig,
Office of Attorney General.

K. RANDOLPH, Defendant, represented by Robert A. Willig, Office of
Attorney General.

RHONDA HOUSE, Defendant, represented by Robert A. Willig, Office
of Attorney General.

DOCINA VARNER, Defendant, represented by Robert A. Willig, Office
of Attorney General.


PLASMATECH BIOPHARMA: 3rd Circuit Remands Case to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plasmatech Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Third Circuit court remanded the class action by a former
shareholder of Genaera Corporation to the District Court for
further proceedings.

Alan Schmidt, a former shareholder of Genaera Corporation
("Genaera"), and a former unitholder of the Genaera Liquidating
Trust (the "Trust"), filed a purported class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
June 2012.

The Company said, "The lawsuit named thirty defendants, including
PlasmaTech, MacroChem Corporation, which was acquired by us in
February 2009, Jeffrey Davis, our former CEO and a director of
PlasmaTech, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark Alvino, both of whom
are our directors (the "PlasmaTech Defendants"). With respect to
the PlasmaTech Defendants, the complaint alleged direct and
derivative claims asserting that directors of Genaera and the
Trustee of the Trust breached their fiduciary duties to Genaera,
Genaera's shareholders and the Trust's unitholders in connection
with the licensing and disposition of certain assets, aided and
abetted by numerous defendants including the PlasmaTech
Defendants. Schmidt seeks money damages, disgorgement of any
distributions received from the Trust, rescission of sales made by
the Trust, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs."

"On December 19, 2012, Schmidt filed an amended complaint which
asserted substantially the same allegations with respect to the
PlasmaTech Defendants. On February 4, 2013, the PlasmaTech
Defendants moved to dismiss all claims asserted against them.

On August 12, 2013 the court granted PlasmaTech Defendants'
motions to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of PlasmaTech
Defendants on all claims. On August 26, 2013, Schmidt filed a
motion for reconsideration. On September 10, 2013 Schmidt filed a
Notice of Appeal with the District Court. On September 17, 2013,
Schmidt filed his appeal with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. On September 25, 2013, the District Court denied
Schmidt's motion for reconsideration. On October 17, 2013, Schmidt
amended his appeal to include the District court's denial of his
motion for reconsideration.

On March 20, 2014, Schmidt filed his Brief and Joint Appendix. On
May 22, 2014, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed their Oppositions to
Schmidt's Brief. On May 29, 2014, Schmidt was granted an extension
of time until June 23, 2014 to file his Reply brief, and filed his
Reply brief on that date. The Third Circuit held oral argument on
September 12, 2014.

On October 17, 2014, in a split decision, the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision holding, among other
things, that the District Court's determination that the Amended
Complaint was time-barred on statute of limitations grounds was
premature. The Third Circuit did not rule upon any of the other
grounds for dismissal advanced in the District Court and on
appeal. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the District Court
for further proceedings.

"We intend to continue contesting the claims," the Company said.


PLASTIC2OIL INC: Further Briefing Okayed to Support Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plastic2Oil, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a court has
permitted further briefing to be submitted in support of the
motion to approve a settlement of a class action lawsuit.

On July 28, 2011, certain of the Company's stockholders filed a
class action lawsuit against the Company and John Bordynuik,
former Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a former member
of the Company's Board of Directors, and Ronald C. Baldwin, former
Chief Financial Officer of the Company on behalf of purchasers of
its securities.  In an amended complaint filed on July 10, 2012,
these stockholders sought to represent such purchasers during the
period from August 28, 2009 through January 4, 2012. The original
and amended complaints in that case, filed in federal court in
Nevada, allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements, or both, and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations and prospects in press
releases and filings made with the SEC. Specifically, the lawsuit
alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements or
failed to disclose material information, or a combination thereof
regarding: (1) that certain media credits ("Media Credits") were
substantially overvalued; (2) that the Company improperly
accounted for acquisitions; (3) that, as such, the Company's
financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles; and (4) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls . During the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case
and an amended complaint was filed. The defendants' answer to the
amended complaint was filed during the fourth quarter of 2012.

On August 8, 2013, JBI, Inc., entered a stipulation agreement (the
"Stipulation Agreement") in potential settlement of the class
action lawsuit.  Under the Stipulation Agreement, the Company
would agree to issue shares of its common stock that will comprise
a settlement fund.  The number of shares to be issued will be
dependent on the price per share of the Company's common stock
during a period preceding the date of the Court's entry of final
judgment in the case (the "Judgment Date").  If the price of the
Company's common stock is less than $0.50 per share based upon the
average closing price for the 90 trading days preceding the
Judgment Date, the Company would issue 3 million shares of its
common stock. If the price of the Company's common stock is
between $0.50 and $0.70 per share, based upon the same 90-day
average closing price, the Company would issue 2.5 million shares
of its common stock.  If the price of the Company's common stock
is more than $0.70 per share based upon the same 90-day average
closing price the Company will issue 1.75 million shares of its
common stock.  The shares will not be distributed to class members
in kind.  At any time after final approval by the Court, class
counsel would have the option to sell all or any portion of such
shares for the benefit of class members, subject to certain volume
limitations.  Plaintiff's counsel's attorneys' fees, subject to
Court approval, would be paid out of the settlement fund.  The
Company would also pay settlement-related costs up to a maximum of
$200,000.  The plaintiffs and each of the class members who
purchased the Company's common stock during the Proposed Class
Period and alleged they were damaged would be deemed to have fully
released all claims against the Company and other defendants upon
entry of judgment.

On September 10, 2013, that agreement was submitted to the Court,
and class counsel moved for entry of an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement, including the mailing of a settlement
notice that will include, among other things, the general terms of
the settlement, proposed plan of allocation, and terms of
plaintiff's counsel's fee application.

On April 1, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying that motion.
Additional briefing was submitted to the Court in support of the
motion and, on August 14, 2014, the Court issued a second Order
denying the motion. However, the Court has permitted further
briefing to be submitted in support of the motion, and that
additional briefing has been submitted. It is anticipated that the
Court will once again reconsider its Order.   The Company cannot
predict the outcome of the class action litigation at this time.


QC HOLDINGS: North Carolina Supreme Court Refused to Hear Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Supreme Court
of North Carolina refused to hear an appeal in a class action
lawsuit.

On February 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries,
including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr.
Don Early, the Company's Chairman of the Board, were sued in
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben
Hubert Cline, who were customers of a Delaware state-chartered
bank for whom the Company provided certain services in connection
with the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina,
prior to the closing of the Company's North Carolina branches in
fourth quarter 2005.

In July 2011, the parties completed a weeklong hearing on the
Company's motion to enforce its class action waiver provision and
its arbitration provision. In January 2012, the trial court denied
the Company's motion to enforce its class action and arbitration
provisions. The Company appealed that ruling to the North Carolina
Court of Appeals.

On February 4, 2014, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial
court erred, and ordered the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit
and that the parties proceed to arbitration. On June 17, 2014, the
Supreme Court of North Carolina refused to hear an appeal of this
ruling.

The Company and the two plaintiffs have since settled the two
individual arbitration proceedings (including any right to seek
class arbitration) for an immaterial amount and all proceedings
have now been dismissed.


QC HOLDINGS: Settlement of British Columbia Case to be Finalized
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that it is expected
that the settlement of a class action lawsuit in British Columbia
will be finalized by the end of 2014, with execution of its
requirements to continue into 2015.

The Company's Direct Credit subsidiary is a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed on October 2011 in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia. On March 19, 2014, the Supreme Court of British
Columbia entered a judgment regarding certain procedural matters
relating to the class action, including (i) a formal rule
certifying the class (which Direct Credit had not opposed), (ii)
setting a 10-year statute of limitation period for the covered
claims from the date the complaint was filed on October 18, 2011,
(iii) setting end dates for the class period, which varies from
province and territory, (iv) providing that all class members that
entered into loan agreements on or after June 20, 2009 will be
class members unless they opt out of the class, (v) proving that
all other class members must opt into the class within three
months after the notice of class certification is issued, and (vi)
certain related matters.

The parties have executed a written settlement of this matter,
subject to an audit verification of proposed settlement amounts
and receipt of required court approval of the settlement terms.
Our share of the settlement amount and ancillary expenses, net of
indemnification from the prior owners of Direct Credit, is
$500,000 (Canadian).

In June 2014, the Company's share of the settlement and the
indemnification amount due from the prior owners of Direct Credit
were funded into a settlement trust held by an independent third
party trustee. It is expected that the settlement will be
finalized by the end of 2014, with execution of its requirements
to continue into 2015.


QC HOLDINGS: Trial in Calif. Case Scheduled for Early 2016
----------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
lawsuit in California is now in the discovery phase with a trial
tentatively scheduled for early 2016.

On August 13, 2012, the Company was sued in the United States
District Court for the South District of California in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by Paul Stemple. Mr. Stemple alleges
that the Company used an automatic telephone dialing system with
an "artificial or prerecorded voice" in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. The complaint does
not identify any other members of the proposed class, nor how many
members may be in the proposed class.

On September 5, 2014, the district court granted Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification. The certified class consists of
persons and/or entities who were never customers of the Company,
but whose 10-digit California area code cell phone numbers were
listed by the Company's customers in the "Employment" and/or
"Contacts" fields of their loan applications, and who the Company
allegedly called using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System for
the purpose of collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt
from the account holder, between August 13, 2008 and August 13,
2012.

The case is now in the discovery phase with a trial tentatively
scheduled for early 2016.


RALPHS GROCERY: Appeals Court Flips Ruling on Arbitration Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Nora M. Manella of the Court of Appeals of California, for
the Second District, Division Four, reversed a lower court
decision that denied Ralphs Grocery Company's petition to compel
arbitration in a class action lawsuit.  The appellate case is,
STEPHANIE RABB MAHMUD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RALPH GROCERY
COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, No. B237636 (Cal. App.)

Plaintiff-Respondent Mahmud brought a suit alleging that Ralphs
violated provisions of the State Labor Code. She sought
certification of multiple classes of similarly situated Ralphs'
employees, including a meal period class, a rest period class, and
a final wages class.

Ralphs petitioned to compel arbitration of the dispute and
presented evidence that Mahmud had signed an application for
employment which contains a dispute resolution program that
included a Mediation & Binding Arbitration Policy.

Mahmud opposed the petition citing the case, Gentry v. Superior
Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443.  She contended that the arbitration
agreement was unenforceable under Gentry case, in which the
California Supreme Court had held that where "the prohibition of
class wide relief would undermine the vindication of the
employees' unwaivable statutory rights and would pose a serious
obstacle to the enforcement of the state's overtime laws," and
where the trial court determines that class wide adjudication
"would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating the
rights of affected employees than individual arbitration," the
class action waiver should not be enforced.

Relying on Gentry, the trial court found the class action waiver
unenforceable because there was no practical way to vindicate the
potential claimants' statutory rights outside of class litigation,
due to the large number of claimants with relatively small claims.

Ralphs appealed.  The appellate court affirmed the order denying
Ralphs' petition and remanded the case back to the lower court.

After remand, Ralphs filed a renewed petition to compel
arbitration, contending that the United States Supreme Court's
opinion in the case, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563
U.S. ___ [131 S.Ct. 1740], effectively overruled Gentry. The trial
court denied the renewed motion.  Ralphs took another appeal.

The appellate court now holds that the order denying Ralphs'
petition to compel arbitration must be reversed; the matter is
remanded to the lower court for entry of an order granting the
petition.

A copy of Justice Manella's opinion dated November 10, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/24aWBxfrom Leagle.com.

Ralphs is represented by Linda S. Husar, Esq. --
lhusar@reedsmith.com -- and Steven B. Katz, Esq. --
skatz@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith.

The Plaintiff is represented by Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. --
greg@karasiklawfinrm.com -- at Karasik Law Firm.

The appeals court panel consists of Presiding Justice Norman L.
Epstein, Justices Nora M. Manella and Thomas L. Wilhite, Jr.


RCS CAPITAL: Final Approval Hearing Set for January 9
-----------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a final
approval hearing is set for January 9, 2015 to approve the
settlement in the class action over the acquisition of Summit
Financial Services Group, Inc.

Summit, its board of directors, the Company and a wholly owned
subsidiary formed by the Company in connection with the Summit
acquisition are named as defendants in two purported class action
lawsuits (now consolidated and amended) filed by alleged Summit
shareholders on November 27, 2013 and December 12, 2013 in Palm
Beach County, Florida challenging the Summit acquisition.

The Company said, "These lawsuits alleged, among other things,
that: (i) each member of Summit's board of directors breached his
fiduciary duties to Summit and its shareholders in authorizing the
Summit acquisition; (ii) the Summit acquisition did not maximize
value to Summit shareholders; and (iii) we and our acquisition
subsidiary aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the members of Summit's board of
directors."

"On May 9, 2014, the plaintiff shareholders moved for leave to
file an amended complaint under seal. The amended complaint
asserted claims similar to those in the original complaint, added
allegations relating to the amendment of the Summit merger
agreement on March 17, 2014, and also challenged the adequacy of
the disclosures in the registration statement related to the
issuance of shares of our Class A common stock as consideration in
the Summit acquisition, the background of the transaction, the
fairness opinion issued to the Summit special committee, and
Summit's financial projections. The consolidated lawsuits sought
class-action certification, equitable relief, including an
injunction against consummation of the Summit acquisition on the
agreed-upon terms, and damages.

"On May 27, 2014, the parties to the consolidated action entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth their agreement
in principle to settle the consolidated action and, on September
15, 2014, the parties signed a stipulation of settlement and the
Company recorded a provision. The same day, plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement and, on
October 6, 2014, the Court entered the preliminary approval order.
A final approval hearing is set for January 9, 2015."


RCS CAPITAL: Lead Plaintiffs File Direct Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the lead
plaintiffs in the Maryland state court action filed a
"Consolidated Amended Derivative and Direct Class Action
Complaint," asserting direct and derivative claims of aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against multiple defendants,
including Realty Capital Securities.

In connection with the proposed acquisition by Ventas, Inc.
("Ventas") of all the outstanding stock of the American Realty
Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("ARCH"), purported shareholders of
ARCH have filed multiple class action lawsuits in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland and other jurisdictions. Two of
these actions named Realty Capital Securities among others, as a
defendant. The actions are: Shine v. American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al filed June 13, 2014 and Abbassi, et
al. v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al.filed
July 9, 2014. The actions also assert derivative claims on behalf
of ARCH against Realty Capital Securities.

On October 10, 2014, lead plaintiffs in the Maryland state court
action filed a "Consolidated Amended Derivative and Direct Class
Action Complaint," asserting direct and derivative claims of
aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against multiple
defendants, including Realty Capital Securities, arising from its
role providing services to ARCH in connection with the proposed
acquisition of ARCH by Ventas and seek (i) to enjoin the proposed
acquisition and (ii) recover damages if the proposed acquisition
is completed. There have been no other material court filings
involving Realty Capital Securities.

Realty Capital Securities believes that such lawsuits are without
merit, but the ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be predicted
with certainty. Because the lawsuits are in their early stages,
neither the outcome of the lawsuits nor an estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonable possible losses are determinable at this
time. No provisions for any losses related to the lawsuits have
been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014.

An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material
adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of the Company. All
defendants believe that the claims are without merit and are
defending against them vigorously. Additional lawsuits arising out
of or related to the proposed acquisition of ARCH by Ventas may be
filed in the future.


REMINGTON ARMS: M.D.N.C. Judge Dismisses "Maxwell" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James A. Beaty of the Middle District of North
Carolina granted defendant's motion to dismiss and denied
plaintiff's motion for extension in the case, RONNIE MAXWELL,
Plaintiff, v. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant., No.
1:10CV918 (M.D.N.C.).

Plaintiff Ronnie Maxwell purchased two of Remington Arms model
number 597 17 HMR semi-automatic rifles. He learned that Remington
recalled all 597 17 HMR due to safety and performance concerns and
directed owners to immediately cease using any 597 17 HMR and
corresponding ammunition.

Plaintiff brought the case as a class action and asserted claims
of breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust
enrichment, unfair and deceptive conduct under the North Carolina
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based upon plaintiff's amended
complaint's failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a motion for
extension of time to file class certification.

Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster issued an order consolidated
plaintiff's case with other cases that involves a claim against
defendant. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in all three cases.

In a memorandum opinion and recommendation, Judge Webster
recommended that all three cases be dismissed.

Plaintiff filed an objection to Judge Webster's recommendation.

Judge Beaty affirmed and adopted the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge.  Judge Beaty held that the objections do not
alter the nature or substance of the Magistrate Judge's reasoning
and conclusions.  Judge Beaty granted defendant's motion to
dismiss, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Judge Beaty also
denied as moot plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file
class certification.

A copy of Judge Beaty's memorandum and opinion dated November 7,
2014 is available at http://is.gd/ATCOtTfrom Leagle.com.

Ronnie Maxwell is represented by:

     Benjamin R. Bingham, Esq.
     BINGHAM & LEA LAW P.C.
     319 Maverick Street
     San Antonio, TX 78212
     Telephone: (210) 224-1819
     Facsimile: (210) 224-0141
     E-mail: info@binghamandlea.com

          - and -

     William Grainger Wright, Sr., Esq.
     Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
     SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, L.L.P.
     575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
     Wilmington, NC 28405
     Telephone: (910) 762-1990
     Facsimile: (910) 762-6752

Remington Arms Co., Inc., is represented by:

     Frederick Rom, Esq.
     WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
     One Wells Fargo Center
     Suite 3500, 301 South College Street
     Charlotte, NC 28202-6037
     Telephone: (704) 331-4900
     Facsimile: (704) 331-4955
     E-mail: from@wcsr.com

          - and -

     Andrew A. Lothson, Esq.
     James B. Vogts, Esq.
     MARTIN & BELL, LLP
     330 N. Wabash, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL  60611
     E-mail: alothson@smbtrials.com
             jvogts@smbtrials.com


RIVERSIDE, CA: Sued for Seizing Newborn Baby Without Reason
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Riverside
County took a newborn baby from her mother without a reason or a
warrant -- and it makes a habit of it, the mother and baby claim
in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff A.A., the baby, sued Riverside County, Juvenile
Dependency Investigator Karla Torres, Torres' supervisor Felicia
M. Butler, and all similarly situated county social workers and
investigators, in the Dec. 12 lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' attorney Shawn McMillan told Courthouse News that his
firm, which specializes in civil rights cases against child
protection agencies, "uncovered an alarming trend" about a year
ago during discovery for other cases.

"County child welfare agencies regularly subvert the
constitutional rights of parents and children by seizing children
from their parents when there is no danger to the child, and in
fact no need to seize the child at all," McMillan said.

"The class action is designed to address a procedural problem.
They [Riverside County social workers] as a matter of course don't
get warrants before seizing kids.  Deficient policies, deficient
training and deficient supervision all lead to civil rights
violations on a regular basis," McMillan said.

"This lawsuit is designed to address the problem."

The 27-page lawsuit claims that A.A. is one of thousands of
children wrongfully taken from her mother by county social
workers.

"In February 2013, when she was three days old, plaintiff A.A. was
snatched by an employee of the Riverside County Department of
Public Social Services literally from the breast of her mother as
they lay in the hospital recuperating from a successful, safe
delivery," the complaint states.

A.A. "was healthy and in no danger whatever; her mother has no
history of drug, alcohol, or tobacco use nor any history of
psychiatric treatment," according to the lawsuit.

The county "had unlawfully seized (A.A.'s) four siblings months
before and sent them into foster care," the complaint states.  It
claims "thousands of other children" have been seized by Riverside
County employees "without any sort of warrant and without any risk
of serious injury."

According to the lawsuit, Tonita Rogers gave birth to A.A. by
Caesarean section and spent the next few days recuperating and
bonding with her baby.  Rogers says she was "healthy and fully
capable of taking care" of her baby.

Three days later, Torres came to Rogers's hospital room at around
2:45 p.m. and saw that she was recovering well and that A.A. was
healthy, according to the complaint.

"Despite these facts, and solely because there had been an earlier
dependency petition filed regarding plaintiffs' siblings, Torres
seized the newborn baby plaintiff from her mother's care and
custody," the complaint states.

Rogers claims that Torres "did not bother to seek a warrant,"
which would have taken about two hours, nor did she seek an ex
parte petition for non-custodial removal before taking the baby.

McMillan told Courthouse News that A.A. was returned to her mother
5 to 10 days later.  He said that many of the seized children are
out of their mother's care for a year or more.  He said that
around half of his firm's cases involve African-American children
like A.A., and that "a large portion" are from lower-income
families.

But McMillan said that white and upper-class parents were not
"immune" to the problem and that some of his cases involve
"medical doctors and investment bankers."

McMillan said the social workers find the children they seize via
two statewide databases: the CWS/CMS system and the Child Abuse
Central Index. Anyone reported as being involved in suspected
child abuse is likely to be in one or both systems, he said.

"If you appear on one of them, you have an immediate black mark
against you.  The CWS/CMS system is largely kept a secret so that
children, as they age into adulthood, and parents may not even
know they are listed," McMillan said.  "In any event, the
databases are largely accessible to hospital and social workers
and the like."

The plaintiffs claim that Riverside County social workers know or
should know that taking children from their families without a
warrant is illegal and violates their civil rights.  The county
itself "turned a blind eye" to what its social workers do, and
failed to train them on "child abuse and dependency type
investigations and court proceedings," the complaint states.

"The real problem here is that the county itself is at fault for
not adequately training its workers and supervising them,"
McMillan said.  "In addition, the county has failed -- for years,
if not decades, to implement any policies or procedures to protect
the 4th Amendment rights of children and the 14th Amendment rights
of parents in circumstances similar to those presented in the
present lawsuit."

McMillan said that the constitutional violations are "a direct
result of the deficient polices and practices of the county.  For
this reason, we anticipate that the discovery process will reveal
the individually named workers were each involved in dozens, if
not hundreds of unwarranted child seizures."

According to the lawsuit, Riverside County "never investigates or
disciplines its social workers," including Torres, who take
children without reason.

McMillan said he has sued Riverside County on behalf of a child
seized without a warrant before.  He said the county unofficially
promised to fix the problem, but apparently never did.

The county did not return requests for comment December 15.

A.A. seeks class certification, an injunction and compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages for civil rights violations.

McMillan said that an injunction to stop the county from taking
any more children is the most important thing.

"Riverside is a test bed. The idea is to see what happens and to
what extent we can establish accountability," he said. "This has
the potential to affect the entire state."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn Allen McMillan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN
          4955 Via Lapiz
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 646-0069
          Facsimile: (206) 600-4582
          E-mail: attyshawn@netscape.net

               - and -

          Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 870-0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com


ROCKET FUEL: Faces Two Class Actions Over Public Offering
---------------------------------------------------------
Rocket Fuel Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that two purported
class actions were filed on September 3, 2014 and September 10,
2014, respectively, in the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors.
The actions are Shah v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-
cv-03998, and Mehrotra v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-
cv-04114. The underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering on September 19, 2013 (the "IPO") and its secondary
offering on February 5, 2013 (the "Secondary Offering") are also
named as defendants.

The complaints allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the ability of the Company's
technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic, and
about the Company's future prospects. The complaints also allege
that the Company's registration statements and prospectuses for
the IPO and the Secondary Offering contained false and misleading
statements on these topics. The complaints purport to assert
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and for
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on
behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock between
September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well as those
who purchased stock in the Company's initial public offering on
September 19, 2013. The Mehrotra complaint also purports to assert
a claim for violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933. The complaints seek monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.


SAFEWAY INC: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Rodman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Rodman and members of the certified class bring
a single breach of contract action against Defendant Safeway,
Inc., an online grocery delivery service on its website,
safeway.com

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant breached the terms of the
parties' agreement by charging higher prices for groceries on its
online safeway.com delivery service than it charged in the stores
where the groceries were selected.  Both the Plaintiff and the
Defendant have filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on
the Class's breach of contract claim.

In an order dated Dec. 10, 2014, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, after determining that
Safeway breached the contract by charging the Plaintiff and the
Class more than the prices permitted under the terms of the
contract and the Class is entitled to damages even for purchases
which occurred after the Special Terms were amended on Nov. 15,
2011.  Therefore, Judge Tigar held that Safeway is liable to the
Plaintiff and the Class for the aggregate amount of the online
mark-up from April 12, 2010, through the present.

Judge Tigar also sets a case management conference for Jan. 21,
2015, at 2:00 p.m., at which time it will set the remaining dates
in the action.

The case is MICHAEL RODMAN, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY INC., Defendant,
CASE NO. 11-CV-03003-JST (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Tigar's Decision is available at http://is.gd/xI3fKbfrom
Leagle.com.

Michael Rodman, Plaintiff, represented by James C Shah, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Rosemary Farrales Luzon, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Scott Rhead Shepherd, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller Shah, LLP, Steven Alan Schwartz, Esq. --
SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP & Timothy
Newlyn Mathews, Esq. -- TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- at
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP.

Safeway Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian R. Blackman, Esq. --
bblackman@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Elizabeth Sarah Berman, Esq. -- ebarcohana@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
-- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.


SCORES HOLDING: Has $59,084 Class Action Settlement Receivable
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of
September 30, 2014, the settlement receivable in a class action
lawsuit is $59,084.

On September 26, 2011, the Company, Richard Goldring and Elliot
Osher (Goldring and Osher were formerly two of the Company's
principal shareholders) (collectively the "Defendants") and Sari
Diaz et al. (the "Plaintiffs") entered into a Court approved Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement")
relating to a purported class action and collective action on
behalf of all tipped employees filed by Plaintiffs, pursuant to
which Defendants agreed to make a settlement payment of $450,000
to resolve and settle awards to Plaintiffs and related Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees. Additionally, the Defendants agreed to pay the
employer portion of payroll taxes on approximately $300,000 in
distributions, approximately $15,600.

In a settlement payment agreement among the Company, Goldring and
Osher, the Company agreed to advance all of the Defendants'
obligations under the Settlement Agreement and to pay $64,500 of
Goldring's and Osher's legal fees to their designated attorney. In
consideration for the Company's payment of these obligations,
Goldring and Osher agreed, jointly and severally, to pay the
Company $440,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the
unpaid balance of such amount, in 40 equal monthly payments of
$11,965 per month. To secure his obligations under this agreement,
Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of his
interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009 in the
principal amount of $2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring
(the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest in the
Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations under this
settlement payment agreement are paid in full.

As of September 30, 2014, the settlement receivable is $59,084.

On December 29, 2011 the Company entered into a Promissory Note
with Goldring for $30,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per
annum on the unpaid balance. To secure his obligations under this
agreement, Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of
his interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009 in the
principal amount of $2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring
(the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest in the
Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations under this
settlement payment agreement are paid in full. Three payments of
$11,965 are due beginning March 2015.

As of September 30, 2014, this promissory note balance is $34,412.


SKLAR-MARKIND: "Brown" FDCPA Suit to Proceed in Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy of the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted defendants' motion in the case entitled
THOMAS MICHAEL BROWN, an individual; on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKLAR-MARKIND a/k/a
MARKIND LAW GROUP, P.C. a/k/a LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW SKLAR, P.C.,
ANDREW SKLAR, individually and in his official capacity, LLOYD
MARKIND, individually and in his official capacity, JORDAN W.
FELZER, individually and in his official capacity, and JOHN AND
JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, Defendants., Civil Action No. 14-
0266 (W.D. Pa.)

Plaintiff Thomas Michael Brown purchased a Ford Fiesta on February
2011 and entered into a Simple Interest Retail Installment Sales
Contract with Woltz & Wind.  Woltz & Wind assigned the Sales
Contract to Ford Motor Credit Company.

In October 2012, Brown defaulted on the contract. The Fiesta was
ultimately repossessed, and FMCC retained Sklar-Markind to
represent it in an action to recover the deficiency between the
amount for which the repossessed vehicle was sold and the balance
owed.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit, in his own behalf and on behalf of a
putative class, stating a claim under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., for
Defendants' allegedly improper debt collection tactics. He
identifies defendants as debt collectors within the meaning of the
FDCPA, and alleges that in their efforts to collect a debt he owed
their client in a civil action filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, defendants made false or
misleading representations with regard to the character and legal
status of his debt and his obligation to reimburse the cost of the
debt collectors' services.

Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings, attaching the Simple Interest Retail Installment
Sales Contract. Among other things, the contract requires
Plaintiff to arbitrate all claims arising out of or in relation to
the application for credit, the contract, or any resulting
transaction or relationship.

Magistrate Judge Eddy granted defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and stay the proceedings.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Eddy's memorandum opinion dated
November 7, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/j4jFw3from
Leagle.com.

THOMAS MICHAEL BROWN, an individual; on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Reed James
Davis -- rd@davislawgroup.com -- at Davis Law Group, P.C.

SKLAR - MARKIND, Defendant, represented by Danielle M. Vugrinovich
-- dmvugrinovich@mdwcg.com -- at Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin.

Marshall Dennehey also represents defendant ANDREW SKLAR,
individually and in his official capacity; and LLOYD MARKIND,
individually and in his official capacity.


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Paid $2,200,000 to Settle "Lewy" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skypeople Fruit Juice, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company reached a settlement on the Zachary Lewy et al.
consolidated securities fraud class action on January 27, 2014.
The settlement amount of $2,200,000 has been paid in full to the
settlement fund.


SONY COMPUTER: Court Refuses to Dismiss Suit Over 'Killzone' Game
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit accusing Sony Computer Entertainment of
embellishing how good the graphics are in its "Killzone: Shadow
Fall" videogame will proceed, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse
News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

In the class action filed this past August, lead plaintiff Douglas
Ladore claims that Sony's "Killzone: Shadow Fall" videogame --
pitched by the company as a "crowning achievement in the videogame
industry" -- was advertised to have multiplayer mode graphics in
full 1080p high-definition resolution, but didn't meet that bar.

"Gamers quickly noticed and complained that Killzone's multiplayer
graphics were blurry to the point of distraction," Ladore's
complaint alleges.

Sony moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds.  The
company argued that its representations about the graphics weren't
false, that Ladore didn't adequately plead reliance on any alleged
misrepresentation, that the game doesn't fall under the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and that the "economic loss rule" bars
Ladore's tort claim for negligent misrepresentation.

But on December 16, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen denied all but
one of Sony's arguments, holding the company's motion was
"premised on an unduly narrow reading of plaintiff's complaint."

"The substantial majority of the arguments Sony raises in its
motion to dismiss can be rejected for two simple reasons -- either
Sony's arguments ignore important factual allegations that are
well pleaded in Ladore's complaint, or Sony's arguments require
this court to construe the complaint in the light most favorable
to Sony, rather than Ladore, who is entitled to the benefit of all
reasonable inferences at this stage of the proceedings," Chen
wrote.

On Ladore's negligent misrepresentation cause of action, however,
Chen found the claim inadequately pleaded under the economic loss
rule since Ladore hadn't asserted any noneconomic losses stemming
from his purchase of the game.

Ladore has 30 days to file an amended complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Eisen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          E-mail: meisen@edelson.com

The case is Douglas Ladore, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America,
LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-03530-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Expects Discovery to be Completed This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
expects discovery to be completed by December in a class action
lawsuit at which point SMS Masterminds will renew its motion for
summary judgment.

On January 1, 2014, SMS Masterminds was named in a potential
class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The
plaintiff's lawsuit has sought the certification of a class,
though as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q such
class certification has not been approved by the court.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that SMS Masterminds sent
unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff and other recipients
without the prior express invitation or permission of the
recipients and such plaintiff is now seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

SMS Masterminds filed its motion for summary judgment in June.
The briefing on the motion concluded on August 5th.  "Plaintiff
made numerous requests for discovery prior to filing his
opposition to our motion and repeated these requests in his
opposition.   The hearing on the motion took place September 17th.
The Court granted Plaintiff a brief window to conduct discovery
limited to the issues raised in our motion for summary judgment.
Class discovery remains stayed," the Company said.

"We expect discovery to be completed by December at which point
SMS Masterminds will renew its motion for summary judgment.  We
believe Plaintiff's allegations have no merit and will continue to
vigorously defend against Plaintiff's claims."


STATE FARM: Crawford's Auto Center Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Crawford's Auto Center, Inc. v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-03146, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Orlando).  The Florida District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-06016-GAP-TBS to the
proceeding.

This nationwide class action seeks damages and additional relief
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), and other state laws, to remedy the Defendant insurers'
alleged long-running unlawful conduct to suppress compensation to
repair facilities for automotive collision repairs covered by
insurance.

Defendant insurers State Farm, Allstate, GEICO, Progressive,
Farmers, Liberty Mutual and Nationwide, together with their three
conspirator insurers, are the ten largest private passenger auto
insurers in the United States, collectively holding 70% of the
market, and control all aspects of collision repairs, including
establishing the industry standards for compensation paid to
repair facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          1622 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-5707
          E-mail: sbloch@bm.net
                  dsorensen@bm.net

               - and -

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com

Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, State
Farm General Insurance Company, State Farm Indemnity Company,
State Farm Guaranty Insurance Company, State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company and State Farm County Mutual Insurance Company of
Texas are represented by:

          Brent R. Austin, Esq.
          Michael L. McCluggage, Esq.
          EIMER STAHL LLP
          224 S Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-7684
          E-mail: baustin@eimerstahl.com
                  mmccluggage@eimerstahl.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Helmer, Esq.
          Michael P. Kenny, Esq.
          Tiffany L. Powers, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          1201 W Peachtree St., Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-4724
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: elizabeth.helmer@alston.com
                  mike.kenny@alston.com
                  tiffany.powers@alston.com

Defendants Allstate Corporation, Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company, Allstate Fire & Casualty
Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate New Jersey
Insurance, Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Insurance
Company, Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Encompass
Indemnity Company, Esurance Insurance Company and Esurance
Property & Casualty Insurance Company are represented by:

          Richard L. Fenton, Esq.
          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 S Wacker Dr., Suite 7800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          Facsimile: (312) 876-7934
          E-mail: richard.fenton@dentons.com
                  mark.hanover@dentons.com

Defendants Government Employee's Insurance Company, Geico
Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, Geico Casualty
Company, GEICO Advantage Insurance Company, GEICO Choice Insurance
Company, GEICO Secure Insurance Company and GEICO County Mutual
Insurance Company are represented by:

          Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
          Jamie L. Halavais, Esq.
          Joshua Grabel, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER, LLP
          One Arizona Center
          400 E Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Telephone: (602) 382-6282
          Facsimile: (602) 382-6070
          E-mail: dgoldfine@swlaw.com
                  jhalavais@swlaw.com
                  jgrabel@swlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason H. Nash, Esq.
          John T. Williams, Esq.
          HINKHOUSE WILLIAMS WALSH, LLP
          180 N Stetson Ave., Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 784-5416
          Facsimile: (312) 784-5499
          E-mail: jnash@hww-law.com
                  jwilliams@hww-law.com

Defendants The Progressive Corporation, Progressive American
Insurance Company, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company,
Progressive Gulf Insurance Company, Progressive Specialty
Insurance Company, Progressive Classic Insurance Company,
Progressive Michigan Insurance Company, Progressive Mountain
Insurance Company, Progressive Northern Insurance Company,
Progressive Northwestern Insurance, Progressive Preferred
Insurance Company, Progressive Security Insurance Co, Progressive
Southeastern Insurance Company, Progressive West Insurance
Company, Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, Progressive
Choice Insurance Company, Progressive Direct Insurance Company,
Progressive Garden State Insurance, Progressive Marathon Insurance
Company, Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company, Progressive
Select Insurance Company, Progressive Premier Insurance of IL,
Progressive Universal Insurance Company, Progressive County Mutual
Insurance Company, Artisan & Truckers Casualty Company and United
Financial Casualty Company are represented by:

          Christine A. Hopkinson, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree St. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-3560
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5139
          E-mail: chopkinson@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Brian Galibois, Esq.
          Elizabeth Doolin, Esq.
          CHITTENDEN, MURDAY & NOVOTNY, LLC
          303 West Madison Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 281-3600
          E-mail: mgalibois@cmn-law.com
                  edoolin@cmn-law.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Nelson, Esq.
          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          NELSON BROWN & CO
          17 State Street, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (215) 233-0130
          Facsimile: (215) 233-0172
          E-mail: mnelson@nelsonbrownco.com
                  kkochis@nelsonbrownco.com

Defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange,
Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona, Farmers Insurance Company of
Oregon, Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, Farmers Insurance
Company, Inc., Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company,
Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Mid-Century Insurance Company,
Foremost County Mutual Insurance Company, Foremost Insurance
Company Grand Rapids, Bristol West Insurance Company, Coast
National Insurance Company, 21st Century Centennial Insurance
Company, 21st Century Indemnity Insurance Company and 21st Century
Insurance Company are represented by:

          Brian Ignatius Hays, Esq.
          Katherine Heid Harris, Esq.
          Randall Allan Hack, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 443-0700
          E-mail: bhays@lockelord.com
                  kharris@lockelord.com
                  rhack@lockelord.com

               - and -

          David L. Yohai, Esq.
          Eric Hochstadt, Esq.
          John Mastando, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP
          767 Fifth Ave.
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8275
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: david.yohai@weil.com
                  eric.hochstadt@weil.com
                  john.mastando@weil.com

Defendants Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., Liberty Mutual
Group Inc., The First Liberty Insurance Corporation, Liberty
County Mutual Insurance Company, Texas, Liberty Mutual Fire
Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, LM General
Insurance Company, Peerless Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance
Company of America and Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois are
represented by:

          Joseph Edward Ezzie, Esq.
          Trischa Snyder Chapman, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          Capital Square, Suite 2100
          65 E State Street
          Columbus, OH 43215-4260
          Telephone: (614) 462-4758
          E-mail: jezzie@bakerlaw.com
                  tchapman@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Mumford, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          3200 National City Center
          1900 E 9th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44114-3485
          Telephone: (216) 861-7578
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: mmumford@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          William Kevin Kane, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 416-6211
          Facsimile: (312) 832-4444
          E-mail: wkane@bakerlaw.com

Defendants Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Allied Property &
Casualty Insurance Company, AMCO Insurance Company, Depositors
Insurance Company, Nationwide Insurance Company of America,
Colonial County Mutual Insurance Company, Nationwide Affinity
Insurance Company Of America, Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance
Company, Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company and
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company are represented by:

          Josh Goldberg, Esq.
          CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP
          180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2640
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 777-4825
          Facsimile: (312) 777-4839
          E-mail: goldberg@carpenterlipps.com

               - and -

          Michael Beekhuizen, Esq.
          Michael Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP
          280 North High Street, Suite 1300
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-4100
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9145
          E-mail: beekhuizen@carpenterlipps.com
                  carpenter@carpenterlipps.com

               - and -

          Peter T. Snow, Esq.
          FARUKI, IRELAND & COX, PLL
          500 Courthouse Plaza SW
          10 N Ludlow St.
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (614) 365-4117
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9145
          E-mail: snow@carpenterlipps.com


SWS GROUP: Parties Reach MOU to Settle Consolidated Action
----------------------------------------------------------
SWS Group, Inc., said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, that
the parties to the consolidated class action lawsuit entered into
a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting the terms of
an agreement, subject to final approval by the Court and certain
other conditions, to settle the Consolidated Action.

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus dated
October 14, 2014 (the "Proxy Statement") relating to the proposed
merger (the "Merger") of SWS Group, Inc. ("SWS" or the "Company")
with and into Peruna LLC ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary
of Hilltop Holdings Inc. ("Hilltop"), pursuant to the Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of March 31,
2014, by and among the Company, Hilltop and Merger Sub, two
purported shareholder class action complaints have been filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") against Hilltop,
Merger Sub, the Company and the individual members of the
Company's board of directors. On May 13, 2014, the Court
consolidated the two actions for all purposes under the caption In
re SWS Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation (the "Consolidated
Action"). The Consolidated Action generally alleges claims for
breach of fiduciary duty by the individual directors of the
Company, and claims against Hilltop for aiding and abetting that
breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint further alleges that the
proxy statement/prospectus filed by Hilltop on May 29, 2014 omits
or misstates certain material information. The Consolidated Action
requests, among other things, that the Merger be enjoined.

On November 13, 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting
the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the Court
and certain other conditions, to settle the Consolidated Action.
Pursuant to the MOU, and without admitting any wrongdoing or that
these supplemental disclosures are material or required to be
made, defendants agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures
requested by plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. The MOU
further provides that, among other things, (a) the parties will
negotiate a definitive stipulation of settlement (the
"Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the Court for
review and approval; (b) the Stipulation will provide for
dismissal of the Consolidated Action with prejudice; (c) the
Stipulation will include a general release of defendants of claims
relating to, among other things, the Merger and the Merger
Agreement; and (d) the settlement is conditioned on, among other
things, consummation of the Merger, completion of confirmatory
discovery, class certification and final approval by the Court
after notice to the Company's shareholders. Defendants believe
that the allegations and claims in the litigation are without
merit and, if the settlement does not receive final approval,
intend to defend them vigorously. Defendants are entering into the
settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been
asserted to rest. The settlement will not affect the timing of the
Merger or the amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger.

In addition, Hilltop has agreed:

(i) to forbear from asserting its right to a Termination Fee (as
such term is defined in the Merger Agreement) in the event that
the conditions precedent to payment of the Termination Fee
pursuant to Section 8.3(b)(i) of the Merger Agreement are
satisfied, to the extent that SWS consummates a Third Party
Acquisition or enters into any Alternative Acquisition Agreement
(as those terms are defined in the Merger Agreement) more than six
(6) months after termination of the Merger Agreement;

(ii) to forbear from asserting its right to payment of any
portion of the Termination Fee to the extent that such Termination
Fee exceeds $6,000,000 (notwithstanding the fact that the Merger
Agreement currently provides for a Termination Fee equal to
$8,000,000) in the event that Hilltop terminates the Merger
Agreement pursuant to Section 8.1(c)(i) of the Merger Agreement
and such Termination Fee is payable pursuant to Section 8.3(b)(ii)
of the Merger Agreement; and

(iii) to forbear from enforcing that portion of the covenant by
SWS contained in Section 6.10(a) of the Merger Agreement that
provides that SWS "shall not, and shall cause its subsidiaries not
to, and shall use its reasonable best efforts to cause its or
their respective officers, directors, employees, its
representatives or agents not to, and shall not resolve or propose
to, directly or indirectly . . . (ii) waive, terminate, modify or
fail to enforce any provision of any contractual 'standstill' or
similar obligation of any person other than Purchaser and Merger
Sub."


TRAVELERS PROPERTY: 3d Cir. Flips in Part Ruling in "Judon" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an
opinion dated Dec. 12, 2014, affirmed in part and vacated in part
a lower court's ruling in the class action filed by Francine Judon
against Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America, the insurer of
Keystone Quality Transport Company, which owns the passenger
vehicle that injured Judon in 2010.

The case concerns the applicable burdens of proof for establishing
jurisdiction in a removal action under the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453.  The Defendant
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Plaintiff timely sought
remand.  The District Court found CAFA's numerosity and amount-in-
controversy requirements to be in dispute and placed the burden of
proof on Travelers to establish jurisdiction under CAFA by a
preponderance of the evidence.  Concluding that Travelers failed
to meet its burden, the District Court issued an order remanding
the case to state court.  Travelers appealed.

The Third Circuit held that as Judon's complaint unambiguously
pleaded that the numerosity requirement was satisfied, the
District Court should have placed the burden of proof on Judon to
show, to a legal certainty, that the numerosity requirement was
not satisfied.  But the District Court correctly applied the
preponderance of the evidence standard to the amount-in-
controversy requirement.

The appeals case is FRANCINE JUDON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, NOS. 14-3406, 14-4099 (3d
Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/kV4sr1from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellee:

         James C. Haggerty, Esq.
         Suzanne T. Tighe, Esq.
         HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH
         1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com
                stighe@hgsklawyers.com

Counsel for Appellant:

         Matthew A. Goldberg, Esq.
         Joseph Kernen, Esq.
         Brian M. Robinson, Esq.
         DLA PIPER
         1650 Market Street
         One Liberty Place, Suite 4900
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Email: matthew.goldberg@dlapiper.com
                joseph.kernen@dlapiper.com
                brian.robinson@dlapiper.com


TREMOR VIDEO: Files Reply in Support of Case Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Tremor Video, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company filed
a reply in support of its motion to dismiss the amended class
action complaint.

The Company said, "In November 2013, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us, our directors, and
certain of our executive officers. The lawsuit alleges certain
misrepresentations by us in connection with our IPO concerning our
business and prospects.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages."

On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On April 22, 2014, lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.

"On July 14, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On August 28, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss.  On September 18, 2014, we
filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss the amended
complaint," the Company said.

"We intend to vigorously defend against these claims.  Due to the
early stage of these proceedings, we cannot predict the likely
outcome of the lawsuit, and an adverse result could have a
material effect on our financial statements."


UNI-PIXEL INC: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
The Woodlands, Texas-based Uni-Pixel, Inc. (NASDAQ: UNXL), a
provider of Performance Engineered Films(TM) to the touch screen,
flexible printed electronics, lighting and display markets, has
entered memorandums of understanding to settle the following
previously disclosed lawsuits:

     * the securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, captioned
Fitzpatrick, Charles J. v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., et. al. (Cause No.
4:13-cv-01649); and

     * the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuit pending in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, captioned In re Uni-
Pixel, Inc., Shareholder Derivative Litigation (Cause No. 2014-
08251).

The proposed settlements would resolve for all defendants all of
the issues that are pending in the class action and in the
consolidated derivative action relating to Uni-Pixel's public
statements regarding its licensing agreements and product
development. Uni-Pixel determined to settle these matters to
eliminate the burden, distraction, and expense of further
litigation.

If completed, the class action settlement would result in a
payment of $2.35 million in cash to the settlement class,
inclusive of fees and expenses. In addition, Uni-Pixel would issue
$2.15 million in common stock to the settlement class. The
proposed consolidated derivative settlement would result in a
payment of $150,000 in cash, the issuance of $125,000 of Uni-Pixel
common stock, and certain governance improvements. Uni-Pixel
anticipates that the cash payment portions of both settlements,
totaling $2.5 million, would be paid from insurance proceeds.

"With these memorandums of understanding in place, we believe we
are one step closer to resolving these suits," said Jeff
Hawthorne, president and CEO of Uni-Pixel. "We are hopeful the
courts will give final approval to the settlements."

The settlements described in this press release are not yet
consummated and are subject to a number of conditions. The terms
outlined in the memorandums of understanding Uni-Pixel has entered
into are subject to the parties concluding definitive settlement
agreements. The proposed settlements are also subject to final
approval by Uni-Pixel's insurance carrier and by the courts
following completion of a fairness hearing. Hearing dates have not
yet been set on final approval of the proposed settlements.

Headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, Uni-Pixel, Inc. (NASDAQ:
UNXL) -- http://www.unipixel.com/-- delivers Performance
Engineered Films to the Display and Flexible Electronics markets.
UniPixel's high-volume roll-to-roll or continuous flow
manufacturing process offers high-fidelity replication of advanced
micro-optic structures and surface characteristics over large
areas. A key focus for UniPixel is developing electronic
conductive films for use in electronic sensors for consumer and
industrial applications. The company's roll-to-roll electronics
manufacturing process prints fine line conductive elements on thin
films. The company is marketing its films for touch panel sensor,
cover glass replacement, protective cover film, antenna and custom
circuitry applications under the UniPixel label, and potentially
under private label or Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM)
brands.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Trims Suit Over Employee Benefit Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of
New York granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for
summary judgment in, or dismissal of, the case MARIANNE GATES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY;
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.; LIFE, AD&D, DISABILITY & MEDICAL PLAN FOR
EMPLOYEES OF ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.; UNITED HEALTHCARE CHOICE PLUS
COPAY PLAN FOR ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.; ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.
RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.; and
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P. UNITED HEALTHCARE INDEMNITY PLAN,
Defendants., Case No. 11-CV-3487 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.)

Marianne Gates and the members of the classes that she seeks to
represent, were or are participants in and/or beneficiaries of
employee health care plans sponsored by private companies,
including AllianceBernstein L.P. ("AB"), and partially or fully
administered and/or insured by defendant United Healthcare
Insurance Company ("URIC").

Plaintiff is a retired employee of AllianceBernstein L.P. (AB) and
a participant in the Life, AD&D, Disability & Medical Plan for
Employees of AllianceBernstein L.P., the AllianceBernstein L.P.
Retiree Plan for Employees of AllianceBernstein L.P., and the
AllianceBernstein L.P. United Healthcare Indemnity Plan. She was
formerly a participant in the United Healthcare Choice Plus Co-pay
Plan.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleged the following causes of action:

     1. First Claim for Relief (against AB defendants): to recover
benefits pursuant to Section 502(a)(1)(B) and for injunctive
relief pursuant to Section 502(a)(3); that claim includes an
assertion of a breach of fiduciary duty for use of the Estimating
Policy;

     2. Second Claim for Relief (against UHIC): for injunctive
relief pursuant to Section 502(a)(3) to bar UHIC's continued use
of the Estimating Policy;

     3. Third Claim for Relief (against AB Plans): for relief
pursuant to Sections 502(a)(3) and 503 for breach of fiduciary
duty for failure to comply with appropriate claims procedure;

     4. Fourth Claim for Relief (against UHIC "derivatively on
behalf of' the Plans for which UHIC serves as Claims
Administrator): for relief pursuant to Sections 409(a), 502(a)(2),
and 502(a)(3) for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to comply
with appropriate claims procedure;

     5. Fifth Claim for Relief (against AB): for relief pursuant
to Sections 409(a) and 502(a)(2) for breach of fiduciary duty for
failure to terminate UHIC as Claims Administrator and failure to
prudently select and monitor the Claims Administrator.
Gates' claims may be grouped into three categories: benefits
claims (First and Second Claims for Relief), procedural claims
(Third and Fourth Claims for Relief), and a monitoring claim
(Fifth Claim for Relief).

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on or dismissal of
plaintiff's five causes of action.

Judge Forrest denied defendants' motion as to the first claim for
relief and granted as to the second, third, fourth, and fifth
claims for relief.

A copy of Judge Forrest's opinion and order dated November 7, 2014
is available at http://is.gd/TYZzaVfrom Leagle.com

Marianne Gates, Plaintiff, represented by David Steven Preminger -
- dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com -- Derek W. Loeser --
dloeser@kellerrohrbaack.com -- Erin M. Riley --
eriley@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn Lincoln Sarko --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com - and -- Sarah H. Kimberly -- skimberley
@kellerrohrback.com -- at Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Defendants Alliancebernstein L.P., United Healthcare Choice Plus
Copay Plan For Alliacebernstein L.P., and Alliancebernstein L.P.
United Healthcare Indemnity Plan, represented by John D. Giansello
-- jgiansello@orrick.com -- and -- Michael Delikat --
mdelikat@orrick.com -- at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

United Healthcare Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Nicholas James Pappas -- Nicholas.pappas@weil.com -- at Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP.


US HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Sued by Arapaho Tribe Over Obamacare Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty stricken Native Americans in Wyoming are scrambling to
protect their exemptions under Obamacare before the "large
employer" mandate takes effect Jan. 1, 2015, reports Philip A.
Janquart at Courthouse News Service.

The Northern Arapaho Tribe sued the U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services and the U.S. Department of the Treasury Secretary
on December 8 in a federal class action.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare
provides Native Americans with an exemption from the individual
and large employer mandates.

But the Arapaho say the implementing regulations have "perhaps
inadvertently, created unlawful barriers that block Native
Americans from accessing the Premium Tax Credits and the Cost
Sharing Exemption that Congress provided."  The Arapaho claims the
regulations "will deprive Native Americans of critical health care
assistance by re-writing provisions of the ACA in violation of
federal law."

Roughly 24,000 Arapaho live on the 3,473-square-mile Wind River
Indian Reservation in west central Wyoming.  Their median income
is about $16,000 per year -- just 31 percent of the $51,900 median
income of the country as a whole.

Arapaho enterprises employ about 600 people, at casinos, a grocery
store, gas station and laundry service.  Providing them with
health insurance is difficult due to lack of bargaining power with
health care providers and skyrocketing costs, the tribe says.

The Affordable Care Act could have provided impoverished Native
Americans access to "high quality," low-cost insurance, the tribe
says, but the implementing regulations blocked it.

"Contrary to the intent of Congress, when the cluster IRS
regulation and rules implementing the ACA Large Employer mandate
takes effect on Jan. 1, 2015, tribal employees will be deprived of
the coverage currently in place under policies provided on the
exchange," the complaint states.  "Under the new IRS rules and
regulations . . . tribal employees will be offered two inferior
insurance options: 1) an exchange plan without the . . . premium
tax credits and the cost sharing exemption; or 2) an employer plan
that is more expensive and does not provide a cost sharing
benefit."

Either way, costs will increase and coverage will decrease, which
is violates the purpose of the lie, the Arapaho say.

"The IRS apparently considers the tribe and its enterprises to
fall within its definition of a large employer," the complaint
states.  "If the tribe is subjected to the large employer mandate,
defendants will effectively block tribal member employees between
100 percent and 400 percent of poverty from premium tax credits
that subsidize insurance coverage available on the exchanges and
nullify the statute by regulation," according to the complaint.

Tribal employees below 300 percent of the poverty level -- i.e.,
those at the tribal median income level -- will be blocked from
the cost-sharing exemption, the Arapaho say.

"Congress did not intend to create special benefits in the ACA for
working-class Native Americans, only to have defendants promulgate
regulations that prevent working-class Native Americans who work
for tribes from obtaining those benefits," the complaint states.

The Arapaho want the court to declare the large employer mandate
unlawful as applied to them, prohibit the government from fining
the tribe for noncompliance and issue an injunction that allows
them access health insurance as it currently exists.

The Tribe is represented by:

          Andrew W. Baldwin, Esq.
          BALDWIN, CROCKER & RUDD, P.C.
          Post Office Box 1229
          Lander, Wyoming 82520-1229
          Telephone: (307) 332-3385
          E-mail: andy@bcrattorneys.com


USI INC: Faces "P & S" Class Suit in Connecticut District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
P & S Printing LLC d/b/a Minuteman Press, on behalf of itself and
all other similarly situated v. U S I, Inc. d/b/a USI, Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-01893 (D. Conn., December 17, 2014) seeks relief
pursuant to the Telecommunications Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


VERIZON NEW YORK: Removes "Weider" Class Suit to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Weider, et al. v. Verizon New
York Inc., Case No. 510881/2014, was removed from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07378-SJ-JO to
the proceeding.

The action is a putative class action brought on behalf of all
residential and business customers of Verizon, who paid Verizon a
Municipal Construction Surcharge for high speed Internet and FiOS
services.  The Plaintiffs allege that Verizon improperly charged
the Surcharge to its customers after it was advised by a May 16,
2013 Order of the New York Public Service Commission that it could
not do so.

The Plaintiffs further allege that Verizon misrepresented to its
current and prospective customers that all of the charges set
forth on their invoices would conform to authorized tariffs, and
that the statements that Verizon made as to its rates and as to
pre-order estimates of charges in unspecified advertising,
marketing and promotional materials were intentionally false and
misleading.

The Plaintiffs are 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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip R. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 801-9200
          Facsimile: (212) 801-6400
          E-mail: sellingerp@gtlaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Accused of Hiding Malfeasance Claims Made by Ex-CFO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that Walgreen's
proposed reorganization plan fails to address the impact of
allegations of malfeasance made against the company's highest
officers by its former CFO, a class action claims.

James Hays filed a class action against Walgreen Co., 14 of its
corporate officers, and Walgreens Boots Alliance in federal court.

The complaint stems from Walgreen's announcement on August 6,
2014, that it was reducing its 2016 projected pharmacy earnings by
$1.1 billion, which caused its share price to fall nearly 15
percent.

A short time later, former Walgreen CFO Wade Miquelon claimed in
court that he was wrongly made the scapegoat for a "shocking"
calculation error leading to the reduction.

Miquelon claimed that he pushed CEO Gregory Wasson and director
Steven Pessina to revise the forecast earlier, as market-related
issues made the company unable to meet its goal, but activist
investors threatened Miquelon if he did not recommend raising,
rather than lowering, the forecast.

The allegations became public shortly before Walgreen filed
documents with the SEC ahead of its corporate reorganization in
connection with the acquisition of Alliance Boots, a European
pharmacy company.

Despite the serious allegations in the defamation complaint
leveled at Pessina, whose ownership stake in and influence over
the company will increase significantly if the share issuance is
consummated, neither the S-4 nor the proxy even address those
allegations," Hays says.

"In fact, both the S-4 and the proxy fail to even reference the
existence of the pending lawsuit filed by the company's former
CFO.  Moreover, the S-4 and the proxy do not disclose the impact
of the company's reorganization on any potential derivative
liability arising from the allegations against Walgreen's
directors and officers in the defamation complaint," he continues.

Hays claims such information is material to shareholders' vote on
the proposed reorganization plan, as is other missing information,
such as the board's motivation to accelerate the acquisition of
Alliance Boots, and Pessina's final ownership stake in the company
upon completion of the reorganization.

The complaint also seeks information regarding the Board's
decision to add a representative of activist hedge fund JANA
Partners to the Board, predicated on an agreement obligating JANA
to support the accelerated acquisition.

Hays asks the court to enjoin Walgreen from convening a
shareholder special meeting until the company supplements its S-4
and proxy statement to remedy the missing or misleading
information.

He is represented by Patrick Dahlstrom with Pomerantz LLP in
Chicago, Gutavo Bruckner and Ofer Ganot with Pomerantz's New York
office, Jeremy Friedman and Spencer Oster with Friedman Oster in
New York, and Alfred Yates in Pittsburgh.


WEST ASSET: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mordechai Palace, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. West Asset Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-07344 (E.D.N.Y., December 17, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILSHIRE CONSUMER: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alu Banarji, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wilshire Consumer Credit, Case No. 3:14-cv-02967-BEN-
KSC (S.D. Cal., December 17, 2014) seeks damages and other
available legal remedies resulting from the alleged illegal
actions of Wilshire in negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading her
privacy.

Wilshire Consumer Credit is a business that loans money to
consumers.  The Defendant was a company engaged, by use of the
mails and telephone, in the business of collecting a debt from the
Plaintiff, which qualifies as a "consumer debt."

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


                              *********

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  * * *