CAR_Public/150108.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, January 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 6


                             Headlines

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
ADF MIDATLANTIC: 11th Circuit Flips Ruling in "Keim" Suit
ALLIED RECREATION: Recalls Bounder Classic
AMERICAN DEBT: Claims Against Affiliates Junked in "Newton" Suit
AMERICAN REALTY: Removes "Wunsch" Suit to District of Maryland

ARCHCARE: Sued for Terminating Practical Nurse Because He Is Gay
AZTEC RESTAURANT: Removes "Canales" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
B&G FOODS: Recalls Ortega and Las Palmas Taco Products
BEYER LAW: Trial Court Order in "Mahboubian" Suit Upheld
BLUE CROSS: Sued by Inside Direct Sales Agents Over Commissions

BLUE MARTINI: Removes "Fernandez" FLSA Class Suit to S.D. Florida
BOURDEAU CONSTRUCTION: Former Workers Granted $25K in Atty's Fees
C TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Landau" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
C TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Weissman" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
CHARGERS FOOTBALL: Accused of Placing Unsolicited Marketing Calls

CHEMOURS CO: Defending Against Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Case
CHEMOURS CO: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint to Limit Class
CHEMOURS CO: Trial in Drinking Water Cases Begin September 2015
CON-WAY FREIGHT: Removes "Gonzalez" Suit to S.D. California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Most Favored Nation" Provision Invoked in Suit

COVANCE INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
CREDIT PROTECTION: Ohio Court Allows Discovery in "Peters" Suit
DAKOTA GRANITE: MDL Plaintiffs May Supplement Expert Report
DIMPFLMEIER: Recalls Pumpernickel Roggenbrot Due to Milk
DINGSHING TRADING: Recalls Orthodox Coconut Palm Coconut Juice

ENDO HEALTH: Louisiana Health Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
EXCEL SECURITY: Accused of Discriminating Against Indian Worker
FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES: Recalls Smokey Sweet BBQ Meat Products
FEDEX CORP: Defendant in a Number of Wage-and-Hour Cases
FEDEX CORP: Provides Updates on Independent Contractor Cases

FISHER & PAYKEL: Recalls Infant Radiant Warmers (2014-11-18)
FLUIDMASTER INC: "Rensel" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
FOX HILL: Recalls Gelato Due to Underprocessing
FRED DEELEY: Recalls Tri Glide Ultra (FLHTCUTG) Model
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: "Ramos" Suit Proceeds to Arbitration

GLAVAL: Recalls Entourage, Titan and Universal Models
HAIN CELESTIAL: "Brown & "Lohela" Case Can Proceed as Class Suit
HERTZ CORP: Faces "Ketibe" Suit Alleging Job Discrimination
HEWLETT-PACKARD: June 8 Final Approval Hearing in "Cunningham"
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Final Approval Hearing in "Salva" Case on June 8

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Case Engaged in Discovery
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Approved Settlement in "Blake" Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Benedict" Case in Discovery
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Deadline to Appeal in "Gammel" Suit Has Passed
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Brief Filed in Cement & Concrete Workers Case

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Feb. 20 Hearing on Class Certification Motion
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Jan. 23 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Case
HINO: Recalls XFC Model Due to Loss of Motive Power
HOME DEPOT: "Burris" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
HOME DEPOT: "Chorman" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL

HOME DEPOT: "First NBC" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
HOME DEPOT: Sued by First National Bank in Georgia District Court
HOME DEPOT: "Earls" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Provide Breaks
HUMANA INC: Removes "Shively" Suit to California District Court

INTERSTATE HOTELS: Removes "Unutoa" Class Suit to C.D. California
ISUZU: Recalls Reach Van Model Due to Bending and Corrosion
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tex. Court Dismisses Johnson v. Drake Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tex. Court Dismisses Johnson v. Partee Suit
KAYTEL MEDIA: Recalls King Brand Disposable Lighters

KEYSTONE: Recalls Aerolite & Rubicon Models Due to Short Circuit
KMART CORP: Faces Suit Arising From Credit Card Data Breach
LA COUNTRY CLUB: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
LINKEDEN CORPORATION: N.D. Cal. Judge Narrows "Perkins" Case
LOC-SKY TRADING: Recalls Honghong Crisp Cakes Walnut Cracker

LOWE'S HOME: Discriminates Against Gay Employees, Suit Claims
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Removes "Berenato" Suit to C.D. California
MACK: Recalls CHU and CXU Models Due to Ball Sockets
MACK: Recalls CHU, CXU, GU and TD Models Due to Module
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces "Zaccagnini" Suit Over Faulty Fuel Tanks

MIMEDX GROUP: Shareholder Class Suit Over False Claims Continues
MASSACHUSETTS: Legislature Should Fix Foster Care System
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Recalls Altitude Shag Gold Rug
MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Blamed by Mom Over Death of Son in Jail
MTI GROUPS: Recalls MD Brand Products Due to Undeclared Sulphites

NATIONAL ACCOUNT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
NATIONAL COLLEGE: Removes "Spangler" Suit to S.D. California
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Dismissed Players' Medical Class Action
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NEW YORK, NY: US Government to Intervene in Suit By Rikers Teens

NEWEGG.COM AMERICAS: Accused of Inflating Value of Discounts
NHA TRANG: Recalls Beef Balls Due to Listeria Monocytogenes
NRL FEDERAL: Removes "Chambers" Suit to Maryland District Court
OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Fla. Court Denies Bid to Junk "Shamblin" Suit
PHILLIPS & COHENS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

PK TRADING: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products Due to Mustard
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff, Atty Named in "Farrah" Suit
QUALITY FOODS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss ADA Suit
RICK'S CABARET: Cannot Appeal $10.8MM Judgment in Suit by Dancers
SANDERSON FARMS: 11th Circuit Affirmed Class Action Dismissal

SONY PICTURES: Hacks Exposed Workers to ID Theft, Class Suits Say
STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Print Fleece Top
SURREY SUPER MARKET: Recalls Maggi Healthy Soups - Mixed Veggies
SYNGENTA CORP: "Trans Coastal" Suit Included in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: "Volnek" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL

SYSTEMAX INC: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation in New York
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION: Foreign Consultant Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
TEREX: Recalls AL5 LIGHT Tower Model
TEXAS: Appeals Court Affirms Order Denying Cert. of "Riemer" Suit
THAI INDOCHINE: Recalls Vinacafe and Vinacafe BH Wake-Up Coffee

TRACY'S TREASURES: Court Clarifies Insurer's Duties in TCPA Suit
TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Mayacamas Hollandaise Sauce Mix
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Ex-Student Wants $1.3MM in Counsel Fees & Costs
UNCLE T FOOD: Recalls Crisp Rolls and Crackers
UNIVERSAL IMPEX: Recalls Curry Powder

VERKA FOOD: Recalls Peanut Brittle Due to Undeclared Sesame Seeds
VIRGINIA: FCCW Inmates Obtain Partial Summary Judgment
WALTER INVESTMENT: Fla. Court Tosses Shareholder Class Action
WALTER INVESTMENT: Facing Shareholder Class Action in S.D. Fla.
WAUPOOSE ESTATE: Recalls Sweet Apple Cider Due to Patulin

WELLPOINT INC: Sets Up Monopoly Using Illegal Licenses, Suit Says
WELLS FARGO: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Counts in "Foley" Case
WHOLE FOODS: "Bilder" Suit Transferred From New Jersey to Texas
XANODYNE PHARMA: "Corber" Case Belongs in Dist. Ct, 9th Cir. Says
YAMAHA: Recalls YZ250FFL and YZ250FFW Models

ZUFFA LLC: Accused by UFC Fighters of Controlling MMA Market


                            *********


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaya Mendelsohn, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
consumers v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-07501 (E.D.N.Y., December 24, 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


ADF MIDATLANTIC: 11th Circuit Flips Ruling in "Keim" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The district court dismissed the proposed class action filed by
Brian Keim against ADF MidAtlantic LLC, et al., as moot after the
defendants served on the named plaintiff a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68 offer of judgment that the defendants say would have
provided complete relief to the named plaintiff individually.  The
named plaintiff did not accept the offer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in an opinion
dated Dec. 1, 2014, reversed the district court's ruling, citing
Jeffrey Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A. v. Buccaneers Ltd.
Partnership, ___ F.3d ___, No. 13-15417 (11th Cir. ___, 2014),
where the Eleventh Circuit held that a proposed class action like
Keim's was not rendered moot by an unaccepted Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 68 offer of complete relief to the named
plaintiffs, but not to class members.  In Stein, like Keim, the
defendant served the Rule 68 offer before the class was certified
and indeed before the named plaintiffs moved to certify the class.
The decision is squarely on point and requires reversal of the
district court's order dismissing the Keim case, the Eleventh
Circuit ruled.

The appeals case is BRIAN KEIM, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADF
MIDATLANTIC, LLC; AMERICAN HUTS, INC.; ADF PIZZA I, LLC; ADF PA,
LLC, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-13619 (11th Cir.).  A full-text
copy of the Opinion is available at http://is.gd/2VsGSifrom
Leagle.com.


ALLIED RECREATION: Recalls Bounder Classic
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Structure
Units affected:           5
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014520
TC ID number:             2014520
Manufacturer recall
number:                   141107ARG

On certain motorhomes, a grab bar mounted to the inside of the
sidewall has inadequate structural reinforcement at the
installation area.  This may allow the grab bar to be pulled loose
from the wall during use, which could result in a fall and/or
injury.

Dealers will remove and reinstall the grab bar so that it is
mounted to a reinforcement steel plate.

Affected products: 2014 Fleetwood RV


AMERICAN DEBT: Claims Against Affiliates Junked in "Newton" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jonny Bonner reports that a
federal judge dismissed in part a California woman's claims
against affiliates of a prominent debt servicer for their alleged
failure to settle her credit card debts.

Heather Newton, representing a putative class, claimed in 2011
that American Debt Services agreed to settle her debts for half
the balance owed.  Newton said the company and its three
affiliates, however, kept a hefty portion of her fees, allowed her
to retrieve only about half of the money to pay a bank, and gave
her a $70 refund.

Newton claimed she was originally contacted by American Debt
Services, and received a welcome packet from Quality Support
Services, plus account application and debit instructions from
Global Client Solutions and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust.  She said
the companies told her to register for a "special purpose account"
with Rocky Mountain, and to authorize Global Client Solutions to
withdraw three, non-refundable fees from her banking account.

Newton said she eventually discovered that the defendants had not
contacted any of her creditors, including Chase and Bank of
America.  So she terminated ADS's services and requested a refund.

The debt servicers refunded only $70 of $4,200 that Newton had
paid them, she said, and she used $2,200 from her special purpose
account to pay Bank of America.  She said the remaining $1,900 was
pocketed by the servicers.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen denied ADS's motion to compel
arbitration of the class action in 2012, citing three reasons.

"[T]he arbitration clause shortens the statute of limitations
. . . the arbitration clause would prevent a customer from
recovering attorney's fees . . . [and] the arbitration clause
requires arbitration in Orange County, Calif., the home town of
defendant ADS," Chen ruled.

"Taken together, the arbitration clause has three provisions that
would impermissibly limit a customer's ability to bring a claim,
whether by shortening the statute of limitations, forcing a
customer to bear attorney's costs they would not have to under the
statutes, or requiring the customer to arbitrate in a distant
forum."

Following default by ADS and QSS, Newton filed a second amended
complaint against defendants RMBT and Global.

Newton claimed RMBT violated all three prongs of California's
Unfair Competition Law by breaching a 2009 cease and desist order
between the bank and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The remaining co-defendants, RMBT and Global, aided and abetted
ADS's and QSS's violation of California's Proraters Law, Newtown
said.

On December 16, Chen dismissed the lawsuit in part, ruling
Newton's "unlawful" and "unfairness" prong claims failed because
the FDIC order could not be enforced based on lack of
jurisdiction, or otherwise "borrowed" to serve as a predicate law
violation under the Unfair Competition Law.

Newton's "fraudulent" prong claim failed, Chen said, because she
did not specifically respond to the defendants' summary judgment
motion.

"Newton argues that if this court finds (as it has) that it cannot
adjudicate whether RMBT actually violated the FDIC order, that she
be allowed to amend her complaint to allege that RMBT acted
unfairly simply by continuing its business relationship with its
co-defendants irrespective of the commands of the FDIC order," the
21-page order states.  "Such an amendment could possibly salvage
Newton's claim.  But such an amendment cannot be permitted at this
late stage of the litigation."

It was not all rosy for the defendants, as Chen denied their
motion regarding Newton's aiding-and-abetting claims.

"Not only did the court previously find that both Global and RMBT
can be held liable under the UCL for aiding-and-abetting ADS's and
QSS's violations of the Proraters Law, the court further held that
Newton had submitted sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on
these claims," Chen wrote.

"RMBT and Global never filed a motion for reconsideration of this
court's earlier orders.  Their attempt to get a third bite at the
apple is untimely, in violation of this court's standing orders,
and ultimately unpersuasive."

The case is Heather L. Newton v. American Debt Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:11-cv-03228-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


AMERICAN REALTY: Removes "Wunsch" Suit to District of Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Wunsch v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-C-14-012816, was
removed from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04007-ELH to the
proceeding.

The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
persons, who acquired the common stock of ARCP pursuant or
traceable to the alleged false and defective Registration
Statement issued in connection with the Company's acquisition of
Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick C. Smith, Esq.
          DEHAY AND ELLISTON LLP
          36 S Charles St., Suite 1300
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 783-7225
          Facsimile: (410) 783-7221
          E-mail: psmith@dehay.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
          Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
                  egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
                  jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laurie B. Goon, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          111 S Calvert St., Suite 2000
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 949-2900
          Facsimile: (410) 949-2901
          E-mail: lbgoon@duanemorris.com


ARCHCARE: Sued for Terminating Practical Nurse Because He Is Gay
----------------------------------------------------------------
L.T. Robinson, Jr. v. Archcare and Terence Cardinal Cooke Health
Care Center, Case No. 1:14-cv-10098 (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2014)
seeks damages for the Defendants' alleged illegal termination of
the Plaintiff's employment based upon his sexual orientation
pursuant to New York City Human Rights Law.

Mr. Robinson worked as a Licensed Practical Nurse for the
Defendants.  He alleges that the Defendants deliberately
discriminated against and terminated him because he is gay.

Archcare is a not-for-profit health care organization organized
under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in
New York City.  Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center is a
Health Care Center organized under the laws of New York with its
principal place of business in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walker G. Harman, Jr., Esq.
          Ronnie L. Silverberg, Esq.
          THE HARMAN FIRM, P.C.
          1776 Broadway, Suite 2030
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 425-2600
          E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
                  rsilverberg@theharmanfirm.com


AZTEC RESTAURANT: Removes "Canales" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Canales v. Aztec Restaurant
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2014-CA-002347, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 0:14-cv-62917-WPD to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Juan Canales brings the action on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated employees of the Defendants for
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 921-9994
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Catalina M. Avalos, Esq.
          TRIPP SCOTT
          110 SE 6th Street
          15th Floor PO Box 14245
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302-4245
          Telephone: (954) 760-4912
          Facsimile: (954) 761-8475
          E-mail: cma@trippscott.com


B&G FOODS: Recalls Ortega and Las Palmas Taco Products
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           B&G Foods Canada, ULC, B. H. Kosher
                          Products
Distribution:             Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9482

The food recall warning issued on Nov. 10, 2014 has been updated
to include additional products.  This additional information was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling Ortega and Las Palmas brand taco products
from the marketplace because they contain peanut and almond which
are not declared on the label.  Consumers with an allergy to
peanut or almond, food service establishments, retailers, and
distributors should not consume, serve, use, or sell the recalled
products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products.  Recalled products
should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were
purchased.

If you have an allergy to peanut or almond, do not consume the
recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities.  The
CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to
the recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


BEYER LAW: Trial Court Order in "Mahboubian" Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Miguel Marquez of the Court of Appeals of
California, Sixth District, affirmed a lower court judgment in a
case involving Beyer Law Group, et al.

The appellate case is, RAMIN MAHBOUBIAN, et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. BEYER LAW GROUP, et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. H039415 (Cal. App. Ct.)

Plaintiff-Appellant Ramin Mahboubian was employed by the law firm
Beyer & Weaver, LLP as a patent agent. The partners at the firm
included Jeff Weaver, Michael Ferrazano, Steve Beyer, and others.
Mahboubian had a successful career with Beyer & Weaver, and by
2007 and 2008, he regularly earned an average of $20,000 per
month.

In March 2008, some of the partners from Beyer & Weaver parted
ways with Beyer and Ferrazano to form their own law firm. Beyer
and Ferrazano formed a new law firm, the Beyer Law Group. Both
Beyer and the departing partners sought to have Mahboubian join
their respective firms based upon his skills and reputation.
Mahboubian and the other class members accepted employment with
the newly created BLG.

Plaintiffs sometimes did not receive any pay. Beyer, Ferrazano,
and Michael Lee -- all of whom had control of Plaintiffs' wages --
jointly and willfully decided not to pay them. BLG terminated
Mahboubian's employment on June 11, 2010.

In October 2011, Mahboubian filed his original complaint, which
alleged ten causes of action against BLG, Beyer, Ferrazano, and
Lee. The original complaint contained a first cause of action
alleging Labor Code violations by all defendants under section 510
(failure to pay overtime), section 203 (failure to pay wages upon
separation), and section 1194 (failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime). It contained a second cause of action alleged against
BLG only for violating the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof.
Code, Section 17200 et seq.) by failing to keep record of all
hours worked and by failing to pay wages and overtime as required
by the Labor Code.

Before any defendant had appeared in the action, Mahboubian filed
his first amended complaint, which added the class action
allegations. The first amended complaint divided the wage claims
into four causes of action that alleged Labor Code violations for
failing to (1) pay wages owed upon separation (Sections 201, 202,
203); (2) pay overtime (Sections 510, 1194, 1198); (3) maintain
and furnish accurate wage statements and time records (Sections
226, 1174); and (4) pay minimum wages (Section 1197). Like the
previous complaint, it contained a fifth cause of action against
BLG only for violating the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof.
Code, Section 17200 et seq.) by failing to keep accurate wage
records and by failing to pay wages as required by the Labor Code.

Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on October 19,
2012, before any defendant appeared in the action. This version of
the complaint amended the first cause of action to allege the
failure to pay (1) the full amount due each week, and (2) wages
owed upon separation (Section 200, 204). It also added a sixth
cause of action against BLG only for breach of contract for
failure to pay wages.

Defendants demurred to the first four causes of action in
plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Defendants claimed that
plaintiffs could not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action against Beyer and Lee for the alleged Labor Code
violations because such claims may be maintained only against an
employer.  Beyer and Lee were not employers because the complaint
alleged that they acted at all times as agents of the corporation
within the scope of their agency, and Beyer and Lee should be
dismissed. Defendants argued that plaintiffs' conclusory
allegations that Beyer and Lee had operational "control" at BLG
were insufficient to impose personal liability against either
Beyer or Lee. Defendants asserted that leave to amend should be
denied because plaintiffs cannot allege facts that would support
their claims against Beyer and Lee.

The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs appealed.

Plaintiffs argue that the lower court erred when it (1) determined
that Beyer and Lee are not "employers" for purposes of
establishing claims against them under the Labor Code; (2) failed
to analyze Beyer's and Lee's liability separately using the
correct standard for violations under Business & Professional Code
section 17200; and (3) sustained defendants' demurrer without
leave to amend.

Associate Justice Marquez concluded that Beyer and Lee could not
be held personally liable for Plaintiffs' wage claims as a matter
of law.  The Court also held that Beyer's and Lee's liability
under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. is not
at issue in this appeal since Plaintiffs did not allege their
unfair competition claim against Beyer and Lee. Lastly, the Court
said the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving how their
complaint could be amended. The Court therefore concluded that the
trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer without leave
to amend and affirmed the judgment.

A copy of Associate Justice Marquez's opinion dated November 18,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/8hgB8ufrom Leagle.com.

The Sixth District panel consists of Presiding Justice Conrad
Rushing, Associate Justices Eugene M. Premo and Miguel Marquez.


BLUE CROSS: Sued by Inside Direct Sales Agents Over Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Spiegler, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated v. Blue Cross of California, d.b.a.
Anthem Blue Cross, a California Corporation, doing business in
California, and Does 1 to 100, Case No. BC566906 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., December 17, 2014) is an employment class action
brought on behalf of similarly situated California residents
employed as current or former "Inside Direct Sales Agents" for
Blue Cross.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' employment practice of
setting commission goals weeks after the enrollment subject to the
commission has been effectuated and the payroll period has closed,
is not only in breach of the written commission plan itself, but
also in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, California Labor Code, and Unfair Competition Law.

Blue Cross of California, doing business as Anthem Blue Cross, is
a California corporation 18 locations within California, including
in Los Angeles County, California.  The true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time.

The Defendants sell health insurance plans.  Blue Cross is a
subsidiary of the conglomerate for-profit health insurance
provider WellPoint, Inc.  The Defendants employ "direct sales
agents," including the Plaintiff, to sell enrollments for
Defendants health insurance plans throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          CLARK & TREGLIO
          205 West Date Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321
          Facsimile: (888) 273-4554

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-4554
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com


BLUE MARTINI: Removes "Fernandez" FLSA Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Fernandez v. Blue Martini Miami
Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-030690 CA 01, was removed from
the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
24869-JEM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief under 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:

          Joshua Michael Entin, Esq.
          ENTIN & DELLA FERA, P.A.
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1970
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 761-7201
          Facsimile: (954) 764-2443
          E-mail: joshentin@comcast.net


BOURDEAU CONSTRUCTION: Former Workers Granted $25K in Atty's Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Koenig and James Koenig, II, filed an action against
defendant Bourdeau Construction LLC, seeking to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and other relief for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law.

Bourdeau has served upon plaintiffs James Koenig, II, and Ryan
Koenig two separate Offers of Judgment but the Plaintiffs declined
the offer.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
conditionally certify class, which was conditionally granted.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a
memorandum and order dated Nov. 26, 2014, granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Court found that the plaintiffs may recover the
special process server fees, copying costs, and postage expenses
but not the computer based legal research expenses.  Judge
Limbaugh ordered that the plaintiff be awarded attorneys' fees in
the amount of $25,054 and costs in the amount of $563.

The case is RYAN KOENIG, JAMES KOENIG, II, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOURDEAU
CONSTRUCTION LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 4:13CV00477 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.).
A full-text copy of Judge Limbaugh's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/4M6737from Leagle.com.

Ryan Koenig, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Nowogrocki, Esq.
-- JNowogrocki@WeissLawSTL.com -- at WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
& Richard D. Worth, Esq. -- rworth@weisslawstl.com -- at WEISS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.

James Koenig, II, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Nowogrocki, WEISS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. & Richard D. Worth, WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
P.C.

Vincent J. Nack, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Nowogrocki,
WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. & Richard D. Worth, WEISS ATTORNEYS
AT LAW, P.C.

Mr. James Craig Larkin, Plaintiff, represented by James G.
Nowogrocki, WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C..

Bourdeau Construction, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony M.
Pezzani, ENGELMEYER AND PEZZANI, LLC.


C TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Landau" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rivka Landau, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. C. Tech Collections, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
07492 (E.D.N.Y., December 24, 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


C TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Weissman" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Weissman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. C. Tech Collection, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
07488 (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 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


CHARGERS FOOTBALL: Accused of Placing Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Story, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Chargers Football Company, LLC, a limited-liability
company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC566896 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 16, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
through their unauthorized contact of consumers.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have
violated the TCPA by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to
individuals' cellular telephones, invading each individual's right
to privacy.

Chargers Football Company, LLC is a limited-liability company with
its principal place of business located in San Diego, California.
The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names or capacities of the
Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
          Abigail A. Zelenski, Esq.
          David Zelenski, Esq.
          Christine M. Pham, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818)630-7280
          Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
          E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com
                  abigail@jlglawyers.com
                  david@jlglawyers.com
                  christine@jlglawyers.com


CHEMOURS CO: Defending Against Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, LLC, a Consolidated Subsidiary of E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company, said in its Form 10 Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, that
the Company is defending against the Titanium Dioxide Antitrust
Litigation.

In February 2010, two suits were filed in Maryland federal
district court alleging conspiracy among DuPont, of which
Chemours, prior to the distribution, is a subsidiary, Huntsman
International LLC (Huntsman), Kronos Worldwide Inc. (Kronos),
Millennium Inorganics Chemicals Inc. (Millennium) and others to
fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between March 2002
and the present. The cases were subsequently consolidated and in
August 2012, the court certified a class consisting of U.S.
customers that have directly purchased titanium dioxide since
February 1, 2003.

During the third quarter 2013, DuPont and plaintiffs agreed to
settle this matter, subject to court approval. In connection
therewith, Chemours has recorded charges of $72 million, within
cost of goods sold, at December 31, 2013. The settlement
explicitly acknowledges that DuPont denies all allegations and
does not admit liability. The court entered the order granting
final approval to the settlement on December 13, 2013. The
settlement was paid in January 2014.

In November 2013, Valspar, which opted out of the class action
settlement, filed suit in federal court in Minnesota against
DuPont, Huntsman, Kronos and Millennium making substantially
similar claims to those made in the class action. The lawsuit was
moved to Delaware federal court on DuPont's motion.


CHEMOURS CO: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint to Limit Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, LLC, a Consolidated Subsidiary of E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company, said in its Form 10 Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, that
plaintiffs have filed an Amended Complaint, limiting the purported
class to indirect purchasers of architectural coating products
containing titanium dioxide from 21 states.

In March 2013, a purported class action was filed against DuPont,
Huntsman, Kronos and Millennium in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of "indirect purchasers"
from more than 30 states that purchased products containing
titanium dioxide. The settlement cannot be used to establish
liability in the indirect purchaser case.

In September 2014, the Court dismissed most of the claims in the
original complaint. The plaintiffs have filed an Amended
Complaint, limiting the purported class to indirect purchasers of
architectural coating products containing titanium dioxide from 21
states. DuPont denies all allegations and will again seek
dismissal of the Amended Complaint.

Chemours, through DuPont, denies these allegations and is
defending itself vigorously against the Valspar and indirect
purchaser claims. While management believes a loss related to
either matter is reasonably possible, a range of such losses, if
any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.


CHEMOURS CO: Trial in Drinking Water Cases Begin September 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, LLC, a Consolidated Subsidiary of E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company, said in its Form 10 Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, that
the first trial in Drinking Water Actions is scheduled to begin in
September 2015, and the second in November 2015.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded a
series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by
an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel).
The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to
evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable
link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund up
to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible
class members and, in addition, administrative cost associated
with the program, including class counsel fees.

In January 2012, Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 million in an
escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the
settlement agreement. The court appointed Director of Medical
Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical
panel's recommendations. Under the program, notice has been given
and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, to
participate in diagnostic testing has begun. At each of September
30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, no money has been disbursed from
the fund.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continue
to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in
water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking
Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At September 30, 2014, there
were approximately 2,545 lawsuits filed in various federal and
state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an increase of about 2,460
and 2,520, respectively over December 31, 2013 and 2012.

In accordance with a stipulation reached in the third quarter 2014
and other court procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be
served and consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio
federal court (MDL). The majority of the lawsuits allege personal
injury claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease
from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are 18 lawsuits
alleging wrongful death. In the third quarter 2014, six plaintiffs
from the MDL were selected for individual trial. The first trial
is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in
November 2015. Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in
these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously.


CON-WAY FREIGHT: Removes "Gonzalez" Suit to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Gonzalez v. Con-Way Freight
Inc., et al., Case No. 37-02014-00040256-CU, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-03009-DMS-MDD to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Isaac Dychter, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487-0777
          Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
          E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com

Defendant Con-Way Freight Inc. is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Mora, Esq.
          LITTLER & MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 772-7243
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: jmora@littler.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Most Favored Nation" Provision Invoked in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended November 23, 2014, that the Company
filed a notice invoking a "most favored nation" provision under
the settlement in the class actions against motor fuel retailers.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the
following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D.
Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);
Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v.
Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James
Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D.Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v.
BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D.
Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast
Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);
Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J.
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins,
et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D.
Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On
April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in which
it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which was
subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the
extent allowed by law and subject to other terms and conditions in
the agreement, to install over five years from the effective date
of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States
of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class
representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments
to class members.

On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised
settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24,
2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement.
A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the
order approving the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award
of $10 in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and
payments to class representatives. The Company has opposed the
motion.

On March 20, 2014, the Company filed a notice invoking a "most
favored nation" provision under the settlement, under which it
seeks to adopt provisions in later settlements with certain other
defendants, an invocation that class counsel has opposed.


COVANCE INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Covance
too cheaply through an unfair process to Laboratory Corporation of
America, for $6.1 billion or $102.76 a share in a cash and stock
deal, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


CREDIT PROTECTION: Ohio Court Allows Discovery in "Peters" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence P. Kemp of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted a plaintiff's motion
to compel discovery in a putative class action filed under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act against Credit Protection
Association L.P.  Judge Kemp ruled that the discovery sought is
not privileged and that it is relevant given the definition of the
class set forth in the complaint.

The case is Michael R. Peters, Plaintiff, v. Credit Protection
Association LP, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-767 (S.D. Ohio.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Kemp's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/atjsW1from Leagle.com.

Michael R Peters, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Robert Freytag
& Kendra Lynn Carpenter.

Credit Protection Association LP, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey Charles Turner, Esq. -- jturner@sdtlawyers.com -- at Surdk
Dowd & Turner Co LPA, Jennifer Kirby, Esq. --
jkirby@sdtlawyers.com -- at Surdyk Dowd & Turner, Co. LPA & Justin
Penn, Esq. -- jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


DAKOTA GRANITE: MDL Plaintiffs May Supplement Expert Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia granted the plaintiffs in the rail freight fuel
surcharge antitrust litigation leave to file a supplemental expert
report in support of their request for class certification.

The plaintiffs have principally relied on Dr. Gordon Rausser's
expert reports and testimony, but, were blindsided by evidence
that indicates that Dr. Rausser has, for years, consulted with and
invested in companies that buy out class action claims for profit
-- including a claim or claims in the antitrust suit -- while
serving as an expert witness in class action cases in the United
States.

Because Dr. Rausser's credibility has been drawn into serious
question, the plaintiffs have moved for leave to file a
supplemental expert report, limited in scope, to attest to the
integrity and reliability of Dr. Rausser's expert analysis and
methodologies.  After careful consideration of the parties'
briefs, exhibits, and the relevant legal costly proceedings, the
Court concluded that the plaintiffs have established good cause
because (1) the plaintiff class would suffer significant prejudice
without the report and testimony of a supplemental expert, (2)
there is no evidence in the record that plaintiffs or their
counsel had knowledge of the information affecting Dr. Rausser's
credibility until very recently, and (3) granting the motion will
not be unduly burdensome or prejudicial to defendants.  Moreover,
any prejudice to the defendants will be mitigated by the
imposition of strict limits on the supplemental expert, Judge
Friedman said.

The case is In re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MDL DOCKET NO. 1869, MISC. NO. 07-0489 (PLF)(D.D.C.).
A full-text copy of Judge Friedman's Decision dated Nov. 26, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/NeEAE7from Leagle.com.

RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION - MDL NO. 1869,
represented by Roger M. Adelman, LAW OFFICES OF ROGER M. ADELMAN &
Richard P. Rouco, WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC.

DAKOTA GRANITE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N.
Bailey, Jr., Esq. -- abailey@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP,
James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq. -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- at
HAUSFELD LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
-- at HAUSFELD LLP, Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. --
rhagstrom@zelle.com -- ZELLE, HOFMANN, VOELBEL & MASON LLP, Scott
W. Carlson, HEINS, MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C., Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
-- vesades@heinsmills.com -- HEINS, MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C., Allen
D. Black, Esq. -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK,
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Brent W. Landau, Esq. --
blandau@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP, Douglas A. Millen, Esq. -
- dmillen@fklmlaw.com -- FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, Steig
D. Olson, Esq. -- steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED
DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C. & William P. Butterfield, Esq. --
wbutterfield@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP.

MCINTYRE GROUP, LTD., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown,
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN &
BLACK, James Shedden, SCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C., Lawrence W.
Schad, SCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C., Matthew S. Burns, SCHAD
DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C. & Tony Kim, SCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C..

GVL PIPE & DEMOLITION, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Simon B. Paris, Esq. --
sparais@smbb.com -- at SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY,
P.C., Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Daniel E. Gunstafson,
Esq. -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC,
Donald L. Perelman, Esq. -- dperelman@finekaplan.com -- FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK, Jason S. Kilene, Esq. --
jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- at GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, Patrick
Howard, Esq. -- phoward@smbb.com -- at SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT
& BENDESKY, P.C. & Thomas A. Muzilla, THE MUZILLA LAW FIRM, LLC.

FERRARO FOODS OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Lynn
Lincoln Sarko, Esq. -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER
ROHRBACK, LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Mark A.
Griffin, Esq. -- mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK
LLP, Raymond J. Farrow, Esq. -- rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com --
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP & T. David Copley, Esq. --
dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- at KELLER ROHRBACK LLP.

SUBLETTE COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Allen D. Black, FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK & Krishna B. Narine, LAW OFFICE OF KRISHNA B.
NARINE, P.C..

STRATES SHOWS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey,
Jr., HAUSFELD LLP, Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC, Brent W. Landau, HAUSFELD LLP, James Joseph Pizzirusso,
HAUSFELD LLP, Joanne Zack, BONI & ZACK LLC, Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
-- JSnyder@bonizack.com -- BONI & ZACK LLC, Michael J. Boni, Esq.
-- MBoni@bonizack.com -- BONI & ZACK LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN
LLC, Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.
& William P. Butterfield, HAUSFELD LLP.

WEST ALABAMA SAND & GRAVEL, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Joe R.
Whatley, JR., WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, Richard P. Rouco,
WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, Roger M. Adelman, LAW OFFICES OF
ROGER M. ADELMAN & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK.

CEDAR FARMS CO., INC., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Paul
Dietrich, WILLIAMS SCHIFINO MANGIONE & STEADY, PA, Allen D. Black,
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Jeffrey B. Gittleman, BARRACK, RODOS &
BACINE & William J. Schifino, Jr., WILLIAMS SCHIFINO MANGIONE &
STEADY, P.A..

DAD'S PRODUCTS CO., INC., Plaintiff, represented by James Joseph
Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Steig
D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP & Allen D. Black,
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK.

ZINIFEX TAYLOR CHEMICALS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Mary
Jane Fait, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLC, Allen D.
Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER
LONDON & MILLEN LLC & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED
DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C..

DUST PRO, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Greenwald, Esq.
-- marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER
& HEDGES, LLP, Michael P. Lehmann, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL,
PLLC, Paul M. Donovan, LAROE WINN, MOERMAN & DONOVAN, Steig D.
Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Stephen R. Neuwirth,
Esq. -- stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP, William P. Butterfield, HAUSFELD LLP, Alicia
Cobb, Esq. -- aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK,
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD
LLP, Daniel Brockett, Esq. -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com --
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP, Douglas A. Millen,
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, John Potter, Esq. --
johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
LLP, Joseph D. Hammond, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP,
Kyle R. Taylor, Esq. -- kyletaylor@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, HAUSFELD
LLP, Sami H. Rashid, Esq. -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
LLP, Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq. -- sgosselin@hausfeld.com --
HAUSFELD LLP, Seth R. Gassman, Esq. -- sgassman@hausfeld.com -- at
HAUSFELD, LLP & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG &
AMENT, P.C.

QUALITY REFRACTORIES INSTALLATION, INC., Plaintiff, represented by
Eugene A. Spector, Esq. -- espector@srkw-law.com -- SPECTOR,
ROSEMAN AND KODROFF PC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Jay
S. Cohen, Esq. -- jcohen@srkw-law.com -- SPECTOR, ROSEMAN &
KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. & William G. Caldes, Esq. -- bcaldes@srkw-
law.com -- SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C..

NIZHNEKAMSKNEFTEKHIM USA, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Allen D.
Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK.

DONNELLY COMMODITIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, represented by Barry
J. Nace, Esq. -- bjn@paulsonandnace.com -- PAULSON & NACE, Steig
D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Allen D. Black,
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON &
MILLEN LLC & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG &
AMENT, P.C..

US MAGNESIUM LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Donovan, LAROE
WINN, MOERMAN & DONOVAN, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK,
Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC & Steven A.
Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C..

RB RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Michelle A.
Parfitt, ASHCRAFT & GEREL, Richard P. Rouco, WHATLEY DRAKE &
KALLAS, LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Matthew H.
Armstrong, Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Susan Carole Minkin, ASHCRAFT
& GEREL.

M.C. DIXON LUMBER COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Craig
L. Briskin, Esq. -- cbriskin@findjustice.com -- MEHRI & SKALET,
PLLC, Steven A. Skalet, Esq. -- sskalet@findjustice.com -- MEHRI &
SKALET, PLLC & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK.

STERLING STEEL CO., LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David M.
Peterson, Esq. -- dmp@petersonlawfirm.com -- PETERSON &
ASSOCIATES, PC, Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. -- jkronawitter@hab-
law.com -- at HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLP, R. Keith Johnston, Esq.
-- kjohnston@wbsvlaw.com -- WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, PC
& Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK.

CEDAR CREEK WHOLESALE, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M.
Barton, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, Paul F. Bennett, GOLD
BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK,
Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, Gwendolyn R.
Giblin, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, Steven A. Kanner, MUCH
SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C., Steven O. Sidener, GOLD
BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP & Thomas C. Bright, GOLD BENNETT CERA &
SIDENER LLP.

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, James Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD
LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Paul M. Weiss, FREED &
WEISS LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Daniel M. Cohen,
Esq. -- danielc@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP,
Matthew H. Armstrong, Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Steven A. Kanner,
MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C..

FAYUS ENTERPRISES, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
Lovell, Esq. -- CLovell@lshllp.com -- LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP,
Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Reginald Terrell,
THE TERRELL LAW GROUP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK.

AGWAY LIQUIDATING TRUST, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher Lovell, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Imtiaz A.
Siddiqui, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK.

STATELINE BEAN PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Adam C. Belsky, Esq. -- adam@gba-law.com -- GROSS
BELSKY ALONSO LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, James
Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP & Terry Gross, Esq. -- terry@gba-
law.com -- GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP.

LANCASTER FOUNDRY SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK.

SOMERSET INDUSTRIES, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Ronald
J. Aranoff, Esq. -- Aranoff@bernlieb.com -- BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD &
LIFSHITZ, LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK.

MAROON INCORPORATED, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
Lovell, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, LOVELL
STEWART HALEBIAN LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK.

COMPLETE TRANSPORATION SYSTEMS, INC., Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Adel A. Nadji, AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP, William M.
Audet, AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN &
BLACK.

BLUE GRASS TOBACCO COMPANY, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James
E. Cecchi, Esq. -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE,
BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN, Lindsey H. Taylor,
Esq. -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- at CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN,
GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN, Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. --
sweiss@seagerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK.

CARTER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Theodore J. Leopold, Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., Allen D. Black, FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN
LLC & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT,
P.C..

UNITED CO-OPERATIVE FARMERS, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented
by H. Laddie Montague, Esq. -- hlmontague@bm.net -- BERGER &
MONTAGUE, P.C., Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK & Eric L.
Cramer, Esq. -- ecramer@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

BAR-ALE, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Allen D. Black,
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK.

ISSAC INDUSTRIES, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert N.
Kaplan, KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN
& BLACK.

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Andrew Santo
Tulumello, Esq. -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN &
CRUTCHER, L.L.P., David G. Meyer, Esq. -- dmeyer@jonesday.com --
JONES DAY, Randy M. Mastro, Esq. -- rmastro@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P., Richard Joseph Favretto, MAYER
BROWN LLP, Robert C. Walters, Esq. -- rwalters@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Shari Ross Lahlou, CROWELL & MORING
LLP, Veronica S. Lewis, Esq. -- vlewis@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON,
DUNN &CRUTCHER LLP, David Daniel Cross, Esq. -- dcross@crowell.com
-- CROWELL & MORING LLP, Linda Sue Stein, STEPTOE & JOHNSON,
L.L.P., Michael E. Lackey, Jr., MAYER BROWN LLP & Samuel M. Sipe,
Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, represented by David Daniel
Cross, CROWELL & MORING LLP, David G. Meyer, JONES DAY, Kent Alan
Gardiner, CROWELL & MORING, L.L.P., George D. Ruttinger, Esq. --
gruttinger@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP, Kathryn D
Kirmayer, Esq. -- kkirmayer@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING,
L.L.P., Michael Wyld Lieberman, Esq. -- mlieberman@crowell.com --
CROWELL & MORING LLP, Richard McMillan, Jr., CROWELL & MORING,
L.L.P. & Shari Ross Lahlou, Esq. -- slahlou@crowell.com -- CROWELL
& MORING LLP.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by David
G. Meyer, JONES DAY, Jennifer B. Patterson, Esq. --
jennifer.patterson@kayescholer.com -- KAYE SCHOLER, LLP, John
Murray Nannes, Esq. -- john.nannes@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS,
SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Tara L. Reinhart, Esq. --
tara.reinhart@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM,
LLP, Claudia R. Higgins, Esq. -- claudia.higgins@kayescholer.com -
- KAYE SCHOLER, LLP, David Daniel Cross, CROWELL & MORING LLP,
Saul P. Morgenstern, Esq. -- saul.morgenstern@kayescholer.com --
KAYE SCHOLER LLP & Sean M. Tepe, Esq. -- sean.tepe@skadden.com --
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Alan
Mitchell Wiseman, Esq. -- awiseman@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING
LLP, James Scott Ballenger, Esq. -- scott.ballenger@lw.com --
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Thomas Adam Isaacson, Esq. --
tisaacson@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Tyrone R. Childress,
Esq. -- tchildress@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, Alfred C Pfeiffer,
Jr., LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Daniel M Wall, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP,
David Daniel Cross, CROWELL & MORING LLP, David G. Meyer, JONES
DAY, Gregory P Lindstrom, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP & Timothy L.
O'Mara, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD, Interested Party, represented by
Virginia Strasser, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD.

OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS LLC, Interested Party, represented by John
Richard Gerstein, Esq. -- jack.gerstein@troutmansanders.com --
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.

OXBOW MINING, LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard
Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.

OXBOW CALCINING INTERNATIONAL LLC, Interested Party, represented
by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.

OXBOW MIDWEST CALCINING LLC, Interested Party, represented by John
Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.

OXBOW CALCINING LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard
Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.

TERROR CREEK LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard
Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.

JONATHAN LEE RICHES, doing business as ROTHENBERG POLITICAL
REPORT, Movant, Pro Se.

DINESH PALIWAL, Movant, Pro Se.

HUNTER PARRISH, Movant, Pro Se.

PETER H. DIAMANDIS, Movant, Pro Se.

SOUTHERN COMPANY, Intervenor, represented by Gabriela Richeimer,
Esq. -- gaby.richeimer@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS
LLP, John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Barry J. Brett,
Esq. -- barry.brett@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP &
Daniel N. Anziska, Esq. -- daniel.anziska@troutmansanders.com --
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Intervenor, represented by Nathan P. Eimer,
Esq. -- neimer@EimerStahl.com -- EIMER STAHL LLP, Scott C.
Solberg, Esq. -- ssolberg@EimerStahl.com -- EIMER STAHL LLP &
Stephen H. Weil, Esq. -- sweil@EimerStahl.com -- EIMER STAHL LLP.

RAYONIER INC., Intervenor, represented by William J. Blechman,
Esq. -- wblechman@kennynachwalter.com -- KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. &
Richard Alan Arnold, Esq. -- rarnold@kennynachwalter.com -- KENNY
NACHWALTER, P.A..


DIMPFLMEIER: Recalls Pumpernickel Roggenbrot Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9485

Affected products: Delicatessen Rye Bread where milk is not
declared on the label


DINGSHING TRADING: Recalls Orthodox Coconut Palm Coconut Juice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Dingshing Trading Ltd., Emme Food
                          Enterprises Co. Ltd., J. L. Trading Co.
                          Ltd., JC Bunny Bunny Trading Co. Ltd.,
                          Merilin International Trading Inc., New
                          World Imports Ltd., Uncle T Food Ltd.,
                          Wonden Enterprises Ltd., Kam Wah
                          Resources Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Possibly National, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9460

Industry is recalling Orthodox Coconut Palm brand coconut juice
from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should not
consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
test results.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation,
which may lead to the recall of other products.  If other high-
risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public
through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


ENDO HEALTH: Louisiana Health Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Louisiana Health Service and
Indemnity Company v. Endo Health Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-00721, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-10289 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
          Chad Joseph Primeaux, Esq.
          David Baylis Franco, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
          One Canal Place, Suite 1000
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 355-0092
          Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
          E-mail: drplymale@plymalelawfirm.com
                  cprimeaux@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  dfranco@dugan-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles A. O'Brien, III, Esq.
          P.O. Box 98029
          5525 Reitz Avenue
          Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9029
          Telephone: (225) 295-2454
          Facsimile: (225) 297-2760
          E-mail: andy.o'brien@bcbsla.com

Defendants Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.
and Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. are represented by:

          Meera Unnithan Sossamon, Esq.
          Douglas J. Moore, Esq.
          Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr., Esq.
          IRWIN, FRITCHIE, URQUHART & MOORE, LLC
          400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 310-2100
          Facsimile: (504) 310-2101
          E-mail: msossamon@irwinllc.com
                  dmoore@irwinllc.com
                  qurquhart@irwinllc.com


EXCEL SECURITY: Accused of Discriminating Against Indian Worker
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harinder Jeet Singh v. Excel Security Corp., RXR 620 Master Lease,
LLC, RXR Property Management LLC, Securitas Security Services
Corp., John Does 1-5 and ABC Corps. 1-5 (fictitious Names), Case
No. 1:14-cv-10111 (S.D.N.Y., December 24, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants has discriminated against the Plaintiff on account of
his race (Asian) and national origin (Indian).

Excel Guard Corporation and its affiliate, Excel Security Corp.,
are New York corporations with corporate offices located in New
York City.  Securitas Security Services Corp. is a New York
corporation with corporate offices located in Brooklyn, New York.
Excel provides security services to a building located at 620 6th
Avenue, in New York City.  The Building was managed by Newmark &
Company Real Estate Inc.

RXR Property Management, LLC is a New York limited liability
company with offices located in New York City.  RXR 620 Master
Lease LLC is a New York limited liability company and, at all
relevant times, was the record owner of the Building.  The Doe
Defendants are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Silberman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOEL SILBERMAN, ESQ.
          549 Summit Avenue
          Jersey City, NJ 07306
          Telephone: (201) 420-1913
          Toll Free: (800)-889-3129
          E-mail: joel@joelsilbermanlaw.com


FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES: Recalls Smokey Sweet BBQ Meat Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Federated Co-Operatives Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan, Yukon
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9481

Federated Co-operatives Limited is recalling CO-OP The Marketplace
brand Smokey Sweet BBQ meat products from the marketplace because
they contain mustard which is not declared on the label.  People
with an allergy to mustard should not consume the recalled
products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.


FEDEX CORP: Defendant in a Number of Wage-and-Hour Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in a number of lawsuits containing various class-action
allegations of wage-and-hour violations. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were forced to work
"off the clock," were not paid overtime or were not provided work
breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both.

"We do not believe that a material loss is reasonably possible
with respect to any of these matters," the Company said.


FEDEX CORP: Provides Updates on Independent Contractor Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, provided updates on the
Independent Contractor - Lawsuits and State Administrative
Proceedings.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 26 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.

On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee).

The Company said, "In sum, the court ruled on our summary judgment
motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all
claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had
been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators
in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of 20
states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20
cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in
January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not
make a determination with respect to the correctness of the
district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to
the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit were stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme
Court."

"On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20
factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas
Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class
members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was
subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both
parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete
the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made
recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19
cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground has
requested that each of those cases be separately briefed given the
potential differences in the applicable state law from that in
Kansas. During the second quarter of 2015, we established an
accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case that
was required to be recognized pursuant to applicable accounting
standards. This amount was immaterial.

"The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three
of these matters settled for immaterial amounts. The courts have
granted final approval of two of the three settlements, while the
other settlement remains subject to court approval.

"One of the cases is on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit and three cases, which had been decided in our
favor by the respective district courts in Oregon and California,
were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The last case
is currently pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

"On August 27, 2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court
decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California and Oregon
were employees as a matter of law. In each case, we asked the
court to reconsider and petitioned for en banc review by the full
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied. On October 30,
2014, the cases were remanded to their respective district courts
for further proceedings.

"During the first quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for
the estimated probable loss in this case that was required to be
recognized pursuant to applicable accounting standards. This
amount was immaterial. Material exposure above the accrued amount,
however, is reasonably possible, and accordingly we have
undertaken a process to attempt to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss based on currently available information relating to
the case. This process has included attempting to evaluate what
facts may arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings
the courts may render and how these facts and rulings might impact
FedEx Ground's loss.

"For a number of reasons, we are not currently able to estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued.
The number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of full-time
drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify based on
whatever criteria may be established. In addition, the parties
have conducted only very limited discovery into damages, which
could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be
dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which
has yet to be produced in the case. Further, the range of
potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings
by the courts, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx
Ground's defenses, and on evidentiary issues.

"With respect to the matters that are pending outside of the Ninth
Circuit, it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of
these lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of
FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material. We have
undertaken a process to attempt to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss based on currently available information relating to
these cases. Similar to our analysis of loss contingency in the
Ninth Circuit cases, this process has included attempting to
evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what
legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and
rulings might impact FedEx Ground's loss. As a consequence of many
of the same factors described above, as well as others that are
specific to these cases, we are not currently able to estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss. We do not believe that a
material loss is probable in these matters.

"In addition, we are defending contractor-model cases that are not
or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation. These cases
are in varying stages of litigation, and we do not expect to incur
a material loss in any of these matters.

"Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's
independent contractors, could, among other things, entitle
certain of our owner-operators and their drivers to the
reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-
hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit
liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the
independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in
certain jurisdictions. We believe that FedEx Ground's owner-
operators are properly classified as independent contractors and
that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the
company's independent contractors."


FISHER & PAYKEL: Recalls Infant Radiant Warmers (2014-11-18)
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 18, 2014
Posting date:             November 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type I
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42685

Recalled Products: Infant Radiant Warmers with Lot or serial
number of 071116 to 090810/ 071208002349 to 090717000930

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare is issuing this voluntary recall notice
because it has had two confirmed reports of breakage of the nut
that secures the heater head in place.  Breakage of the nut can
cause the heater head to become partially detached and swing
towards the bassinet.  The heater head did not contact the patient
in either case.  However, there is the potential that a heater
head could contact a patient situated on the bassinet and cause a
serious injury.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Fisher and Paykel Healthcare Ltd.
                    15 Maurice Paykel Place East Tamaki
                    P.O. Box 14348 Panmure
                    Auckland 2013
                    New Zealand


FLUIDMASTER INC: "Rensel" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Steven Rensel, et al. v.
Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00648, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-10251 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert Tort Product Liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeniphr A. E. Breckenridge, Esq.
          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: jeniphr@hbsslaw.com
                  tony@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Ria Momblanco, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK
          1 South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: rmomblanco@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT AND BENDESKY PC
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: ckocher@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  sparis@smbb.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alyson R. Parker, Esq.
          James Chang, Esq.
          Kimberly L. Buffington, Esq.
          Mark D. Litvack, Esq.
          Kelly W. Craven, Esq.
          Mariah L. Brandt, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406
          Telephone: (213) 488-7100
          Facsimile: (213) 629-1033
          E-mail: alyson.parker@pillsburylaw.com
                  james.chang@pillsburylaw.com
                  kbuffington@pillsburylaw.com
                  mark.litvack@pillsburylaw.com
                  kelly.craven@pillsburylaw.com
                  mariah.brandt@pillsburylaw.com

               - and -

          Ernest L. Weiss, Esq.
          KLINEDINST PC
          5 Hutton Center Drive, Suite 1000
          Santa Ana, CA 92707-5756
          Telephone: (714) 542-1800
          Facsimile: (714) 542-3592
          E-mail: eweiss@klinedinstlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Christopher Carroll, Esq.
          CARROLL AND CARROLL PC
          18101 Von Karman, Suite 330
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 340-7375
          Facsimile: (949) 340-7379
          E-mail: mcarroll@carrollpc.com


FOX HILL: Recalls Gelato Due to Underprocessing
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fox Hill Cheese House
Distribution:             Nova Scotia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9414


FRED DEELEY: Recalls Tri Glide Ultra (FLHTCUTG) Model
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           49
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014533
TC ID number:             2014533

On certain motorcycles, a defective rear brake master cylinder
could cause a reduction in rear braking performance.  This could
increase stopping distances or cause rear brake fade, increasing
the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replace the brake master cylinder with a revised
unit.

Affected products: 2015 Harley-Davidson Tri Glide Ultra (FLHTCUTG)


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: "Ramos" Suit Proceeds to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
Fry's Electronics Inc. hired Leo Ramos as a customer service
representative and car electronics technician. On the day Ramos
was hired, a Fry's employee requested that he sign an arbitration
agreement as a condition of his employment.

Ramos filed a class action complaint against Fry's for unpaid
overtime and various other Labor Code violations, including
failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay wages in a
timely manner, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
Ramos further alleged that each of these acts constituted an
unlawful business practice within the meaning of Business and
Professions Code section 17200 and requested an order for
restitution and injunctive relief. Ramos sought to bring each of
these claims individually, as well as on behalf of each and all
other persons similarly situated.

In addition to his claims for damages and restitution, Ramos
alleged a representative action under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), seeking to collect penalties
for each Labor Code violation on behalf of all aggrieved employees
in his capacity as private attorney general.

Fry's filed a petition to compel Ramos to arbitrate each of his
claims on an individual basis. Fry's argued the language of the
parties' agreement made clear Ramos had agreed to arbitrate any
claim arising from his employment. Fry's further asserted that
because the agreement contained no language suggesting that the
parties had contemplated class or representative arbitration,
Ramos was required to arbitrate all of his claims on an individual
basis.

The trial court denied the petition, concluding that: (1) the
agreement's class arbitration waiver was unenforceable pursuant to
the ruling in Gentry v. Superior Court, and (2) any waiver of
Ramos's right to pursue a representative PAGA claim was contrary
to public policy and unenforceable. Fry's appealed.

During the pendency of the appeal, the California Supreme Court
issued Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59
Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian), which held that: (1) the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts Gentry's rule against class
arbitration waivers in employment contracts; and (2) the FAA does
not preempt California's rule prohibiting the waiver of
representative PAGA claims.

In light of Iskanian ruling, Associate Justice Laurie D. Zelon of
the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, reverses the trial court's order denying Fry's motion to
compel arbitration, in part, and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

The appellate case is, LEO RAMOS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. B246404
(Cal. App.).  A copy of Justice Zelon's opinion is available at
http://is.gd/14gmSkfrom Leagle.com

Abraham Matthew -- abraham@mathewandgeorge.com -- Jacob George --
jacob@mathewandgeorge.com  and Mazyar Mazarei --
mazyar@mathewandgeorge.com  -- at Matthew & George, for Plaintiff
and Respondent

Richard J. Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- and Matthew
M. Sonne -- msonne@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton for Defendant and Appellant

The panel of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District
consists of Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss. J. Segal and
Associate Justice Laurie D. Zelon


GLAVAL: Recalls Entourage, Titan and Universal Models
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Accessories
Units affected:           11
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014530
TC ID number:             2014530
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14E-041

On certain buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the lift
platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean
against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the
vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at
risk of injury.

Dealers will inspect lift platforms for cracks and repair as
necessary, and install a repair kit.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model             Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----             ----------------------
   GLAVAL     UNIVERSAL         2006, 2008, 2010
   GLAVAL     TITAN             2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
   GLAVAL     ENTOURAGE         2011


HAIN CELESTIAL: "Brown & "Lohela" Case Can Proceed as Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Beeler of the Northern District of California
granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case
ROSMINAH BROWN and ERIC LOHELA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL
GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, No. C 11-03082 LB
(N.D. Cal.)

Hain is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and distributes
cosmetic products under the Jason and Avalon Organics.

Plaintiffs Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela both bought several
different Avalon Organics and Jason Cosmetic products, in which
both of them believed that the products are either completely or
at least mostly comprised organic ingredients.  The plaintiffs
allege that Hain advertises, markets, and labels the challenged
products as organic, when they contain insufficient organic
content to lawfully make such claims. They sued Hain on behalf of
themselves and other consumers in violation of: (1) the California
Organic Products Act of 2003 (COPA), Cal. Health & Safety Code
Sec. 110810, et seq.; (2) the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (3) the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; and the
California Commercial Code provision regarding express warranties,
Cal. Com. Code Section 2313. The plaintiffs move for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) or,
alternatively, 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs also filed a motion for
summary judgment and a motion to strike the Ugone and Mencarelli
declaration.

Magistrate Judge Beeler granted plaintiffs' motion to certify two
Rule 23(b)(3) classes, one for each product line.

The Jason Class," defined as: All persons who purchased a
personal-care product in California sold under the Jason brand
name between May 12, 2007 and January 31, 2011 other than those
Jason brand personal-care products that are USDA-certified as
organic."

The "Avalon Organics Class" is defined as: "All persons who
purchased a personal-care product in California sold under the
Avalon Organics brand name between May 12, 2007 and the present
other than those Avalon Organics brand personal-care products that
are USDA-certified as organic."

Judge Beeler denied Plaintiffs' motion to strike the declaration
of economist Keith R. Ugone and the "Mencarelli" declaration as
moot.  Hain offered Ugone's testimony.

The Court also denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
without prejudice as premature and denied Hulu's motions to
strike.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Beeler' order dated November 14, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/CAyTPNfrom Leagle.com.

Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela, Plaintiffs, represented by Lisa
Margaret Burger -- lburger@lexlawgroup.com -- Howard Judd Hirsch -
- hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com  -- Mark N. Todzo -- at Lexington Law
Group, LLP; Behram Viraf Parekh -- bvp@KirtlandPackard.com --
Heather Marie Baker -- hmp@KirtlandPackard.com -- Amir David
Benakote -- Michael Louis Kelly -- mlk@KirtlandPackard.com -- at
Kirtland & Packard LLP

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Claudia
Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Kathleen Brenna Roney --
kroney@mofo.com -- William J. Friedman, IV, and William Lewis
Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP

QAI, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Robert Laurence
Rosenthal, Attorney at Law

NSF International, Interested Party, represented by Robert
Laurence Rosenthal, Attorney at Law


HERTZ CORP: Faces "Ketibe" Suit Alleging Job Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nadif Ketibe, Abdiraxman Abdi-Sheikh, Daud Farah, Deek Gelle,
Muhsin Abdikarim f/k/a Mohamud Abdulkadir, and Abdirashid
Mohammed, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Hertz Corporation, The, Case No. 0:14-cv-05058-RHK-JSM
(D. Minn., December 23, 2014) alleges job discrimination
(employment).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryce M. Miller, Esq.
          Lawrence P. Schaefer, Esq.
          Darren M. Sharp, Esq.
          SCHAEFER HALLEEN LLC
          412 South Fourth Street, Suite 1050
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 294-2600
          Facsimile: (612) 294-2640
          E-mail: bmiller@schaeferhalleen.com
                  lschaefer@schaeferhalleen.com
                  dsharp@schaeferhalleen.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: June 8 Final Approval Hearing in "Cunningham"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the final approval
hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2015, on the settlement in the
case Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation.

Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly
involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and
hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported
collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, was filed on October 23, 2007 in the same court
alleging similar facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated
for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case.

On December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional certification
of a class consisting of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in
the consolidated Cunningham and Steavens matter. On December 11,
2013, HP and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated
Cunningham/Steavens matter, and the Salva matter described below,
mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court
preliminarily approved the settlement on November 4, 2014. The
final approval hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2015.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Final Approval Hearing in "Salva" Case on June 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the final approval
hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2015, on the settlement in the
case Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company.

Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action
filed on June 15, 2012 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York alleging that certain information
technology employees allegedly involved in installing and/or
maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On December
11, 2013, HP and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated
Cunningham/Steavens matter and the Salva matter mediated these
cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court consolidated
the Salva matter into the Cunningham/Steavens matter and
preliminarily approved the settlement on November 4, 2014. The
final approval hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2015.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Case Engaged in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that Karlbom, et al. v.
Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed on
March 16, 2009 in California Superior Court alleging facts similar
to the Cunningham and Steavens matters. The parties are currently
engaged in discovery.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Approved Settlement in "Blake" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the court approved
the settlement and dismissed the case Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-
Packard Company with prejudice.

Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company was filed as a purported
nationwide collective action on February 17, 2011 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas claiming
that a class of information technology support personnel had been
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. On February 10, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the court conditionally certify the case as a
collective action. On July 11, 2013, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in its entirety.
Following the denial of class certification, the case has
continued as an individual action on behalf of the named plaintiff
and one other employee. The parties have reached an agreement to
resolve this matter with the two plaintiffs agreeing to settle
their individual claims and release any other claims they may have
against HP. The court approved the settlement on August 19, 2014,
and dismissed the case with prejudice on September 9, 2014.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Benedict" Case in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the parties are
engaged in discovery in the case Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard
Company.

Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective
action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging that
certain technical support employees allegedly involved in
installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or
hardware for HP were misclassified as exempt employees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP
violated California law by, among other things, allegedly
improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On February 13,
2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional
class certification. The parties are engaged in discovery.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Deadline to Appeal in "Gammel" Suit Has Passed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the court granted
final approval of the settlement in the case Richard Gammel v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., and HP and certain of its
insurers paid approximately $57 million pursuant to the terms of
the settlement agreement. The deadline to appeal the court's grant
of final approval has passed and the court's judgment is now
final.

Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative
securities class action filed on September 13, 2011 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging, among other things, that from November 22, 2010 to
August 18, 2011, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making
false statements about HP's business model, the future of the
webOS operating system, and HP's commitment to developing and
integrating webOS products, including the TouchPad tablet PC.

On April 11, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On September 4, 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and gave the plaintiff 30 days to file an
amended complaint. On October 19, 2012, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint asserting the same causes of action but dropping
one of the defendants and shortening the period that the alleged
violations of the Exchange Act occurred to February 9, 2011 to
August 18, 2011. On December 3, 2012, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On May 8, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part. As a result of the court's
ruling, the alleged class period in the action runs from June 1,
2011 to August 18, 2011. The parties commenced mediation before a
private mediator and on March 31, 2014, the parties executed a
settlement stipulation.

On September 15, 2014, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and HP and certain of its insurers paid approximately
$57 million pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. The
deadline to appeal the court's grant of final approval has passed
and the court's judgment is now final.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Brief Filed in Cement & Concrete Workers Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the plaintiff-
appellant in the case Cement & Concrete Workers District Council
Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. filed its opening
brief in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class
action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct
("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was
serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that
period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior
in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP.

On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September
9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9,
2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on
October 24, 2013.

On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant
filed its opening brief in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Feb. 20 Hearing on Class Certification Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the hearing on the
motion for class certification is scheduled for February 20, 2015
in the case HP Securities Litigation.

In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated
putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011
to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material  information and
making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy
and the financial performance of HP's enterprise services
business.

On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5(b) by concealing material information and making false
statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and that
certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging
in a "scheme" to defraud investors. On July 2, 2013, HP filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 26, 2013, the court
granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss,
allowing claims to proceed against HP and Margaret C. Whitman
based on alleged statements and/or omissions made on or after May
23, 2012.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that were based
on alleged statements and/or omissions made between August 19,
2011 and May 22, 2012. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification on November 4, 2014 and, on December 15, 2014,
defendants filed their opposition to the motion. The hearing on
the motion for class certification is scheduled for February 20,
2015.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Jan. 23 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that a hearing on the
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case HP
ERISA Litigation is scheduled for January 23, 2015.

In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative
class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to
November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby
violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative
information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and
HP's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict
participants from investing in HP stock. On August 16, 2013, HP
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 31, 2014, the
court granted HP's motion to dismiss this action with leave to
amend. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint containing substantially similar allegations and seeking
substantially similar relief as the first amended complaint. HP
moved to dismiss the second amended complaint and a hearing on the
motion is scheduled for January 23, 2015.


HINO: Recalls XFC Model Due to Loss of Motive Power
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           27
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014524
TC ID number:             2014524

On certain hybrid trucks, the output shaft of the hybrid vehicle
motor could break, causing a loss of motive power.  This could
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will replace the motor with an updated design having an
improved output shaft.

Affected products: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 HINO XFC


HOME DEPOT: "Burris" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Burris v. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00396, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).  The Georgia
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04054-TWT to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT.

The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data
network in late April or early May 2014.  The data network
contained the personal financial information of hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of consumers.  The data breach was
first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security
blogger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bartley K. Hagerman, Esq.
          Erik David Peterson, Esq.
          M. Austin Mehr, Esq.
          Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
          MEHR FAIRBANKS TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          201 W. Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 225-3731
          Facsimile: (859) 225-3830

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel E. Danford, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON PLLC
          2300 Lexington Financial Center
          250 W. Main Street
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 226-2292
          Facsimile: (859) 253-9144
          E-mail: ddanford@stites.com


HOME DEPOT: "Chorman" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Chorman v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01180, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04077-
TWT to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT.

The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data
network in late April or early May 2014.  The data network
contained the personal financial information of hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of consumers.  The data breach was
first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security
blogger.


HOME DEPOT: "First NBC" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled First NBC Bank v. Home Depot,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02182, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04070-
TWT to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT.

The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data
network in late April or early May 2014.  The data network
contained the personal financial information of hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of consumers.  The data breach was
first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security
blogger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Barnett Murray, Esq.
          Arthur Mahony Murray, Esq.
          Korey Arthur Nelson, Esq.
          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          Poydras Center, Suite 2150
          650 Poydras St.
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
          E-mail: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  knelson@murray-lawfirm.com
                  smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carmelite M. Bertaut, Esq.
          STONE, PIGMAN, WALTHER, WITTMANN, LLC (NEW ORLEANS)
          546 Carondelet St.
          New Orleans, LA 70130-3588
          Telephone: (504) 581-3200
          Facsimile: (504) 596-0898
          E-mail: cbertaut@stonepigman.com


HOME DEPOT: Sued by First National Bank in Georgia District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First National Bank, USA, Individually and on behalf of a class of
all similarly situated financial institutions v. Home Depot USA,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04058-TWT (N.D. Ga., December 23, 2014)
alleges breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, Esq.
          W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
          W. PITTS CARR AND ASSOCIATES, PC
          Building 10
          4200 Northside Parkway, N.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 442-9000
          Facsimile: (404) 442-9700
          E-mail: aweatherby@wpcarr.com
                  pcarr@wpcarr.com


HOME DEPOT: "Earls" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Earls, et al. v. Home Depot,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04315, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta).  The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04081-TWT to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re The Home Depot, Inc. Security Breach Litigation, MDL No.
1:14-md-02583-TWT.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allege that Home Depot, the world's
largest home improvement retailer, allowed computer hackers to
gain access to its data network in approximately late April or
early May 2014.  The data network contained the personal financial
information of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
consumers.  The Plaintiffs contend that the ramifications of this
security breach are severe because the thieves can use the
financial information to create fake credit and debit cards that
can be used to commit fraud and other crimes.  The data breach was
first reported on September 2, 2014 by a computer security
blogger.


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Provide Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Flores, on behalf of herself and as a representative v. Home
Depot USA, Inc.; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
BC566293 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 10, 2014)
alleges that Home Depot failed to relieve the Plaintiff for
required 10 minute rest periods every four hours, and failed to
pay the Plaintiff labor code premiums for the required rest
periods it did not provide.

Home Depot USA, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation that is licensed to
do business in the state of California.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence W. Freiman, Esq.
          Michael J. Freiman, Esq.
          FREIMAN LAW
          100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 940
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 917-1024
          Facsimile: (888) 835-8511
          E-mail: lawrence@freimanlaw.com
                  michael@freimanlaw.com


HUMANA INC: Removes "Shively" Suit to California District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jill Shively v. Humana Inc., et
al., Case No. 30-2014-00751609, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-02048-DOC-DFM to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiff and Class Members as being exempt from overtime and
unlawfully failed to pay them overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM PC
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 724-9200
          Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
          E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com

               - and -

          Roger Richard Carter, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
          E-mail: roger@carterlawfirm.net

               - and -

          Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
          THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-9111
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
          E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rafael G. Nendel-Flores, Esq.
          Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
          Christian Keeney, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          Park Tower, Suite 1500
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900
          Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
          E-mail: rafael.nendel-flores@ogletreedeakins.com
                  allison.eckstrom@ogletreedeakins.com
                  christian.keeney@ogletreedeakins.com


INTERSTATE HOTELS: Removes "Unutoa" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Raymond Unutoa v. Interstate
Hotels and Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. BC563943, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-09809 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought for claims under Labor/Management
Relations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew John Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 399-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 399-7001
          E-mail: cgonell@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Mills, Esq.
          Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Jensen, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: jmills@morganlewis.com
                  kmcguigan@morganlewis.com
                  rjensen@morganlewis.com


ISUZU: Recalls Reach Van Model Due to Bending and Corrosion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           30
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014521
TC ID number:             2014521
Manufacturer recall
number:                   DET-14-199

On certain vehicles, the brake lamp switch can bend and/or
corrode.  In some circumstances, the ABS or the Brake Warning lamp
may illuminate.  Bending or corrosion to the brake lamp switch
could lead to inoperative brake lamps, which could increase the
risk of crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will apply a protector and waterproof cover with an
extension harness to prevent bending and corrosion.

Affected products: 2012, 2013 Isuzu Reach Van


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tex. Court Dismisses Johnson v. Drake Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant William Drake and plaintiff The Johnson Law Firm entered
into a contract entitled "Attorney Representation Agreement" under
which the plaintiff agreed to represent the defendant in a class
action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson for a hip replacement
implanted on Mr. Drake.

The contract provided for a contingent fee of 40% of all sums
recovered on the defendant's claims, plus all costs and expenses
advanced by the plaintiff, and a lien on the defendant's claims,
proceeds, or judgments recovered in connection therewith.  The
contact included a Texas choice-of-law provision, and provided
that all disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant arising
out of the contract would be resolved through arbitration in Fort
Worth, Texas.  On Nov. 30, 2012, the defendant sent written notice
to the plaintiff terminating the plaintiff's representation under
the contract.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint, which included an application to
compel arbitration, and alternative request for a declaratory
judgment that the plaintiff is entitled to recover 40% of all sums
recovered on the defendant's claims related to the defective
product.  The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and improper
venue, or alternatively, to transfer venue.

Judge John McBryde of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, in a memorandum opinion
and order dated Nov. 25, 2014, concluded that the action should be
dismissed because of the failure of the plaintiff to establish the
court's in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.

The case is STEVEN M. JOHNSON, PC, DBA THE JOHNSON LAW FIRM,
Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM DRAKE, Defendant, NO. 4:14-CV-611-A (E.D.
Tex.).  A full-text copy of Judge McBryde's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/h3P9wvfrom Leagle.com.

Stephen M Johnson PC, Plaintiff, represented by Barry N Johnson &
Tom Needham, Needham Johnson.

William Drake, Defendant, represented by Ashleigh Elizabeth Raso,
Esq. -- araso@meshbesher.com -- at Meshbesher & Spence LTD,
Anthony J Nemo, Esq. -- tnemo@meshbesher.com -- at Meshbesher &
Spence Ltd & Karin Knowles Cagle, Esq. -- kcagle@kbblawyers.com --
at Kirkley & Berryman LLP.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tex. Court Dismisses Johnson v. Partee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John McBryde of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, in a Nov. 26, 2014,
memorandum opinion and order, dismissed a complaint filed by the
law firm The Johnson Law Firm against Patricia Moulton Partee, for
failure of the plaintiff to establish the court's in personam
jurisdiction over the defendant.

The law firm is seeking fees from the defendant under their
attorney representation contract, which the defendant terminated.
The underlying claim for which the plaintiff is seeking fees
concerns a Johnson & Johnson DePuy ASR hip replacement implanted
in the defendant.  The law firm is one of the attorneys handling
the class action against Johnson & Johnson.

The case is STEVEN M. JOHNSON, PC, DBA THE JOHNSON LAW FIRM,
Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA MOULTON PARTEE, Defendant, NO. 4:14-CV-613-
A (E.D. Tex.).  A full-text copy of Judge McBryde's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/DtM33ifrom Leagle.com.

Steven M. Johnson, PC, dba The Johnson Law Firm, Plaintiff,
represented by Barry N Johnson & Tom Needham, Needham Johnson.

Patricia Moulton Partee, Defendant, represented by Karin Knowles
Cagle, Kirkley & Berryman LLP, Donald S Edgar, Edgar Law Firm &
Rex Grady, Edgar Law Firm.


KAYTEL MEDIA: Recalls King Brand Disposable Lighters
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 17, 2014
Posting date:             November 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Miscellaneous
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42193

Affected products: King brand disposable lighters

The recall involves King brand disposable lighters imported and
distributed by Kaytel Media Group Inc.  The lighters were sold in
various colours and are identified by model number A3K.  The
recalled lighters were sold with novelty adult lighter holders in
the shape of a nude male or female torso.

These lighters do not meet the performance testing requirements
outlined in the Lighters Regulations.

These products can pose these problems:

   -- the lighters may exceed the allowable flame heights during
      ignition, and
   -- the lighters may continue to burn after the trigger
      mechanism has been released.

Neither Kaytel Media Group Inc. nor Health Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these lighters.

Approximately 144 recalled lighters were sold Canada.

The recalled lighters were manufactured in Thailand and sold from
November 2013 to November 2014.

Companies:

   Importer     Kaytel Media Group Inc.
                St-Laurent
                Quebec
                Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lighters and
dispose of them following municipal waste guidelines.


KEYSTONE: Recalls Aerolite & Rubicon Models Due to Short Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           370
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014519
TC ID number:             2014519
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14-217

On certain travel trailers, the wiring to the 12V breakers located
by the battery may not be connected to the protected terminal of
the breaker.  This could result in an electrical short on the
unprotected circuit, increasing the risk of a fire causing injury
and/or damage to property.

Dealers will verify the wiring to the breakers is connected to the
protected terminal, and if not, make the necessary correction.

Affected products:

   Maker         Model         Model year(s) affected
   -----         -----         ----------------------
   DUTCHMEN      RUBICON       2014, 2015
   DUTCHMEN      AEROLITE      2014, 2015


KMART CORP: Faces Suit Arising From Credit Card Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jack Bouboushian reports that
Kmart's failure to protect customer information with "elementary"
security measures left banks liable for the resulting fraud, an
Illinois federal class action claims.

First NBC Bank filed the class action December 16 against Kmart
Corp. and parent company Sears Holding Corp, regarding an
announcement that hackers had breached Kmart's payment-data
systems in early September.

Kmart warned that customers who had used a credit card there for
the past five weeks may have had their financial information
stolen.

First NBC Bank says the infiltration occurred because Kmart's
outdated anti-virus system had not been updated to detect the
malware that the hackers used.

"POS registers at its stores were infected with software that
stole customer credit and debit card information from the
registers," the complaint states, using the abbreviation for point
of sale.

Target fell victim to this same strategy in 2013, but Kmart made
no efforts to protect its customers' data amid evidence that it
was vulnerable to a similar attack, the bank claims.

"The deficiencies in Kmart's security system include a lack of
elementary security measures that even the most inexperienced IT
professional could identify as problematic," according to the
complaint.

First NBC Bank says that Kmart's security system did not measure
up to core security standards that the payment card industry
requires of merchants.  Visa allegedly warned of the specific
threats to which Kmart fell victim as early as 2009.

"Despite the fact that defendants were put on notice of the very
real possibility of consumer data theft associated with their
security practices and despite the fact that defendants knew or,
at the very least, should have known about the elementary
infirmities associated with the Kmart security systems, they still
failed to make necessary changes to their security practices and
protocols," the bank says.

This alleged negligence left the card-issuing banks and
institutions liable for fraudulent card activity, as well as the
cost of identity protection measures.

"Defendants' public statements to customers after the data breach
plainly indicate that defendants believe that card-issuing
institutions should be responsible for fraudulent charges on
cardholder accounts resulting from the data breach," the complaint
states.  "While Kmart has made free credit monitoring available to
consumers affected by the data breach, it has made no overtures to
the card-issuing institutions that are left to pay for damages as
a result of the breach."

Kmart has not revealed how many customers the breach affected.

First NBC seeks damages for violation of the Illinois Personal
Information Protection Act, fraud, negligence and negligent
misrepresentation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: lfanning@millerlawllc.com


LA COUNTRY CLUB: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Morales, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. The Los Angeles Country Club, a California
corporation, and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. BC566493
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 11, 2014) alleges
that the Defendant violates various wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
and premium wages owed for missed, untimely and interrupted meal
and rest periods.

The Los Angeles Country Club is a California corporation
headquartered in Los Angeles, California.  The Plaintiff does not
know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Connor, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jconnor@ckslaw.com


LINKEDEN CORPORATION: N.D. Cal. Judge Narrows "Perkins" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California
granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss
the case entitled PAUL PERKINS et al., Plaintiffs, v. LINKEDIN
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-04303-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Defendant LinkedIn is a for-profit social networking website
geared toward professional networking with more than 200 million
users. It generates its revenue primarily on three avenues namely,
"Talent Solutions, Marketing Solutions and Sale of Premium
Subscriptions". It seeks to grow its membership because the
success of the three revenue streams is directly related to the
number of registered LinkedIn users.

Plaintiffs are nine professionals who seek to represent a
nationwide class of LinkedIn users. Plaintiffs allege that during
the sign up process LinkedIn harvested the email addresses of
Plaintiffs' contacts as well as the email addresses of every
person who has either emailed Plaintiffs, been emailed by
Plaintiffs, or who has been carbon copied on an email to or from
Plaintiffs.  LinkedIn sent emails to these addresses purportedly
on behalf of the LinkedIn user, inviting the recipient to join.
LinkedIn sent these emails without plaintiffs' knowledge or
consent.

In their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege only three
causes of action; (1) violation of California's common law right
of publicity; (2) violation of California's statutory right of
publicity, Cal. Civ. Code section 3344; and (3) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law or UCL.

LinkedIn asks the Court to dismiss the entire second amended
complaint with prejudice or, in the alternative, to dismiss
Plaintiffs' request for minimum statutory damages under section
3344.

Judge Koh granted in part and denied in part the defendant's
motion to dismiss, in her Order dated November 13, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/9N3thGfrom Leagle.com.

The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the second amended
complaint for the limited purpose of correcting the deficiencies
to the section 3344 claim.  The Court said it does not find undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive by Plaintiffs, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies, or undue prejudice to LinkedIn.

Paul Perkins, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August
& Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Melissa Ann
Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ,
August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat

Pennie Sempell, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ
August & Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Melissa
Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W.
Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,Dorian Seawind Berger,
Russ, August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat

Ann Brandwein, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ
August & Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Melissa
Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W.
Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,Dorian Seawind Berger,
Russ, August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat

Erin Eggers, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August
& Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Melissa Ann
Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ,
August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat

Jake Kushner, Plaintiff, represented by Dorian Seawind Berger,
Russ, August, and Kabat, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP

Natalie Richstone, Plaintiff, represented by Dorian Seawind
Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP

Nicole Crosby, Plaintiff, represented by Dorian Seawind Berger,
Russ, August, and Kabat, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP

Clare Connaughton, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ
August & Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Michael
W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas
Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Dorian Seawind
Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August
Kabat

Leslie Wall, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August
& Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Michael W.
Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Dorian Seawind Berger,
Russ, August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat

LinkedIn Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jerome Cary Roth,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP &Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq., Munger,
Tolles & Olson LLP


LOC-SKY TRADING: Recalls Honghong Crisp Cakes Walnut Cracker
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loc-Sky Trading Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail, Retail
CFIA reference number:    9486

Loc-Sky Trading Co. Ltd., is recalling Macau Honghong brand Crisp
Cakes Walnut Cracker from the marketplace because it may contain
peanut which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy
to peanut should not consume the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to peanut, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There has been one reported reaction associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by a consumer complaint.  The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


LOWE'S HOME: Discriminates Against Gay Employees, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Haimowitz v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Case No. 7:14-cv-
10080-VB (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2014) alleges that the Defendant
engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against its
employees because of their sexual orientation and in
discriminating against employees for failing to adhere to the
stereotypical gender roles.

Mr. Haimowitz is a gay male residing in the County of White
Plains, New York.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC is a foreign limited liability company
duly existing pursuant to and by virtue of the laws of the state
of North Carolina.  Lowe's operates a chain of retail home
improvement and appliance stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Todd Smith, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          30 Broad Street, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 587-0760
          Facsimile: (212) 587-4169
          E-mail: dtslaws@msn.com


LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Removes "Berenato" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Adam Berenato v. Luxottica Retail
North America Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2014-00755578-CU-PO-CXC,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Orange U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Santa Ana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 8:14-cv-02038-JVS-RNB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
          324 South Beverly Drive, No 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony Gerald Ly, Esq.
          Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
          Judy M. Iriye, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: aly@littler.com
                  kjacoby@littler.com
                  jiriye@littler.com


MACK: Recalls CHU and CXU Models Due to Ball Sockets
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Suspension
Units affected:           4000
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014526
TC ID number:             2014526
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SC0385

On certain vehicles, the collars that prevent the ball sockets
from backing out of the tie rod may have been incorrectly
positioned.  If the ball socket(s) became loose, a complete loss
of steering or loss of steering at one wheel end could occur,
which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property.

Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, reposition the collar.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model      Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----      ----------------------
   MACK       CXU        2015
   MACK       CHU        2015


MACK: Recalls CHU, CXU, GU and TD Models Due to Module
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           11848
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014527
TC ID number:             2014527
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SC0375

On certain model vehicles, water around the windshield can migrate
into the Electronic Power Distribution Module and contaminate it.
As a result, circuits may be bridged creating an electrical short.
This could potentially result in a fire, increasing the risk of
injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will inspect the module, and if found contaminated, will
replace it.  Additional measures will be taken to address the leak
if contamination is found.  Note: This is an expansion of recall
2014-053.

Affected products:

   Maker   Model    Model year(s) affected
   -----   -----    ----------------------
   MACK    CXU      2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
   MACK    CHU      2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
   MACK    GU       2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
   MACK    TD       2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces "Zaccagnini" Suit Over Faulty Fuel Tanks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Zaccagnini, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC, and Does 1
Through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2014-00761919 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Orange Cty., December 17, 2014) is brought on behalf of California
consumers, who currently own or lease, or previously owned or
leased 2010-2014 model year Mercedes vehicles equipped with
alleged defective fuel tanks that prevent refueling.

The defective design and manufacture creates an inability to
refuel the Subject Vehicles and often leads to safety hazards such
as gasoline spewing out of the fuel tank, according to the
complaint.

Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Montvale, New Jersey.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently
unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          Christian Schreiber, Esq.
          Samuel P. Cheadle, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com
                  christian@chavezgertler.com
                  sam@chavezgertler.com

               - and -

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          9861 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 208-3400
          Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
          E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com


MIMEDX GROUP: Shareholder Class Suit Over False Claims Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders may pursue claims that a biomaterials distributor
caused them financial losses by falsely touting its products as
exempt from federal drug regulation, reports Iulia Filip at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Georgia-based MiMedx Group, a global processor and distributor of
human amniotic tissue, developed several products that help
regenerate damaged or diseased tissue, enhance healing, and reduce
scar formation.

In a September 2013 class action lawsuit, shareholders claimed
that MiMedx misrepresented to investors that AmnioFix and EpiFix,
two products designed to speed up the healing process, would
qualify as human cell and tissue-based products exempt from
federal drug regulation, despite knowing that the products could
not meet the "minimally manipulated" criterion for the exemption.

The company also failed to disclose that the Food and Drug
Administration inspected MiMedx facilities in 2012 to determine if
the injectable products qualified for the exemption, according to
the complaint.

MiMedx stock fell 36 percent, from $6.06 per share to $3.85 per
share, when the company released a September 2013 letter from the
FDA stating that AmnioFix and EpiFix did not meet the requirements
for the exemption, according to the lawsuit.

Although the stock price rebounded to $6.76 per share three months
later, when MiMedx announced it would seek FDA approval for the
injectable products, investors who bought stock between March 2012
and September 2013 claimed the company's misleading statements had
caused them financial losses.

MiMedx and its executives countered that they had disclosed the
risks of marketing the injectable products without FDA approval,
and thus were not responsible for any economic losses shareholders
allegedly suffered.

But U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash refused to dismiss the
claims in August, finding that the plaintiffs had offered
sufficient evidence that MiMedx may have misled investors.  The
company continued to report in its securities filings that it
believed the products would be exempt from drug regulation,
despite an FDA report that showed the products were under
increased scrutiny, according to the Aug. 13 ruling.

Since MiMedx executives knew the company was using procedures that
generally disqualify biomaterials from the exemption, and were
aware the FDA was scrutinizing their products, they likely knew
the agency would not classify the products as exempt, according to
the ruling.

Even though MiMedx stock prices recovered in less than three
months after the disclosure, the court could not conclude that
shareholders had suffered no economic losses due to the previous
drop in value.

Thrash denied MiMedx's motion for reconsideration in the first
week of December, finding that the company merely tried to
repackage arguments that the court had previously dismissed.

MiMedx failed to show that the court improperly considered an
executive's stock sales shortly before the drop in price as
evidence that MiMedx knew the products would not be exempt, the
Dec. 2 ruling states.

Moreover, MiMedx cannot ask the court to reconsider dismissing the
shareholders' claims based on arguments it failed to raise in its
original motion, Thrash ruled.

Attorneys for MiMedx did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is In re Mimedx Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:13-cv-03074-TWT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.


MASSACHUSETTS: Legislature Should Fix Foster Care System
--------------------------------------------------------
The responsibility for fixing Massachusetts' seriously flawed
foster care system resides with the state's legislature, not the
courts, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service,
citing a 1st Circuit ruling.

The ruling stems from a class action filed against the state by
the guardians six foster care children on behalf of the estimated
85,000 children currently enrolled in the program.

Among other problems they cite, the plaintiffs claim that foster
care children in Massachusetts are abused at nearly four times the
national average, and that several of six child plaintiffs
suffered instances of rape, sexual abuse, beatings, force-feeding,
and other maltreatment.

"There is a common understanding in this case, shared by both the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the plaintiffs, that the
Massachusetts Department of Children and Families' (DCF)
administration of the foster care system has flaws and is in need
of improvement.  In some instances, these flaws have led to
horrific and heartbreaking outcomes for children," Chief U.S.
Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch wrote at the beginning of in her 40-
page opinion.

Among the horror stories detailed in the plaintiff's original
complaint are those of Dontel Jeffers, who died at 4, allegedly
after his foster mother tied him to a radiator and kicked him
until his bladder burst; Acia Johnson, who died at 14, allegedly
after her mother's boyfriend lit their house on fire; Isaiah
Barboza, 4, who was hospitalized for second-degree burns from
being scalded with boiling water; and an unidentified 4-year-old,
who needed skin graft surgery after his foster brother burned him
with a hair-straightening iron.

Named plaintiff Connor B., now age 13, claims he was sexually
abused in his first foster care placement, and has since been
moved at least six times.  He also spent 4 1/2 months in a locked
psychiatric unit when he was 6, according to the complaint.

"The plaintiffs have articulated convincing moral arguments that
Massachusetts should do better," Lynch said.

But the children have not shown the state violated their
constitutional rights, the court found.

"Having reviewed the voluminous record, the evidence simply does
not show that DCF has substantially departed from accepted
professional judgment, much less that it departed so substantially
as to show that such judgment was not exercised," the three-judge
panel ruled.

The children, represented by New York-based non-profit Children's
Rights, sought a permanent injunction forbidding the state from
violating their civil rights, and remedial relief limiting the
caseload of foster care case workers, enhanced education and
training, a top-to-bottom review of the state's child-care system
to determine the need for additional services and placements,
stepped up monitoring of the safety of children in foster care
placements, and creation of a new child-parent and sibling
visitation program, and other measures.

But while DCF has failed to comport with national standards, it is
"actively improving, and the Due Process Clause does not require
that the defendants instantly fix all deficiencies in the foster
care system," Lynch wrote.

The court said that DCF has fulfilled its professional
responsibility by identifying problems, and addressing them in the
order it believes best within its budgetary limitations.

"Improvements in the system must come through the normal state
political processes.  The problems are now for the Governor and
legislature of Massachusetts to resolve," Lynch concluded.

The Appellants are represented by:

          Sara M. Bartosz, Esq.
          Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq.
          Rachel B. Nili, Esq.
          Sarah T. Russo, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
          330 Seventh Ave., Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 683-2210
          E-mail: mlowry@childrensrights.org

               - and -

          Mary K. Ryan, Esq.
          Daniel J. Gleason, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Persky, Esq.
          NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH, LLP
          Seaport West
          155 Seaport Boulevard
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-2212
          Facsimile: (617) 310-9212
          E-mail: mryan@nutter.com
                  dgleason@nutter.com

The Appellees are represented by:

          Liza J. Tran, Esq.
          Martha Coakley, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, MASSACHUSETTS
          One Ashburton Place
          Boston, MA 02108-1518
          Telephone: (617) 727-2200

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Andrew C. Glass, Esq.
          Stacey L. Gorman, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          State Street Financial Center
          One Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02111-2950
          Telephone: (617) 261-3100
          Facsimile: (617) 261-3175
          E-mail: andrew.glass@klgates.com
                  stacey.gorman@klgates.com

The case is Connor B., et al. v. Deval L. Patrick, in his capacity
as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Case No.
13-2467, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Recalls Altitude Shag Gold Rug
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 19, 2014
Posting date:             November 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42239

Affected products: Altitude Shag Gold Rug

Mohawk Industries, Inc. has recently become aware that the rugs do
not meet federal flammability standard for large rugs and do not
have the required flammability label for small rugs.

Neither Health Canada nor Mohawk Industries, Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
the product.

Approximately 2,888 recalled rugs were sold in Canada and
approximately 101,000 in the United States exclusively sold at The
Home Depot stores and online.

The recalled rugs were manufactured in India and sold from
February 2014 to September 2014 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Riviera Home Furnishings Pvt. Ltd.
                    INDIA

   Importer         Mohawk Industries, Inc.
                    Calhoun
                    Georgia
                    United States

Consumers should stop using the recalled rugs and contact Mohawk
to receive a refund for the 4'11" x 7' and 7' x 10' rugs.
Consumers who purchased the 2' x 3' rug should contact Mohawk to
receive a warning label to be affixed to the backside of the rug.


MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Blamed by Mom Over Death of Son in Jail
------------------------------------------------------------
A 33-year-old man died in Monterey County Jail from lack of
medical attention to his flu and pneumonia so severe he coughed up
blood, his family claims in court, reports Arvin Temkar at
Courthouse News Service.

The Dec. 16 lawsuit comes as the jail faces a federal class action
accusing it of substandard conditions, including poor medical
care.

Jacob Parenti died in jail on Jan. 15, his mother and son claim in
the federal lawsuit.  They sued the county; Sheriff Scott Miller;
Officer Collins; the California Forensic Medical Group, the
Monterey jail's private medical provider; and the medical group's
president Taylor Fithian.

Parenti developed flu-like symptoms and started coughing up blood
on Jan. 10, the family says.  He was serving a one-year jail term
for a probation violation after marijuana was found in his car.
Though he placed two sick call requests, he was not seen by
medical staff, his family says.

On the day Parenti died, Officer Collins announced sick call on
the jail's D-wing, but Parenti did not respond.  Collins found
Parenti lying on his bunk, unresponsive and breathing laboriously,
according to the complaint.  After tapping and shaking him,
Collins left without seeking medical attention, the family says.

An hour later other inmates "noticed that [Parenti] had stopped
breathing and his face had a bluish tint," the complaint states.
He died an hour later.

Monterey officials claimed that said Parenti died of a drug
overdose, but his family's independent autopsy showed the death
was caused by "viral influenza syndrome complicated by pneumonia,"
according to the complaint.

At least three inmates have died in the jail in 2014, the family
claims.

Conditions there have sparked concern among prison reformers.  A
2013 class action filed by Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld, a San
Francisco firm that helped spur California's recent prison
overhaul, accuses the facility of dangerous overcrowding and
substandard conditions, including poor medical and mental health
care.  The ACLU of Northern California and Monterey County's
Public Defender have joined that battle.

The Plaintiffs seek punitive damages for wrongful death,
constitutional violations, including failure to provide medical
care and due process violations, and two counts of negligence.

Parenti's family is represented by:

          Dan Stormer, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP
          128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 381-9261
          Toll Free: (866) 457-2590
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7079


MTI GROUPS: Recalls MD Brand Products Due to Undeclared Sulphites
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           MTI Groups Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9291

Affected products:

   -- Chilli Garlic Sauce;
   -- Chilli Garlic Sauce;
   -- Extra Hot Chilli Sauce;
   -- Lunumiris;
   -- Seeni Sambol;
   -- Passion Fruit Cordial; and
   -- Nelli Cordial


NATIONAL ACCOUNT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Szczesniak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Account Services, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-10346 (N.D. Ill., December 23, 2014) is brought over
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
          Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
          WOOD FINKO & THOMPSON P.C.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          Facsimile: (312) 265-3227
          E-mail: mwood@woodfinkothompson.com
                  bthompson@woodfinkothompson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGE: Removes "Spangler" Suit to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Spangler, et al. v. National
College of Technical Instruction, et al., Case No. 37-2014-
00038832-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03005-
H-RBB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' Emergency Medical
Technician educational program violates consumer and other laws.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants operate a private, post-
secondary paramedic school in California called NCTI, and that, to
entice enrollees to pay over $10,000 in tuition and fees, the
Defendants make a number of "false and misleading" representations
about the quality of the school, its faculty, its completion time,
its clinical training, as well as the potential for post-education
job placement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com
                  lindner@stuevesiegel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James M. Peterson, Esq.
          Jason Conroy Ross, Esq.
          HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK, LLP
          401 West "A" Street, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-1551
          Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
          E-mail: peterson@higgslaw.com
                  rossj@higgslaw.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Dismissed Players' Medical Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on December 17 dismissed a class action accusing
the NFL of giving football players dangerous painkillers to mask
their injuries, reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup found the lawsuit brought by
more than 500 former players must be settled under the collective
bargaining agreements between the NFL and the players' union, as
the crux of the claim is that players' teams mistreated them, and
that the league did nothing to stop it.

The lead plaintiff was Richard Dent, a former Chicago Bear.

"One problem is this: no decision in any state (including
California) has ever held that a professional sports league owed
such a duty to intervene and stop mistreatment by the league's
independent clubs," Alsup wrote.

Alsup ruled that while the agreement's medical care provisions may
not be perfect, and its protections may not specifically discuss
prescribing drugs and painkillers, "this is not a situation in
which the NFL has stood by and done nothing."

"The main point of this order is that the league has addressed
these serious concerns in a serious way -- by imposing duties on
the clubs via collective bargaining and placing a long line of
health-and-safety duties on the team owners themselves," Alsup
wrote in his 22-page ruling.

"These benefits may not have been perfect but they have been
uniform across all clubs and not left to the vagaries of state
common law. They are backed up by the enforcement power of the
union itself and the players' right to enforce these benefits."

He continued: "Given the regime in place after decades of
collective bargaining over the scope of these duties, it would be
impossible to fashion and to apply new and supplemental state
common law duties on the league without taking into account the
adequacy and scope of the CBA duties already set in place."

At a hearing in October that signaled Alsup's decision, he said:
"The union is supposed to be looking out for the plaintiffs.  The
labor union is the one that is supposed to be doing this."

Alsup ordered that the players' union weigh in on whether the
retired players could still arbitrate their grievances.

The union complied with that order, and Alsup, who found that the
players' retiree status should not bar them from arbitration,
quoted the union's letter in his ruling.  "On this issue, the
union's letter has explained that 'the current CBA and former CBAs
have included various provisions negotiated on behalf of current
and future players that continue to benefit those players after
they retire from the NFL,' such as provisions on retirement plans
or termination pay," Alsup wrote.  "In fact, former players in
other cases have been able to arbitrate their grievances against
the NFL or individual clubs, notwithstanding their prior
retirement from the league."

Though Alsup found the issue should not be decided in federal
court, he said: "This order does not minimize the underlying
societal issue.  In such a rough-and-tumble sport as professional
football, player injuries loom as a serious and inevitable evil.
Proper care of these injuries is likewise a paramount need."

The case is Richard Dent, et al. v. National Football League, Case
No. 3:14-cv-02324-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Hofstatter, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
consumers v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07460-DLI-
LB (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK, NY: US Government to Intervene in Suit By Rikers Teens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that four months
after condemning the "Lord of the Flies" treatment of Rikers
teens, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara praised Mayor Bill de Blasio
for stopping the solitary confinement of juveniles -- and also
sued him to make sure this and other reforms stick.

Bharara formally announced that his office would intervene in a
lawsuit filed three years ago by former Rikers Mark Nunez, whose
case snowballed into a class action on behalf of tens of thousands
of others in 2012.

A federal probe into the abuse of Rikers teens in pretrial
confinement came to light on Aug. 4, 2014, as the U.S. Attorney's
office sent de Blasio a 64-page letter laying out grisly
conditions inside the Robert N. Davoren Center, a juvenile lockup.

This summer's announcement revealed that, on a "typical day,"
between 15 and 25 percent that jail's population languished in
solitary confinement six-by-eight foot cells of the Central
Punitive Segregation Unit, where they spend 23 hours a day in
solitary confinement.

De Blasio took action on this issue on December 17 evening,
stating that Rikers would stop punitive isolation for teenage
inmates.

Although Bharara praised the mayor for taking this step, he added
that this change does not settle the matter.

Only a "court-approved settlement agreement" can lead to
"permanent, enforceable and verifiable" reform, he said.

Bharara emphasized that guards beat inmates with "alarming
frequency" in areas of the prison outside video surveillance, and
a "powerful code of silence" has kept the prison a "dehumanizing
environment."

In 2003, an average of 682 teenagers in these jails bore the brunt
of 565 "reported staff use of force incidents" that led to 1,057
injuries, his Aug. 4 letter stated.

"From June 2012 through early July 2013, adolescents sustained a
total of 239 head injuries, and were twice as likely to sustain
such injuries as was the adult population," it continued.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called federal intervention in
the Nunez class action "an important step to ensure the safety and
constitutional rights of young people incarcerated at Rikers
Island."

"We've seen alarming evidence of unnecessary and excessive use of
force against juveniles, as well as a systemic failure to protect
them from violence and deeply troubling -- and potentially
scarring -- use of solitary confinement," Holder said.  "This
action allows the Justice Department to seek necessary reforms to
remedy these unlawful conditions, to ensure fair treatment, and to
provide all incarcerated young people with the protections, and
opportunities to build better futures, that they deserve."

The four months of negotiation between the U.S. Attorney's office
and New York City has been rocky, at times.

In September, The New York Times reported that de Blasio's new
Department of Corrections Commissioner Joseph Ponte promoted ex-
Rikers warden William Clemons and his then-deputy Turhan
Gumesdere, who were found in an internal document to have
"abdicated all responsibility" in reporting statistics of fights
involving teens at the prison.

On December 18, Bharara said that he did not want to
"overdramatize" his relationship with the department he just sued.

"Just because they're on the other side of the 'v.' doesn't mean
they have to be scorched-earth adversaries," he said.

The city has consented to the federal intervention in the Nunez
case, but that does not mean the parties are on the same page, a
4-page motion to intervene indicates.

"Over the past four and a half months, the United States and the
city of New York have discussed these matters, including most
recently together with the plaintiffs in the Nunez action, but
have been unable to reach agreement as to lasting, verifiable, and
enforceable reforms to remedy the unconstitutional conditions set
forth in the United States' findings letter," the motion states.

Without explicitly stating his office's goal, Bharara intimated
that "outside, independent oversight" would be necessary.

De Blasio's office and the attorney for Nunez did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.


NEWEGG.COM AMERICAS: Accused of Inflating Value of Discounts
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
online retailer Newegg inflates the value of its discounts by
listing products at their peak value and displaying prices that
are a "work of fiction," according to a class action lawsuit.

M. George Hansen of San Diego sued Nreegg.com Americas in Superior
Court on Dec. 12, alleging consumer law violations and unfair and
fraudulent business practices.

Newegg is best known for selling laptops, computer parts and other
electronics.

Hansen claims Newegg's Web site includes deceptive price lists.

"(T)hese advertised 'discounts' are completely illusory or grossly
overstated," the lawsuit states.

Hansen claims Newegg "cherry-picks" prices, and that its prices
are no better than its competitors'.  He claims that consumers may
end up receiving no discount at all, or paying a higher price than
if they shopped at a traditional retail store.

The "'list' price is the highest price the product has ever been
listed for, regardless of when that price was advertised, or is a
simply a work of fiction.  Simply stated, defendant cherry-picks
the highest price it can find or the item and uses it to create a
significant price discrepancy and the impression of considerable
savings for its customers," the complaint states.

Hansen seeks restitution, refunds, costs and an injunction.

Newegg did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINK, LLP
          501 W Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com


NHA TRANG: Recalls Beef Balls Due to Listeria Monocytogenes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Nha Trang Deli Inc.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9476

The food recall warning issued on Nov. 13, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This information was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

Nha Trang Deli Inc. is recalling Beef Balls from the marketplace
due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.  Consumers
should not consume the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results.  The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


NRL FEDERAL: Removes "Chambers" Suit to Maryland District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Chambers v. NRL Federal Credit
Union, Case No. CAL14-29258, was removed from the Circuit Court
for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-03999-DKC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen Hyland, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & SANTONI, LLP
          401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 938-8666
          Facsimile: (410) 938-8668
          E-mail: kat@williams-santonilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kristin Anne Martin Zech, Esq.
          BRIGLIAHUNDLEY, PC
          1921 Gallows Road, Suite 750
          Tysons Corner, VA 22182
          Telephone: (703) 883-0880
          Facsimile: (170) 993-0899
          E-mail: kzech@brigliahundley.com


OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Fla. Court Denies Bid to Junk "Shamblin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Shamblin initiated filed a putative class action against
Defendant Obama for America on September 19, 2013, for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which makes
it illegal to call any telephone number assigned to a cellular
telephone service using an automatic-telephone-dialing system or
an artificial or pre-recorded voice.  Defendant New Partner
Consulting, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied New
Partner's motion, after finding that New Partners' Second Offer of
Judgment failed to provide "maximum allowable relief" to Shamblin
and therefore did not moot Shamblin's claim and deprive the Court
of subject matter jurisdiction.

The case is LORI SHAMBLIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OBAMA FOR AMERICA, DNC
SERVICES CORPORATION, and NEW PARTNERS CONSULTING, INC.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 8:13-CV-2428-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Covington's Order dated Nov. 26, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/enjw6jfrom Leagle.com.

Lori Shamblin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Quiat, Andrew
L. Quiat, P.C., Jack D. McInnes, Esq. -- mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com -
- at Paul McInnes LLP, Jeffrey M. Paskert, Esq. --
jpaskert@mpdlegal.com -- at Mills Paskert Divers, PA, Joseph J.
Mellon, The Mellon Law Firm, Mary F. Mellon, The Mellon Law Firm &
Richard M. Paul, III, Esq. -- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes
LLP.

Obama for America, Defendant, represented by Debra R. Bernard,
Esq. -- DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Elisabeth
C. Frost, Esq. -- EFrost@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP,
Graham M Wilson, Esq. -- GWilson@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie,
LLP, Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero, PL, Marc Erik Elias,
Esq. -- MElias@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP & Rachel E.
Fugate, Thomas & LoCicero, PL.

DNC Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elisabeth C.
Frost, Perkins Coie, LLP, Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero,
PL & Marc Erik Elias, Perkins Coie, LLP.

New Partners Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles
James McHale, Jr., Esq. -- cmchale@gsgfirm.com -- Golden Scaz
Gagain, PLLC, Dale Thomas Golden, Esq. -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com --
at Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC & Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas &
LoCicero, PL.

Peter Grilli, Mediator, represented by Peter John Grilli, Peter J.
Grilli, PA.


PHILLIPS & COHENS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chaim Eluzer Stiel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Phillips & Cohens Associates, Ltd., Case No.
1:14-cv-07480 (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 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


PK TRADING: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products Due to Mustard
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           PK Trading Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario, Possibly National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9458

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 24, 2014, has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling Ottogi curry products from the marketplace
because they contain mustard which is not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to mustard should not consume the recalled
products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by CFIA inspection activities.  The CFIA
is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff, Atty Named in "Farrah" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville, in a memorandum and
order dated Nov. 26, 2014, appointed Fawwaz Hamati as lead
plaintiff in the class action styled CARY FARRAH, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. PROVECTUS BIOPHARMECEUTICALS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-338-PLR-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), and the
attorneys of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, as lead counsel, with
Attorney Keith Stewart, of Stewart Dupree, PA, serving as liaison
counsel.  A full-text copy of Magistrate Guyton's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/KnyGhefrom Leagle.com.

Cary Farrah, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred G Yates, Jr., Esq.
-- yateslaw@aol.com -- at Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr.,
P.C., Christopher Martin Wood, Esq. -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S Myers, Esq. --
danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J
Robbins, Esq. -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, David C Walton, Esq. -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, George E Barrett, Esq. --
gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett, Johnston, Martin &
Garrison, LLC, Jerry E Martin, Esq. -- jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
-- Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy L Miles,
Esq. -- tmiles@barrettjohnston.com -- at Barrett, Johnston, Martin
& Garrison, LLC.

James H. Harrison, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Alfred G Yates,
Jr., Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr., P.C., Christopher Martin
Wood, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S Myers, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, David C Walton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
George E Barrett, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jerry
E Martin, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy L
Miles, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC.

Karla Hurtado, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin I Sachs-
Michaels, Esq. -- bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com -- at Harwood Feffer
LLP, Matthew M Houston, Esq. -- mhouston@hfesq.com -- at Harwood
Feffer LLP & Robert I. Harwood, Esq. -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- at
Harwood Feffer LLP.

Paul Jason Chaney, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Frank J
Johnson, Esq. -- frankj@johnsonandweaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver,
LLP, George E Barrett, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC,
Michael I Fistel, Jr, Esq., Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC & Timothy
L Miles, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC.

Jayson Dauphinee, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Paul K
Bramlett, Bramlett Law Office & Robert Preston Bramlett, Bramlett
Law Office.

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
S Hicks, Esq. -- jhicks@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson,
Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & Scott N Sherman, Esq. --
ssherman@bakerdonelson.com -- at Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.

H. Craig Dees, Defendant, represented by John S Hicks, Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & Scott N Sherman, Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.

Timothy C. Scott, Defendant, represented by John S Hicks, Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & Scott N Sherman, Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.

Peter R. Culpepper, Defendant, represented by John S Hicks, Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & Scott N Sherman, Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.

Fawwaz Hamati, Movant, represented by Kara M Wolke, Esq. --
kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Keith D
Stewart, Stewart Dupree, PA, Leanne Elise Heine, Esq. --
lheine@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Peter A
Binkow, Esq. -- pbinkow@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg, LLP & Robert V Prongay, Esq., Glancy Binkow & Goldberg,
LLP.

Trilokie Khemai, Movant, represented by J. Gerard Stranch, IV,
Esq. -- gerards@BSJFirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings,
PLLC, Megan M Sullivan, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Nadeem Faruqi,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Richard William Gonnello, Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP.

James Vig Sherrill, Movant, represented by Cary L Bauer, Esq. --
clbauer@sidgilreath.com -- at Gilreath & Associates, PC, Matthew B
Long, Esq. -- mlong@sidgilreath.com -- at Gilreath & Associates,
PC & Sidney W Gilreath, Esq. -- gilknox@sidgilreath.com -- at
Gilreath & Associates, PC.

Irfan Aras, Movant, represented by George E Barrett, Barrett,
Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy L Miles, Barrett,
Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC.

Theodore Blatt, Movant, represented by George E Barrett, Barrett,
Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy L Miles, Barrett,
Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC.

The Provectus Investment Group, Movant, represented by Paul K
Bramlett, Bramlett Law Office.

Amir G. Kamel, Movant, represented by Chris T Cain, Scott & Cain.


QUALITY FOODS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss ADA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell of the Western District of
Pennsylvania denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
SARAH HEINZL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY FOODS CORPORATION, d/b/a KUHN'S
MARKET, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-1010 (W.D. Pa.)

Plaintiff Sarah Heinzl has a mobility disability causing her to be
dependent upon a wheelchair for mobility. She has visited
defendant Quality Foods Corporation, d/b/a Kuhn's Market property
many times. During these visits, she has experienced unnecessary
difficulty and risk.

Plaintiff brings the action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated against defendant, alleging violations
of Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 12181 to 12189 (ADA). Specifically, she alleges that the
facilities at Kuhn's 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 and along the
route to the building entrance.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Amended Complaint.
Defendant argues that: 1) Plaintiff lacks standing under the
intent to return theory because she has alleged proximity only as
to one Kuhn's but no reliable history of patronage or frequency
and she has alleged only a cursory statement of intent to return;
2) she lacks standing under a deterrent effect theory because the
scant facts put into doubt that she would ever go to the several
Kuhn's properties or to "all Defendants' facilities" but for the
alleged barriers; 3) she has either sued the wrong party or failed
to join an indispensable party, because Kuhn's does not own the
parking lot with the alleged violations, but is only one of many
tenants at this shopping plaza; 4) the property owner has agreed
to make changes that its architect has proposed and thus this case
should be stayed as the work will render the case moot; and 5)
Kuhn's never received notice of any violations prior to Plaintiff
bringing suit and although advance notice is not required under
the ADA, it would have led to voluntary compliance and thus
Plaintiff's counsel should be denied any request for attorney's
fees for bringing this unnecessary action.

Judge Mitchell denied defendant's motion to dismiss or stay the
Amended Complaint.  The defendant was required to file an Answer
to the Amended Complaint by December 1, 2014. The issue on
attorney's fees is not ripe for decision and the court need not
discuss it further.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Mitchell's Memorandum Opinion and
Order, dated Nov. 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/ajjzlU
from Leagle.com.

Sarah Heinzl, Plaintiff, 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

Quality Foods Corporation, Defendant, represented by:

     Jon Hogue, Esq.
     Michelle D. Smith, Esq.
     MURRAY, HOGUE & LANNIS
     3400 Gulf Tower
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Telephone: 412-263-5650
     Facsimile: 412-263-5660
     Email: jhogue@mhandl.com
            msmith@mhandl.com


RICK'S CABARET: Cannot Appeal $10.8MM Judgment in Suit by Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Rick's
Cabaret cannot appeal a November 2014 ruling slapping it with a
$10.8 million judgment for labor violations, a federal judge
ruled, possibly giving the women who sued the club a leg on claims
that go to trial on April 27.

Sabrina Hart and Reka Furedi have been fighting the Midtown
Manhattan strip club on behalf of nearly 2,300 current and former
dancers since 2009.

On Nov. 14, their lawsuit hit pay dirt for the first time, as U.S.
District Judge Paul Engelmayer awarded their class millions on
three of the charges of the lawsuit.  The ruling resolved minimum
wage violations, unlawfully retained tips, and improper fees under
state law.

Rick's sought an interlocutory appeal of some of the legal
conclusions that led to that damages amount.

The women's lawyer, Anna Prakash, of the Minneapolis-based firm
Nichols Kaster PLLP, said in a phone interview that the club still
faces up to roughly $20 million more in penalties from a jury for
tip-out damages and wages.

Rick's could stack up even more liabilities if the jury finds its
alleged violations willful, which would send the case back to
Engelmayer to calculate further damages, Prakash said.

With trial looming, Rick's Cabaret wanted to tilt the law in its
favor by seeking to decertify the class challenging its mandatory
"tip-out" fees of $60 a day, and a finding that it could use this
amount to offset its liabilities from the lawsuit.

In a 21-page opinion on December 17, Engelmayer rejected these
bids and declined to grant an interlocutory appeal.

Prakash celebrated her clients' ongoing "winning streak" in a
statement.

"The court's decision is an important victory for the plaintiffs
in this case, as well as for all victims of unlawful practices who
might not be willing to pursue claims individually or might
believe they do not have enough proof," Prakash said.  "The
decision affirms that the class action mechanism is alive and
well, that those who have been hurt by unlawful actions can pursue
damages as a group, and that employees should not be punished as a
result of their employer's failure to keep records but, rather,
should be allowed to prove their damages based on their
recollections and common proof."

Rick's lawyers did not respond to a request for comment by press
time.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anna Prakash, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Toll-Free: (877) 448-0492
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: aprakash@nka.com

The case is Sabrina Hart and Reka Furedi, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and the New York Rule 23 Class
v. Rick's Cabaret International, Inc., RCI Entertainment (New
York), Inc., and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:09-cv-
03043-PAE-RLE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

               Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids

In November, Judge Engelmayer granted, in part, plaintiffs'
motions for summary judgment (or partial summary judgment) to the
extent of $10,866,035 in damages.  Judge Engelmayer resolved
cross-motions filed by the parties in the case, SABRINA HART and
REKA FUREDI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and the New York Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs, v. RICK'S
CABARET INTERNATIONAL, INC., RCI ENTERTAINMENT (NEW YORK), INC.,
and PEREGIRNE ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 09 CIV 3043
(S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs are exotic dancers of Rick's Cabaret New York, who have
made claims against the latter for: (1) failure to pay minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA ("Claim One");
(2) failure to pay minimum wages under the New York Labor Law or
NYLL ("Claim Two"); (3) unlawful requesting and receiving portions
of wages under NYLL Section 198-b ("Claim Three"); (4) unlawful
retention of gratuities under NYLL Section 196-d ("Claim Four");
and (5) unlawful deductions from wages under NYLL Section
193(3)(a) ("Claim Five").

On September 10, 2013, the Court held that plaintiffs were
employees of Rick's NY, that they were therefore entitled to be
paid a minimum wage under the FLSA and the NYLL, and that the
Club's duty under the FLSA to pay such a wage was not discharged
by the payment to the dancers, by customers, of "performance fees"
for dances.

On November 18, 2013, the Court: (1) denied defendants' motion for
reconsideration of the Court's holding that, even after February
28, 2010, plaintiffs were employees of Rick's NY; (2) denied
defendants' motion to set the class period end-date as February
28, 2010, or alternatively as December 20, 2010; the Court instead
set the class period end-date as October 31, 2012; and (3) granted
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Claim Five, holding
that the Club's fines, fees, and tip-out requirements violated
NYLL Section 193.

These decisions established that Peregrine is liable to plaintiffs
on Claims One, Two, and Five.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment asking the
court to resolve:

     (1) Whether performance fees paid by customers to the dancers
offset wages under the NYLL, and therefore reduce damages in claim
two.

     (2) Whether Peregrine is liable on Claim Four for retaining
gratuities in violation of NYLL section 196-d, specifically, the
$2 that defendants systematically retained, without disclosure to
customers, of each $24 "Dance Dollar" purchased by customers by
means of a credit card.

     (3) Defendants' move to strike the expert reports and
testimony on plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. David Crawford.

     (4) Defendants' move to decertify the Rule 23(b)(3) class,
which was initially certified by Judge Koeltl.

     (5) Plaintiffs' move for partial summary judgment against
Peregrine as to damages on claims one (FLSA minimum wage) and two
(NYLL minimum wage), damages on claims four (NYLL unlawful
retention of gratuities) and on count five (NYLL unlawfull fines
and fees).

In an opinion and order dated November 14, 2014, available at
http://is.gd/TXQHcDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Engelmayer also held
that: (1) performance fees do not "offset" wages under the NYLL;
and (2) Peregrine is liable on Claim Four for retaining gratuities
in violation of NYLL section 196-d. The Court also denies
defendants' motions to strike Dr. Crawford as an expert witness
and to decertify the class.

Sabrina Hart, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the Proposed New York Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff, are
represented by Eleanor Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Anna
Purna Prakash, Nichols Kasters, L.L.P., Eleanor Michelle Drake,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Michele Renee Fisher, Nichols Kaster, PLLP,
Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Rebekah Lynn Bailey, Nichols
Kaster, PLLP & Steven Andrew Smith, Nichols Kaster, PLLP

Reka Furedi, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the Proposed New York Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff, are also
represented by Eleanor Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Anna
Purna Prakash, Nichols Kasters, L.L.P., Rebekah Lynn Bailey,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Michele Renee Fisher, Nichols Kaster,
PLLP,Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Steven Andrew Smith,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP

RCI Entertainment (New York) Inc., Defendant, represented by
Howard Scott Davis, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, Jeffrey A. Kimmel,
Meister Seelig & Fein LLP & Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister
Seelig & Fein LLP

Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard
Scott Davis, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP,Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Meister
Seelig & Fein LLP & Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister Seelig &
Fein LLP

Rick's Cabaret International Inc., Defendant, represented by
Howard Scott Davis, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP & Racquel Crespi
Weintraub, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP

Jane Does 1-5, Intervenor, represented by John H. Weston, Weston,
Garrou & DeWitt


SANDERSON FARMS: 11th Circuit Affirmed Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a
class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "two of our former employees filed a complaint
on February 16, 2012, alleging violations of the federal and State
of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Acts against us and seven of our current and former
employees in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia. The plaintiffs contend in their complaint
that the Company conspired to knowingly hire undocumented
immigrants at the Moultrie plant to "save Sanderson millions of
dollars in labor costs because illegal aliens will work for
extremely low wages". The action was brought as a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all legally authorized hourly employees who
worked at the Moultrie plant in the four years before the filing
of the case. The plaintiffs sued for money damages, injunctive
relief and revocation of our license to conduct business in the
State of Georgia."

"On September 13, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting a
motion to dismiss the Complaint. After an Amended Complaint was
filed by the plaintiffs on October 5, 2012, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 29, 2012. On
February 5, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and entered an Order dismissing the Amended Complaint with
prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on February 8,
2013. On March 7, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit."


SONY PICTURES: Hacks Exposed Workers to ID Theft, Class Suits Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The well-publicized hacks of Sony Pictures Entertainment exposed
as many as 47,000 current and former employees to ID theft,
according to two class actions in Los Angeles, reports Mike Heuer
at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiffs Michael Corona and Christina Mathis sued Sony on
December 15 in Federal Court.

Susan Dukow and Yvonne Yaconelli filed a similar class action on
December 16, in Superior Court.

Citations in this article come from the federal complaint.

The hacks by the so-called "Guardians of Peace" made worldwide
news when catty messages from and about Hollywood bigwigs were
made public.

Speculation has abounded, but no proof, that the hacks were a
response to Sony's forthcoming movie "The Interview," a comedy
based on an assassination plot against North Korean dictator Kim
Jong Un.

Kim, a movie buff, called the movie "an act of war."

On December 16, a person or people claiming affiliation with the
hacking group posted Internet messages that appear to threaten
acts of terrorism when the movie opens.

The class actions filed in the third week of December, however, do
not involve film stars, terrorism or movie moguls. They come from
regular folks who work or worked for Sony.

Corona accuses Sony of negligence, medical confidentiality
violations, and failing to provide immediate notification of the
data breach of personal information.

Corona describes the breach as "an epic nightmare, much better
suited to a cinematic thriller than to real life."

He claims the hackers obtained the Social Security numbers of
47,000 Sony employees and other sensitive information that now
could be used by criminals.

Corona claims the hackers obtained "current and former employee
names, home addresses, telephone numbers, birth dates, Social
Security numbers, email addresses, salaries and bonus plans,
health care records, performance evaluations, scans of passports
and visas, reasons for termination, details of severance packages
and other sensitive employment and personal information."

He claims there were two "inexcusable problems" that caused the
problem: Sony officials didn't correct known weaknesses in the
company's security systems that protect its databases and did not
"timely protect" database information.  He says Sony made a
"'business decision to accept the risk.'"

It's not the first data breach for Sony, which suffered a "major
breach" of its PlayStation video game network in April 2011, and
other "repeated data breaches," Corona claims.

Corona worked for Sony Pictures Entertainment from 2004 to 2007
and says the hackers obtained his "full name, Social Security
number, birthdate, former address, salary history, and reason for
resigning."

Mathis says she worked for Sony Pictures Consumer Products from
2000 to 2002 and that the hackers obtained her Social Security
number and former address.  She says Sony still has not contacted
her about the data breach aside from sending a "form letter
response" to an email inquiry she made about the data breach.

The so-called Guardians of Peace seized control of Sony
Entertainment's network on Nov. 24.  It posted images and
information on actors, filmmakers and current and former
employees, including images of passports and visas, Social
Security numbers, performance evaluations, salaries and bonus
plans, reasons for leaving the company and information on
severance packages.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, actual and statutory damages
for negligence and medical privacy violation, restitution,
disgorgement and an injunction.

The Plaintiffs in the Superior Court seek similar damages, and
also allege violation of privacy.

The Federal Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Khesraw Karmand, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com

The Plaintiffs in the Superior Court are represented by:

          Douglas Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & JOHNSON, LLP
          439 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080
          Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
          E-mail: djohnson@jjllplaw.com


STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Print Fleece Top
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 21, 2014
Posting date:             November 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42575

Affected products: McGordon Boys Print Fleece Top with hood
drawstring, style number# KLB-1555

McGordon's Boy's Printed Fleece Top with zip and hood, style KLB-
1555.  The drawstring is found around the hood of the garment.

Health Canada's evaluation program has determined that drawstrings
on children's upper outerwear can become caught on playground
equipment, fences or other objects and result in strangulation, or
in the case of a vehicle, the child being dragged.

Neither Stocklots Distribution nor Health Canada has received
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of these products.

Approximately 360 Boy's fleece hooded sweatshirt with hood
drawstring were sold.

The recalled products were manufactured in Philippines and sold
from June 23, 2014 to August 25, 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Stocklots Distribution/ 4283147 Canada Inc.
                   Montreal
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hood
to eliminate the hazard.


SURREY SUPER MARKET: Recalls Maggi Healthy Soups - Mixed Veggies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Surrey Super Market Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9361

Affected products: 44 g. Maggi Healthy Soups - Mixed Vegetable


SYNGENTA CORP: "Trans Coastal" Suit Included in MIR162 Corn MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Trans Coastal Supply Company
Inc. v. Syngenta AG, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02221, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Kansas City).  The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02637-JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.


SYNGENTA CORP: "Volnek" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Volnek Farms, Inc. v. Syngenta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00305, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02641-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          J. Brett Milbourn, Esq.
          WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
          2500 City Center Square
          1100 Main Street
          P.O. Box 26188
          Kansas City, MO 64196
          Telephone: (816) 421-6620
          Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
          E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com
                  bmilbourn@wbsvlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles T. Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON & PRAHL, LLP
          25043 Little Water Ln.
          P.O. Box 767
          Custer, SD 57730
          Telephone: (605) 673-5223
          E-mail: tpatterson@patterprahl.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Mindy B. Pava, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          1700 K St. N.W. Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
                  mpava@hausfeldllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John P. Passarelli, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          The Omaha Building
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: john.passarelli@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          James M. Sulentic, Esq.
          KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: James.Sulentic@KutakRock.com


SYSTEMAX INC: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc., Richard Leeds, Chairman and CEO
(and in his individual capacity) and Lawrence P. Reinhold,
Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer (and in his
individual capacity), Case No. 2:14-cv-07509 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 24,
2014) challenges the Defendants' alleged acts of discrimination
and retaliation against the Plaintiff in violation of the Equal
Pay Act of 1963 and New York State Labor Law.

Systemax, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Port
Washington, New York.  Systemax is a business that retails and
private labels certain consumer electronics and industrial
products.  Richard Leeds, a resident of Florida, is the Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of Systemax.  Lawrence Reinhold, a
resident of Jericho, New York, is the Executive Vice-President and
Chief Financial Officer of Systemax.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
          Sumantra Tito Sinha, Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
          E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com
                  tsinha@vkvlawyers.com


SYSTEMS INTEGRATION: Foreign Consultant Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
High-tech staffing firm Systems Integration Solutions -- which
supplies foreign consultants to high-profile clients like Apple --
stiffs its workers for wages and breaks, a class action filed
December 17 in Alameda County court claims, reports William
Dotinga at Courthouse News Service.

Chao Xu represents a class of foreign consultants and is suing SIS
and Apple for a litany of labor code violations, including unpaid
overtime, minimum wage, failure to pay wages owed, meal and rest
breaks and inaccurate wage statements, as well as unfair business
practices and competition.

Xu says he worked for SIS for about seven months in 2013. The
company assigned him to work for Apple as a software engineer and
consultant, for $100 per hour.

According to the complaint, Xu and other foreign workers like him
are employed by SIS and furnished to tech companies -- like Apple
-- on a temporary basis. But while SIS charges Apple for its
staffing services and then pays the workers, the company only pays
for hours approved by their clients, Xu says in the complaint.

The workers regularly worked more than the number of approved
hours -- often more than eight hours a day and 40 hours a week --
but received nothing beyond what Apple approved in advance, Xu's
complaint states.

"SIS monitors closely the performance of plaintiff and other class
members and knows, or should know, how many hours plaintiff and
other class members are regularly working during the class
period," the complaint states.

Similarly, "Apple knows, or should know, how many hours plaintiff
and other subclass members are regularly working during the class
period because subclass members perform work for Apple in Apple's
offices, log on to Apple's computer systems in order to perform
work, and receive work instructions and directions from Apple
personnel," Xu says in the complaint.

Apple and SIS also regularly scheduled the consultants to work
without the required meal and rest breaks -- even in cases where
the engineers worked over 10 hours a day, according to the
complaint.

And SIS issued wage statements that did not contain the total
number of hours the consultants worked, gross and net wages earned
or accurate hourly rates of pay, Xu says.

In addition to class certification, Xu seeks compensatory and
liquidated damages, civil penalties and restitution from SIS and
Apple.  He also wants the court to permanently bar the companies
from violating labor code and unfair competition laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Chao, Esq.
          CHAO LEGAL
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 3860
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 738-5352
          Facsimile: (415) 233-4859
          E-mail: kathy@chaolegal.com

               - and -

          Kyann Kalin, Esq.
          STUTHEIT KALIN LLC
          308 SW First Avenue, Suite 325
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (971) 285-7578
          Facsimile: (503) 715-5670
          E-mail: kyann@stutheitkalin.com

               - and -

          Donald W. Heyrich, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          600 Steward Street, Suite 901
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 826-5357
          Facsimile: (206) 260-3055
          E-mail: dheyrich@hkm.com

The case is Chao Xu, on behalf of himself, all others similarly-
situated, the general public, and the people of the State of
California v. Systems Integration Solutions, Inc., a California
Corporation; Apple Inc., a California Corporation; and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. RG14751629, in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Alameda.


TEREX: Recalls AL5 LIGHT Tower Model
------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Equipment
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           50
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014531
TC ID number:             2014531
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SN 140016

On certain light towers, the lower section of the fuel tank was
built with insufficient structural support.  This could result in
deformation of the fuel tank when filled with fuel, which could
cause the fuel tank to make contact with the trailer axle.  An
impact between the fuel tank and trailer axle could result in a
hole, and fuel could leak.  Fuel leakage, in the presence of an
ignition source, could result in a fire causing injury and/or
damage to property.

Dealers and/or owners will inspect and add structural support for
the lower section of the fuel tank and if necessary, replace the
fuel tank.

Affected products: 2014 Terex AL5 Light Tower


TEXAS: Appeals Court Affirms Order Denying Cert. of "Riemer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, in Amarillo, by a
2011 opinion, expressed disagreement with a trial court's
conclusion that the record in the proposed class action relating
to a dispute with the class plaintiffs and the State of Texas over
the boundary between the State-owned riverbed of the Canadian
River and the plaintiffs' riparian surface and mineral interests
along a 12-mile stretch of the river in Hutchison County, showed
some proposed class representatives lacked standing to assert a
takings claim, but agreed with the trial court's finding that the
proposed representatives could not adequately protect the
interests of the class.  The Court of Appeals, in the 2011
opinion, affirmed the trial court's order.  The Supreme Court of
Texas reversed the adequacy-of-representation determination and
remanded the case for review of the other contested requirements
for class certification.

In an opinion dated Nov. 26, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court's order denying certification after finding that
the trial court abused its discretion in its finding the
requirements of typicality under rule 42(a) of the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure were not met, but properly found that the proposed
class met the requirements of neither rule 42(b)(1)(A) nor rule
42(b)(3), and thus affirmed the trial court's order denying
certification of the proposed class.

The case is JIMMY GLEN RIEMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HUGO A. RIEMER, JR., DECEASED, RICHARD
COON, JR., JUNE MEETZ COON TRUST, JOHNSON BORGER RANCH
PARTNERHSIP, AND MONTFORD T. JOHNSON, III ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
AND JERRY PATTERSON, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellees, NO. 07-10-00037-CV (Tex. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/xOvOAA
from Leagle.com.


THAI INDOCHINE: Recalls Vinacafe and Vinacafe BH Wake-Up Coffee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Thai Indochine Trading Inc.
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Ontario, Possibly
                          National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9451

Thai Indochine Trading Inc. is recalling Vinacafe and Vinacafe BH
Wake-Up brands coffee products from the marketplace because they
contain milk which is not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


TRACY'S TREASURES: Court Clarifies Insurer's Duties in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Mary Anne Mason of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
District, Third Division, reversed a district court ruling and
remanded the dispute involving Central Mutual Insurance Company
and Tracy's Treasures, Inc.

The appellate case is entitled CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. TRACY'S TREASURES,
INC., and PAUL IDLAS, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees,
No 1-12-3339 (Ill. App. Ct.).

Tracy's Treasures engaged in the business of selling dating and
social relationship services, which it publicized, at least in
part, by facsimile advertisements.  Tracy's is insured under a
number of primary and excess commercial liability policies issued
by Central Mutual Insurance Company.  Central insured Tracy's
under a series of business owner primary liability insurance
policies, cumulatively effective from May 5, 1997, until May 5,
2005, and a series of commercial excess liability insurance
policies, cumulatively effective from January 29, 2002, until
January 29, 2005. The face value of all of Central's policies of
insurance in effect during the relevant time period is $14
million.

Paul Idlas filed a three-count class action complaint against
Tracy's for unsolicited fax advertisements that allegedly violated
the TCPA, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and Illinois common law. Idlas alleged that between
March 5, 2003 and March 5, 2007, Tracy's sent unsolicited
facsimile messages advertising Tracy's dating services without
prior express permission from the recipients.

Tracy's tendered Idlas' claims to Central pursuant to the
insurance contracts. Central disclaimed coverage for the claims
asserted in Idlas on several grounds, including that (i) in 2005
the parties had agreed to a "buyout" of the coverage for personal
and advertising injury, (ii) no "occurrence" giving rise to
"property damage" was alleged in Idlas, (iii) any injury caused by
the faxes sent by Tracy's was expected or intended by Tracy's, and
(iv) Tracy's knew that its conduct in sending the faxes was
prohibited.

Despite Central's denial of coverage, it advised Tracy's that it
will assign a lawyer to provide Tracy's a courtesy defense, one of
which is Gregory Ellis who in the later part was retained by
Tracy's in light of Central's position that Idlas claims were not
covered under its polices.

On January 25, 2008, six weeks after he wrote to Central, Ellis,
on behalf of Tracy's, and counsel for Idlas filed with the Lake
County circuit court a motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement providing for entry of a $14 million judgment
against Tracy's, which was enforceable only against Central's
policies. No notice of the motion was provided to Central. On
February 5, 2008, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.

Central moved for summary judgment arguing that the $14 million
settlement reached between Idlas and Tracy's was collusive and
unreasonable as a matter of law under the standards articulated by
the supreme court in Guillen v. Potomac Insurance Co. of Illinois,
203 Ill.2d 141 (2003). The trial court denied this motion, finding
that these claims raised several disputed issues of fact. Central
argues this ruling was erroneous.

Central also sought summary judgment on the basis that the
insurance contracts no longer contained any provision for coverage
for either "advertising injury" or "personal and advertising
injury." The trial court, denied Central's motion, finding that
that since Idlas's rights vested on July 22, 2003, when Idlas
received his fax, "Tracy's and Central could not agree to divest
Idlas in a secret agreement concluded in November of 2005."
Central likewise challenges this ruling. However the trial court
determined, in accordance with the decision in Standard Mutual
Insurance Co. v. Lay, 2012 IL App (4th) 110527, that amounts
awarded to claimants under the TCPA are punitive in nature and
therefore not insurable.

Tracy's and Idlas, the plaintiff in the underlying class action,
appeal from an order of the trial court granting Central's motion
for summary judgment.  Central cross-appealed the denial of its
motions for summary judgment.

After the filing of the appeal, the state Supreme Court reversed
Lay and held that damages awarded for TCPA claims are liquidated
rather than punitive and, thus, are not uninsurable as a matter of
public policy, Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay, 2013 IL
114617.

Accordingly, Justice Mason held that due to an intervening change
in the law that formed the basis of the trial court's ruling in
favor of plaintiff and cross-appellant, Central, the court must
reverse.  The court affirmed the other rulings appealed by Central
and remanded for further proceedings.

A copy of Justice Mason's opinion dated November 5, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/1RTO77from Leagle.com.

The panel consists of Presiding Justice Aurelia Pucinski and
Justices Mary Anne Mason and P. Scott Neville.


TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Mayacamas Hollandaise Sauce Mix
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Tree of Life Canada
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9468

Affected products: Mayacamas Hollandaise Sauce Mix with all codes
where milk is not declared on the label


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Ex-Student Wants $1.3MM in Counsel Fees & Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
dissatisfied former student of Donald Trump's for-profit business
school says she deserves more than $1.3 million in attorney's fees
and court costs after four years of litigation and being forced to
defend against a "million-dollar counterclaim."

Tarla Makaeff lodged a class action alleging deceptive business
practices against the for-profit Trump University in 2010.  She
claimed that school -- now called The Trump Entrepreneur
Initiative -- took her for nearly $60,000 and failed to follow up
on promises it made during expensive seminars that Makaeff said
were little more than "infomercials."

Trump University shot back with a counterclaim for defamation
based on Makaeff's online postings and other comments, which
Makaeff said were intended to "alert other consumers of my
opinions and experience with Trump University" and to "inform
other consumers of my opinion that Trump University did not
deliver what it promised."

Makaeff moved to strike the counterclaim under California's anti-
SLAPP law, but U.S. District Judge Irma Gonzalez in San Diego
denied the motion.  A three-judge federal appeals panel reversed
Gonzalez in 2013, and the full court declined to revisit the
decision months later.

After the district court granted the Makaeff's motion to strike
the counterclaim this past June, Makaeff and her legal team
requested attorney's fees and costs totalling just over $1.3
million.  Makaeff's lawyers claimed to have spent 2,226 hours on
the four-year case, a figure Trump's lawyers vehemently opposed in
their answer.

"Makaeff has filed a two-inch thick stack of papers that spends
considerable time demonizing Trump University, arguing that
wealthy parties to litigation are not entitled to a defense, and
extolling the expertise of various attorneys for Makaeff to
justify premium hourly rates notwithstanding the rate surveys
included in their pleadings do not support the high rate," Trump's
attorneys told the court.

Trump's lawyers suggested awarding no more than $147,675 in fees
and to "deny all costs."

Late in November, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said that the
2,226 hours Makaeff had claimed to have spent on the anti-SLAPP
litigation "seems to be very high."  He also noted that that
Makaeff's "vague statements" about the amount of time spent on the
case needed more detail, and called for supplemental briefing on
the issue.

Makaeff defended the previous request while providing a more
detailed breakdown of how the case was litigated in briefs filed
in the third week of December.

"Trump did not hesitate to pull the trigger on his million-dollar
counterclaim against student-victim Tarla Makaeff, but now that it
has backfired, Trump complains Makaeff's counsel responded with
too much fire power," attorney Rachel Jensen, of the firm Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, wrote.

"Given the near certainty that a loss would have bankrupted
Makaeff, and the importance to consumers nationwide (in this case
and others) that class representatives are not bullied into
dropping class actions, class counsel had to give it their all,"
Jensen added.  [Parentheses in original.]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason A. Forge, Esq.
          Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jforge@rgrdlaw.com
                  rjensen@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Pfefferbaum
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Maureen E. Mueller, Esq.
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: mmueller@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Amber L. Eck, Esq.
          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
          ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          625 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
          E-mail: ambere@zhlaw.com
                  helenz@zhlaw.com
                  alreenh@zhlaw.com
                  aarono@zhlaw.com

The case is Tarla Makaeff, et al. v. Trump University, LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:10-cv-0940-GPC (WVG), in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.


UNCLE T FOOD: Recalls Crisp Rolls and Crackers
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Uncle T Food Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail


UNIVERSAL IMPEX: Recalls Curry Powder
-------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Universal Impex Corp.
Distribution:             Alberta, Ontario, Possibly National,
                          Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9478

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 31, 2014 has been updated
to include additional products.  This additional information was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

Universal Impex Corp. is recalling Cool Runnings brand Curry
Powder and Jamaican Style Curry Powder from the marketplace
because they may contain peanut and almond which are not declared
on the label.  People with an allergy to peanut or almond should
not consume the recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to peanut or almond do not consume the
recalled products as it may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the CFIA inspection activities.  The
CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to
the recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.


VERKA FOOD: Recalls Peanut Brittle Due to Undeclared Sesame Seeds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Verka Food International Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:   9466


VIRGINIA: FCCW Inmates Obtain Partial Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Scott and several other prisoners residing at Fluvanna
Correctional Center for Women, a facility of the Commonwealth of
Virginia Department of Corrections, filed an action alleging that
defendants Harold W. Clarke, et al., violated the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment.  The Plaintiffs assert that FCCW
fails to provide adequate medical care and that the Defendants are
deliberately indifferent to this failure.  The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment.

In a memorandum opinion dated Nov. 25, 2014, Judge Norman K. Moon
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia,
Charlottsville Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion seeking
partial summary judgment on two key elements of their complaint --
that is, that the Defendants bear a non-delegable "constitutional
duty to provide adequate medical treatment to" Plaintiffs, and
that the specific health problems and conditions of which the
named Plaintiffs complain constitute "serious medical needs,"
"deliberate indifference to" which is "proscribed by the Eighth
Amendment."  Judge Moon stated that granting the Plaintiffs'
motion necessarily means that the Defendants' motion must, to some
extent, be denied, given that the Defendants contend, among other
things, that they have contractually delegated their duty to
provide adequate medical care.  Moreover, Judge Moon added that
his review of the record led him to conclude that the Defendants'
motion must be denied in its entirety.

The case is CYNTHIA B. SCOTT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HAROLD W.
CLARKE, ET AL., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00036 (W.D.
Va.).  A full-text copy of Judge Moon's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/kpNZYcfrom Leagle.com.

Cynthia B. Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth Walters,
Legal Aid Justice Center, Erin Margaret Trodden, Legal Aid Justice
Center, Ivy Ann Finkenstadt, Legal Aid Justice Center, Kimberly
Anne Rolla, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Catherine Bauer, Legal
Aid Justice Center, Mary Frances Charlton, Legal Aid Justice
Center, Abigail Turner, Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela A.
Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, Brenda Erin Castaneda, Legal Aid
Justice Center, Deborah Maxine Golden, Washington Lawyers
Committee & Theodore Augustus Howard, Wiley Rein LLP.

Bobinette D. Fearce, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth
Walters, Legal Aid Justice Center, Erin Margaret Trodden, Legal
Aid Justice Center, Ivy Ann Finkenstadt, Legal Aid Justice Center,
Kimberly Anne Rolla, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Catherine
Bauer, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Frances Charlton, Legal Aid
Justice Center, Abigail Turner, Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela
A. Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, Brenda Erin Castaneda, Legal
Aid Justice Center, Deborah Maxine Golden, Washington Lawyers
Committee & Theodore Augustus Howard, Wiley Rein LLP.

Marguerite Richardson, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth
Walters, Legal Aid Justice Center, Erin Margaret Trodden, Legal
Aid Justice Center, Ivy Ann Finkenstadt, Legal Aid Justice Center,
Kimberly Anne Rolla, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Catherine
Bauer, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Frances Charlton, Legal Aid
Justice Center, Abigail Turner, Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela
A. Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, Brenda Erin Castaneda, Legal
Aid Justice Center, Deborah Maxine Golden, Washington Lawyers
Committee & Theodore Augustus Howard, Wiley Rein LLP.

Rebecca L. Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth Walters,
Legal Aid Justice Center, Erin Margaret Trodden, Legal Aid Justice
Center, Ivy Ann Finkenstadt, Legal Aid Justice Center, Kimberly
Anne Rolla, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Catherine Bauer, Legal
Aid Justice Center, Mary Frances Charlton, Legal Aid Justice
Center, Abigail Turner, Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela A.
Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, Brenda Erin Castaneda, Legal Aid
Justice Center, Deborah Maxine Golden, Washington Lawyers
Committee & Theodore Augustus Howard, Wiley Rein LLP.

Harold W. Clarke, Defendant, represented by John Michael Parsons,
Office of the Attorney General, James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Office
of the Attorney General & Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Office of the
Attorney General.

A. David Robinson, Defendant, represented by John Michael Parsons,
Office of the Attorney General, James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Office
of the Attorney General & Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Office of the
Attorney General.

Frederick Schilling, Defendant, represented by John Michael
Parsons, Office of the Attorney General, James Milburn Isaacs,
Jr., Office of the Attorney General & Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Office
of the Attorney General.

Phyllis A. Baskerville, Defendant, represented by John Michael
Parsons, Office of the Attorney General, James Milburn Isaacs,
Jr., Office of the Attorney General & Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Office
of the Attorney General.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Fla. Court Tosses Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 18, 2014, that the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida has dismissed putative shareholder
class action complaint without prejudice and directed the clerk to
close the case.

On July 24, 2013, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned
Cummings, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al.,
8:13-cv-01916-JDW-TBM. The complaint asserted federal securities
law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Additional claims were asserted against the individual
defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint
alleged that between May 9, 2012 and June 6, 2013 the Company and
the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions
about the integrity of the Company's financial reporting,
including the reporting of expenses associated with certain
financing transactions, and the liabilities associated with the
Company's acquisition of RMS. The complaint sought unspecified
damages on behalf of the individuals or entities which purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's securities from May 9, 2012
through June 6, 2013.

On October 2, 2013, the plaintiff in the action filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. On October 3, 2013, the
Court dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the
clerk to close the case.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Facing Shareholder Class Action in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 18, 2014, that the Company is facing a
putative shareholder class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck
v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880
(S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint
was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company,
Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian
Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The
amended complaint asserts federal securities law claims against
the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional
claims are asserted against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint alleges that between May 9, 2012 and
February 26, 2014 the Company and the individual defendants made
material misstatements or omissions relating to the Company's
internal controls and financial reporting, the processes and
procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory and legal
requirements by Green Tree Servicing (including certain of the
Company's business practices that are being reviewed by the FTC
and the CFPB), the liabilities associated with the Company's
acquisition of RMS and RMS's internal controls. The complaint
seeks class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014.

The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the disposition of
the complaint or that such disposition will not have a material
adverse effect on our reputation, business, prospects, results of
operations or financial condition.


WAUPOOSE ESTATE: Recalls Sweet Apple Cider Due to Patulin
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Waupoose Estate Winery
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9433

Affected products: 5 L. Sweet Apple Cider


WELLPOINT INC: Sets Up Monopoly Using Illegal Licenses, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, David Wells reports that a
federal class action claims Wellpoint used unlawful licenses and
agreements to restrict competition in Indiana and inflate
insurance premiums.

In a complaint filed in the federal court in Indianapolis, lead
plaintiffs Ryan Ray and Trent Kelso claim Wellpoint, also known as
Anthem Insurance, manipulated the insurance market by divvying up
geographical regions with Blue Cross and Blue Shield member health
plans, and used contracts that contained "Most Favored Nation" or
"MFN" clauses to control health care prices.

The clauses are negotiated with individual health care providers
to ensure that Wellpoint receives the best prices on services.
The class alleges that the providers are forced into accepting
these clauses because Wellpoint controls a majority of the market
in Indiana, and would rescind business if not agreed upon.

"If a health care provider does not agree to the MFN, that
provider will not remain in or become a part of WellPoint's
network, which is generally an unacceptable result because
WellPoint controls the vast majority of subscribers in Indiana.
Faced with this prospect, providers capitulate to WellPoint's
demands, including MFNs," the complaint states.

The lawsuit also accuses Wellpoint of taking part in licensing
agreements to ensure other members of Blue Cross and Blue Shield
do not compete with each other by doing business in the same
areas.

"Through the License Agreements, which the independent Blue Cross
and Blue Shield licensees created, control and enforce, each
independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensee agrees that
neither it nor its subsidiaries will compete under the licensed
Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names outside of a
designated service Area," the class says.

The agreements also allegedly restrict revenue that members like
Wellpoint can generate outside of their designated areas, which
according to the plaintiff's, gives little incentive to expand
outside such areas, and constitute as unlawful horizontal
agreements between competitors that would also violate anti-
monopoly laws.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield is made up of 37 separate and
independent insurance companies, and is controlled by members, of
which Wellpoint is one of the largest, that can vote on new
members or terminate existing ones.

Wellpoint is no stranger to lawsuits regarding its practices, as
it was sued this past July in Los Angeles County Superior Court
for misleading consumers on the size and benefits of its health
network, and again in August for changing member's plans without
proper notification.

The class, which includes all consumers who paid Wellpoint for
insurance premiums dating back to 2006, seeks monetary damages
under The Sherman Antitrust Act, for inflated insurance prices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan C. Little, Esq.
          David Miller, Esq.
          SAEED & LITTLE, LLP
          1433 North Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 721-9214
          E-mail: jon@sllawfirm.com
                  david@sllawfirm.com

The case is Ryan Ray, Trent Kelso, et al. v. Wellpoint, Inc. d/b/a
Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02026-WTL-TAB,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.


WELLS FARGO: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Counts in "Foley" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson of the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit vacated, in part, the judgment
entered by the district court and affirmed the dismissal of two
counts in a lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank N.A.  The appellate
case is, JONATHAN FOLEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Defendant, Appellee, Case No. 13-2527 (1st Cir.).

Plaintiff-Appellant Jonathan Foley applied for a home mortgage
loan from World Savings, FSB, now Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  Foley
succumbed to his financial hardship and stopped making timely
payments in-full, but did make some partial payments. He sought a
loan modification from the bank, and in April 2011, Wells Fargo
informed him he might qualify for the Home Affordable Modification
Program ("HAMP"), a federal program that allows qualified
homeowners to reduce their monthly mortgage payments. Foley asked
to participate, and the bank's representatives said they would
send him an application. Despite repeated inquiries, follow-ups
and calls, Foley never had his loan modified.

He filed a complaint against Wells Fargo, alleging breach of
contract (Count one), violation of Mass. Gen. Law ch. 244 Sections
35A and 35B (Count two), violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A
(Count three), and breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing for the bank's alleged mishandling of Foley's loan
modification (Count four).  Foley also moved for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction. Wells Fargo removed
the case to federal court, where Foley renewed his motion for
preliminary injunctive relief.

After a hearing on Foley's motion for injunctive relief, the
district court temporarily enjoined Wells Fargo from foreclosing
on Foley's home, pending an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
While the injunction motion was in abeyance, Wells Fargo moved to
dismiss Foley's complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to which Foley filed a written
opposition. The case was reassigned to another trial judge, who
conducted the evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction.
At the close of the hearing, the judge orally denied Foley's
motion for injunctive relief, and stated that he was not going to
take up the pending motion to dismiss because he deemed it
appropriate to consider that on the papers. The court later
entered a written order allowing Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss
and disposing of all of Foley's claims, without conducting a
hearing. Plaintiff made a timely appeal.

According to Judge Thompson, the district court did not provide
Foley with sufficient notice prior to converting Wells Fargo's
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment on the two
contract-based claims. The dismissal of these claims is not
warranted on sufficiency grounds. Counts One and Four will be
remanded for further proceedings and the dismissal of Foley's
statutory claim arising under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, Sections
35A and 35B  is affirmed.

A copy of Judge Thompson's order dated November 14, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/GlmoYDfrom Leagle.com.

Valeriano Diviacchi -- val@diviacchi.com -- for appellant

David M. Bizar -- dbizar@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, on
brief, for appellee

The First Circuit panel consists of Judges O. Rogeriee Thompson,
Juan R. Torruella and Timothy B. Dyk.


WHOLE FOODS: "Bilder" Suit Transferred From New Jersey to Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bilder v. Whole Foods Market
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-06146, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin).  The
Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01132 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: josefchen@denittislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James S. Yu, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 218-5524
          Facsimile: (212) 218-5526
          E-mail: jyu@seyfarth.com


XANODYNE PHARMA: "Corber" Case Belongs in Dist. Ct, 9th Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould of the United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the order of the District Court
and remanded the case MARGALIT CORBER; RENE CARO; STEVE DANTZLER;
LINDA SOWARDS; LORI HUISMAN; JOHNNY GEORGE, SR.; TERRY PERRY;
WILLIAM RACKLEY; ANGELA YOUNG; PAMELA RODRIGUEZ; STEVEN SYVERSON;
OLGA CAICOYA; JANET CARROLL; ROSE CASH; ULAD CELENTANO; VIRGINIA
COSTANZO; KIMBERLY FILLIGIM; ARMELDIA SMITH; CARLA WEST; JOANNE
BIERZYNSKI, individually and as next of kin to Eleanor Wojcik;
SHARLEY MORRIS; WYOMIA TIMMONS; DEAN REINKING; DANIEL THORNE;
WENDELEN ASHBY; CARMEN BEDFORD; CLAUDE COMMODORE; JAMES HENSON;
NANCY LOCKE; MILDRED SCOTT; BILLIE BURNETT; SHEENA HALL; BRENDA
ROBERGE, individually and as next of kin to Ernest Roberge;
DEBORAH WOODSUM; RICHARD PASCUITO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. JUDITH ROMO;
VINCENT TALDONE; ROBIN TAYLER; MARGARET TAYLOR; RANDY TAYLOR; RAY
TEETS; LAWRENCE TELLS; KATHRYN TEMCHACK; CHARLES TERRY; VERONICA
TERRY; ROBERTA THORNE; MARGARET TIVIS; LINDA TODD; DELORES TOOHEY;
DEBRA TOURVILLE; DENA TSOUALS; ALLEN TURNER; CAROLYN TURNER; WANDA
TURNER; STARLET TYRONE; GLORIA UNDERWOOD; HENRY UNDERWOOD; JANICE
VANISON; WILLIAM VERHEYEN; CHARLES VILDIBILL; SHARON WALLGREN; PAM
WALSH; SHARON WALSH; KEESHA WARRIOR; LATANGA WASHINGTON; DARLENE
WATT; JAMES WEISS; WESLEY WELBORNE, III; DEBRA WHEELER; MARSHA
WHITT; CAROLYN WHYNO; CECILIA WILCKENS; SANDRA WILEMON; STELLA
WILKERSON-CLARK; JOANN WILLIAMS; JOYCE WILLIAMS; ROSE WILLIAMS;
SHANTAS WILLIAMS; MARY WILSON; ROSE WILSON; PATSY WINZEY; JIMMIE
WISE; RUTH WOLFSON; JUANITA WOODSON; LYNNE WYSOCKY, single
individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC., Defendant-Appellant., NOS. 13-56306, 13-56310 (9th Cir.)

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) held the rights of pain
reliever drugs Darvocet and Darvon which contains propoxyphene.
Xanodyne acquired the rights to Darvocet and Darvon in 2007.

Plaintiffs filed a suit against Teva and Xanodyne alleging
injuries related to the ingestion of propoxyphene, an ingredient
found in the Darvocet and Darvon pain relief drugs.

Plaintiffs asked for coordination under section 404 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure, of their lawsuits to avoid
potential duplication and inconsistent rulings, orders, or
judgments, and that without coordination, two or more separate
courts may render different rulings on liability and other issues.
Plaintiffs argued in their petitions and the supporting memoranda
that the cases should be coordinated before one judge hearing all
of the actions for all purposes, to address the same or
substantially similar causes of action, issues of law, and issues
of material fact. After these petitions for coordination were
filed, Teva and Xanodyne removed the cases to federal district
court under CAFA's mass action provision.

The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction under Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 because Plaintiffs' petitions for
coordination were not proposals to try the cases jointly, and it
remanded the cases back to state court.

Teva and Xanodyne appealed from the district court's orders
remanding the cases to state court.

Judge Gould reversed the district court's remand orders. He
concluded that all of the CAFA requirements for a removable mass
action are met under the totality of the circumstances.

A copy of Judge Gould's opinion dated November 18, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/VsOEJQfrom Leagle.com.

Jay Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- Daniel A. Bress --
daniel.bress@kirkland.com -- and Danielle R. Sassoon --
danielle.sassoon@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP;  Ginger
Pigott -- pigottg@gtlaw.com -- Amy B. Alderfer -- Karin L.
Bohmholdt -- bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com -- Lori G. Cohen --
cohenl@gtlaw.com -- Victoria D. Lockard -- lockardv@gtlaw.com --
Elliot H. Scherker -- scherkere@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig,
LLP, for Defendant-Appellant Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.

Karin Bohmholdt -- bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg & Traurig
LLP; Karen Woodward -- karen.woodward@sedgwicklaw.com -- Hall R.
Marston -- hall.marston@sedgwicklaw.com -- and Christopher P.
Norton -- christopher.norton@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP;
Linda E. Maichl -- lmaichl@ulmer.com -- Michael J. Suffern
-- msuffern@ulmer.com  -- at Ulmer & Berne LLP, for Defendant-
Appellant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Louis M. Bograd -- lou.bograd@cclfirm.com -- Andre M. Mura --
Andre.mura@cclfirm.com -- at Center for Constitutional Litigation;
Matthew J. Sill, Sill Law Group LLP; Andrew N. Chang --
achang@ecbappeal.com -- Stuart B. Esner -- sesner@ecbappeal.com --
at Esner, Chang & Boyer; Elise R. Sanguinetti --
elise@sanguinettilaw.com -- at Khorrami Boucher Sumner LLP; James
P. Sizemore -- at The Sizemore Law Firm, for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Romo, Corber, et al.

Jeremy B. Rosen -- jrosen@horvitzlevy.com -- at Horvitz & Levy
LLP, for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America and PhRMA

Richard Abbott Samp, Washington Legal Foundation, for Amicus
Curiae Washington Legal Foundation

David M. Arbogast -- David@arbogastlawpc.com -- ARBOGAST LAW,
A.P.C., for Amicus Curiae American Association for Justice

John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Product
Liability Advisory Council


YAMAHA: Recalls YZ250FFL and YZ250FFW Models
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           100
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014522
TC ID number:             2014522
Manufacturer recall
number:                   M14-075

On certain motorcycles, the balancer drive gear could break,
causing engine lockup.  This could increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will replace the balancer drive gear set with a revised
part.

Affected products: 2015, 2015 Yamaha


ZUFFA LLC: Accused by UFC Fighters of Controlling MMA Market
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Ultimate Fighting Championship pushes out rival promoters to
maintain iron-fisted control over the mixed martial arts market,
crushing fighters' earnings, three athletes claim in a federal
class action.

UFC middleweight Chung Le and former UFC fighters Nathan Quarry
and Jon Fitch sued Zuffa LLC, the parent company of UFC, under the
Sherman Antitrust Act on December 16.

The UFC said in a statement that it is "aware of the action filed
today but has not been served, nor has it had the opportunity to
review the document.  The UFC will vigorously defend itself and
its business practices."

The fighters accuse the UFC of an "overarching anticompetitive
scheme" to monopolize the MMA marketplace and restrict athletes'
earnings.

"By dominating the market for live elite professional MMA fighter
bouts, defendant makes the UFC the 'only game in town' for elite
professional MMA fighters who want to earn a living in their
chosen profession at the highest level of the sport of MMA," the
63-page lawsuit states.

UFC fighters are paid about 10 to 17 percent of the revenue
generated from UFC bouts, and all fighters have had their pay
"artificially reduced" due to the UFC's monopoly, according to the
lawsuit.

In comparison, athletes who compete in other professional sports,
such as football and baseball, generally earn morn than 50 percent
of league revenue, the lawsuit states.

The UFC also expropriates rights to the fighters' names and
likenesses, limiting the athletes' ability to license themselves
for commercial products or promotions even after their contracts
with the UFC expire, the fighters claim.

The UFC's annual revenue from Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2013 was
about $483 million, with $256 million generated by live events and
another $227 million from merchandising, video game fees and
digital media, according to the lawsuit.

The fighters claim that "the UFC's worldwide profit margins are
among the highest, if not the highest, in professional sports."

The UFC controls more than 90 percent of the revenue derived from
live elite professional MMA bouts nationwide, and gained its
monopoly on the sport by buying up or driving out other viable
promoters, according to the lawsuit.

The company has the ability to preclude new rivals from entering
the market, to raise the would-be rivals' costs, impair their
opportunities and control prices, the lawsuit states.

The UFC also forces major venues for MMA bouts to supply their
services exclusively to the UFC and requires MMA sponsors to work
only with the UFC and UFC fighters, the fighters say.

"Without access to key sponsors, venues, or major television
distribution outlets, would-be rivals cannot put together
sufficiently attractive events either to attract elite
professional MMA fighters to work with them or to gain the kind of
audience that could challenge the UFC's dominance," the complaint
states.

Fighters who sign with the UFC must enter into restrictive
contracts that prevent them from working with other MMA promoters
during and after their time with the UFC, according to the
lawsuit.

Because the UFC retaliates against fighters who work or threaten
to work with would-be rival promoters, the fighters "have refused
offers to fight for actual or potential rival promoters, even
those that offer higher compensation, out of fear that the UFC
would retaliate against both the promoter and the fighter," the
lawsuit states.

Fighters are deterred by the threats because being banned from UFC
fights substantially diminishes their ability to earn money in the
sport, according to the complaint.

Furthermore, the UFC has control over key sponsors and threatens
to never work with those sponsors if they contract with a MMA
fighter against the UFC's wishes, the fighters say.

"As a result, the only remaining promoters of MMA bouts are either
fringe competitors -- which, as general matter, do not and cannot
successfully compete directly with the UFC -- or entities that
have essentially been conscripted by the UFC, through the scheme
alleged herein, into acting as the UFC's 'minor leagues,'
developing talent for the UFC but not competing directly with it,"
the fighters say.

The fighters claim the UFC has publicly touted its success at
squashing the competition.

"For example, in November 2008, following the UFC's acquisition of
the assets of MMA Promotion companies International Fight League,
Elite Xtreme Combat, and Affliction Entertainment, UFC President
Dana White uploaded a pre-bout video blog to YouTube in which he
held up the following mock tombstone prominently displaying the
letters 'RIP' as well as the logos and 'dates of death' of those
MMA Promoters -- IFL, Elite XC and Affliction.  Each promotion had
been put out of business by the UFC's anticompetitive conduct,"
the lawsuit states.

White then took credit for the companies' deaths by saying, "I'm
the grim reaper, motherf***ers," according to the complaint.

The fighters seek treble damages for antitrust violations, but did
not put a figure on the amount.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.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 2015. 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  * * *