---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 20, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 231


                             Headlines

A-1 COLLECTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ACTAVIS PLC: Appeals Court OKs Reglan Failure-to-Warn Suits
AMERICAN HOME: Brown Not Entitled to Matrix Benefits, Says Court
AMERICAN INT'L: March 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMYLIN PHARMA: Plaintiffs Want Judge to Reconsider Discovery Ban

APPLE INC: iPod Antitrust Suit Trial Begins
APPLE INC: Judge Allows iMessage Glitch Class Action to Proceed
ASSET RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
AUSTRALIA: NTCA Joins Class Action Over Live Cattle Export Ban
BAYER INC: Feb. 9 Yaz/Yasmin Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

BAYER INC: Judge Allows Digestive Aids Class Action to Proceed
BERNALILLO, NM: Takes Step to Meet Jail Class Action Requirements
BEST BUY: Judge Dismisses Portions of "Herron" Class Suit
BLUESPRIG INC: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Second Motion to Dismiss
BRIUS HEALTHCARE: Owner's Nursing Homes Target of Complaints

CAPITAL ONE: Consolidated N.Y. Interchange Fees Suit in Discovery
CAPITAL ONE: Appeal From Cert. of "Watson" Suit to be Heard Dec.
CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs in Credit Card Interest Rate Suit Appeal
CAPITAL ONE: Settles Fla. Checking Account Overdraft Litigation
CAPITAL ONE: Final Approval Hearing of TCPA Suit Deal Set for Q4

CARTER BROTHERS: "Gutierrez" Labor Suit Survives Bid to Dismiss
CASHCALL INC: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Decertification Order
CLEANNET U.S.A.: E.D. Pa. Judge Won't Remand Franchisee's Suit
PHILADELPHIA: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in Williams Case
CVS PHARMACY: Judge Recommends Denial of "Ceja-Corona" Class Deal

DEAN FOODS: Awaits Ruling in Food Lion Antitrust Class Action
DES MOINES, IA: Water Works to Refund Unlawful Tax
DRIVE IN OF EVANSVILLE: N.D. Ala. Judge Denies Certification
DYNAMEX INC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Suit Claims
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

ELI LILLY: Sued Over Deceptive Testosterone Therapy Marketing
ENTERGY CORP: Appeals Court Voids Class Cert. in "Jenkins" Case
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Court Stays Appeal in RESPA "Violation" Lawsuit
FLORIDA, USA: "Devany" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
FLORIDA, USA: Removes "Ehrlich" Suit to Florida District Court

FORD MOTOR: Hunt & Associates Files Sexual Harassment Class Suit
FORENSIC COUNSELORS: Removes "Carr" Suit to C.D. California
FOSTER WHEELER: Settlement of Tex. Securities Lawsuit Approved
FREDDIE MAC: Wins Dismissal of OPERS Securities Lawsuit
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Stiffs Salesmen of Minimum Wages, Suit Claims

FUTUREDONTICS INC: Faces Kansas Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
GENERAL MOTORS: Ordered Replacement Ignition Switches
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers Seek to Obtain Ignition Docs
GENTRY HOMES: Lower Court Ruling on Nishimura Arbitration Upheld
GREEN TREE: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Suit Says

GULF SOUTH: Continues to Face Property Damage Suit in Alabama
HEALTH NET: California Court Stays MFLCs' Lawsuit Pending Appeal
HERBALIFE LTD: Agrees to Pay $15MM in "Bostick" Lawsuit Accord
HERBALIFE LTD: Faces Securities Litigation in California Court
HUNTINGTON BANK: S.D. W.Va. Judge Grants Discovery Request

HYUNDAI: Judge Refuses to Stay Fuel Efficiency Class Settlement
INTEL CORP: Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled for January 23
INTELLIGENDER LLC: Cal. Ineligible for Restitution, 9th Cir. Says
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Dismissal of N.Y. Stock Suit Sought
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Bid to Dismiss "Lanier" Suit Pending

JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
JRK RESIDENTIAL: E.D. Va. Grants Class Certification in Part
LLOYDS BANKING: More Than 5,000 Investors Join Class Action
MAUI, HAWAII: Two Developers File Suit Over New GMO Law
MEDTRONIC INC: District Court Remands "Smith" Bone Graft Suit

MERRILL LYNCH: Third Circuit Remands Suit Over "Naked" Short Sales
MIAMI, FL: "Migdal" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
MICHAEL LANDOLT: Final Judgment in Waterford Case Partly Affirmed
MICROSOFT CORP: Lawyers Prepare to Challenge "No-Poach" Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Cheyne SIV Suit

NEVSUN RESOURCES: January 13 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
NEW JERSEY: District Court Narrows Down Tax Liens Antitrust Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Faces "McClain" Suit Alleging Discrimination
NNN CAPITAL: "Weiss" Suit Removed to California District Court
ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL: La. Supreme Court Throws Out "Oliver" Suit

PANASONIC CORP: Interim Lead Counsel Named in Capacitor Case
PFIZER INC: May Face Suits Over Viagra-Melanoma Link
PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Lawyers Get $91MM in Neurontin Settlement
PORT AUTHORITY OF NY/NJ: Faces "Hindi" Suit Over Discrimination
PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTORS: Removes "Harris" Suit to S.D. Florida

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Suits in Texas for IPO Underwriting
SEBO'S NURSING: Suit Seek Damages Over Violations of FMLA & FLSA
SHAMROCK CARTAGE: "Clugston" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
SIRIUS XM: Court Approves Class Action Notices to Unpaid Interns
SKINNYGIRL COCKTAILS: "Langendorf" Can't Proceed as Class Suit

SPECIALIZED LOAN: C.D. Cal. Remands Jackson et al. Case
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: 73 Riata Liability Suits Pending as of Oct. 31
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Canadian Court Junks Appeal in Silzone Suit
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Feb. Trial Date Set in Minn. Securities Lawsuit
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Amended Complaint Filed in 2012 Securities Suit

SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Deposition to Take Place in Larkspur, Calif.
TD BANK: Settlement in "Keller" FLSA Action Wins Final Approval
TESCO PLC: US Law Firms Mull Suit Over Accounting Irregularities
TEST MASTERS: Ordered to Pay $90,000+ in Legal Fees
UNITED STATES: FDA Faces Suit Over Livestock Feed Additive

UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA: Facing Class Suit by Student Athletes
VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: CEO Indicted in Varicose-Vein Treatment Suit
VCA ANTECH: Class Suit Transferred From N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Dec. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
VIOLIN MEMORY: N.D. Cal. Ruled on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit

WASHINGTON PRIME: Suit Over Glimcher Realty Trust Merger Filed
WASHINGTON PRIME: Second Suit Over Glimcher Realty Merger Filed
WELLS FARGO: Seeks Review of $203-Mil. Award in Overdraft Suit


                            *********


A-1 COLLECTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. A-1 Collection Service and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:14-cv-07063-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., November 11, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACTAVIS PLC: Appeals Court OKs Reglan Failure-to-Warn Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that failure-to-warn claims against generic makers of Reglan are
not preempted to the extent those companies failed to update the
warnings on their labels, a New Jersey appeals court held Nov. 12.
The decision in In re Reglan Litigation potentially affects a
large portion of the 650 or so pending lawsuits consolidated in
Middlesex County, where they were transferred from Atlantic County
at the end of October.

The three-judge panel grappled with the impact of the U.S. Supreme
Court's 2011 ruling in Pliva v. Mensing that state tort claims
against generic drug manufacturers alleging inadequate warnings
are preempted by federal law, which governs what must appear on
drug labels.

Judges Joseph Yannotti, Douglas Fasciale and Mary Whipple agreed
with the judge below, Judge Carol Higbee, that Mensing was
premised on the notion that generic drug makers are protected from
suit so long as their labels are the same as those used for the
brand-name drug.

They affirmed Judge Higbee's refusal to dismiss claims against
generic makers of Reglan because when additional warnings were
added to the brand-name label in 2004 and 2009, the generic
companies did not change their labels -- at least not right away.

As a result, failure-to-warn claims by plaintiffs who took generic
Reglan between the time the warning was added to the brand-name
label and when their generic drug got an updated label are not
subject to preemption.

Reglan, or, generically speaking, metoclopramide, has been linked
to tardive dyskinesia, a neurological condition that causes
repetitive, involuntary movements, mostly in the face, such as
grimacing, lip smacking, repetitive chewing, blinking and sticking
the tongue out.

Metoclopramide was approved in 1980 by the Food and Drug
Administration to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, or GERD,
and was originally sold as Reglan by brand-name manufacturer
Wyeth, according to the appeals court's opinion.  Generic versions
began entering the market in 1985.

The original label stated that using the drug longer than 12 weeks
"'has not been evaluated and cannot be recommended,'" according to
the opinion. A warning added in 1985 said "'tardive dyskinesia . .
. may develop in patients treated with metoclopramide.'" In July
2004, a bold-faced statement was added saying the drug should not
be used for longer than 12 weeks.

Finally, in February 2009, the FDA ordered a "'black box
warning,'" the strongest type, to be placed on the label, reading
metoclopramide could cause tardive dyskinesia, "'a serious
movement disorder that is often irreversible,'" the opinion said.
It also said treatment with metoclopramide for longer than 12
weeks "'should be avoided.'"

The plaintiffs sued Wyeth and related or successor entities, along
with more than a dozen generic manufacturers, seeking compensatory
and punitive damages, attorney fees and other relief.

The generic companies affected by the appeal are Actavis
Elizabeth, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Barr Laboratories, Mutual
Pharmaceutical Co., Pliva, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Watson
Laboratories and United Research Laboratories.

Higbee found the core of the plaintiffs' claims was their
contention that the defendants failed to provide adequate warnings
about the risks arising from the long-term use of metoclopramide
and that the generic makers had a duty under federal law to adopt
the changes to the brand-name warnings.  Discovery disclosed that
all of them except Pliva obtained FDA authorization to add the
additional warnings to their labels on various dates.

Pliva argued it did not do so because it sold its metoclopramide
product to Watson in 2008, while Watson claimed it learned about
the warning change in 2009 and acted timely in implementing it.
Higbee held in June 2013 that there was no preemption of claims
based on the failure to update warnings to conform to changes on
the brand-name drug labels and that there were genuine issues of
material fact regarding whether the generic companies changed
their warnings in a timely manner and whether the warnings they
provided were adequate.

The Appellate Division denied leave for an interlocutory appeal,
but the state Supreme Court granted it and remanded to that court.
In affirming, the appeals panel said the plaintiffs were precluded
from claiming that the generic makers should have employed
"'different or stronger'" warnings than those approved for Reglan,
but their claims based on failure to update to conform to the
brand-name changes were not preempted.

Higbee "correctly found that allowing plaintiffs to assert these
claims would not frustrate any of the purposes or objectives that
Congress sought to achieve" in the law governing generic drugs,
the panel said.

The judges pointed out that the plaintiffs are not pursuing state-
law claims based on an alleged violation of federal law but state-
law products liability claims.

The appeals panel followed the lead of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit last year in Fulgenzi v. Pliva, as well as
other courts, including the Iowa Supreme Court in Huck v. Wyeth
and the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Hassett v. Dafoe.

The panel noted that in 2013, the Fifth Circuit came out the other
way in Morris v. Pliva, but deemed Fulgenzi "more persuasive."
In addition, the judges rejected the contention that a 2012 New
Jersey Supreme Court decision, Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson, which
found preemption of claims concerning a stent, compelled
dismissal.

Unlike Cornett, there was no challenge to the adequacy of
information provided to the FDA or the label changes it approved,
nor any allegation of fraud on the FDA.  Instead the claims were
grounded in state law and "fall within a traditional area of state
concern and regulation," the panel said.

Louis Bograd of the Center for Constitutional Litigation in
Washington, D.C., who argued the appeal for the plaintiffs, as he
did in Mensing, said he was "very gratified" by the decision and
it "couldn't have been one that the appellate court found too
difficult" because it was decided within a month of the Oct. 15
argument.

Theodore Oshman, of New York's Oshman & Mirisola, the New Jersey
plaintiffs' liaison counsel, said the ruling affects most of the
pending cases, noting that some generic companies revised their
labels six to eight months after the brand-name change, some
waited 13 months and one did not do so until after the 2009
change.

Mr. Oshman said the ruling reflected the "very obvious principle
of law" that "if you don't change your label to reflect the brand
label, you're liable, regardless of" the decision in Mensing.  He
added, "Just disclose, be transparent and the cases go away."
No New Jersey cases were filed after mid-2011, roughly two years
after the black box warning.

Michael Shumsky -- michael.shumsky@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland &
Ellis in Washington, D.C., representing Pliva, Barr and Watson,
declined to comment.

William O'Kane -- wokane@archerlaw.com -- of Archer & Greiner in
Haddonfield, N.J., local counsel for Mutual Pharmaceutical and
United Research, declined to comment through firm spokesman Bill
Shralow.

Glenn Kerner -- gkerner@goodwinprocter.com -- of Goodwin Procter
in New York, representing Teva, and Frederick Fern of Harris Beach
in New York, representing Actavis, did not return calls seeking
comment.


AMERICAN HOME: Brown Not Entitled to Matrix Benefits, Says Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/ FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA
BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, MDL NO. 1203,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-20593, NO. 2:16 MD 1203, (E.D. Penn.), Martha
M. Brown, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from the
AHP Settlement Trust (Trust).  Based on the record developed in
the show cause process, the court must determine whether claimant
has demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support her claim
for Matrix Compensation Benefits (Matrix Benefits).

To seek Matrix Benefits, a claimant must first submit a completed
Green Form to the Trust.  In November, 2002, claimant submitted a
completed Green Form to the Trust signed by her attesting
physician, Jack L. Schwade, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.A.C.C. Dr. Schwade
is no stranger to this litigation. According to the Trust, he has
signed at least 174 Green Forms on behalf of claimants seeking
Matrix Benefits. Based on an echocardiogram dated October 4, 2002,
Dr. Schwade attested in Part II of Ms. Brown's Green Form that she
suffered from moderate mitral regurgitation, an abnormal left
atrial dimension, and a reduced ejection fraction in the range of
50% to 60%.3 Based on such findings, claimant would be entitled to
Matrix A-1, Level II benefits in the amount of $501, 985.4
In the report of claimant's echocardiogram, Dr. Schwade stated
that Ms. Brown had "moderate mitral regurgitation," which he
measured at 26%. Under the definition set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, moderate or greater mitral regurgitation is present
where the Regurgitant Jet Area (RJA) in any apical view is equal
to or greater than 20% of the Left Atrial Area (LAA).

In his memorandum dated November 4, 2014, District Judge Harvey
Bartle, III, issued a concluded that the claimant has not met her
burden of proving that there is a reasonable medical basis for
finding that she had moderate mitral regurgitation. Therefore,
Judge Bartle affirmed the Trust's denial of Ms. Brown's claim for
Matrix Benefits.  A copy of the ruling is available at
http://is.gd/Cm7E5Dfrom Leagle.com.

IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A.
CHIRLS, FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC, ARNOLD LEVIN, LEVIN
FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, JOHN FITZPATRICK, HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC, JULES S.
HENSHELL, SEMANOFF ORMSKY GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK,
HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED, ROBERT A. LIMBACHER, Goodell, DeVries,
Leech & Dann LLP, ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN
SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER, HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED
& RAND NOLEN, FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP.

GREGORY P. MILLER, Special Master, represented by GREGORY P.
MILLER, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.


AMERICAN INT'L: March 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and The Miller Law Firm, P.C. on Nov. 13
issued a statement regarding the AIG 2008 Securities Litigation:

IN RE AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.
2008 SECURITIES LITIGATION

Master File No.:
08-CV-4772-LTS-DCF

This Document Relates To: All Actions

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO:

All persons or entities (a) who purchased American International
Group, Inc. ("AIG") Securities on a U.S. public exchange during
the period from March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008 (the
"Class Period") or (b) who purchased or acquired AIG Securities in
or traceable to a public offering during the Class Period (the
"Class").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR
ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO
LEAD COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, WHOSE CONTACT
INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BELOW.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT AIG, ANY OTHER DEFENDANTS OR
THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been preliminarily
certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement only on
behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated September 12, 2014
(the "Stipulation").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $970,500,000.00 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all
claims asserted against the Released Defendant Parties (identified
in the full printed Notice referred to below).

A hearing will be held on March 20, 2015 at 2:15 p.m. before the
Honorable Laura Taylor Swain at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 12D, New
York, NY 10007-1312, to determine (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
the Released Defendant Parties for the Released Claims specified
and described in the Stipulation; (iii) whether the proposed plan
to allocate the proceeds of the Settlement should be approved as
fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of Class Action, Proposed
Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and
Settlement Hearing (the "Notice"), and the proof of claim form,
you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator at In re American International Group, Inc. 2008
Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040.  Copies
of the Notice and proof of claim form can also be downloaded from
the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.AIG2008SecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
proof of claim form postmarked no later than May 5, 2015.  If you
are a member of the Class and do not submit a proper proof of
claim form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion that is
received no later than January 5, 2015, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed plan to
allocate the proceeds of the Settlement, or Lead Counsel's motion
for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed
with the Court and received by Lead Counsel and counsel for AIG no
later than January 5, 2015, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.

Inquiries other than requests for the Notice and proof of claim
form may be made to Lead Counsel:

BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
Jeffrey W. Golan
Robert A. Hoffman
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 963-0600
AIG2008settlement@barrack.com

THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
E. Powell Miller
Marc L. Newman
950 West University Drive, Ste. 300
Rochester, MI 48307
(248) 841-2200
AIG2008settlement@millerlawpc.com

Requests for the Notice and proof of claim form should be made to:

In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities
Litigation
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator,
P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
www.AIG2008SecuritiesSettlement.com
1-888-283-6985
classact@gilardi.com

By Order of the Court


AMYLIN PHARMA: Plaintiffs Want Judge to Reconsider Discovery Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that more than 540 plaintiffs alleging they developed
pancreatic cancer by taking one of four Incretin-based drugs have
asked a federal judge to reconsider his ban on discovery into
adverse events involving those drugs that were reported to the
Food and Drug Administration.

Plaintiffs lawyers from Johnson Becker in Minneapolis; Watts
Guerra in San Antonio, Texas; Napoli, Bern, Ripka & Shkolnik in
New York and Tor Hoerman Law in Edwardsville, Ill., said that U.S.
District Judge Anthony Battaglia relied upon old case law rendered
before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Wyeth v. Levine.

The justices ruled that the Food and Drug Administration's
regulation of pharmaceutical drugs does not preempt the duties
drugmakers owe to consumers under state tort law.  The court also
specifically rejected the FDA's position in a 2006 regulation that
the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempts state law.

Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC faces lawsuits over its Byetta; Eli
Lilly & Co. for its collaboration with Amylin in the promotion of
Byetta; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. over its Januvia and Janumet;
and Novo Nordisk Inc. for its Victoza.

Incretin-based treatments are prescribed to lower blood sugar
levels in people with Type 2 diabetes, the most common form of
that disease. The multidistrict litigation is pending in the
Southern District of California.

Judge Battaglia denied discovery for the underlying documents
describing adverse events as well as the databases maintained by
each drug company.  The judge said it is not for the courts to
evaluate the degree to which manufacturers comply with FDA
regulations, so there was no justification for the plaintiffs to
view the information.

The costs of production would be between $280,000 and $400,000,
the judge added.

Judge Battaglia cited In re Bextra, a 2006 Northern District of
California decision holding that the "FDA's interpretation of the
preemptive effect of its regulations is entitled to deference."
But the plaintiffs said that court adopted "a minority position on
preemption, holding that courts should defer to the FDA when
interpreting the preemptive effect of FDA regulations."

The plaintiffs also cited Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg's dissent in Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., in which she said
courts have "overwhelmingly held that FDA approval of a new drug
application does not preempt state tort suits."

"Plaintiffs wish to be able to make the same argument made by the
Levine plaintiff regarding preemption, but they first need the
adverse event source documents and databases," the plaintiffs
said.  "That information is relevant because it will help
plaintiffs demonstrate that there is no clear evidence that the
FDA will fail to approve a properly supported pancreatic cancer
warning."

Judge Battaglia has set a briefing schedule on the motion for
reconsideration.  The defendants must file a response by Dec. 1.
In earlier court papers, the defendants said that, "given the
results of preclinical and clinical studies finding no causal link
between pancreatic cancer and Incretin-based therapies, the FDA
publicly has stated that adverse event reports are not relevant,
much less material, to the question of whether Incretin-based
drugs cause pancreatic cancer."


APPLE INC: iPod Antitrust Suit Trial Begins
-------------------------------------------
Howard Mintz, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that in a
federal court trial beginning Nov. 19 with jury selection, Apple
will try to fend off allegations that it violated antitrust laws
through tech maneuvers that once restricted music downloads for
iPods to its iTunes store.

While Apple abandoned the restrictions in question years ago, the
stakes are still high -- damages could exceed $1 billion if
antitrust violations are proven, and an adverse verdict would
amount to a black eye for the company's past business practices.

Indeed, the ghost of late Apple CEO Steve Jobs will hover over the
trial, as his videotaped deposition -- taken not long before his
2011 death -- will give the jury his view of the iTunes software
updates at the heart of the case.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is presiding over
the trial in Oakland, determined earlier this year there is enough
evidence for the class-action case to go to a jury, despite
Apple's vehement arguments that there is no proof of harm to
consumers or that it exerted monopoly power over the digital music
market.

Apple is certainly taking the trial seriously, identifying the
outcome as significant to shareholders in a recent SEC filing.

"I think it's going to be hard to prove damages," said Herbert
Hovenkamp, a University of Iowa law professor.  "But it's
possible. It's gotten this far, and the judge has a lot of tools
for getting rid of an antitrust case."

The trial amounts to a glimpse into Apple history, exploring its
dramatic expansion into online music downloading through iTunes
when the idea of the iPhone and iPad was still a glimmer in Jobs'
eye.

The antitrust case was first filed in 2005, alleging Apple created
a monopoly by blocking iPod owners from going to competitors for
their music.  The central issue involved Apple's "FairPlay," a
so-called digital rights management system, or DRM, that ensured
iPod owners could only download songs from the iTunes store.

RealNetworks had established a rival program called Harmony that
mimicked Apple's FairPlay so iPod owners could get their music
elsewhere, but Apple kept tweaking its iTunes software with
updates that disabled Harmony.  Consumers and retailers such as
Best Buy are the plaintiffs in the case, but the competition
between Apple and RealNetworks at the time is central to the
antitrust claims.

Following numerous court rulings, the trial involves millions of
iPods sold between 2006 and 2009, the last year Apple installed an
iTunes update that consumer advocates say was designed to stifle
competition.  The higher cost for consumers, plaintiffs lawyers
argue, does not center on higher charges for an iTunes song --
they instead will urge the jury to punish Apple because they say
the software updates restricting music libraries held the public
hostage to higher priced iPods when they could have bought cheaper
MP3 players.

As a result of changes, Apple does not face the prospect of an
injunction that would affect current iPod and iTunes practices.
But the case delves into an unsettled area of antitrust law,
according to legal experts.

Similar cases have popped up against other businesses accused of
tethering products together at the expense of competition,
including one involving Lexmark and its printer cartridges and
Keurig coffee makers and single coffee pods.

Bonny Sweeney, lead attorney for consumers in the Apple case, said
the case is an important challenge to a tech monopoly.

"Any time a company tries to enhance or maintain monopoly power by
. . . anticompetitive conduct it increases costs for consumers,"
she said.

Apple declined to comment.  But in court papers, Apple calls the
suggestion that iTunes upgrades affected consumers "implausible,"
given that RealNetworks had just a fraction of the music download
market.  And the company argues that the software upgrades were
designed for security protections and other improvements such as
enabling video on iPods, not to counteract Harmony.

Industry observers say that despite the sky-high damages sought,
Apple is not particularly vulnerable, given that iPod owners can
now get their music from other sources such as Amazon and that the
streaming music market is booming through rival sources such as
Pandora.

"Could it be a hit? It would be an indictment of Apple's business
practices at the time," said Michael McGuire, an analyst with the
Gartner Group.  "But then again, that's history."


APPLE INC: Judge Allows iMessage Glitch Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge on Nov. 10 gave the go-ahead to a proposed class action
claiming Apple Inc. impeded the delivery of former iPhone users'
text messages after they switched to non-Apple devices.

The order issued by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern
District of California is a partial win for plaintiffs who claim
they lost messages because Apple's messaging app failed to
recognize they had changed phones.  Judge Koh tossed another chunk
of the potential class action, ruling plaintiffs lawyers couldn't
prove Apple misled customers about the glitch in violation of
consumer protection laws.

Plaintiffs counsel Roy Katriel of the Katriel Law Firm in La Jolla
chalked up the ruling as a win.

"We're happy that she upheld what we believe to be the bulk of the
claims," he said.

Apple lawyer David Walsh -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- a partner in
Morrison & Foerster's Los Angeles office, did not return a phone
message or email seeking comment on Nov. 11.  A spokeswoman for
Apple declined to comment.

Apple released its iMessage service as part of its 2011 iPhone
update, billing it as a more efficient way to send text messages
between iPhone users.  But iPhone customers who upgraded and later
switched to non-Apple devices claim their phone numbers remained
stuck in the iMessage network. Apple retained control of text
messages sent to them by other iPhone users, meaning many of the
messages never reached their intended destinations, according to
plaintiffs lawyers who sued the company in May.  Judge Koh ruled
plaintiffs can proceed with allegations that Apple wrongfully
interfered in contracts its ex-customers set up with wireless
providers.

"Taking plaintiff's allegations as true," Judge Koh wrote,
"Apple's messages application prevents plaintiff from receiving
text messages, a service for which plaintiff pays as part of her
wireless service contract."

However, Judge Koh dismissed with prejudice claims filed under
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition
Law, which centered on allegations that Apple misled its customers
about the defect.  Judge Koh pointed out that the alleged false
statements occurred well after customers had purchased iPhones and
therefore couldn't have influenced their decisions.  For example,
named plaintiff Adrienne Moore bought her iPhone seven months
before Apple's 2011 release of iMessage, Judge Koh noted.  "As a
matter of basic chronology," Koh wrote, "plaintiff cannot contend
that she relied on Apple's representations or omissions regarding
the delivery of iMessages or the messages application in deciding
whether to purchase the iPhone because those representations and
omissions had not yet taken place."

Judge Koh ruled on the parties' papers, vacating a hearing
scheduled for Nov. 13.

On Nov. 19, Apple released a web tool to address the lost text
messages, according to The New York Times.  The tool lets former
Apple customers remove their phone number from iMessage, which
should allow them to receive texts from iPhone users on their non-
iPhone device.


ASSET RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Landau, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06639
(E.D.N.Y., November 12, 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


AUSTRALIA: NTCA Joins Class Action Over Live Cattle Export Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Howell, writing for ATN, reports that participants in a new
class action against the Federal Government's live cattle export
ban say they have a strong case to present.

Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association (NTCA) CEO Tracey Hayes
says the ban on all exports to Indonesia took place during the
peak export season and left many businesses reeling.

The ban affected cattle stations, livestock transporters and
agricultural suppliers.

"A range of businesses are involved [in the class action],"
Mr. Hayes tells ATN.

The NTCA has funded the legal challenge for compensation on behalf
of some of its members.

Mr. Hayes notes that the class action participants appreciated the
animal cruelty concerns behind the ban -- and were supportive of
the first control order that prevented export to 12 specific
abattoirs identified as having unethical practices.

It was a second control order, issued by then agriculture minister
Joe Ludwig, which stopped all exports to Indonesia, regardless of
the final destination.

"When the [second] ban was called, cattle just stopped moving,"
Mr. Hayes says.

"There were cattle already on the road, and even on the water,
that had to change direction."

Mr. Hayes says many shipments found new destinations south and
east, but all businesses involved -- the transport providers in
particular -- faced uncertainty in terms of what they would be
paid, and when.

The class action statement of claim argues this caused unnecessary
upheaval across the industry and its supply chain.

"At the time of making the second control order, Minister Ludwig
knew that prohibiting live exports to Indonesia would create
serious on-farm problems, cause loss of income and cash-flow
issues for producers, and impact on investment in regional north
Australia," the statement says.

Road Trains Australia -- the largest transporter involved in the
class action -- did not respond to a request for comment.


BAYER INC: Feb. 9 Yaz/Yasmin Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------

Yasmin(R)/YAZ(R) CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION

To all residents of Ontario:

(a) who were prescribed and used combination oral contraceptives
Yasmin(R)(3.0 mg drospirenone and 0.030 mg ethinyl estradiol
tablets) and/or YAZ(R)(3.0 mg drospirenone and 0.020 mg ethinyl
estradiol tablets) which are manufactured, marketed, and/or sold
or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce in Canada by
Bayer Inc., between December 10, 2004, in respect of Yasmin(R), or
January 6, 2009 in respect of YAZ(R), and November 30, 2011; and
(b) who by virtue of a personal relationship to any one or more of
the persons described above, have a derivative claim for damages,
pursuant to s. 61 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c F.3. [the "Class"]

Class Action Lawsuit:

Yasmin(R)and YAZ(R)are oral contraceptives sold in Canada by Bayer
Inc. ["defendant"].  A class action lawsuit has been initiated in
Ontario alleging that Bayer Inc. marketed and sold Yasmin(R)
and YAZ(R)without properly warning of alleged increased risks of
suffering blood clots (including pulmonary embolism, deep vein
thrombosis), heart problems, stroke and gallbladder disease
and/or removal, compared to other available oral contraceptives.
The class action seeks, among other things, damages for personal
injuries suffered relating to the use of Yasmin(R)and/or YAZ(R)
as well as consequential damages suffered by family members of
Yasmin(R)and/or YAZ(R)users.

Certification:

On April 15, 2013, the action was certified as a class action by
order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  The certification
order appointed Ann Schwoob, Cody Schwoob and Christine Lovelace
to act as representative plaintiffs for the Class.

The Court may determine a number of issues common to the Class,
including:

   * whether or not Yasmin(R)and/or YAZ(R)create an increased risk
of pulmonary embolism,
   * deep vein thrombosis, stroke, heart problems, and/or
gallbladder disease, compared to

   * other available oral contraceptives;

   * whether the defendant properly warned of the alleged risks;
and

   * if there is liability, if this is an appropriate case in
which the defendant should disgorge any part of the proceeds
received from the selling of Yasmin(R)and/or YAZ(R).

This notice does not mean that the Court has taken a position as
to the likelihood of recovery on the part of any plaintiffs, or as
to the merits of the claims or defenses asserted by either side.

Participation in Class Action

Members of the Class who want to participate in the class action
are automatically included and need not do anything at this time.
The Class Proceedings Act provides that no Class member, other
than the representative plaintiffs, will incur liability for legal
costs if the action is dismissed.

Each Class member who does not opt out of the class action will be
bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement and will not be
allowed to pursue an independent action.  If the class action is
successful, Class members may be entitled to share in the amount
of any award or settlement recovered.

Opting Out

Class Members who do not want to participate in the class action
must opt out.  If you want to opt out of the class action, you
must send a written, signed election, including your name,
address, telephone number to: McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP, c/o
Yasmin/YAZ Class Action, 140 Fullarton Street, Suite 1800, London
ON N6A 5P2 by Monday, February 9, 2015.

No person may opt out a minor (person under 18 years of age) or a
mentally incapable member of the Class without permission of the
Court after notice to The Children's Lawyer and/or the Public
Guardian and Trustee, as appropriate.

Family members of any Class members who opt out will be deemed to
have opted out.  If a Class member is deceased, his or her estate
trustee has the right to opt out.

A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to participate in
the class action.  His or her right to pursue a claim in a
separate proceeding will not be affected.

Important

This notice does not constitute medical advice.  Women who have
been prescribed Yasmin(R) and/or YAZ(R)should consult with their
physicians if they have any questions with respect to their
course of treatment and/or medical condition.

Questions? The court offices will be unable to answer any
questions about the matters in this Notice.  If you have any
questions regarding the certification order or about the class
action in general, information is available on Class Counsel's
website: www.mckenzielake.com and by contacting Class Counsel
directly, as follows:

McKenzie Lake
Lawyers LLP
Toll Free Tel: 1.844.672.5666
Email: jones@mckenzielake.com

This Notice was approved by order of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.


BAYER INC: Judge Allows Digestive Aids Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
New Jersey federal judge has refused to dump a proposed class
action alleging Bayer falsely hyped the value of two purported
digestive aids in defending against colon distress.

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of the District of New Jersey
kept intact the bulk of the amended complaint of plaintiffs
Troy Yuncker and Dino Rikos that claims made by Bayer about its
Phillips' Colon Health Probiotic + Fiber product and Phillips
Colon Health Probiotic Caps are false and misleading.

In its marketing and on labels, Bayer allegedly portrayed the
supplements as helping to "defend against" occasional
constipation, diarrhea, and gas and bloating, and to support the
immune system, according to the judge's Nov. 6 order.  In its
advertising, the company cited "scientific studies" that supported
the purported benefits of the three strains of "good" bacteria
used in the preparations, the judge wrote.

But the plaintiffs cited four studies by the European Food Safety
Authority -- akin to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration -- that
found no cause-and-effect relationship between ingesting the
lactobacillus gasseri, bifidobacterium bifidum, and
bifidobacterium longum bacteria and benefits to the digestive and
immune system.

Messrs. Yuncker and Rikos allege Bayer engaged in violations of
the Consumer Fraud Acts in New Jersey and Illinois, California's
business and professions code, as well as unjust enrichment and
breach of implied warranty of merchantability. They ask for
punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement and injunctive and
declaratory relief.

Bayer disputed the plaintiffs' claim that there is no scientific
substantiation of the benefit of the probiotics, and the company
denies any falsity in the company's labeling and marketing.

Bayer moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act claim on the basis that New Jersey law is not applicable to
consumer fraud claims brought by the two named plaintiffs, who are
residents of Illinois.  Judge Linares agreed with defendants and
dismissed the New Jersey count.  Otherwise, he said, the
plaintiffs' claims can continue.

"Such scientific studies, accepted as true for purposes of this
motion, allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
combination of the three strains of bacteria contained in
Phillips' Colon Health does not deliver the digestive health
benefits that Bayer claims it does," Judge Linares wrote.
"Whether or not plaintiffs will ultimately be able to prove that
Bayer's statements are actually false remains to be seen and is
certainly not at issue on a motion to dismiss."

Bayer is represented by the firms Coughlin Duffy and Sidley
Austin.  Plaintiffs' counsel are with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
Olstein, Brody & Agnello; and Quantum Legal.


BERNALILLO, NM: Takes Step to Meet Jail Class Action Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gallagher, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that for
the past two months, the population at Bernalillo County's main
lockup has consistently dipped below 2,000 inmates -- a population
decline that is ahead of the county's projections as it moves to
relieve years of overcrowding.

The population within the walls of the Bernalillo County
Metropolitan Detention Center is hovering around the 1,950 inmates
mandated by a federal judge -- down from nearly 3,000 inmates a
year ago when county officials had to ship 700 inmates to out-of-
state jails at a cost of more than $6 million to relieve
overcrowding.  There are no longer any inmates in out-of-state
jails.

The concerted effort to trim the jail's population involves
changes in how the lockup is run, reforms in the District and
Metropolitan courts and changes implemented by the District
Attorney's and Public Defender's offices.

County officials say they believe the reduction is a significant
step in meeting the requirements of the 18-year-old federal class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of inmates when the detention
center was located in Downtown Albuquerque.  It's a lawsuit that
costs county taxpayers an average of $1 million a year in legal
and other fees.

Kelly Bradford, an attorney who carries the title of adult
detention reform coordinator for the county, said that without the
cooperation of the court systems and other agencies, the
population reduction would have been difficult.

"The county does not control the front door or the back door when
it comes to MDC's population," Ms. Bradford said in an interview.

Legislative help

As part of that process of controlling the doors at MDC, the
Legislature passed a law in 2013 creating a commission to review
issues surrounding the jail overcrowding and related issues in the
courts.  It put the state Supreme Court and the Administrative
Office of the Courts at the center of getting representatives of
District Court, Metropolitan Court, the jail, the county, police
agencies, and the state probation and parole divisions involved in
solving the problem.

The commission has made 41 recommendations to reduce the time
inmates spend in county lockup, and about half are either in place
or in the process.

Ms. Bradford said the impact of some of the initiatives has been
difficult to measure because of antiquated computer systems and
budget constraints have kept the county from upgrading computer
systems.

But two court reforms appear to have made a significant impact on
the jail population.

Under the reform measures, the length of time people who violated
their probation restrictions -- such as not reporting in or using
drugs -- had to wait for a hearing has been reduced from more than
40 days to a little over 20 days.

Ms. Bradford said that directly affects a major cause of
overcrowding -- length of inmate stay -- because about 27 percent
of inmates were being held on probation violations prior to the
change.

District Court judges also increased their use of a court pretrial
release program rather than setting cash bonds for people charged
with a crime.

And judges also approved the use of more preliminary hearings in
criminal cases, rather than grand jury indictments, which appears
to lead to faster plea agreements.

District Attorney Kari Brandenburg assigned a prosecutor to some
Metro Court hearings to expedite minor cases.

The county picked up the tab for pro tem judges to preside over
the preliminary hearings and some of the probation hearings.

"We are releasing more people than we are taking in," Ms. Bradford
said. "These initiatives are starting to have an impact."

Mandates 'reachable'

The downward trend on the population at MDC is good news, but the
jail crowding case if far from over.

Under court orders in the case, the county is going to have to
keep the population under the 1,950 cap for at least 18 months.

Population isn't the only issue, but Deputy County Manager
Tom Swisstack said the reduction makes meeting the rest of the
many mandates ordered in the class-action case -- called the
McClendon case for short -- "reachable."

In September, Senior U.S. District Judge James Parker ordered
court-appointed experts to review overall jail conditions, inmate
mental health treatment and inmate medical care.

In a 42-page order, Judge Parker asked for reports on policies and
procedures for the handling of inmates in segregation, use of
force by corrections officers, inmate classification and housing.

Judge Parker also asked the court-appointed expert, Manuel Romero,
to add any personal observations on jail conditions, training of
officers and actual follow through on written policies and
procedures.

The lack of a jail director may slow Romero's work. The jail has
been without a director since the unexpected resignation of Ramon
Rustin in April. A new jail director is expected to be appointed
in the next few weeks.

Mr. Romero is required to make six written reports to the court
over the next year.

Parker also ordered the court-appointed mental health expert,
Dr. Jeffrey Metzner, to review all mental health policies and
procedures from the time inmates enter MDC, when and if they are
segregated from the general population, their daily activities and
access to mental health professionals.

MDC's 100-bed psychiatric unit has gotten high marks from inmate
attorneys, but mental health care for inmates in the general
population has been a problem, as has getting inmates follow-up
care once they are released from the jail.

Ms. Swisstack said the county, working with the city and state
government, is trying to develop "wraparound" mental health care
for inmates once they are released from the jail to help reduce
recidivism.

Mr. Metzner was also told to review the county's attempts to
develop alternative mental health facilities for inmates and
provide the court a preliminary report in six months.

The court's medical expert, Dr. Robert Greifinger, was ordered to
determine whether the medical care provided inmates is in
compliance with accepted national guidelines for jails.

Dr. Greifinger was told to review a number of specific areas that
deal with communication between security staff and medical staff,
specifically whether medical staff are alerted to individual
inmate's acute medical complaints in a timely matter and whether
security staff are informed about an inmate's ongoing medical
needs like medication.

His first report to the court is due in six months.


BEST BUY: Judge Dismisses Portions of "Herron" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gariand E. Burrell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted defendant's motion
to dismiss in the case entitled CHAD HERRON, individually, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintff, v.
BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership, Defendant,
No. 12-CV-02103-GEB-JFM (E.D. Cal.)

In or about January 2010, Plaintiff Chad Herron bought a new
Toshiba Satellite L505 from Best Buy after he was induced on the
representation that the battery life of such model was up to 3.32
hours. However plaintiff never once achieved even close to the
represented 3.32 hours if battery life. Plaintiff alleged that
defendant violated the under California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act or CLRA and under the "unlawfulness" portion of California's
Unfair Competition Law or UCL that is premised upon the CLRA
claim. These claims are now in plaintiff's fourth amended
complaint. Plaintiff served Best Buy with notice of its violation
of the CLRA only on February 4, 2014.

Best Buy argues the claims must be dismissed because Plaintiff
failed to satisfy notice requirements in Cal. Civ. Code Section
1782(a), which Best Buy contends must be satisfied before
Plaintiff is authorized to seek restitution or disgorgement.
Section 1782(a) imposes a notice requirement on actions for
damages.

Defendant sought the dismissal of plaintiff's claims under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Burrell granted defendant's motion but granted plaintiff 35
days from the date on which the order is filed to file an amended
complaint addressing the deficiencies in the dismissed portion of
the fourth amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Burrell's order dated October 31, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/JgfktD- from Leagle.com.

Best Buys Stores, LP, Defendant, represented by Jill S. Casselman
-- jscasselman@rkmc.com -- Michael Aaron Geibelson --
mageibelson@rkmc.com -- at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP


BLUESPRIG INC: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Second Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted defendants' motion to
dismiss; and denied, as moot, a request for judicial notice in the
case JACK DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPERIENCE CORPORATION and
BLUESPRIG, INC., Defendants, No. C 14-00766 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jack Davis purchased defendants' software called
Advanced SystemCare Pro, a software supposed to protect against
privacy risks, remove harmful errors, improve internet performance
as well as increase computer speed and performance, clean out
clutter, and optimize internet speed. The software can be obtained
in two steps, by downloading a free, limited trial version and
purchasing the full registered version of the software. However
neither the free version nor the paid version performs its task
effectively. Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against
defendant but later filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint asserts four claims on behalf of Davis and the putative
class: (1) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law; (2)
fraudulent inducement; (3) breach of contract; and (4) breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

After the amended complaint mooted an earlier motion to dismiss,
defendants Apperience Corporation and BlueSprig, Inc. filed a
second motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
9(b) and 12(b)(6). In support of their second motion, the
defendants sought judicial notice of two exhibits concerning a
printout from the California Secretary of State's website and a
company circular.

Judge Alsup said Davis may file a motion seeking leave to amend
the operative complaint, notice on the normal 35-day track.

A copy of Judge Alsup's order dated October 31, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/FQ75bWfrom Leagle.com.

BlueSprig, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Anthony Meckes,
Esq. -- joseph.meckes@squirepb.com -- Colter Paulson, Esq. --
colter.paulson@squirepb.com -- Scott A. Kane, Esq. --
scott.kane@squirepb.com -- at Squire Patton Boggs US LLP


BRIUS HEALTHCARE: Owner's Nursing Homes Target of Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------
Marjie Lundstrom and Phillip Reese, writing for The Sacramento
Bee, report that Shlomo Rechnitz, a 43-year-old Los Angeles
entrepreneur, has rapidly become the state's largest nursing-home
owner with about 75 facilities from San Diego to Los Angeles to
Roseville to Eureka.  His homes have been the target of more
complaints and federal deficiencies per bed than most other large
chains in California, according to a Sacramento Bee investigation.

Consumers would be hard-pressed to know that -- or even to link
Mr. Rechnitz to any particular nursing home using the state's
website.  Some of the state's leading elder-care advocates said
they had never heard of Mr. Rechnitz or his principal company,
Brius Healthcare Services.

Mr. Rechnitz's history in California is a case study in the
evolving nature of nursing-home ownership, and the complexity of
the industry's corporate structures.  As private investment groups
scoop up an ever-larger share of the nation's skilled-nursing care
market, it has become increasingly difficult to decipher who owns
the nation's largest chains.

Elder-care advocates will tell you this is no accident: A
convoluted ownership structure, they say, is a way for owners to
hide assets and shield themselves from civil and criminal
liability when patients are abused or neglected in their care.
Confusing lines of ownership also make it harder for regulators to
detect worrisome patterns of care among facilities within a chain.

Congress felt so strongly about improving nursing-home
transparency that the Affordable Care Act now includes strict new
reporting requirements for owners.  But the government's ability
to untangle the ownership web has been slow and inconsistent.

A 1997 California law requires state officials to make detailed
ownership information publicly available, but the state's health
facilities website continues to provide scant and often misleading
information.

In the absence of complete government databases, The Bee spent
several months sifting through federal and state records to piece
together ownership structures for California's 25 largest skilled-
nursing-home chains.  Among the findings:

   * Company structures can be extraordinarily elaborate.  Mr.
Rechnitz has crafted a network of nearly 80 separate entities that
oversee 54 nursing homes up and down the state; he recently
acquired 19 more facilities in a bankruptcy case.  Another large
player, Longwood Management Corp., has built a different
corporation for each of its 32 homes.  The corporations have names
like Tzippy Care Inc. and SGV Healthcare Inc. that are difficult
for consumers to link without poring through public records.

  * Many nursing-home chains create management companies to
provide administrative services to their homes.  Owners say the
model creates efficiencies. Critics, including a Glendale lawyer
who has filed suit over the practice, contend it's a ploy to skim
off nursing-home revenues to line investors' pockets.

   * Ten of the 25 largest chains in the state make it hard for
consumers to see what facilities they own.  In addition to their
complicated business structures, the large chains of Brius, Plum
Healthcare Group, Country Villa Health Services and Sun Mar Health
Care have no websites.  Other large ownership groups, including
Longwood Management and North American Health Care Inc., offer
bare-bones websites with no specific facility information.

   * California nursing-home owners and executives have widely
diverse backgrounds, with many lacking health care experience.
One Los Angeles-based owner, Sol Majer, spent 20 years in the
cosmetics industry, manufacturing a line of nail polish, hair
removal wax and false eyelashes.  Another large ownership group is
led by two high-powered Los Angeles developers, Jacob Wintner and
Ira Smedra, officers in the ARBA Group whose ventures have
included upscale shopping centers.

Mark Reagan, legal adviser for the California Association of
Health Facilities, said complex business structures are a
necessity for nursing-home owners -- and the health care industry
in general.

Nursing homes rely on Medicare reimbursements, along with Medi-Cal
money on the state level, he said.  If all the facilities and
assets are held by only one corporation -- and just one of its
facilities gets into serious trouble, such as a criminal elder-
abuse conviction -- the entire group of sister facilities also is
at risk of losing government funding, Mr. Reagan said.

"No responsible health care company will hold all of its assets in
a single corporation," said Mr. Reagan, describing the
multilayered structures as a "sound business practice."

Mr. Reagan said he does not believe consumers are harmed by the
approach, and that elder-abuse attorneys are savvy enough to sort
out the pieces in a civil lawsuit.

Not every nursing-home chain in California that blurs its
ownership delivers bad care.  Not every chain that puts it all out
there, on websites or in marketing materials, has a stellar
record.

Still, elder-care advocates contend that some nursing-home
operators strive to keep things murky, at the expense of
consumers.  And, they point out, unwitting consumers could wind up
transferring their loved ones from one troubled facility to the
next, without ever realizing they're part of the same chain -- and
the same set of problems.

"People don't really know who owns nursing homes," said
San Francisco elder-abuse attorney Kathryn A. Stebner, who has
filed class-action lawsuits against several large chains.

"If I'm buying a product," she said, "I want to know who makes
it."

'A crazy web'

If Mr. Rechnitz is a mystery figure in some corners of the
nursing-home world, he is certainly well-known in select Los
Angeles social circles.  Mr. Rechnitz is described as a
businessman and philanthropist who has donated millions to Jewish
institutions and charitable causes, according to articles in the
Jewish press in Los Angeles.  Details of his oldest daughter's
lavish wedding in February at the Beverly Hilton Hotel are
scattered across the Internet.

He appears to have entered the nursing-home business through a
side door.  He and his twin brother, Steve, co-founded a medical-
supply company in 1998 called TwinMed, which services nursing
homes with such items as exam gloves, glove box holders and
incontinence briefs.

Mr. Rechnitz founded Brius in 2004, and soon was buying up
facilities at a rapid pace.  By early last year, his homes across
the state were grossing $600 million a year, he said in a Jan. 24,
2013, deposition in Orange County.

Elder-abuse attorney Michael Moran quizzed Mr. Rechnitz that
afternoon about his complex corporate network, contending
Mr. Rechnitz had given away a nursing home to escape a $4.5
million judgment. At one point, Moran asked Mr. Rechnitz why he
was associated with more than 100 different businesses.

". . . (T)hat has to be the stupidest question I've ever heard,"
Rechnitz replied, according to a transcript from the ongoing case.
". . . It's possible there are dumber questions, but it ranks high
up."

The question never was answered.  The contentious back-and-forth
between Mr. Rechnitz and Moran -- whom Mr. Rechnitz suggested was
"an ambulance chaser" -- reflects the persistent tension between
nursing-home owners and the attorneys who sue them, unraveling
their structures in the process.

Using several state and federal databases, The Bee identified 130
business entities tied to Mr. Rechnitz's nursing-home chain -- and
that was before he added 19 facilities in a bankruptcy proceeding
this year, as well as three others.  The data show that he shares
ownership in some facilities with 26 individuals.

A corporate pattern soon emerges, one shared by other nursing-home
chains operating in California: a nursing home owned by a limited
liability company, which is owned by another limited liability
company, which is owned by another one after that, with the
primary owner at the top of the pile.  Some chains structure the
various entities as general partnerships, others as corporations.

Picture a giant, elaborate wheel, with the owners at the center,
then dozens of spokes splaying out toward subsidiaries that in
turn connect to other wheels, with more spokes connecting to
individual homes.

One of the state's most complex chains was dissected recently in
federal bankruptcy court in Santa Ana.  Country Villa Health
Services filed for Chapter 11 protection in March, blaming a bevy
of class-action lawsuits.  The case involved 18 nursing homes and
one assisted-living facility, though the company had "concurrently
managed 50 nursing facilities within the state," according to
court papers.

For consumers, the real confusion lay in the name: Country Villa
owned only some of the more than 30 nursing homes in California
that carried its name.  Others were owned by someone else, but
Country Villa exercised "operational/managerial" control, federal
records show.

Other homes were owned or managed by Country Villa but did not
carry the Country Villa brand. And still other homes carried the
Country Villa name but, at least according to federal ownership
records, no longer had a relationship to the company.

In 2012, 27 nursing-home licensees that had contracted with
Country Villa for administrative services sued the company,
alleging mismanagement.  Two of those licensees carried the
Country Villa name, giving the strange but false impression that
Country Villa was suing itself.

Stephen Reissman, CEO of Country Villa Health Services, did not
return phone calls for comment.

Following Country Villa's bankruptcy declaration, Mr. Rechnitz
this year won approval from a federal judge to buy the company's
19 facilities for $62 million cash.  Even before the deal, Mr.
Rechnitz's business setup was elaborate. Each of his 54 homes was
licensed under a separate limited liability company or general
partnership.  All the names are different, though some are similar
sounding.

Mr. Rechnitz did not respond to interview requests for this
series. But in a lengthy written response to Bee questions, his
legal team said he structures his company in a way common in the
health care industry.  By establishing smaller groups of
facilities under local management and oversight, they wrote, the
system actually "provides for more individualized monitoring of
the facilities."


CAPITAL ONE: Consolidated N.Y. Interchange Fees Suit in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation is facing a consolidated lawsuit
over interchange fees, that is in discovery in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the
"Interchange Lawsuits") against MasterCard and Visa and several
member banks, including the company's subsidiaries and the
company, alleging among other things, that the defendants
conspired to fix the level of interchange fees. The complaints
seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages, which could be
trebled. Separately, a number of large merchants have asserted
similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only. In October 2005,
the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were consolidated
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for certain purposes, including discovery. In July 2012, the
parties executed and filed with the court a Memorandum of
Understanding agreeing to resolve the litigation on certain terms
set forth in a settlement agreement attached to the Memorandum.
The class settlement provides for, among other things, (i)
payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs
totaling approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) a distribution to the
class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of certain
interchange transactions for a period of eight months; and (iii)
modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules regarding point
of sale practices. This agreement is contingent on final court
approval of the class settlement. In November 2012, the court
granted preliminary approval of the class settlement. In December
2013, the court granted final approval of the proposed class
settlement, which was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals in January 2014.

Several merchant plaintiffs have also opted out of the class
settlement, some of which have sued MasterCard, Visa and various
member banks, including Capital One (collectively "the Opt-Out
Plaintiffs").

Relatedly, in December 2013, individual consumer plaintiffs also
filed a proposed national class action against a number of banks,
including Capital One, alleging that because the banks conspired
to fix interchange fees, consumers were forced to pay more for the
fees than appropriate. The consumer case and virtually all of the
opt-out cases were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes, including
discovery. The consolidated cases are in their preliminary stages,
and Visa and MasterCard have settled a number of individual opt-
out cases, requiring non-material payments from all banks,
including Capital One.

As members of Visa, the company's subsidiary banks have
indemnification obligations to Visa with respect to final
judgments and settlements, including the Interchange Lawsuits. In
the first quarter of 2008, Visa completed an IPO of its stock.
With IPO proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for the
benefit of member banks to fund certain litigation settlements and
claims, including the Interchange Lawsuits. As a result, in the
first quarter of 2008, the company reduced the company's Visa-
related indemnification liabilities of $91 million recorded in
other liabilities with a corresponding reduction of other non-
interest expense. The company made an election in accordance with
the accounting guidance for fair value option for financial assets
and liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa, and the
fair value of the guarantee as of September 30, 2014 was zero.
Separately, in January 2011, the company entered into a MasterCard
Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with other
defendant banks, which apportions between MasterCard and its
member banks the costs and liabilities of any judgment or
settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits.


CAPITAL ONE: Appeal From Cert. of "Watson" Suit to be Heard Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia set oral argument on an
appeal against the partial certification of a suit by furniture
store owner named Mary Watson against Capital One Financial
Corporation in December 2014, according to the company's Nov. 3,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner named Mary Watson filed a
proposed class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks, including Capital One
(the "Watson Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts, among other
things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount
fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in violation
of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks unspecified damages
and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital One has been named as
a defendant in similar proposed class action claims filed in other
jurisdictions in Canada. In March 2014, the court granted a
partial motion for class certification. Both parties appealed the
decision to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, which set
oral argument on the appeal in December 2014.


CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs in Credit Card Interest Rate Suit Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate
Multi-district Litigation filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals from the grant of summary judgment to the
suit, according to the company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer
order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two
pending putative class actions against COBNA-Nancy Mancuso, et al.
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D. Virginia); and
Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (N.D.
Georgia), A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred
into the MDL. In August 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint
alleges in a putative class action that COBNA breached its
contractual obligations, and violated the Truth in Lending Act
("TILA"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the UCL,
the California False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised
interest rates on certain credit card accounts. As a result of a
settlement in another matter, the California-based UCL and TILA
claims in the MDL are extinguished. The MDL plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, restitution, attorney's fees and an injunction
against future rate increases. In August 2011, after the
completion of fact discovery, Capital One filed a motion for
summary judgment, which was granted in September 2014. Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
in October 2014.


CAPITAL ONE: Settles Fla. Checking Account Overdraft Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, of
which Capital One Financial Corporation is a defendant, reached an
agreement to resolve the class claims and are proceeding with the
court approval process, according to the company's Nov. 3, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One
Bank (USA), National Association (COBNA) were named as defendants
in a putative class action named Steen v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges practices
relating to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on
consumer checking accounts. Plaintiff alleges that the company's
methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts was
designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees, supporting
claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust
enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices laws.
Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees. In May 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern
District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part
of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving numerous defendant
banks, captioned In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. In
January 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against
CONA in the MDL court. In February 2011, CONA filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint. In March 2011, the MDL court
granted CONA's motion to dismiss claims of breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing under Texas law, but denied the
motion to dismiss in all other respects. In June 2012, the MDL
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. The
parties reached an agreement to resolve the class claims in
October 2014 and are proceeding with the court approval process.


CAPITAL ONE: Final Approval Hearing of TCPA Suit Deal Set for Q4
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
scheduled to consider final approval of the settlement in the
Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") Litigation,
in the fourth quarter of 2014, according to Capital One Financial
Corporation's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") Litigation Multi-district Litigation matter was
created as a result of a transfer order issued by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation ("TCPA MDL"),
which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois three pending putative
class actions-Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois); and Charles
C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D.
Illinois) and several individual lawsuits. In February 2013, the
putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint and individual lawsuits allege that
COBNA and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by
contacting consumers on their cellular telephones using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or
prerecorded voice without first obtaining prior express consent to
do so. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent
and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief. In June 2014, the parties executed and filed
with the court a settlement agreement agreeing to resolve the
litigation for an amount within previously established reserves.
The court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement in
July 2014, and is scheduled to consider final approval of the
class settlement in the fourth quarter of 2014.


CARTER BROTHERS: "Gutierrez" Labor Suit Survives Bid to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramses Gutierrez et al., in March 2014, filed a class action on
behalf of themselves and other putative class members against
Carter Brothers Security Services, LLC, AT&T Digital Life, Inc.,
Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T Datacomm, Inc., AT&T
Corp., and Does 1 through 10 inclusive.  Plaintiffs are seeking
damages, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief as a
result of Defendants' alleged violations of both state and federal
labor laws.  Plaintiffs further allege causes of action for
conversion and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law.

District Judge Morrison C. England, in an Oct. 30, 2014 Memorandum
and Order, denied Defendant Carter Brothers' (1) motion for an
order compelling arbitration and dismissing, or alternatively
staying the action, and (2) motion to dismiss the complaint or, in
the alternative, to transfer the proceedings to Georgia.

The case is RAMSES GUTIERREZ, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARTER BROTHERS
SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, AT&T DIGITAL LIFE, INC., PACIFIC BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY DBA AT&T DATACOMM, INC., AT&T CORP. and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-00351-MCE-CKD,
(E.D. Cal.).  A copy of the judge's Oct. 30 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/NA6X3wfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph Wayne Rose, Esq. of Rose Law,
APC.

Carter Brothers Security Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jason R. Dawson, Esq. -- jdawson@gordonrees.com -- & Jeffrey W.
Melcher, Esq. -- jmelcher@gordonrees.com -- of Gordon & Rees LLP.

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


CASHCALL INC: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Decertification Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Judith Haller of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One, affirms the district court order
decertifying a class in the case AMANDA KIGHT et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. CASHCALL, INC., Defendant and Respondent., No.
D063363 (Cal. App.)

In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged they each borrowed money
from CashCall, and, in making the loans and collecting delinquent
payments on those loans, CashCall secretly monitored and
eavesdropped on telephone conversations between CashCall employees
and plaintiffs, including conversations pertaining to sensitive
financial information. Plaintiffs alleged CashCall conducted the
illegal monitoring for the purpose of assisting CashCall in its
collection efforts without the knowledge or consent of plaintiffs
or the class members. Plaintiffs alleged several causes of action,
including unlawful invasion of privacy in violation of Penal Code
section 632. Plaintiffs sought damages permitted under section 632
(the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times the amount of
actual damages) and an injunction to prohibit CashCall from
continuing to engage in this practice. Plaintiffs then moved to
certify the class, arguing the proposed class and class
representatives satisfied each of the elements of a class action.

In opposition to the motion, CashCall argued primarily that class
certification was improper because the call monitoring does not
violate section 632 because two corporate employees are a "single
'person'" for purposes of the statute. CashCall also argued that
common issues did not predominate because each class member would
be required to individually testify regarding whether he or she
had an objectively reasonable expectation that their calls were
not being monitored.

The court granted the class certification motion on plaintiffs'
section 632. CashCall then moved for summary adjudication on
plaintiffs' section 632 class claim. The court granted the summary
adjudication, stating that there was no section 632 violation as
matter of law because the telephone conversations were monitored
by an employee of the same corporation who employed the call
participant.

On appeal, the appellate court reversed the summary adjudication
order and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial
court.

Several months after the case has been remanded, CashCall moved to
decertify the class arguing on the identification of numerous
individual factual issues relevant to the confidential-
communications issue demonstrated that liability on the section
632 claim "cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis. The court
granted CashCall's motion for decertification and expresses that
the appellate court's decision constitutes a 'changed
circumstance' for purposes of the decertification] analysis.
Defendant persuasively argues that individual issues regarding the
individual putative class members objectively reasonable
expectation of privacy predominate over defendant's alleged
uniform policies.

Plaintiffs appealed.

A copy of Justice Haller's order dated November 4, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/jWqbLpfrom Leagle.com

Brad W. Seiling, Esq. -- bseiling@manatt.com -- Joanna S.
McCullum, Esq. -- jmccallum@manatt.com -- at Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips; and Justin C. Johnson -- jcjohnson@jcj-law.com -- for
Defendant and Respondent.

The Fourth District, Division One panel consists of Justice Judith
Haller, Acting Presiding Justice Patricia D. Benke and Justice
Richard Huffman.


CLEANNET U.S.A.: E.D. Pa. Judge Won't Remand Franchisee's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anita B. Brody of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Plaintiff's motion in EDDY
TORRES, Plaintiff, v. CLEANNET, U.S.A.., INC., et al.,
Defendants., Civil Action No. 14-2818 (E.D. Pa.)

Defendant CleanNet is a commercial cleaning company that operates
throughout the United States. In Pennsylvania, it operates through
two subfranchisors, MKH and CleanNet PA, which are also named as
defendants in the case.

Plaintiff Eddy Torres entered into a Franchise Agreement with MKH
to become a CleanNet franchisee and to perform cleaning services
for CleanNet. Torres and members of the putative class are unable
to negotiate different terms and conditions from those in the form
Franchise Agreement provided by CleanNet. CleanNet maintains
control over all aspects of the janitorial service being performed
by Plaintiff and members of the Class, including the manner and
method of services, the schedule of service, the rates of pay, and
the gross monthly billings. Additionally, CleanNet controls the
type of cleaning equipment and supplies to be used and the amount
that can be charged to a client. CleanNet also requires Torres and
members of the putative class to purchase a variety of insurances,
sets minimum limits for these coverages, and requires CleanNet and
the Area Operator (either MKH or CleanNet Pa) to be named as
additional insured at the expense of Torres and the putative class
members. The relationship turned sour, Torres filed a case against
CleanNet.

Torres alleges that CleanNet has devised a clever employment
relationship that misclassifies Plaintiff and members of the
putative class as independent contractors. The basis of this
misclassification arises from CleanNet's orchestrated scheme to
enlist its employees as franchisees, classify these employees as
independent contractors, and evade the obligations of an employer
under Pennsylvania law. As a result of Defendants'
misclassification scheme, Plaintiff is owed wages under seven
categories: (i) improperly collected or withheld fees; (ii)
improperly withheld insurance premiums; (iii) pro rata share of
unemployment compensation premiums; (iv) social security taxes
(FICA); (v) Medicare; (vi) federal unemployment (FUTA); and (vii)
overtime.

Torres brings causes of action on behalf of himself and the
putative class members under the following Pennsylvania statutory
and common laws: Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, 43 P.S.
section 333.101 et seq.; the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law, 43 P.S. section 260.1 et seq.; the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S.
section 201 et seq., the Pennsylvania Workman's Compensation Act,
73 P.S. section 501(a)(d); Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 Pa. C.S.
Sec. 7531 et seq.; rescission; and unjust enrichment.

Torres originally filed this case in the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas. Defendants removed this diversity class action from
state court to district court pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Plaintiff moves to remand the case
to state court based on the home state and local controversy
exceptions to subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA.

Judge Brody denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case and
expresses that the home state and local controversy exception
under CAFA does not apply.

A copy of Judge Brody's memorandum dated November 4, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/UmrLO3from Leagle.com

CLEANNET SYSTEMS OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., Defendant, represented by
Martha J. Keon -- mkeon@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.


PHILADELPHIA: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in Williams Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
DWIGHT WILLIAMS, ET AL., v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL., CIVIL
ACTION NO. 08-1979, (E.D. Penn.) is a class action brought by
inmates in the Philadelphia Prison System (PPS) against the City
of Philadelphia (City) seeking equitable relief under the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments for alleged unconstitutional conditions
of confinement. Plaintiffs complain of overcrowding and triple-
celling in the county-operated PPS.  Plaintiffs allege that the
overcrowding in the PPS results in danger to the health and safety
of the inmate population. Presently before the Court is a
discovery dispute centered on a supplemental discovery request
that Plaintiffs' counsel served on the City in December 2013.
Plaintiffs seek "mortality and sentinel event reviews for deaths
that occurred in custody from January 2012 to December 1, 2013."
The City sought to obtain the requested information from Corizon
Health, Inc. (Corizon), the contracted provider of medical
services in the PPS. Corizon objected, contending that the
requested documents are not discoverable because they are
privileged and protected from disclosure under Pennsylvania's
peer-review privilege law. Plaintiffs disagree, claiming that the
state peer-review privilege is not recognized in federal court,
and thus does not protect the documents Plaintiffs seek.

District Judge R. Barclay Surrick, in a memorandum dated November
4, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/TaAiqJfrom
Leagle.com, denied Corizon's Request to not produce mortality and
sentinel event reviews requested by Plaintiffs. The Court directed
counsel to submit an appropriate Protective Order.

DWIGHT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

ANTHONY OUELLETTE, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

KOLEYON PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

ANTHONY DIGGS, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

KENNETH SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

EDWARD ZAMICHIELI, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

LOUIS EUBANKS, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

JAMES SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

THOMAS SCOTT, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

SHANNON BOLLI, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

MARISOL LOPEZ, Plaintiff, represented by ANGUS R. LOVE, PA
INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT, DAVID RICHMAN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
DAVID RUDOVSKY, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, JONATHAN
H. FEINBERG, KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP, MATTHEW D.
JANSSEN, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, SU MING YEH, PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT & ROBERT W. MEEK, DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY R. SETH WILLIAMS, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by ELIZABETH J. RUBIN, OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY &
PRIYA M. TRAVASSOS, PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

CITY OF PHLADELPHIA, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY M.
KOLANSKY, ARCHER & GREINER, JEFFREY M. SCOTT, ARCHER & GREINER,
MARK MAGUIRE, PHILADELPHIA OFFICE OF CITY SOLICITOR & RICHARD G.
TUTTLE, Law Offices of Henry Ian Pass.

LOUIS GIORLA, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY M. KOLANSKY,
ARCHER & GREINER & JEFFREY M. SCOTT, ARCHER & GREINER.

CORIZON HEALTH, INC., Movant, represented by STEPHEN E. SIEGRIST,
O'CONNOR KIMBALL, LLP.


CVS PHARMACY: Judge Recommends Denial of "Ceja-Corona" Class Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone recommended the denial of a
motion for preliminary approval of a settlement in the class
action complaint LETICIA CEJA-CORONA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CVS
PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01868-AWI-SAB.

The Plaintiffs are employees of CVS Pharmacy who complained of the
Company's failure to pay minimum wages, overtime, and wages upon
termination, among other things.

The proposed class settlement provides that CVS Pharmacy will pay
$900,000 in cash to resolve the claims of any class members who do
not timely and validly opt out. The $900,000 will be paid by CVS
Pharmacy on a non-reversionary basis. The parties propose the
following deductions from the $900,000 settlement amount:

-- up to $10,000 to Ceja-Corona and $7,500 for Armenta for their
    services and participation as class representatives;

-- up to $270,000 to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and up to
    $15,000 for litigation costs;

-- $7,500 to the California Labor and Workforce Development
    Agency ("LWDA") for penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sec.
    2699, et seq.; and

-- $30,700 for the costs of claims administration.

In his Oct. 30, 2014's Findings and Recommendations, Judge Boone
finds that the proposed settlement is improper because class
certification is inappropriate due to the inclusion of the
reporting time claims and because the terms of the settlement are
fundamentally unfair to certain class members and the LWDA.

A copy of Judge Boone's Oct. 30 Recommendations is available at
http://is.gd/UFwOUlfrom Leagle.com.

Leticia Ceja-Corona, Plaintiff, is represented by:

      David Harmik Yeremian
      Hugo Ernesto Gamez
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd.
      Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Toll-Free: 800-774-4163
      Phone: 818-237-4794

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, is represented by:

      Caryn M Anderson
      Jody Landry
      Ofelia Mishell Parreno-Taylor
      LITTLER AND MENDELSON, P.C.
      501 W. Broadway
      Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101 US
      Email: jlandry@littler.com
             mtaylor@littler.com


DEAN FOODS: Awaits Ruling in Food Lion Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and
Comcast v. Behrend made it much tougher for plaintiffs to survive
dismissal motions and win class certification.  Now, if you
believe leading U.S dairy company Dean Foods Co., the court has a
perfect opportunity to clarify the standards governing motions for
summary judgment, and to ensure that antitrust plaintiffs
establish basic elements of their case early on.

On Nov. 14, the justices were set to consider whether to grant
cert in Dean Foods v. Food Lion, a long-running antitrust class
action alleging that Dean conspired with Dairy Farmers of America
Inc. to thwart competition for bottled milk in the southeast
United States.  Dean and DFA, represented by Seth Waxman of Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, say the case would make an ideal
complement to Twombly and Comcast, antitrust cases in which the
court broadly tightened threshold pleading standards and the
predominance requirement in class actions, respectively.

"Summary judgment serves as a final gatekeeper before the expense,
burdens, and risk of trial," the companies' April cert petition
intones.  "As in Twombly and Comcast, this court should grant
review to demonstrate the correct application of this critical
pretrial standard."

The petition challenges a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, which ruled in January 2014 that a
Tennessee federal judge erred in tossing the plaintiffs' Section 1
Sherman Act antitrust claim against Dean and DFA.  The lower court
judge had granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that
the plaintiffs' expert couldn't tie higher milk prices directly to
the alleged anticompetitive activity.  The Sixth Circuit reversed,
concluding there was enough indication of anticompetitive conduct
to survive a "quick look" analysis.

According to Dean and DFA, the Sixth Circuit defied a trio of
previous Supreme Court rulings -- and deepened a split among the
circuit courts -- by presuming causation in the milk case and
showing disdain for summary judgment standards.  Along with a
group of influential industry amici, they pin the blame partly on
the Sixth Circuit's and other courts' fixation on a 1962 Supreme
Court ruling, Poller v. CBS, in which the high court held that
"summary procedures should be used sparingly in complex antitrust
cases." Subsequent rulings have dispelled that notion, the
companies say, and "yet, the Poller sentiment lives on."

"Given the disagreement and confusion that characterizes the lower
courts' application of the summary judgment standard, the error in
the court of appeals' approach below, and the pernicious
consequences of a presumption of causation that allows factually
insufficient claims to proceed to trial, the court should grant
review as it did in Twombly and Comcast to clarify and apply the
summary judgment standard," the petition argues.

In addition to Wilmer's Waxman, the defendants are represented by
Paul Friedman of Dechert (for Dean Foods) and Steven Kuney --
skuney@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly and W. Todd Miller --
tmiller@bakerandmiller.com -- of Baker & Miller (for DFA).

In their opposition brief, the retailer plaintiffs counter that
the milk producers' brief is premised on a series of fictions.
Far from presuming causation, they say, the Sixth Circuit applied
a well-established summary judgment standard and found enough
evidence of causation to allow the case to move forward.  The same
is true for other supposedly aberrant cases cited by the
defendants, the plaintiffs say.

"Petitioners' desperate attempt to manufacture a circuit split
fails," states the brief, which was filed by Richard Wyatt Jr. of
Hunton & Williams and R. Laurence Macon -- lmacon@akingump.com --
of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.  "The courts that supposedly
'presume' causation actually follow this court's teachings on how
causation can be proven in various circumstances."

The Supreme Court was scheduled to weigh the petition at its next
conference on Nov. 14.


DES MOINES, IA: Water Works to Refund Unlawful Tax
--------------------------------------------------
Timothy Meinch, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that more
than 33,000 Des Moines Water Works accounts have been charged an
unlawful tax since spring 2013 that has accumulated more than
$100,000 in collections, the public utility's general manager
said.

Water Works stopped collecting the sales tax in October after
complaints from customers prompted an inquiry with state
officials.  Utility officials decided to issue refunds to all
Des Moines Water Works accounts that since March 2013 had bought
the monthly service line protection insurance.

Insurance premium payments do not qualify for the Iowa sales tax
of 6 percent, or 24 cents, that Des Moines Water Works added to
the $3.99 monthly fee for the Service Line Protection Program.

Questions about why the sales tax was collected prompted finger-
pointing between Water Works officials and those at the Iowa
Department of Revenue.

Water Works CEO and General Manager Bill Stowe said the tax was
imposed based on an opinion from someone at the revenue
department, while officials with the state department said no
legal opinion was offered.

"They were asked a question; they gave the wrong answer,"
Mr. Stowe said.

"'This charge would be taxable as a maintenance contract,'"
Mr. Stowe said, quoting a one-sentence email response sent
Oct. 17, 2012, from Terry O'Neill, a taxpayer service specialist
with the Iowa Department of Revenue.

O'Neill was responding to an email from Des Moines Water Works
accountant Janet Nugent, asking whether sales tax should be
charged with the new voluntary waterline service maintenance
program, provided through a third-party contractor, HomeServe.

But that opinion was not binding, said public information officer
Victoria Daniels with the Iowa Department of Revenue.

"This is a taxpayer service person responding to a question over
email," Ms. Daniels said when contacted by The Des Moines
Register.  "The only way to get something that's actually binding
is to petition for a declaratory order from the director."

Ms. Daniels said she was unaware of the correspondence with Water
Works.

"If Des Moines Water Works has that question, the best thing for
them to do is to write a formal request to us and address it to
the policy section and include all the facts," she said.  "And
we'd be happy to have an attorney look at it."

Mr. Stowe said the dismissal from the state department sounds like
an internal issue.

"That's a really disappointing answer from them," Mr. Stowe said.
"If we need to write the governor, perhaps that's what the
Department of Revenue should tell us to do."

Meanwhile, Mr. Stowe said Water Works has already begun the
reimbursement process for $105,675 of unlawful taxes paid by
33,338 accounts since March 2013.

The challenge and delay has been determining the amount of money
owed to each account, depending on how many months the customer
subscribed to the program.

Stowe and Water Works board chairman Graham Gillette said full
reimbursements, ranging from 24 cents to roughly $4.50 per
account, for the unlawful tax will be rebated in the next bill of
current customers.

"They don't have to do anything," Mr. Gillette said of the rebate.

"They will get a notice in their bill and a credit in their bill."

Those who are no longer customers but paid the tax will receive a
check if they can be located, officials said.

Allen Suby, an Ankeny resident with five rental properties in Des
Moines, was one of the first Des Moines Water Works customers to
raise questions about the tax.

"In the middle of nowhere I just saw 'they're charging me tax on
this,' " he said.

Mr. Suby said he addressed HomeServe directly since they provide
the maintenance service and the company contacted Water Works.

"I just kind of reported it and let it go," Mr. Suby said, noting
that the situation reminded him of an ongoing dispute over an
illegal franchise fee that prompted a $40 million class-action
judgment against the city of Des Moines.

Water Works officials said the situation is different than a
franchise fee because all the tax revenue collected was sent
directly to the state, rather than improving Water Works services.

"This is money that just passed through our hands," Mr. Gillette
said.


DRIVE IN OF EVANSVILLE: N.D. Ala. Judge Denies Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division
denied plaintiffs' motion and judicial notice in the case
SHENNETTA THEDFORD; BRIANNA KING; DECORELAN TOMPKINS, a minor, by
and through his parent, Sherry Tompkins; ALEXANDER DEBOSE; TALESHA
WRENCH; SHANTERRICKA THEDFORD, a minor, by and through her parents
Shennetta Thedford; KRIBBE PERRYMAN, Plaintiffs, v. DRIVE IN OF
EVANSVILLE, INC., d/b/a as Sonic Drive-In, Defendant, Case No.
2:14-CV0390-SLB (N.D. Ala.)

Defendant, Drive-In of Evansville, Inc., owns and operates 26
Sonic Drive-In restaurants in four states: Alabama, Indiana,
Kentucky, and Ohio.

Plaintiffs Shennetta Thedford, Brianna King, Decorelan Tompkins,
Alexander Dubose, Talesha Wrench, Shanterricka Thedford, and
Kribbe Perryman all worked for Defendant Drive in of Evansville,
Inc., doing business as Sonic Drive-In Restaurant in Adamsville,
Alabama. They allege that defendant violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act or FLSA in the following manner:

     (1) defendant requires employees to work "off the clock"
while refusing to pay them for that time;

     (2) defendant refuses to pay overtime compensation;

     (3) defendant shaves time off employees time records; and

     (4) defendant falsifies tip records to avoid paying the
carhop employees minimum wage.

They have filed a motion for conditional certification, in which
they ask the court to allow them to proceed with a collective
action and to issue notice to similarly-situated current and
former employees of defendant. Plaintiffs' proposed class consists
of over 3,000 hourly employees who work for defendant during the
past three years.

Judge Blackburn is of the opinion that plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification and judicial notice under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), is due to be denied.

A copy of Judge Blackburn's memorandum opinion dated October 31,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/jA9vFkfrom Leagle.com.

Drive In of Evansville Inc, Defendant, represented by Amy K.
Jordan, Esq. -- ajordan@burr.com -- Bryance Metheny, Esq. --
bmetheny@burr.com -- Ronald W. Flowers, Jr., Esq. --
rflowers@burr.com -- at BURR & FORMAN LLP.


DYNAMEX INC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Saravia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dynamex, Inc., Dynamex Fleet Services, Inc., Dynmaex
Operations East, Inc., Dynamex Operations West, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-05003 (N.D. Cal., November 12, 2014) is a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising out of the
Defendants' alleged misclassification of their delivery drivers as
"independent contractors" instead of "employees."

Dynamex is engaged in the business of delivery services in the
state of California.  Dynamex is incorporated in Delaware and is a
wholly owned entity of Transforce, Inc.  Dynamex owns and operates
under a number of different names and entities, which are
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Campbell, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-00524-KD-B (S.D. Ala., November 12, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
          21 South Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 990-5558
          Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
          E-mail: epunderwood@gmail.com


ELI LILLY: Sued Over Deceptive Testosterone Therapy Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
"low testosterone" is nothing more than a pseudocondition
fabricated by pharmaceutical companies, which have violated civil
racketeering laws by fraudulently marketing medications bringing
huge profits for the drug industry but billions of dollars of
unjustified claims for health insurers, and health risks for
patients, a proposed class action alleges.

On Nov. 3, the insurer Medical Mutual of Ohio lodged a 341-page
broadside against Eli Lilly & Co, Actavis Pharma, Abbott
Laboratories and an array of subsidiaries in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  In the crosshairs are
testosterone replacement therapy drugs including AndroGel, Testim,
Axiron, Testopel, Androderm and Fortesta Gel.

"These . . . drugs were marketed as part of a decade-long
deceptive marketing scheme to transform the male aging process
into a curable disease [that] defendants variously called
'andropause,' 'late-onset male hypogonadism,' 'age-related
hypogonadism' or simply 'Low T,' which were invented from whole
cloth," the complaint says in Medical Mutual v. AbbVie.

Along with alleged violations of RICO statutes, the complaint,
which defines the putative class as all health insurers who have
paid claims for the testosterone medications, alleges the drug
companies violated consumer protection laws in all 50 states and
engaged in common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

According to the complaint, the pharmaceutical firms are
deliberately misrepresenting the safety and efficacy of the drugs
for off-label uses, knowingly misrepresenting the existence and
findings of scientific data and clinical trials concerning the
safety and medical efficacy of the drugs; deliberately concealing
negative scientific and medical findings about their use; and
illegally paying physicians "kickbacks" for prescribing the
medications.

"The companies also are purposefully downplaying, understating and
outright ignoring the health hazards and risks associated with
using [the] drugs," the complaint says, noting that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration announced in January it was investigating
potential cardiovascular risks.  More than 220 testosterone
lawsuits, in which plaintiffs allege manufacturers have failed to
warn of the dangers of the drugs, have been filed in the Northern
District of Illinois.

The FDA has approved the use of the medications for only the
treatment of hypogonadism, a rare condition in which the body
produces little or no sex hormone, but not for the normal decrease
in testosterone that accompanies aging, according to the
complaint.

"What was once a rare condition was suddenly said to affect up to
40 percent of middle-aged men, according to respected 'thought
leaders' -- specialist urologists and endrocrinologists at
teaching university hospitals -- many of whom were in fact on one
or more of defendants' respective payrolls as consultants,
speakers, and/or researchers," the complaint says.

Medical Mutual credits the companies' marketing campaigns with
generating an "astronomical spike" in the number of prescriptions
for the testosterone drugs -- up by 170 percent between 1999 and
2002, according to the complaint.  By 2012, annual sales reached
about $2 billion and they are expected to hit $5 billion by 2017,
according to forecasts cited by the complaint.  Market research
showed the manufacturers of the top six branded testosterone
replacement drugs spent about $55 million promoting the products;
by 2013, that amount had grown five-fold, to $282 million, the
complaint contends.

"Defendants' respective unlawful marketing schemes directly
convinced patients, physicians and [insurers] that hypogonadism
was vastly underdiagnosed and undertreated, directly causing
prescriptions for [testosterone-replacement] drugs to increase,"
the complaint says.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with the firms Kanner &
Whiteley; The Simmer Law Group; Seeger Weiss; Simmons Hanly
Conroy; and Schachter, Hendy & Johnson.


ENTERGY CORP: Appeals Court Voids Class Cert. in "Jenkins" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENTERGY CORPORATION, ENTERGY SERVICES, INC., ENTERGY POWER, INC.,
ENTERGY POWER MARKETING CORPORATION, ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC., AND
ENTERGY TEXAS, INC., Appellants, v. DAVID JENKINS, GEORGE W.
STRONG, FRANCIS N. GANS, AND GARY M. GANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, NO. 01-12-
00470-CV is an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's
order certifying a class action in a suit brought under the Texas
Theft Liability Act (the Theft Act).  In three issues, appellants,
Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Power, Inc.,
Entergy Power Marketing Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., and
Entergy Texas, Inc., contend that the trial court (1) lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over this suit, (2) abused its
discretion in finding that the requisites for class certification
had been established, and (3) abused its discretion by making
findings of fact and conclusions of law that misstate and misapply
the applicable law.

The Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston issued an
opinion on November 6, 2014, declaring the trial court's order
granting class certification void. The Appeals Court reversed the
order of the trial court denying Entergy's motion to dismiss and
rendered judgment dismissing all claims against Entergy.

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


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Court Stays Appeal in RESPA "Violation" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stayed an
appeal by plaintiffs in a suit alleging violation of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act over that case's dismissal,
according to Flagstar Bancorp, Inc.'s Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In May 2012, the Flagstar Bank, FSB and its subsidiary, Flagstar
Reinsurance Company, were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, alleging a violation of Section 2607 of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Section
2607(a) of RESPA generally prohibits anyone from "accept[ing] any
fee, kickback or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or
understanding, oral or otherwise, that business related incident
to or part of a real estate settlement service involving a
federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person."
Section 2607(b) of RESPA also prohibits anyone from "accept[ing]
any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received
for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in
connection with a federally related mortgage loan other than for
services actually performed." The lawsuit specifically alleges
that the Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance Company violated Section
2607 of RESPA through a captive reinsurance arrangement involving
(i) allegedly illegal payments to Flagstar Reinsurance Company for
the referral of private mortgage insurance business from the Bank
to private mortgage insurers to Flagstar Reinsurance Company and
(ii) Flagstar Reinsurance Company's purported receipt of an
unlawful split of private mortgage insurance premiums.

On January 13, 2014, the Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint based upon the
statute of limitations and equitable tolling. The Court granted
summary judgment on June 26, 2014, and dismissed the case, but
plaintiffs have since filed an appeal in the Circuit Court. The
Circuit Court has stayed the matter, pending its ruling on a
similar suit.


FLORIDA, USA: "Devany" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant American Traffic Solutions, Inc., removed the class
action lawsuit styled Devany, et al. v. Florida Department of
Revenue, et al., Case No. CACE14020775, from the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward, 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-62574-BB to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc Aaron Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 570-8989
          Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com

Defendant ATS Processing Services, LLC, is represented by:

          D. Matthew Allen, Esq.
          Kevin P. McCoy, Esq.
          Samuel Joseph Salario, Jr., Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          4221 West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
          Tampa, FL 33607-5780
          Telephone: (813) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
          E-mail: mallen@cfjblaw.com
                  kmccoy@carltonfields.com
                  ssalario@cfjblaw.com


FLORIDA, USA: Removes "Ehrlich" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant American Traffic Solutions, Inc., removed the class
action lawsuit captioned Ehrlich v. Florida Department of Revenue,
et al., Case No. 14-28062 CA 01, from the 11th Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24286-JAL to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Aaron Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 570-8989
          Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com

Defendant American Traffic Solutions, Inc., is represented by:

          D. Matthew Allen, Esq.
          Kevin P. McCoy, Esq.
          Samuel Joseph Salario, Jr., Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          4221 West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
          Tampa, FL 33607-5780
          Telephone: (813) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
          E-mail: mallen@cfjblaw.com
                  kmccoy@carltonfields.com
                  ssalario@cfjblaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Hunt & Associates Files Sexual Harassment Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
for the third time in nearly 20 years, plaintiffs' attorney
Keith Hunt is taking aim at a Chicago Ford Motor Co. plant where
women workers claim humiliating groping, lewd behavior and
sexually degrading taunts run rampant.

Mr. Hunt, of Hunt & Associates, initiated the latest proposed
class action on Nov. 3 on behalf of four of those workers at
Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant, which the Chicago attorney and
female plant employees had targeted in 1997 for the same sorts of
allegedly brazen sexual harassment.

That 1997 consolidated class action, which included allegations
from women workers about the same conduct at Ford's Chicago
Stamping Plant, resulted in a $9 million settlement that directed
Ford to impose new training programs to curb such alleged
harassment.  Mr. Hunt also litigated a 1995 class action against
the stamping plant that brought a $1 million agreement for
allegedly aggrieved women there.

"Here we are again," Mr. Hunt told reporters in announcing the
latest litigation.

As in previous ones, the newest complaint, Van v. Ford, in
Northern District of Illinois, is replete with alleged grievances
about offensive treatment by fellow workers and even supervisors,
as well as allegations that plant and union officials took no
action when complaints were filed.

One plaintiff alleged her direct supervisor showed her a picture
of his genitals and propositioned her.  Another plaintiff alleged
her union representative grabbed her and "forcefully gyrated" his
body against hers.  Those who complained allegedly were harassed
and intimidated, and one plaintiff said she was retaliated against
by being thrown to the grown and stomped.

In the plant, male workers, including supervisors, allegedly
openly viewed pornography on their cellphones and organized sex
parties, including ones held at the plant, attended by strippers
and prostitutes.  Plaintiffs alleged that women would find condoms
or photos of genitalia in their toolboxes, and saw their names
used in explicit graffiti.

The complaint also alleges racial and gender discrimination
resulted in "lower quality job opportunities and fewer
opportunities for raises, overtime and career advancement" for the
women workers.

Aside from sexual harassment, the complaint enumerates 34 counts
of alleged wrongdoing, including assault, battery, retaliation,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and race and sex
discrimination.

The plaintiffs ask for expedited consideration of the case,
injunctive relief, damages and an order from the court for a
permanent monitor to oversee the working conditions at the plant
for five years.


FORENSIC COUNSELORS: Removes "Carr" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Clark Carr v. National Association
of Forensic Counselors, Inc., et al., Case No. BC559767, 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.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-08761-JFW-JC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges consumer fraud and unfair competition,
fraudulent and false advertising and fraud.  The Plaintiff seeks
restitution and of fees paid by members of the purported class
along with injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Scheper, Esq.
          Margaret E. Dayton, Esq.
          William H. Forman, Esq.
          SCHEPER KIM AND HARRIS LLP
          601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025
          Telephone: (213) 613-4655
          Facsimile: (213) 613-4656
          E-mail: dscheper@scheperkim.com
                  pdayton@scheperkim.com
                  wforman@scheperkim.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven Alan Fink, Esq.
          FINK AND ABRAHAM LLP
          13 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-5900
          Facsimile: (949) 706-5901
          E-mail: sfink@falawyers.com


FOSTER WHEELER: Settlement of Tex. Securities Lawsuit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas state court granted preliminary approval to the
Settlement Agreement reached in a Consolidated Securities Action
against Foster Wheeler AG, according to the company's Nov. 3,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
Foster Wheeler AG shareholders against Foster Wheeler AG, or the
Company, and the Board of Directors of Foster Wheeler AG, or the
Board, seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the Company
by AMEC plc from proceeding. The first of such lawsuits was filed
on March 4, 2014. Two of the lawsuits are pending in Texas state
court and the other two lawsuits are pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. AMEC is named as a
co-defendant in the two Texas state court lawsuits. The complaints
contain similar, standardized allegations. Plaintiffs allege that
the directors breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff and the
Company's other shareholders in pursuing the plan to sell the
Company, and that the Company aided and abetted the defendant
directors in committing such breach. In particular, plaintiffs
allege that AMEC's per share exchange offer to acquire all of the
Company's shares does not adequately compensate the Company's
shareholders for their investment and significantly undervalues
the Company's prospects as a standalone entity, that the
consideration fails to take into account the value expected to be
realized by AMEC as a result of the proposed acquisition, that the
Board permitted Company management to lead the negotiations with
AMEC when management was improperly incentivized to pursue the
proposed acquisition, and that the Implementation Agreement
improperly contains a number of deal protection devices designed
to preclude any competing bids from emerging during the period
following the announcement of the proposed acquisition in the
Company's Form 8-K filing. A stipulation has been entered into in
the Texas state court actions consolidating the cases ("Texas
Consolidated Action") and permitting plaintiffs to serve a
consolidated complaint following the issuance of the Company's
Schedule 14D-9 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding the Offer. A similar stipulation has been entered into
in the two actions pending before the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey ("New Jersey Consolidated Action"). No
class has been constituted yet.

In connection with the Texas Consolidated Action, the Company
agreed to make a limited document production to counsel for the
Texas plaintiffs and thereafter engaged in settlement negotiations
with counsel for the Texas plaintiffs concerning certain
additional disclosures in the Company's Schedule 14D-9. On October
1, 2014, the parties to the Texas Consolidated Action entered into
a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement")
reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by
the Texas state court and closing of the Offer, to settle the
Texas Consolidated Action. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
the Company agreed to make certain of the supplemental disclosures
proposed by counsel for the Texas plaintiffs (the "Additional
Disclosure") in the Company's Schedule 14D-9. The Company agreed
to make the Additional Disclosure at the request of counsel for
the Texas plaintiffs and solely for settlement purposes. The
Company, AMEC and the Company's Board of Directors have denied,
and continue to deny, all allegations of wrongdoing, fault,
liability or damages to the Texas plaintiffs, the Company or its
shareholders; deny that they breached any fiduciary duties or
aided and abetted any such breaches, or engaged in any wrongdoing
or violation of law; deny that they acted improperly in any way;
and maintain that they have committed no disclosure violations or
any other breaches of duty whatsoever in connection with the Offer
or any public disclosures. The Settlement Agreement further
provides for, among other things: (a) the dismissal with prejudice
of the Texas Consolidated Action; (b) the complete discharge,
dismissal with prejudice on the merits, release, and/or
settlement, to the fullest extent permitted by law, of all known
and unknown claims, demands, rights, liabilities, losses,
obligations, duties, damages, costs, debts, expenses, interest,
penalties, sanctions, fees, attorneys' fees, actions, potential
actions, causes of action, suits, agreements, judgments, decrees,
matters, issues and controversies of any kind, nature and
description whatsoever arising from or relating to the Offer that
have been or could have been asserted against the Company, AMEC,
the Company's Board of Directors and/or related parties; (c)
certification of the Texas Consolidated Action as a class action
for settlement purposes only; and (d) payment of fees and expenses
by the Company to counsel for the Texas plaintiffs in the form of
AMEC Shares with a fair market value of $650 (plus up to the value
of a single AMEC Share), to be measured by the aggregate purchase
price of such AMEC Shares at the time of the purchase (the
"Settlement Shares"). The Settlement Shares shall be placed in
escrow, and released to counsel for the Texas plaintiffs within
ten days after entry of a judgment and order by the Texas state
court dismissing the Texas Consolidated Action with prejudice.
The Texas state court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement on October 2, 2014, on the condition that the
Company provide notice, at its own expense, of the pendency and
proposed settlement of the Texas Consolidated Action (the
"Notice") to members of the proposed class. Such Notice was
annexed as Exhibit (a)(24) to the Company's Schedule 14D-9. The
settlement contemplated by the Settlement Agreement is also
contingent upon, among other things, the closing of the Offer. In
the event that the settlement does not become effective, the
Company, AMEC and the Company's Board of Directors will continue
to vigorously defend themselves against the claims asserted in the
Texas Consolidated Action.

If and when the settlement contemplated by the Settlement
Agreement is finalized and approved, the Company believes that the
New Jersey Consolidated Action will be barred by the release and
that the action should be dismissed. Plaintiffs in the Texas
Consolidated Action agreed in the Settlement Agreement to
cooperate in connection with any efforts by the Company and the
Company's Board of Directors to secure the dismissal of the New
Jersey Consolidated Action. In the event that the New Jersey
Consolidated Action is allowed to proceed, the Company and the
Company's Board of Directors intend to vigorously defend
themselves against the claims asserted in the New Jersey
Consolidated Action.


FREDDIE MAC: Wins Dismissal of OPERS Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, aka Freddie Mac, et al.,
convinced an Ohio district court to dismiss a securities class
action complaint filed by lead plaintiff Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System (OPERS).

OPERS is a state pension fund.  Freddie Mac is a government-
sponsored enterprise whose business is limited to the purchase of
home mortgages and securities.  On November 20, 2007, the value of
Freddie Mac's common shares dropped 29% in one day, causing owners
of Freddie Mac shares to immediately approximately $6.6 billion in
share value.

OPERS purchased Freddie Mac's common stock and filed the putative
class action on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
and seeking redress for financial loss caused by the alleged
material misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendants
spanning August 1, 2006 to November 20, 2007.

The other defendants are executives of Freddie Mac -- Richard
Syron was Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer;
Patricia Cook was Chief Business Officer and Executive Vice
President for Investments and Capital Markets during the class
period; Anthony Piszel was Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer; and Eugene McQuade was President and Chief
Operating Officer for most of the class period.

On Oct. 31, District Judge Benita Y. Pearson granted Motions to
Dismiss.  Accordingly, the judge dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint and leave to file a fourth
amended complaint is denied.

The case is OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, etc.,
Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:08CV160 (N.D. Ohio).  A copy of the
District Court's Oct. 31, 2014 Memorandum of Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/iHy66Bfrom Leagle.com.

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, on behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situtated, Plaintiff, represented by Jean M.
Geoppinger, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Thomas P. Glass,
Strauss & Troy, William K. Flynn, Strauss & Troy, Christopher D.
Stock, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, James R. Cummins, Cummins &
Brown, Joseph T. Deters, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley,
Louise M. Roselle, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, Michael J. Hall,
Office of the Attorney General, Richard Michael DeWine, Office of
the Attorney General, Richard S. Wayne, Strauss & Troy, Stephen E.
Schilling, Strauss & Troy, Terence R. Coates, Markovits, Stock &
DeMarco, Terrence L. Goodman & Wilbert B. Markovits, Markovits,
Stock & DeMarco.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, also known as Freddie Mac,
Defendant, represented by Jason D. Frank, Bingham McCutchen,
Jordan D. Hershman, Bingham McCutchen & Hugh E. McKay, Porter,
Wright, Morris & Arthur.

Richard F. Syron, Defendant, represented by Frank R. Volpe, Sidley
Austin, Judith C. Gallagher, Sidley Austin, Mark D. Hopson, Sidley
Austin, Thomas C. Green, Sidley Austin, John C. Fairweather,
Brouse McDowell, Kerri L. Keller, Brouse McDowell & Lisa S.
DelGrosso, Brouse McDowell.

Patricia L. Cook, Defendant, represented by Carl S. Kravitz,
Zuckerman Spaeder, Caroline E. Reynolds, Zuckerman Spaeder, John
B. Timmer, Zuckerman Spaeder, Steven M. Salky, Zuckerman Spaeder,
John C. Fairweather, Brouse McDowell, Kerri L. Keller, Brouse
McDowell & Lisa S. DelGrosso, Brouse McDowell.

Anthony S. Piszel, Defendant, represented by Michael V. Rella,
Murphy & McGonigle, William E. Donnelly, Murphy & McGonigle, James
K. Goldfarb, Murphy & McGonigle, Jerry A. Isenberg, Murphy &
McGonigle, Jonathan S. Bashi, Murphy & McGonigle, Joseph C.
Weinstein, Squire Patton Boggs (US) & Saber W. VanDetta, Squire
Patton Boggs.

Eugene M. McQuade, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Levander,
Dechert, Cheryl A. Krause, Dechert, Asha T. Mehrotra, Dechert,
Joseph C. Weinstein, Squire Patton Boggs (US), Michael S.
Doluisio, Dechert, Peter J. Kreher, Dechert & Saber W. VanDetta,
Squire Patton Boggs.

Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor, represented by Anthony
J. Franze, Arnold & Porter.


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Stiffs Salesmen of Minimum Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fry's Electronics stiffs
salesmen of minimum wages through a "commission draw" system, a
class action claims in Contra Costa County Court.


FUTUREDONTICS INC: Faces Kansas Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Neuer dba Prairie Pointe Orthodontics, P.A., on behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated v. Futuredontics, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02569-CM-TJJ (D. Kan., November 11, 2014) alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah K. Wood, Esq.
          Aristotle N. Rodopoulos, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Main, Suite #1800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 256-3582
          Facsimile: (816) 337-4243
          E-mail: noah@woodlaw.com
                  ari@woodlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Ordered Replacement Ignition Switches
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bennett, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
General Motors Co. ordered a half-million replacement ignition
switches to fix Chevrolet Cobalts and other small cars almost two
months before it alerted federal safety regulators to the problem,
according to emails viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The parts order, not publicly disclosed by GM, and its timing are
sure to give fodder to lawyers suing GM and looking to poke holes
in a timetable the auto maker gave for its recall of 2.5 million
vehicles.  The recall concerns a switch issue that is now linked
to 30 deaths and has led to heavy criticism of the auto giant's
culture and the launch of a Justice Department investigation.

The email exchanges took place in mid-December 2013 between a GM
contract worker and the auto maker's ignition-switch supplier,
Delphi Automotive PLC.  The emails indicate GM placed a Dec. 18
"urgent" order for 500,000 replacement switches one day after a
meeting of senior executives.  GM and an outside report it
commissioned have said the executives discussed the Cobalt at the
Dec. 17 meeting but didn't decide on a recall.

The emails show Delphi was asked to draw up an aggressive plan of
action to produce and ship the parts at the time.  In the months
that followed, the size of the recall announced Feb. 7 would
balloon and spark an auto-safety crisis, casting a shadow over the
industry and leading to widespread calls for faster action by auto
makers addressing safety concerns.

Delphi, which declined to comment on the emails, produced the
documents pursuant to a discovery order connected to a court case
now being heard in New York.  The parts maker removed the
confidential designation after Texas attorney Bob Hilliard
questioned whether the emails needed to remain confidential
material.

A judge has set a January 2016 trial date in that case brought
about by a group of complainants claiming economic loss, death or
injury connected to the switch issue after GM emerged from
bankruptcy in 2009.

GM spokesman Alan Adler said the company followed proper National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration procedure by submitting a
correct defect chronology, and wasn't required to disclose details
of a parts order.

NHTSA, which has fined GM $35 million for delays related to the
recall, declined to comment on the emails.

Mr. Adler of GM also referenced an independent investigation done
by Anton Valukas, a Chicago attorney who at GM's behest spent
months researching the recall timeline.  Mr. Valukas's 315-page
report is extremely detailed but doesn't mention the parts order.

Mr. Valukas couldn't be contacted for comment on the matter. He
has said he was assigned to find out only why it took so long to
initiate the recall.

Mr. Adler said GM didn't try to influence the Valukas report.

It isn't uncommon for auto makers, before a recall, to check on
parts availability and place orders for parts. There isn't a
standard approach.

Still, the major parts order will be used by attorneys
representing thousands in class-action lawsuits against GM, which
claim the auto maker delayed informing the public of the problem
for as long as possible.

The switch order, nearly two months before GM told NHTSA of the
need for recall in early February, suggests the company took
initial concrete action to address the defect, but outside of
scrutiny by regulators and vehicle owners.

Attorney Hilliard described the emails as a "brutally callous"
display of indifference on GM's part.  "GM, on an emergency basis,
orders a half a million ignitions switches and tells no one?" he
said.

The order appears to help fill out a timeline the auto maker has
presented to Congress and others investigating the matter of the
faulty switches, some on cars built a decade ago.

GM engineers knew in 2003 there were problems with the switches,
but it took years to figure out the cause and directly link the
switches to fatalities.  Too much weight on the ignition key or a
jostling of it can move the switch from "run" to "accessory,"
cutting power to the air bags and braking system.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.), when told of the emails, said
they raise new concerns about the Valukas report, which
congressional leaders and others have used to better understand
why it took GM so long to respond to the switch problem.

"This order for 500,000 parts raises deeply disturbing questions
about the validity of the Valukas report," said Mr. Blumenthal,
"but more important, the timeline of GM's effort to protect its
car owners.  The question is why the delay and how many lives were
put at risk since GM waited at least two months before issuing a
recall even though it had already decided to order parts?"

The Valukas report was issued in late May, and was followed by
swift action by GM Chief Executive Mary Barra.  She dismissed 15
managers, engineers and lawyers.

Some of those dismissed were in a critical meeting Dec. 17. Led by
John Calabrese, then vice president of engineering, it was to
discuss the Cobalt ignition-switch issue.  Meeting minutes weren't
kept. GM's own chronology and the Valukas report indicate no
recall decisions were taken at the meeting or the day following.

The next day, however, emails show a GM contract worker at Menlo
Worldwide Logistics asked Delphi for a plan to build and ship
500,000 replacement switches.  On Dec. 19, this employee in
another email confirmed she had placed the order.

The emails refer to the affected cars as a "large vehicle
population."  The employee told Delphi "I would need to start
seeing shipments ASAP . . . Please put together and [sic]
aggressive plan and I can adjust accordingly."

Ms. Barra has said she wasn't informed of the ignition-switch
problem until late December.  At the time she was head of global
product development and purchasing and supply and had been picked
to be the next CEO.

On Jan. 7, Delphi was told the parts would be rolling out over an
extended period involving 709,000 Chevrolet Cobalt, Chevrolet
Pursuit and Pontiac G5 vehicles. The model years ranged from 2005
to 2007.

Delphi provided a shipping plan on Jan. 21, according to the
emails.

NHTSA was initially informed that the problem affected 780,000
vehicles.  GM later publicly expanded the number.


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers Seek to Obtain Ignition Docs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs lawyers are meeting with General Motors Co.'s
outside law firm, King & Spalding, in hopes of obtaining internal
emails and documents that could show how much the automaker's
lawyers knew about a faulty ignition switch.

GM has agreed to provide a raft of documents, including those
protected under attorney-client privilege, relating to what its
lawyers knew about the ignition defect before settling a key case
in 2013.

Lance Cooper, founding partner of The Cooper Firm in Marietta,
Ga., a member of the plaintiffs steering committee, pushed for the
discovery.  He said the agreement, filed on Nov. 12 in a letter to
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, involves "a significant number
of documents."  The privilege log alone identified 28,000 pages of
material, he said.

The dispute centers on an individual suit Mr. Cooper filed in Cobb
County, Ga., State Court on behalf of the parents of Brooke
Melton, who died in 2010 after her 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt careened
off a highway. Her parents settled their case against GM last
year.  But a deposition of a GM engineer, who denied approving
changes to fix the ignition switch, led to the discovery of the
defect, which can disable airbags and power steering. The defect
prompted GM to recall about 2.6 million cars and trucks worldwide
this year.

Ms. Melton's parents have since refiled their suit, seeking to
rescind the settlement based on claims that GM committed fraud by
concealing evidence of its knowledge of the defect.  Last month,
Mr. Cooper filed motions to compel discovery against GM and King &
Spalding, which represented the automaker and the engineer in the
original Melton case.  He seeks all materials relating to GM's
knowledge of the defect, including witness interviews and notes
that were part of an internal report conducted by Jenner & Block
Chairman Anton Valukas.

Under its agreement, GM will turn over privileged documents within
20 days, according to court filings.  Mr. Cooper said the
documents could be used in both the Melton case and the more than
130 cases coordinated before Judge Furman in the Southern District
of New York.  Both sides still disagree over personnel files and
documents that Jenner & Block has refused to turn over as part of
the Valukas report.

While King & Spalding has turned over materials related to its
communications with GM, Mr. Cooper said, his meetings with the
firm's attorneys would focus on obtaining internal emails and
other documents.

"What we're looking for, of course, is if King & Spalding
commented on what GM knew about the defects or the change in the
switch or these issues that came up in Melton that were not
disclosed before we settled the case," Mr. Cooper said, noting
that the Valukas report showed King & Spalding had handled
previous cases linked to the ignition switch defect. " From our
perspective that's important, because if the firm was involved in
other cases, there could have been communications between them and
GM and internally that show they knew more, and GM knew more, than
they told us in Melton."

George "Buddy" Darden -- bdarden@mckennalong.com -- senior counsel
at McKenna, Long & Aldridge in Atlanta who represents King &
Spalding, declined to comment.  GM spokesman James Cain did not
respond to a request for comment.

GM's lawyers previously had fought Mr. Cooper's discovery request,
claiming the demand was beyond what Judge Furman had allowed in
the coordinated litigation.  That discovery has primarily been
limited to unprivileged documents that GM provided to Congress and
regulatory authorities.

After conferring with the judge in the Melton case, Judge Furman
on Nov. 6 ordered both sides to file a proposed plan by Nov. 12.
It was not the first spat between GM and Cooper.  The attorney
also has sought depositions of at least 15 people, including a
former senior attorney who worked on the original Melton case.


GENTRY HOMES: Lower Court Ruling on Nishimura Arbitration Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case NISHIMURA v. GENTRY HOMES, LTD., NO. SCWC-13-0000137, is
a putative class action filed by Thomas and Colette Nishimura
against Gentry Homes, Ltd., alleging that Gentry constructed their
home without adequate high wind protection.

In late August 2012, Gentry sought to compel arbitration pursuant
to a related provision in the parties' Home Builder's Limited
Warranty (HBLW).  The Nishimuras objected to the request, saying
they feared that Professional Warranty Service Corporation (PWC)
would select an arbitration service aligned with developers.

The Circuit Court of the First Circuit, with the Hon. Rhonda A.
Nishimura presiding, denied the Motion to Compel Arbitration on
the basis of a potential conflict of interest with PWC and
instead, ordered the Plaintiffs and Gentry to meet and confer on
the selection of a local arbitration service.

Gentry then sought a reconsideration of the circuit court order,
but failed on that request too.

Gentry subsequently sought an appeal of the order to the
Intermediate Court of Appeals (Hawaii) or "ICA".  The ICA
published an opinion, concluding that the circuit court should
have enforced the HBLW's arbitrator-selection provision.  The ICA
vacated the order granting in part and denying in part Gentry's
motion to compel arbitration, as well as the order denying
Gentry's motion for reconsideration.  The ICA then remanded the
case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawaii entered an opinion
on Oct. 31, 2014 holding that: "The ICA erred in requiring a party
challenging an arbitrator-selection provision to show evidence of
'actual bias.' In resolving a challenge to an arbitrator-selection
provision, we apply the 'fundamental fairness' standard
articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. In the instant case, we conclude that the arbitrator-
selection provision is fundamentally unfair because it authorized
one party's agent to exercise its sole discretion in selecting an
arbitration service to hear a dispute between that party and the
plaintiffs. We therefore vacate the ICA's Judgment on Appeal, and
affirm the circuit court's "Order Granting in Part and Denying in
Part Defendant Gentry Homes, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration
Filed on August 29, 2012" and its "Order Denying Gentry Homes'
Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Gentry Homes, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration
[Filed August 29, 2012], Filed November 13, 2012."

The appeals case is THOMAS NISHIMURA, COLETTE NISHIMURA,
Individually and on Behalf of a Class of All Persons Similarly
Situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GENTRY HOMES, LTD.,
a Hawai Domestic Profit Corporation, Respondent/Defendant-
Appellant, and SIMPSON MANUFACTURING CO., INC., a Delaware
Corporation; SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY, INC., a California
Corporation, Defendants.  A copy of the Hawaii Supreme Court's
Oct. 31, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/4ka7Gbfrom
Leagle.com.

The Nishimuras are represented by:

       Melvin Y. Agena, Esq.
       LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN Y. AGENA
       55 Merchant St. Ste 2010
       Honolulu, HI 96813-4326
       Tel No.: (808) 536-6647

Gentry Homes is represented by:

       Ryan H. Engle, Esq.
       Partner
       BAYS LUNG ROSE HOLMA
       Topa Financial Center
       700 Bishop Street, Suite 900
       Honolulu, HI 96813
       Tel No: (808)523-9000
       Fax No: (808)533-4184
       E-mail: rengle@legalhawaii.com


GREEN TREE: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Narval Mangal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:14-cv-03637-AT (N.D. Ga.,
November 11, 2014) alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: ABurke@Burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          108 East Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 204
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          P.O. Box 1478
          331 Washington Ave.
          Marietta, GA 30061
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com


GULF SOUTH: Continues to Face Property Damage Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP and several other defendants,
including Mobile Gas Service Corporation (MGSC), have been named
as defendants in nine lawsuits, including one purported class
action suit, commenced by multiple plaintiffs in the Circuit Court
of Mobile County, Alabama, according to the company's Nov. 3,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for personal injury and
property damage related to an alleged release of mercaptan at the
Whistler Junction facilities in Eight Mile, Alabama. Gulf South
delivers natural gas to MGSC, the local distribution company for
that region, at Whistler Junction where MGSC odorizes the gas
prior to delivery to end user customers by injecting mercaptan
into the gas stream, as required by law. The cases are: Parker, et
al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-900711), Crum, et al. v. MGSC,
et al. (Case No. CV-12-901057), Austin, et al. v. MGSC, et al.
(Case No. CV-12-901133), Moore, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No.
CV-12-901471), Davis, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-
901490), Joel G. Reed, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-
922265), The Housing Authority of the City of Prichard, Alabama v.
MGSC., et al. (Case No. CV-2013-901002), Robert Evans, et al. v.
MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-902627), and Devin Nobles, et al.
v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-902786). Gulf South has denied
liability. Gulf South has demanded that MGSC indemnify Gulf South
against all liability related to these matters pursuant to a
right-of-way agreement between Gulf South and MGSC, and has filed
cross-claims against MGSC for any such liability. MGSC has also
filed cross-claims against Gulf South seeking indemnity and other
relief from Gulf South.

In May 2014, Gulf South and MGSC reached an agreement whereby MGSC
fully indemnified Gulf South against all liability related to this
matter and the cross-claims between Gulf South and MGSC were
settled.


HEALTH NET: California Court Stays MFLCs' Lawsuit Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern District of California granted the motion of Health
Net, Inc. to stay the Military and Family Life Counseling Program
suits against it pending a Ninth Circuit appeal, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The company is a defendant in three related litigation matters
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "Northern District of California")
relating to the independent contractor classification of
counselors ("MFLCs") who contracted with the company's subsidiary,
MHN Government Services, Inc. ("MHNGS"), to provide short-term,
non-medical counseling at U.S. military installations throughout
the country under the company's Military and Family Life
Counseling (formerly Military and Family Life Consultants)
program.

On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County
against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN
Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves
and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have
performed services as independent contractors in the state of
Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim
that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under
Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that
they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt
employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory
penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. The company moved to
compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on
September 30, 2011. The company appealed the decision. The
Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on
August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the company removed this
case to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington
action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed
collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former
MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors
nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege
misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek
penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has
since transferred the case to the Northern District of California
to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2,
2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also
a subsidiary).

The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the
FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state
laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico,
Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October
24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations
for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

On November 1, 2012, the company moved to compel arbitration in
the Northern District of California, and the court denied the
motion on April 3, 2013. The company noticed the company's appeal
of that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit on April 8, 2013. On April 25, 2013, the district
court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA collective
action certification to allow notice to be sent to the FLSA
collective action members. The court stayed all other proceedings
pending an outcome in the Ninth Circuit appeal, which is scheduled
for hearing on November 18, 2014.

On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred to
the Northern District of California to relate it to the two FLSA
suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, the company moved to stay
the suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. The company also filed
two alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case
to arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims and California
Labor Code section 226.8 claims. On June 3, 2014, the court
granted the company's motion to stay, and denied the later
alternative motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is
lifted.


HERBALIFE LTD: Agrees to Pay $15MM in "Bostick" Lawsuit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The terms of the settlement in Bostick, et al., v. Herbalife Int'l
of Am., Inc., et al. stipulates a payment of $15 million into a
fund and up to a maximum amount of $2.5 million in product
returns, according to Herbalife Ltd.'s Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On April 8, 2013, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries
were named as defendants in a suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, challenging
Herbalife's marketing practices and business structure under
California laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes," unfair and
deceptive business practices, and false advertising, as well as
federal RICO statutes. On July 7, 2014, the complaint was amended
to add additional plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount. The federal RICO claim was dismissed and a
class has not been certified to date. The remaining claims are
proceeding, and a trial has been set to commence on April 21,
2015. While the Company continues to believe the suit is without
merit, and without in any way admitting liability or wrongdoing,
the Company and the plaintiffs have agreed on the principal terms
of a settlement and continue to work cooperatively to negotiate a
stipulation of settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the
Company would (i) pay $15 million into a fund to be distributed to
qualified claimants and (ii) accept up to a maximum amount of $2.5
million in product returns from qualified claimants. Any
settlement would be subject to the preliminary and final approval
of the court. As of September 30, 2014, these amounts were
adequately reserved for in the Company's financial statements.


HERBALIFE LTD: Faces Securities Litigation in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife, Ltd. is defending itself against a Securities
Litigation (formerly captioned Awad v. Herbalife Ltd., et al.) in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
according to the company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

On April 14, 2014, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers made
material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and
business practices, and contended that the Company is operating a
pyramid scheme. The initial complaint sought to represent a class
of investors that had purchased shares of the company's common
stock between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014. On July 30, 2014,
the Court approved the appointment of different shareholders as
lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of counsel. On
September 18, 2014, these lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
against the Company, and certain of its officers. The Amended
Complaint brings claims for unspecified damages under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements that "fundamentally
misrepresented the nature, scope and legality of the Company's
business and operations to consumers and investors alike," and
further alleges that the Company is one of "the most sophisticated
pyramid schemes in history." The lead plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares of the
company's common stock between February 23, 2011 and July 29,
2014. Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in the Amended
Complaint will be filed on or about November 3, 2014.


HUNTINGTON BANK: S.D. W.Va. Judge Grants Discovery Request
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Tinsley of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia granted plaintiff's motion to
compel discovery responses and denied defendant's motion for
protective order in the case JEREMY A. POWELL and TINA M. POWELL,
individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Defendant., Case No.
2:13-CV-32179 (S.D. W.Va.)

Plaintiffs allege on behalf of a putative class, that defendant
has engaged in systematic abusive loan-servicing practices in its
assessment of illegal and multiple late fees to its West Virginia
consumers. Plaintiffs assert that defendant charged multiple late
fees for a single missed payment in violation of the West Virginia
Consumer Credit Protection Act or WVCCPA. Plaintiffs alleged that
defendant regularly and systematically assesses late fees in this
manner to other putative class members. Plaintiffs filed a motion
to compel discovery responses and memorandum in support in which
it asked the court to order the defendant to produce a complete
response to Interrogatory No. 2 of Plaintiffs' First Set of
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, as well
as the documents identified in response or reviewed in preparation
to responding to that Interrogatory as requested.

Defendant objected on the grounds that the information sought is
not relevant or discoverable. Defendant further objected to
Interrogatory No. 2 as overly broad and premature because it seeks
information regarding purported class members where no class has
been certified. Defendant objected asserting the information
sought is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or
attorney work product doctrine and/or seeks the mental impressions
of counsel. Defendant asserted that it would be unduly burdensome
for the Court to require it to provide the information Plaintiffs
seek to compel. Subsequently, Defendant provided a supplemental
response stipulating that the purported class in Plaintiffs'
Complaint is sufficiently numerous to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(1). Defendant filed a Motion and Memorandum in Support of
Motion for Protective Order. Defendant requested a protective
order limiting the burdensome discovery sought by Plaintiffs at
this point in the proceedings, prior to any decision as to whether
class certification is even appropriate. Defendant asserted that
the discovery sought by Plaintiff is premature because it is
directed to the merits of the putative class members' claims.

Judge Tinsley granted plaintiff's motion to compel discovery
purposes and ordered defendant to supplement discovery responses
by November 3, 2014, or any subsequent discovery deadline ordered.
The supplemental discovery responses will be subject to the
protective order entered and that defendant's motion for
protective order is denied.

A copy of Judge Tinsley's memorandum opinion and order dated
October 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/B4v367from
Leagle.com.

Consumer Bankers Association, Movant, represented by Andrew James
Soukup -- asoukup@cov.com -- Keith A. Noreika -- knoreika@cov.com
-- & Carrie Goodwin Fenwick -- cgf@godwingoodwin.com -- at GOODWIN
& GOODWIN


HYUNDAI: Judge Refuses to Stay Fuel Efficiency Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a California federal has rejected an entreaty by a
group of Virginia plaintiffs to stay a national class settlement
over the fuel efficiency of Hyundai and Kia vehicles so they can
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In a separate, recent development, the carmakers agreed to pay
$100 million in civil penalties to resolve allegations they
violated the federal Clean Air Act by misstating the rule
efficiency of their vehicles.  The fine is reportedly the largest
in the history of the federal environmental law.

In August, U.S. District Judge George Wu of the Central District
of California certified the class action and preliminarily
approved the settlement between the plaintiffs and Hyundai Motor
America and Kia Motor America.  The proposed national settlement
with would resolve litigation over the advertised fuel efficiency
of their vehicles.

Plaintiffs' counsel James Feinman -- jb@jfeinman.com -- and Andrew
Finnicum -- andrew@jfeinman.com -- of James B. Feinman &
Associates in Lynchburg, Va., previously argued that, if their
particular class action were dismissed without being certified,
their clients will not be allowed to opt out of any settlement and
proceed without facing a statute of limitations defense.

The lawyers said Virginia's lemon law allows car buyers whose
warranties are violated to have their vehicles replaced or
repurchased at the full contract price including collateral
charges, taxes and incidental damages.

Judge Wu said he considered the arguments but has concluded that
there is no reason that he could not grant preliminary class
certification for purposes of settlement.

Appealing a class certification decisions does not automatically
stay proceedings unless a judge orders a stay.  The judge found
that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a stay because they cannot
show a likelihood of success on the merits of their appeal.

"The court has not yet issued an order finally approving the class
action settlement and the settlement class," Judge Wu said.  "As a
result, the . . . plaintiffs remain absent class members, not yet
bound by the court's orders, and thereby they cannot challenge the
court's preliminary approval at this stage."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is not unlikely to
accept interlocutory appeal of a preliminary class-certification
decision, Judge Wu said.

The harm from allowing the appeal outweighs the benefits too,
Judge Wu reasoned.  "The court believes that substantially greater
harm will result to the nationwide plaintiff class in this
multidistrict litigation through the imposition of a stay than
will result to the . . . plaintiffs in the state of Virginia if
the settlement is allowed to proceed," Judge Wu said.


INTEL CORP: Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled for January 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
You might be eligible for $15 cash if you bought a computer with a
Pentium 4 processor between November 20, 2000 and June 30, 2002.

www.IntelPentium4Litigation.com
1-877-435-1884

What Is the Class Action About?

The plaintiffs claim Intel manipulated the performance benchmark
scores for its first-generation Pentium 4 processors and that HP
assisted with Intel's allegedly unlawful conduct.  Intel and HP
deny any liability and all claims of misconduct and Intel contends
the benchmarks challenged by Plaintiffs fairly measured the
performance of the Pentium 4 processor.

How Do You Get a Payment?

Class members can submit a claim form electronically at
www.IntelPentium4Litigation.com

Class members may also request a paper claim form by calling 1-
877-435-1884, or print a claim form from
www.IntelPentium4Litigation.com

You do not need to provide receipts or proof of purchase.

The deadline to make a claim for payment is April 14, 2015.

Who Are Class Members?

The Class includes all residents of the United States, except
Illinois residents, who (i) purchased a new computer equipped with
a Pentium 4 processor between November 20, 2000 and December 31,
2001, and (ii) purchased the computer for personal, family, or
household use.  The Class also includes all residents of the
United States, except Illinois residents, who (i) purchased a new
computer equipped with a first-generation (Willamette) Pentium 4
processor or a Pentium 4 processor at speeds below 2.0 GHz between
January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2002, and (ii) purchased the computer
for personal, family, or household use.  Individuals excluded from
the class include current Intel employees and persons employed by
Intel between November 20, 2000 and June 30, 2002.

What are Your Options?

As a Class Member, you must decide whether you want to stay in the
Class, submit a claim, comment on or object to the settlement, or
be excluded from the Class.  You can get detailed information
regarding your options at www.IntelPentium4Litigation.com

The Court will hold a hearing in this case (Janet Skold, et al. v.
Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company, Superior Court of
California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-05-CV-039231
to consider approving this settlement and attorneys' fees on
January 23, 2015.  You may appear at the hearing, but you don't
have to.  The deadline to ask to be excluded from the settlement
or to object to the settlement is December 15, 2014.

Questions? Visit www.IntelPentium4Litigation.com or call 1-877-
435-1884.


INTELLIGENDER LLC: Cal. Ineligible for Restitution, 9th Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After opting out of a class-action settlement over an allegedly
falsely advertised gender-prediction test, California is not
eligible for restitution, reports Tim Hull at Courthouse News
Service, citing a 9th Circuit ruling entered on November 7.

Julie Gram led a nationwide class in 2010 against IntelliGender
LLC, maker of the IntelliGender Prediction Test.  She claimed that
the company's promise of 90 percent accuracy in predicting a
fetus' gender through urine violated California's unfair-
competition and false-advertising laws.

IntelliGender settled the claims in 2012, agreeing to change its
advertising and pay $10 to each person who had purchased the test
between November 2006 and January 2011 and received an inaccurate
result.

That same year, the San Diego City Attorney filed similar claims
against IntelliGender, seeking an injunction against its allegedly
false advertising and unfair practices, as well as $30 in
restitution for every individual who purchased the test,
regardless of its accuracy.

IntelliGender moved for its own injunction against the state's
entire action, arguing that it would interfere with the class-
action settlement.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins in Los Angeles ruled for the
state, and did so again when IntelliGender shot back with a
request for a pared-down injunction against only the state's
restitution claims.

Noting that the case "sits squarely at the intersection of the
Class Action Fairness Act and a sovereign's right to bring an
enforcement action to protect its citizens from unscrupulous,
fraudulent, or harmful business practices," a unanimous appellate
panel partly reversed November 7.

In refusing to enjoin the entire action, the court noted that
California's case against the company was "designed to vindicate
broader governmental interests" other than securing restitution
for its citizens.

That said, when IntelliGender complied with the Class Action
Fairness Act by noticing the state of the proposed settlement with
the Gram class, the state "chose not to participate in the
settlement approval process," according to the ruling.

"The state cannot now obtain a duplicate recovery in the form of
restitution on behalf of those individual citizens who are bound
by the bargained for restitution in the CAFA class settlement,"
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the three-judge appellate
panel.

"If the state wished to secure compensation for those class
members, it had an opportunity to do so by intervening after
receiving notice of the proposed settlement," she wrote.  "This is
the method CAFA established for states to seek equitable
compensation for class members.  The state chose not to use its
authority, and the settlement was approved.  Compensation is res
judicata."

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Kristine A. Lorenz, Esq.
          SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1200 3rd Ave., #700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 533-5500
          Facsimile: (619) 533-5505

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Douglas J. Collodel, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          801 S. Figueroa Street, 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5556
          Telephone: (213) 426-6900
          Facsimile: (213) 426-6921
          E-mail: douglas.collodel@sedgwicklaw.com

               - and -

          Paul Jeffrey Riehle, Esq.
          Nora Wetzel, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
          Telephone: (415) 781-7900
          Facsimile: (415) 781-2635
          E-mail: paul.riehle@sedgwicklaw.com
                  nora.wetzel@sedgwicklaw.com

The appellate case is The People of the State of California,
Plaintiff-Appellee v. IntelliGender, LLC, Defendant-Appellant,
Case No. 13-56806, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The District Court case is The People of the State
of California v. IntelliGender, LLC, Case No. 2:10-cv-04210-ABC-
VBK, in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Dismissal of N.Y. Stock Suit Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in a consolidated securities suit that includes
subsidiaries of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. filed a motion to
dismiss an amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's Nov. 3,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In April 2014, the first of four purported class action lawsuits
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Southern District") by the City of Providence,
Rhode Island, against more than 40 defendants, including "Exchange
Defendants", "Brokerage Defendants" and "HFT (High Frequency
Trading) Defendants" (the "City of Providence lawsuit"). New York
Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of the Company's
subsidiaries, were among the named Exchange Defendants. On July 2,
2014, the court ordered the cases consolidated for all purposes,
and appointed lead plaintiffs. On September 3, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against
only a subset of the original Exchange Defendants, including New
York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., and also asserting
claims against Barclays PLC ("Barclays"), a subsidiary of which
operates an alternative trading system known as Barclays LX. The
lead plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class of "all public
investors" who bought or sold stock from April 18, 2009 to the
present on the U.S.-based equity exchanges operated by the
remaining Exchange Defendants or on Barclays LX. The amended
complaint asserts violations by all remaining Exchange Defendants
of Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants,
jointly and severally, as well as various forms of equitable
relief. The defendants filed a motion on November 3, 2014 to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On October 2, 2014, Barclays filed a motion before the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation requesting that
a separate lawsuit filed against Barclays in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California be transferred to the
Southern District judge handling the City of Providence lawsuit
for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The
transfer motion and the motion to dismiss remain pending and
depending on the Panel's ruling on the transfer motion, the scope
of this litigation could be expanded.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Bid to Dismiss "Lanier" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion seeking to dismiss a suit against Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. subsidiaries, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC, remains pending, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the Southern District by Harold Lanier against the securities
exchanges that are participants in each of the three national
market system data distribution plans -- the Consolidated Tape
Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan, the Nasdaq UTP Plan, and
the Options Price Reporting Authority (the "Plans") -- which are
established under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
regulated by the SEC. On August 15, 2014, Lanier filed amended
complaints in each of the three lawsuits but did not alter the
named defendants. New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and
NYSE MKT LLC, which are subsidiaries of the Company, are among the
defendants named in one or more of the suits. Lanier is claiming
to sue on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
subscribers to the market data disseminated by the Plans. Lanier's
allegations include that the exchange participants in the Plans
breached agreements with subscribers by disseminating market data
in a discriminatory manner in that other "preferred" customers
allegedly received their data faster than the proposed class. The
complaints seek, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, restitution of the putative class's subscription fees
paid to the defendants, disgorgement of the fees paid by the so-
called preferred customers, and injunctive and declaratory relief.
On September 29, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the motion remains pending.


JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
data breach that targeted the Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwiches
chain has spawned a proposed class action by a plaintiff who
alleges the company's information systems and security oversight
were "grossly inadequate" and that its delay in announcing the
breach was unlawful.

Arizona plaintiff and past Jimmy John's patron Barbara Irwin
alleges that she was the victim of five fraudulent charges on the
credit card she had used at the sandwich store between July 3 and
Aug. 4, and that the fraud occurred as a result of the breach of
the point-of-sale system used at 216 of the company's stores in 40
states.

Jimmy John's Franchises LLC announced the breach on Sept. 24.  The
company said it learned of the break-in on July 30 and
"immediately hired third party forensic experts to assist with its
investigation," according to a notice on the firm's website.  It
said a cyberintruder stole log-in credentials from the company's
point-of-sale vendor and used them to access the stores' checkout
systems between June 16 and Sept. 5.

In Irwin v. Jimmy John's , filed Nov. 6 in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of Illinois, where the company is based,
Irwin alleges the chain violated state statutes that require the
disclosure of such security breaches be made in the "most
expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay."

The fraud Ms. Irwin suffered was a "direct result" of the
company's waiting two months after the discovery of the break-in
to announce it.  Had there been swift notification, "plaintiff and
class members could have avoided making credit or debit card
purchases at the company's stores, could have avoided shopping at
the company's stores at all, and could have contacted their banks
to cancel their cards, or could otherwise have tried to avoid the
harm caused," the complaint says.

Jimmy John's said it has taken steps to prevent this type of event
from occurring in the future, including installing encrypted swipe
machines and other system enhancements, and reviewing its
procedures for third party vendors.

But the complaint alleges that the point-of-sale software system
used by Jimmy John's did not meet basic safety requirements
recommended by security experts, and that the company cut corners
to save money.

"Defendant's failure to comply with reasonable security standards
provided the company with short-term and fleeting benefits in the
form of saving on the costs of compliance, but at the expense and
to the severe detriment of its own customers," the complaint says.
Along with allegedly breaking state security-breach laws, the
plaintiffs allege Jimmy John's engaged in violations of state
consumer fraud statutes as well as unjust enrichment, bailment and
breach of implied contract.  They ask for injunctive relief,
damages, restitution, disgorgement and three years of credit-card
monitoring services.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are with The Rosen Law Firm, the Hinton Law
Firm and Heffner Hurst.


JRK RESIDENTIAL: E.D. Va. Grants Class Certification in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia granted, in part, plaintiff's
motion for class certification in DERRICK A. MILBOURNE, on behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JRK
RESIDENTIAL AMERICA, LLC, Defendant., Civil Action No. 3:12CV861
(E.D. Va.).

JRK has a practice of procuring consumer reports for employment
purposes and uses those reports in making its hiring decisions.
JRK has used the services of U.S. Background Screening to run
background checks on those who apply for jobs with JRK.

Plaintiff Derrick Milbourne applied for a job with JRK and was
hired on a conditional basis. JRK asked him to sign a background
check disclosure form of which he complied. The form notified the
applicant that JRK might run a background check on the signatory.

JRK received the completed background check results which showed
two misdemeanor convictions and several charges on Plaintiff.
Because of administrative follow-up, Plaintiff was terminated.
U.S. Background Screening sent Milbourne an adverse action letter
on behalf of JRK.

Plaintiff on his complaint alleged that the form violated The Fair
Credit Reporting Act or FCRA and the conduct of U.S. Background
Screening in sending him an adverse action letter violates the
FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A).  Plaintiff seeks to
certify two classes; first is the Impermissible Use Class and
second, the Adverse Action Class.

Judge Payne grants plaintiff's motion for class certification in
part, expressing that the Impermissible Use Class and Adverse
Action Class are certified pursuant to a class definition that
limits the class to those members who claims arose within the two
years before the date for which the action was filed.

A copy of Judge Payne's memorandum opinion dated October 31, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/F6140Nfrom Leagle.com.

Derrick A. Milbourne, Plaintiff, is represented by Leonard Anthony
Bennett, Consumer Litigation Associates, Casey Shannon Nash,
Consumer Litigation Associates PC, Matthew James Erausquin,
Consumer Litigation Associates PC, Susan Mary Rotkis, Consumer
Litigation Associates & Thomas Ray Breeden, Thomas R. Breeden PC.

JRK Residential America, LLC, Defendant, represented by George
Peter Sibley, III, Esq. -- gsibley@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams
LLP, Thomas Richard Waskom, Esq. -- twaskom@hunton.com
-- Hunton & Williams LLP.


LLOYDS BANKING: More Than 5,000 Investors Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Arnold, writing for The Financial Times, reports that more
than 5,000 investors have joined a class action-style lawsuit
against Lloyds Banking Group, claiming they lost about GBP400
million in the government-arranged takeover of HBOS six years ago.

Lawyers for the group of claimants say it has grown by about a
third by number of shares owned in a fortnight.  Investors who
held shares in Lloyds at the time of the ill-fated HBOS deal have
until November 18 to sign up and the lawyers expect the group to
as much as double.

As well as suing Lloyds, which remains 25 per cent state-owned,
the lawsuit, filed by an initial group of 200 investors, also
named Sir Victor Blank, the bank's former chairman, and Eric
Daniels, its former chief executive, as defendants.  The claimants
argue that they were misled into approving the HBOS merger as key
information over the true financial health of the bank was
withheld.  Lloyds is due to file its defense by early December and
a trial could start as early as 2016.  The group alleges that
GBP25 billion of emergency support from the Bank of England for
HBOS and $18 billion from the US Federal Reserve was not
disclosed.  They also allege that Lloyds secretly loaned HBOS
GBP10 billion to stay afloat.

Lloyds has said it does not consider there to be any legal basis
to the claims and indicated that it "will robustly contest this
legal action".  Also targeted in the lawsuit are Tim Tookey, the
bank's former finance director, Truett Tate, its former head of
wholesale banking, and Helen Weir, its former retail banking boss.

The lawsuit is the latest legal cloud over Lloyds, which has set
aside more than GBP11 billion to cover compensation for mis-
selling of payment protection insurance. The bank also paid GBP226
million in July for attempting to manipulate the Libor interest
rate benchmark.

Damon Parker, head of litigation at Harcus Sinclair, which is
representing the group, said 10,000 investors had started the
registration process and holders of more than 400 million shares
had signed up so far.  He estimated that if successful, the
investors would be owed about GBP1 per share in compensation for
the dilution they suffered in the 2008 rights issue.  Holders of
about 6 billion shares could qualify for the legal action, which
is being brought under a group litigation order.

It is the second major lawsuit filed in the UK by investors in a
government-backed bank over events that defined the financial
crisis.  Royal Bank of Scotland is defending itself in a separate
GBP3.1 billion case brought by 36,000 shareholders over
representations it made ahead of its GBP12 billion cash call in
2008.

Mr. Parker said that unlike the US, where investors have to opt
out of a class-action lawsuit, in the UK claimants are required to
opt in to a group litigation order.  He added: "Another key
difference is that in the US, claimants are not liable for the
other side's costs if their claim is unsuccessful, so the funding
and insurance needed to bring a claim in the UK is more
expensive."

The costs of the Lloyds lawsuit are being funded by Therium, a
UK-based litigation funder set up by former lawyers.


MAUI, HAWAII: Two Developers File Suit Over New GMO Law
-------------------------------------------------------
Audrey McAvoy, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
leading developers of genetically engineered corn have sued Maui
County to stop a new law banning the cultivation of genetically
modified organisms.

The lawsuit filed by Monsanto Co. and a Dow Chemical Co. unit in
federal court in Honolulu asks a judge to immediately prevent the
law from taking effect.  It also seeks to invalidate the new law,
which voters narrowly adopted during the election after an intense
campaign featuring $8 million in spending by the seed companies
against the initiative.

Both companies research and develop new varieties of corn in the
county.  Hawaii's warm weather enables the seed companies to grow
more crop cycles each year, accelerating their research.
Conducting the work in a U.S. state also helps the seed companies
protect their intellectual property.

The lawsuit said Monsanto would have to substantially downsize its
activity in the county, where it employs over 365 people and owns
or leases more than 3,000 acres of farmland on Molokai and Maui
islands.  Mycogen Seeds, a unit of Dow AgroSciences, would shut
down critical parts of its development and production operations
in the county, and downsize its work force, the complaint said.
Mycogen Seeds employs over 100 people and farms about 420 acres on
Molokai.

Local businesses, seed company employees and the farm bureau
joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

"This local referendum interferes with and conflicts with long-
established state and federal laws that support both the safety
and lawful cultivation of GMO plants," John Purcell, Monsanto
Hawaii's business and technology lead, said in a statement.

The Maui law imposes a moratorium on the growing of genetically
engineered crops until scientific studies are conducted on their
safety and benefits.  The moratorium would be lifted only after a
vote by the Maui County Council.

The law, which doesn't apply to crops in mid-growth cycle, goes
into effect when officials certify the election results.  That's
expected to happen late this month.

The case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren, who
earlier this year declared a Kauai County law regulating
genetically modified crops was invalid because it was superseded
by state law.  The case is currently before a federal appeals
court.

The Maui initiative's authors sued the county in state court on
Nov. 12 to ensure the county implements the law.

Michael Carroll, their attorney, said they would request the
federal court to hold off from deciding this case until the state
court on Maui has ruled.

"A Maui Court is best equipped to decide any issues associated
with the enforceability of the new GMO law," Mr. Carroll said in a
statement.

Maui County spokesman Rod Antone said the county was unable to
comment because of pending litigation.

Monsanto, along with other seed companies, researches crops on
Oahu.  Other seed companies conduct research at farms on Kauai.

About 90 percent of all corn grown in the U.S. is genetically
engineered and has been developed partially at Hawaii farms.

The Nov. 13 lawsuit said "a significant percentage of the corn
seed planted in the U.S. have originated from Monsanto's
facilities in the county."


MEDTRONIC INC: District Court Remands "Smith" Bone Graft Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carol E. Jackson granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand the lawsuit JOYCE SMITH, et al., v. MEDTRONIC, INC., et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-01636-CEJ (E.D. Mo.), to the
Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri.

Plaintiffs in the case are 99 individuals seeking to recover
damages for injuries allegedly caused by the InFUSE(TM) Bone Graft
and LT-CAGE(TM) Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device manufactured and
distributed by the defendants.  Plaintiffs assert claims of
negligence, strict liability, fraud, breach of warranty, and
violation of state consumer protection and merchandising practices
statutes.

The judge further ruled that plaintiffs' request for attorney's
fees and costs as to the removal is denied.

A copy of the judge's Oct. 30, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/YawVdRfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Eric D. Holland Esq. & Randall S.
Crompton, Esq. of HOLLAND AND GROVES, L.L.C., with business
address of St. Louis Office, 300 N Tucker, Ste 801, St Louis MO
63101, telephone number 314-241-8111 and fax number 314-241-5554.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Third Circuit Remands Suit Over "Naked" Short Sales
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has remanded to
New Jersey state court a suit claiming Merrill Lynch, UBS
Securities, E Trade Capital Markets and other financial
institutions conspired to conduct abusive "naked" short sales of
the stock of Escala Group Inc.

The appeals court found no federal jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs' state-law claims, which allege that the defendants
manipulated the stock price. Although the short sales at issue in
the case are subject to federal scrutiny under Regulation SHO,
which has no analogous provision under New Jersey law, the
question of whether the defendants' acts violate New Jersey law
need not be answered by reference to Regulation SHO, the appeals
court said.

A group of individuals and business entities filed the suit in
Morris County Superior Court, and Merrill Lynch removed it to
federal court in Newark on federal question jurisdiction.  When
the plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Michael Hammer recommended the motion be granted
in December 2012. But U.S. District Judge Jose Linares overruled
Hammer in March 2013 and denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand.

On Nov. 10, Third Circuit Judges D. Brooks Smith, Thomas Vanaskie
and Dolores Sloviter reversed Linares' ruling and instructed that
the case be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey.
The ruling is precedential because it marks the first time any
federal appeals court has ruled on the interplay between state
causes of action and federal claims rising out of a racketeering
suit, according to Neil Flaster, the Florham Park, N.J., solo
representing the plaintiffs.

The suit was brought by Greg Manning of Boonton, N.J., and Claes
Arnrup of Sweden, as well as four holding companies.  All held
stock in Escala Group at the time of the alleged naked short
selling in 2006 and 2007.  Escala Group changed its name to
Spectrum Group International in 2009. Located in Irvine, Calif.,
the company is a dealer and auctioneer of stamps, coins, military
memorabilia and other collectibles.

Besides Merrill Lynch, UBS and E Trade, the suit names Knight
Capital Americas, National Financial Services and Citadel
Derivatives Group as defendants.  The suit claims the defendants
falsified documentation of trades and loans of Escala shares while
conducting transactions on their own behalf and for others.

The suit claims the defendants' actions caused an artificial
increase in the number of shares in Escala by "manufacturing
fictitious and unauthorized phantom shares," which  caused the
value of the plaintiffs' holdings to decline and diluted their
voting rights.  The suit brought claims under the New Jersey
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on
predicate acts of New Jersey securities fraud and theft, and
common-law claims for unjust enrichment, interference with
economic advantage and contractual relations, breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
negligence.

The suit says that when the naked short sales began in March 2006,
the price of Escala stock fell from $32 to $4 in the course of
five days.

Smith wrote for the appeals court that in a typical short sale,
the seller identifies a stock that is expected to drop in price;
arranges to borrow shares of the stock from a broker; sells the
borrowed securities; waits for the stock to decrease in value;
purchases replacement securities; and returns them to the broker.

Typically, Smith wrote, a short sale is completed within three
days, but in a "naked" short sale, the buyer fails to deliver
securities to the buyer within the standard three-day settlement
period, as part of a scheme to manipulate the price of a stock.
Naked short selling is not per se illegal under federal law, but
some naked short selling schemes may violate federal antitrust
laws, as well as Regulation SHO, he said.

The defendants argued that federal jurisdiction was conferred by
28 U.S.C. 1331 and by Section 27 of the Exchange Act.  In support
of their Sec. 1331 claim, the defendants cited D'Alessio v. New
York Stock Exchange. In that 2001 case, the Second Circuit found
federal jurisdiction under Sec. 1331 where a court was required to
construe federal securities laws because the plaintiff claimed the
New York Stock Exchange failed to perform its statutory duty,
created under federal law, to enforce members' compliance with
those laws. But the present case "is distinguishable because
plaintiffs' claims could rise or fall entirely based on the
construction of state law," the panel said.

The panel also rejected the defendants' claim of federal
jurisdiction under Section 27, which relied on a line of cases
from the Ninth Circuit.  Those cases are at odds with the Supreme
Court's 1961 decision in Pam American Petroleum Corp. v. Superior
Court of Delaware, the panel said.

Plaintiff lawyer Flaster said he was pleased with the decision,
since his clients would have been held to a higher standard on a
defense motion to dismiss in federal court.

A Merrill Lynch spokesman, Bill Halldin, said the company had no
comment about the ruling. Lawyers for the other defendants either
did not return calls from a reporter or had no comment.  Sophie
Sohn, a spokeswoman for KCG, a successor by merger to Knight
Capital, said her company had no comment.


MIAMI, FL: "Migdal" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant ATS Processing Services, LLC, removed the class action
lawsuit entitled Migdal v. City of Miami, et al., Case No. 14-
027132-CA01, from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-
cv-24287-DPG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Aaron Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 570-8989
          Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com

Defendant ATS Processing Services, LLC, is represented by:

          D. Matthew Allen, Esq.
          Kevin P. McCoy, Esq.
          Samuel Joseph Salario, Jr., Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          4221 West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
          Tampa, FL 33607-5780
          Telephone: (813) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
          E-mail: mallen@cfjblaw.com
                  kmccoy@carltonfields.com
                  ssalario@cfjblaw.com


MICHAEL LANDOLT: Final Judgment in Waterford Case Partly Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In WATERFORD HARBOR MASTER ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. MICHAEL
LANDOLT AND ANN WISMER, Appellees, NO. 14-13-00817-CV, Waterford
appeals a final judgment rendered in a suit for declaratory relief
and monetary damages filed by Michael Landolt and wife, Ann
Wismer, and on Waterford's counterclaim for declaratory relief.

Waterford Harbor is a subdivision in Galveston County comprised of
different types of residences, a marina, and parks. In 1991, the
Landolts purchased a home in the Waterford Oaks section ("the
Oaks") of Waterford Harbor. The Oaks is an exclusive, private
section within Waterford Harbor; access to this section is through
a second gate. Within the Oaks is a park area, ("the Oaks park")
which is accessible to residents of Waterford Harbor and the Oaks.
To "create certain easements, [and] . . . assessments . . . in a
consistent, compatible, and mutually beneficial manner," the
developer promulgated a "Master Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants" ("Master Declaration"). The Master Declaration was
executed and filed of record in 1991 -- there is no dispute that
it burdens the Landolts' property and applies to all of Waterford
Harbor. The Oaks, often referred to as a "sub-association," also
promulgated a "Declaration for Waterford Oaks," separate and apart
from the Master Declaration. The Oaks Declaration is also filed of
record.

The Landolts learned of a change to the Oaks square footage
figures in 2002. The minutes of Waterford's board of directors
reveal that in December 2002, the square footage of the Oaks was
changed from the 394,254, to 594,254, as reflected on the Plat of
the subdivision and in the sub-association Declaration. Beginning
in 2003, Waterford calculated assessments using the 594,294 square
feet figure. The Landolts claim their assessment increased 7-8%.
Since that time, the Landolts have paid their assessments "under
protest."

In May 2012, Waterford's Master Association called for a vote on
three amendments. The first was to amend the Master Declaration to
approve the 2002-2003 change to the total square footage of the
Oaks. The second was to allow sub-associations (such as the Oaks)
to submit petitions to elect their own boards of directors. The
third was to increase approval by membership required to amend the
Master Declaration from 51% to 67% for purposes of the Pro Rata
Share or termination of the covenants. The minutes of Waterford's
board of directors meeting in June 2012, show Amendment 1 passed
with 52.93%, Amendment 2 received 50.98% approval, and Amendment 3
had 50.40%. Because 51% is required to amend the Master
Declaration, only Amendment 1 was approved.

In June 2012, the Landolts received a letter asking homeowners to
verify the square footage of the owners' lot, explaining the
figures used were taken from the records of the Galveston County
Appraisal District ("GCAD"). The letter listed the square footage
of the Landolts' property as 35,911. Michael Landolt testified the
property was approximately 36,200 square feet.

The Landolts sued Waterford under the Texas Declaratory Judgment
Act, seeking a declaration that the "Oaks park" be considered
"Common Facilities." This declaration, the Landolts urged, would
result in a reduction in the amount of assessment because
"Community Facilities" are exempt from inclusion in the
calculation on which assessments are based. The Landolts also
asked the court to declare that a particular section of property,
Reserve A, is a common interest property for every resident of
Waterford Harbor, arguing every resident should be allowed to vote
a pro rata share of that property. They also asked the court to
require Waterford to use the square footage listed on the Plat,
and not that listed in the GCAD records, for voting purposes.
Finally, the Landolts sought recovery of overpayments on
assessments based on the increased square footage due to the 2002-
2003 change to the square footage contained in the Plat.

The trial court ordered that the 2002-2003 action of Waterford's
board of directors changing the typographical error, correcting
the square footage from 394,254 to 594,254, was invalid. The trial
court further found the May 2012 vote was invalid because the
numbers used were based on the "invalid" 2002-2003 voting numbers.
The trial court declared that the "Oaks park" area is not a Common
Facility and the trial court rejected that Reserve A should be
allocated to the homeowners for purposes of voting. Finally, the
trial court awarded the Landolts $16,218.24 (four years of
assessments), along with attorneys' fees, pre and post-judgment
interest.

Waterford appealed; the Landolts asserted two cross-points.

The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston
concluded that the change in 2002-2003 was to correct a
typographical error, and the May 2012 vote was premised on a
different basis.  Therefore, the Appeals Court reversed the trial
court's judgment insofar as it provides that the 2002-2003 change
and the May 2012 vote was invalid. It further reversed and
rendered the award of monetary damages and attorneys' fees in
favor of the Landolts.  Moreover, the Appeals Court affirmed the
trial court's judgment declaring the "Oaks park" area is not a
"Common Facility," and rejecting the argument that Reserve A was
to be allocated for voting.  The Appeals Court likewise rendered
judgment that Waterford recover attorneys' fees in the amount of
$33,263.50, plus an additional $15,000.00 for a successful appeal
to the court of appeals, and $15,000.00 for a successful appeal to
the Supreme Court of Texas.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 6, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/RS2f5Mfrom Leagle.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Lawyers Prepare to Challenge "No-Poach" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the latest
round of companies accused of entering "no-poach" pacts is
preparing for a fight.

Microsoft Corp., Oracle Corp. and a handful of California
animation studios are lawyering up and filing their first briefs,
providing a glimpse into their defense strategies.  The companies
were sued for allegedly conspiring to not recruit competitors'
employees, making them late entrants to a highly publicized
courtroom saga that has been playing out in Silicon Valley for
several years.

Google Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and Intel Corp. agreed
to settle similar claims for $324.5 million this year, but in
August U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California rejected the number as insufficient.  The tech
companies have appealed her decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  Last year smaller defendants Pixar
Animation Studios Inc., Lucasfilm and Intuit Inc. settled for $20
million.

Microsoft, hit with a "no-poach" suit in October, is trying to
distance itself from the sprawling High Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation case that has dominated Koh's San Jose courtroom for
months.  Microsoft lawyer Allison Davis of Davis Wright Tremaine
wants to move the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, a site much closer to the company's
Redmond, Wash., headquarters.

"Nothing . . . suggests this 'overarching conspiracy' included
Microsoft," Davis wrote in a brief filed on Nov. 10.  "Unlike the
High Tech defendants, Microsoft has its principal operations in
Washington State, not Silicon Valley, and it lacks the nexus with
Mr. [Steve] Jobs and Mr. [Bill] Campbell that pervades in High
Tech."

Latham & Watkins partners Daniel Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com -- and
Sarah Ray -- sarah.ray@lw.com -- entered their appearances for
Oracle on Nov. 10.  In-house attorneys Dorian Daley, Deborah
Miller and James Maroulis are also listed as counsel on the
company's preliminary filing.

In an email last month, Oracle vice president Deborah Hellinger
called the suit "beyond preposterous."

"Oracle was deliberately excluded from all prior litigation filed
in this matter," she wrote, "because all the parties investigating
the issue concluded there was absolutely no evidence that Oracle
was involved."

The California animation studios, sued in September over claims
they restricted hiring and conspired to fix their employees'
wages, have also started lining up their defense teams.  Covington
& Burling represents Pixar, Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Co. and
ImageMovers.  McManis Faulkner and Williams & Connolly represent
Blue Sky Studios Inc. Lawyers haven't yet entered an appearance
for Sony Pictures Animation or Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc.
IAC/InterActiveCorp., the parent company of Ask.com, also faces
allegations it restricted hiring but has not formally designated
counsel.

Plaintiffs lawyers fighting in this latest round of "no-poach"
suits include Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Susman Godfrey, the
Markham Law Firm and Hogue Belong.

Microsoft's lawyers already are trying to take advantage of
information released in the Silicon Valley "no-poach" case.  For
example, the lawyers say the U.S. Department of Justice sued
Google, Apple, Adobe, Intel, Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm, accusing
them of agreeing not to recruit each other's employees.  The DOJ
also investigated Microsoft, the company's lawyers say, but on
Oct. 29 the department notified Microsoft it had closed the
investigation.

Microsoft also operates under Washington law, which unlike
California law, does not prohibit employers from forming
nonsolicitation agreements with their employees.

"Because Microsoft has lawful means of protecting its employment
relationships in Washington," the company's lawyers wrote, "it had
no motivation to enter into the sort of reciprocal 'no poaching'
agreements alleged in High Tech."


MORGAN STANLEY: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Cheyne SIV Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School Employees'
Retirement System (PSERS) and Commerzbank AG took an appeal before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from Judge Shira
Scheindlin's order of final judgment related to a class action
complaint involving Cheyne SIV.  That judgment encompassed several
previous orders that, as relevant to the appeal: (i) denied class
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 based on appellants'
failure to establish numerosity and predominance of common issues;
(ii) dismissed Commerzbank's claim for lack of standing; and (iii)
dismissed PSERS's claim because its presence as a party would
destroy complete diversity, the sole basis of subject matter
jurisdiction.

The Cheyne SIV, a structured investment vehicle, was managed by
Cheyne Capital and structured by Morgan Stanley. It was formed in
2005 and issued several classes of notes amounting to several
billion dollars, before its demise in 2007.

The putative class action was filed by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank
(ADCB) in August 2008, following collapse of the Cheyne SIV,
alleging common law fraud under New York law and based federal
subject matter jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a). Two additional plaintiffs later joined. They
eventually moved for class certification on the common law fraud
claims seeking to represent a class of all investors in the Cheyne
SIV who purchased notes during a class period from October 2004 to
October 2007. The district court denied that motion, holding that
plaintiffs failed to establish numerosity and the predominance of
common issues. Interlocutory review was denied. Plaintiffs'
counsel were then allowed to contact other investors, which led to
the addition of 12 new plaintiffs, including Commerzbank and
PSERS.

In an Oct. 31, 2014 Order, the Second Circuit ruled, "We affirm
the denial of class certification and dismissal of PSERS. However,
we hold that it was not a permissible exercise of discretion for
the district court to limit Commerzbank's ability to establish its
standing. We certify to the New York Court of Appeals the question
of whether a reasonable trier of fact could find that Commerzbank
had acquired from a third party that had purchased securities a
fraud claim against Morgan Stanley & Co. ("Morgan Stanley"). We
also certify the question whether, if Commerzbank has standing, a
reasonable trier of fact could hold Morgan Stanley liable for
fraud based on the present record."

The appeals case is COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, together and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, COMMERZBANK AG, together and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,
ABU DHABI COMMERCIAL BANK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, together and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, SEI INVESTMENTS
COMPANY, together and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
THE BANK OF N.T. BUTTERFIELD & SON LIMITED, SFT COLLECTIVE
INVESTMENT FUND, DEUTSCHE POSTBANK AG, GLOBAL INVESTMENT SERVICES
LIMITED, GULF INTERNATIONAL BANK B.S.C., NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL
COOPERATIVE FEDERATION, together and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF FLORIDA,
together and on behalf of all others similarly situated, BANK
SINOPAC, together and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
BANK HAPOALIM B.M., together and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, KBL EUROPEAN PRIVATE BANKERS S.A., Plaintiffs, v. MORGAN
STANLEY & CO., INCORPORATED, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED, MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICE, INC., MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICE,
LTD., THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC., STANDARD & POOR'S RATING
SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, CHEYNE CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT LIMITED, CHEYNE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (UK) LLP, CHEYNE
CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
formerly known as The Bank of New York, QSR MANAGEMENT LIMITED,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 13-2095-CV(L), NO. 13-2283-CV(XAP)., 13-
2286-CV(XAP), 13-2287-CV(XAP),(2nd Cir.).

A copy of the Second Circuit's Oct. 31, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/pMw0iNfrom Leagle.com.

LUKE O. BROOKS (Joseph D. Daley & Daniel S. Drosman, San Diego,
CA) Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, CA, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

JAMES P. ROUHANDEH (Antonio J. Perez-Marques, Paul S. Mishkin,
Jessica L. Turner, on the joint brief) Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, Morgan
Stanley & Co. Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. Int'l Ltd.

Dean Ringel, Jason M. Hall, Roxana Labatt, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP, New York, NY, on the joint brief, for Defendants-Appellees-
Cross-Appellants Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Joshua M. Rubins, James J. Coster, Mario Aieta, James I. Doty,
Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP, New York, NY; Mark A. Perry,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, on the joint brief,
for Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants Moody's Investors
Service, Inc. and Moody's Investors Service Ltd.


NEVSUN RESOURCES: January 13 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE NEVSUN RESOURCES
LTD. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION

Read this notice carefully as it may affect your rights.
This notice is directed to all persons, other than certain persons
associated with the defendants, who  acquired securities of Nevsun
Resources Ltd. ("Nevsun") during the period from March 31, 2011 to
and including February 6, 2012 and who held some or all of those
securities at the close of trading on February 6, 2012 ("Class
Members").

In 2012, a proposed class action was commenced against Nevsun and
certain others in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the
"Court").  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or
ought to have known, that the stated gold reserves at the Bisha
mine were materially overstated.  The parties to the class action
reached a settlement that was approved by the Court.  The Court
also certified the action as a class proceeding.  The defendants
have denied and continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing,
fault, liability or damage in respect of the claims alleged in the
class action.  The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims.

SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS

The settlement provides for the defendants to pay US$5,350,000
(the "Settlement Amount") in full and final settlement of all
claims, including class counsel fees and administration costs, in
return for releases and a dismissal of the class action.  Class
counsel fees including taxes, were fixed by the Court as a first
charge on the Settlement Amount at (USD) $1,511,375.  The net
settlement monies will be distributed in accordance with the
court-approved and supervised Plan of Allocation which can be
reviewed at www.nevsunclassaction.com

Further information on the settlement, including the Settlement
Agreement, Plan of Allocation and the court orders, may be found
at www.nevsunclassaction.com

A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION MUST BE MADE BY MARCH 16, 2015

Each Class Member must submit a completed Claim Form on or before
March 16, 2015 in order to participate in the settlement.  The
Claim Form can be accessed or downloaded at
www.nevsunclassaction.com or obtained by calling the Administrator
at 1.866.647.7520.  If you do not submit a completed Claim Form by
March 16, 2015, you will not receive any part of the net
Settlement Amount.

The Court appointed Marsh Risk Consulting Canada as the
Administrator of the settlement to, among other
things: (i) receive and process claim forms; (ii) decide
eligibility for compensation; and (iii) distribute the net
Settlement Amount to eligible Class Members.

The Claim Form should be submitted by using the secure Online
Claims System at www.nevsunclassaction.com

You should submit a paper Claim Form only if you do not have
internet access.

The paper Claim Form may be sent by mail or courier to:

Administrator, Nevsun Class Action
Marsh Canada, Settlement Administrator
161 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2S4,

or by fax to: 1.800.997.4609

The Court appointed Gregory D. Wrigglesworth of Kirwin Partners
LLP as the Referee to resolve any dispute arising from a decision
of the Administrator on eligibility or amount of compensation.  A
review by the Referee may be requested by delivery of a written
submission setting out the basis for the dispute including all
relevant documents provided that the request is submitted within
thirty (30) days of the date of the decision in dispute.  Complete
information on requesting a review may be found in the Plan of
Allocation available at www.nevsunclassaction.com

TO OPT OUT OF THE CLASS ACTION

All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the settlement,
unless they opt out.  The opt out form is available at
www.nevsunclassaction.com or by calling 1.866.647.7520.
Class Members who wish to opt out of the class action must send a
completed opt-out form to:

Gregory D. Wrigglesworth
Kirwin Partners LLP
423 Pelissier Street
Windsor, ON N9A 4L2
Fax: 519.790.0106
E-mail: nevsun@kirwinpartners.com
Attention: Nevsun Class Action

The opt-out form must be sent by registered mail or certified mail
and must be received on or before January 13, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.
eastern time.

PERSONAL LEGAL ADVICE

Class Members who seek the advice or guidance of their personal
lawyers do so at their own expense.

INTERPRETATION

This Notice is a summary of the order approving the settlement
issued by the Court.  If there is a conflict between the
provisions of this Notice and the terms of the order, the order
will prevail. Questions for class counsel should be directed by
telephone or in writing to:

Jay Strosberg
Sutts, Strosberg LLP
600-251 Goyeau Street
Windsor, ON N9A 6V4
Tel: 800.229.5323 ext 8296
Fax: 866.316.5308
E-mail: nevsun@strosbergco.com

INQUIRIES

If you need help, or are having difficulty with the claims
process, or if you do not have access to the internet, or if you
prefer not to register online, you may telephone the
Administrator at 1.866.647.7520.

This Notice has been approved by the Court.

Questions about this Notice should NOT be directed to the Court.


NEW JERSEY: District Court Narrows Down Tax Liens Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE NEW JERSEY TAX SALES CERTIFICATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1893 (MAS) (TJB), (D. N.J.) is a putative
consolidated class action of five separate and related actions
against participants in an alleged bid-rigging conspiracy
involving municipal auctions of tax liens in the state of New
Jersey.

Plaintiffs are property tax debtors in New Jersey.  They allege
that Defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to restrain
trade in violation of antitrust laws as well as New Jersey tax
lien laws and common law.

Specifically, on Jan. 6, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint, including four counts:
(1) violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1;
(2) violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. Sec. 56:9-
3; (3) violation of the New Jersey Tax Lien Law, N.J.S.A. Sec.
54:5-63.1; and (4) a claim of unjust enrichment.

District Judge Michael A. Shipp granted in part and denied in part
certain Motions to Dismiss filed by certain Defendants, in an Oct.
31, 2014 Memorandum Opinion available at http://is.gd/DTBqBufrom
Leagle.com.  The District Court ruled that: (1) the Moving
Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted with respect to Counts
Three and Four, which are dismissed with prejudice, (2) the Moving
Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied with respect to Counts
One and Two; and (3) Defendant Michael Mastellone's motion to stay
the action pending his sentencing in a related criminal matter is
denied.

JEANNE VAN DUZER LANG BOYER, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW R.
WOLF, The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG, LITE DEPALMA
GREENBERG, LLC, MARK R. CUKER, WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY, ESQS.
& MICHAEL R PERLE.

Gila Bauer, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG, LITE
DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

ARLENE DAVIES, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Frances W Schmidt, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE DANIEL
GREENBERG, LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

DONALD W SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE DANIEL
GREENBERG, LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

SON, INC., Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG, LITE
DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

MSC, LLC, Consolidated from 12-2395 (FLW), Consol Plaintiff,
represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG, LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG,
LLC.

RONALD ENGLISH, Consolidated from 12-2644 (FLW), Consol Plaintiff,
represented by BRYAN L. CLOBES, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &
SPRENGEL LLP, LISA J. RODRIGUEZ, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis
LLP & NICOLE M. ACCHIONE, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP.

RAYMOND V. CONTARINO, JR., Consolidated from 12-1957 (FLW), Consol
Plaintiff, represented by HAROLD M HOFFMAN.

SAMUEL W. LEDFORD, Consolidated from 12-1893 (FLW) and 12-4050,
Consol Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL RAYMOND MIGNOGNA,
MATTLEMAN, WEINROTH & MILLER, P.C., PATRICIA MULVOY KIPNIS, BAILEY
& GLASSER LLP & WILLIAM A. RIBACK, WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC.

T&B ASSOCIATES, INC., on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated, Consolidated from 12-3010 (FLW), Consol Plaintiff,
represented by ANDREW BRIAN SMITH, SMITH & SCHWARTZSTEIN LLC &
BRYAN H. MINTZ, PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER.

LANA J.F. LEDFORD, Consolidated from 12-2869 (FLW), Consol
Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL RAYMOND MIGNOGNA, MATTLEMAN,
WEINROTH & MILLER, P.C., PATRICIA MULVOY KIPNIS, BAILEY & GLASSER
LLP & WILLIAM A. RIBACK, WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC.

FOXMOOR AT NEWFIELD LLC, Consolidated from 12-1957 (FLW), Consol
Plaintiff, represented by HAROLD M HOFFMAN.

MELISSA JACOBS, Consolidated from 12-3692 (MAS), Consol Plaintiff,
represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG, LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG,
LLC, NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER &
SHAH, LLP & JAMES C. SHAH, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH,
LLP.

ANTHONY D. BERTUCCI, JR., Consolidated from 12-3692 (MAS), Consol
Plaintiff, represented by NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD,
FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP & JAMES C. SHAH, SHEPHERD,
FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

WAYNE D. PETERS, Consolidated from 12-3692 (MAS), Consol
Plaintiff, represented by NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD,
FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP & JAMES C. SHAH, SHEPHERD,
FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

ROBERT W. STEIN, 12-4050, Defendant, Pro Se.

CRUSADER SERVICING CORP., a Pennsylvania Corporation; 12-4050,
Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER IANNICELLI, MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS, LLP & R. BRENDAN FEE, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

ROYAL TAX LIEN SERVICES, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER IANNICELLI, MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP & R. BRENDAN FEE, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.
ROYAL BANCSHARES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., a Pennsylvania
Corporation, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER IANNICELLI,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP & R. BRENDAN FEE, MORGAN LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP.

DAVID M. FARBER, 12-4050, Defendant, represented by STEVEN MARK
JANOVE, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE M. JANOVE, LLC.

DAVID BUTLER, and 12-4050, Defendant, represented by STEVEN MARK
JANOVE, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE M. JANOVE, LLC.

CCTS TAX LIENS II LLC., a New Jersey Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by STEVEN MARK JANOVE, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE
M. JANOVE, LLC.

DSBD LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
represented by STEVEN MARK JANOVE, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE M. JANOVE,
LLC.

STEIN & ZEITZ LLC, Defendant, represented by ROBIN LONDON-ZEITZ,
GARY C. ZEITZ, LLC.

ISADORE MAY, 12-4050, Defendant, represented by KEITH A. BONCHI,
GOLDENBERG, MACKLER & SAYEGH, P.A..

WILLIAM COLLINS, 12-4050, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY J.
GREENBAUM, SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C. & JACK WENIK, SILLS CUMMIS &
GROSS PC.

RICHARD PISCOTTA, JR, Defendant, represented by ARNOLD CARL
LAKIND, SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN, BLADER & LEHMANN, PC.
CCTS, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Consolidated
from 12-4050, Defendant, represented by STEVEN MARK JANOVE, LAW
OFFICES OF STEVE M. JANOVE, LLC.

PLYMOUTH PARK TAX SERVICES, LLC, doing business as XSPAND,
Defendant, represented by DAVID FORNAL, MASELLI WARREN PC & PERRY
S. WARREN, MASELLI WARREN, PC.

MTAG SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, represented by AYTAN YEHOSHUA
BELLIN, BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC.

VINAYA J. JESSANI, Defendant, represented by LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG,
GIBBONS, PC & JOSHUA C. GILLETTE, GIBBONS PC.

AMERICAN TAX FUNDING, LLC., Defendant, represented by PATRICIA B.
FUGEE, ROETZEL & ANDRESS LPA.

BBX CAPITAL CORPORATION, formerly known as BANKATLANTIC BANCORP,
INC., Defendant, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE
CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C..

FIDELITY TAX, LLC, Defendant, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI,
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C..

MICHAEL G. DELUCA, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW
HEMRICK, CONNELL FOLEY LLP & STEPHEN V. FALANGA, CONNELL FOLEY,
LLP.

GARY I. BRANSE, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW
HEMRICK, CONNELL FOLEY LLP & STEPHEN V. FALANGA, CONNELL FOLEY,
LLP.

RICHARD SIMON TRUSTEE, Defendant, represented by EDWIN JOSEPH
JACOBS, JR., JACOBS & BARBONE & MICHAEL F. MYERS, JACOBS & BARBONE
PA.

BETTY SIMON TRUSTEE, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by EDWIN
JOSEPH JACOBS, JR., JACOBS & BARBONE & MICHAEL F. MYERS, JACOBS &
BARBONE PA.

JOSEPH WOLFSON, Defendant, represented by EDWIN JOSEPH JACOBS,
JR., JACOBS & BARBONE & MICHAEL F. MYERS, JACOBS & BARBONE PA.
PHOENIX FUNDING, INC., Defendant, represented by JUSTIN P. WALDER,
WALDER HAYDEN P.A. & SHALOM DAVID STONE, Brown Moskowitz & Kallen,
P.C..

BENEDICT CAIOLA, Defendant, represented by JUSTIN P. WALDER,
WALDER HAYDEN P.A. & SHALOM DAVID STONE, Brown Moskowitz & Kallen,
P.C..

M.D. SASS MUNICIPAL FINANCE PARTNERS -- I, L.P., Defendant,
represented by FREDRIC LEIGH SHENKMAN, COOPER LEVENSON, PA,
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, JR., COOPER, LEVENSON, APRIL, NIEDELMAN &
WAGENHEIM, PA & SABRINA ARLENE PERELMAN, WEIL GOTCHAL & MANGES
LLP.

M.D. SASS MUNICIPAL FINANCE PARTNERS -II, L.P., Defendant,
represented by FREDRIC LEIGH SHENKMAN, COOPER LEVENSON, PA,
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, JR., COOPER, LEVENSON, APRIL, NIEDELMAN &
WAGENHEIM, PA & SABRINA ARLENE PERELMAN, WEIL GOTCHAL & MANGES
LLP.

BURLINGTON ASSEMBLY OF GOD/FOUNTAIN OF LIFE CENTER, Defendant,
represented by JEROME A. BALLAROTTO.

HEARTWOOD 55, LLC, Defendant, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI,
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C..

DAVID JELLEY, Defendant, represented by HENRY E. KLINGEMAN,
KROVATIN KLINGEMAN LLC.

WILLIAM S GREEN, Defendant, represented by JAY E. KAGAN, DILWORTH
PAXSON LLP.

MICHAEL MASTELLONE, Defendant, represented by GARY LEO CUTLER,
Gary L. Cutler, P.C..

PAM INVESTORS, Defendant, represented by GARY K. WOLINETZ,
GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP & EMILY A. KALLER, GREENBAUM,
ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP.

PATRICK CARABELLESE, Defendant, represented by GARY K. WOLINETZ,
GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP & EMILY A. KALLER, GREENBAUM,
ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP.

ROBERT E. ROTHMAN, Consolidated from 12-3010 (FLW) and 12-4050,
Consol Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER JAMES KOLLER,
CHRISTOPHER J. KOLLER, ESQ..

STEPHEN E HRUBY, Consolidated from 12-3010 (FLW) and 12-4050,
Consol Defendant, represented by ANDREW TODD SOLOMON, SULLIVAN &
WORCESTER LLP.

CCTS TAX LIENS II, LLC, Consolidated from 12-3010 (FLW), Consol
Defendant, represented by STEVEN MARK JANOVE, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE
M. JANOVE, LLC.

CCTS CAPITAL LLC, Consolidated from 12-3010 (FLW), Consol
Defendant, represented by JAY E. KAGAN, DILWORTH PAXSON LLP &
MATTHEW PETER FARANDA-DIEDRICH, DILWORTH PAXSON LLP.

DSBD, LLC, Consolidated from 12-3010 (FLW), Consol Defendant,
represented by STEVEN MARK JANOVE, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE M. JANOVE,
LLC.

PRO CAPITAL LLC, Consolidated from 12-3010 (FLW), Consol
Defendant, represented by STEVEN MARK JANOVE, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE
M. JANOVE, LLC.

M.D. SASS INVESTORS SERVICES, INC., Consolidated from 12-3010
(FLW) and 12-4050, Consol Defendant, represented by FREDRIC LEIGH
SHENKMAN, COOPER LEVENSON, PA, WILLIAM J. HUGHES, JR., COOPER,
LEVENSON, APRIL, NIEDELMAN & WAGENHEIM, PA & SABRINA ARLENE
PERELMAN, WEIL GOTCHAL & MANGES LLP.

M.D. SASS TAX LIEN MANAGEMENT L.L.C., Consolidated from 12-3010
(FLW), Consol Defendant, represented by FREDRIC LEIGH SHENKMAN,
COOPER LEVENSON, PA, WILLIAM J. HUGHES, JR., COOPER, LEVENSON,
APRIL, NIEDELMAN & WAGENHEIM, PA & SABRINA ARLENE PERELMAN, WEIL
GOTCHAL & MANGES LLP.

M.D. SASS MUNICIPAL FINANCE PARTNERS - III, LLC, Consolidated from
12-3010 (FLW) and 12-4050, Consol Defendant, represented by
FREDRIC LEIGH SHENKMAN, COOPER LEVENSON, PA, WILLIAM J. HUGHES,
JR., COOPER, LEVENSON, APRIL, NIEDELMAN & WAGENHEIM, PA & SABRINA
ARLENE PERELMAN, WEIL GOTCHAL & MANGES LLP.

M.D. SASS MUNICIPAL FINANCE PARTNERS - IV, LLC, Consolidated from
12-3010 (FLW) and 12-4050, Consol Defendant, represented by
FREDRIC LEIGH SHENKMAN, COOPER LEVENSON, PA, WILLIAM J. HUGHES,
JR., COOPER, LEVENSON, APRIL, NIEDELMAN & WAGENHEIM, PA & SABRINA
ARLENE PERELMAN, WEIL GOTCHAL & MANGES LLP.

M.D. SASS MUNICIPAL FINANCE PARTNERS - V, LLC, Consolidated from
12-3010 (FLW) and 12-4050, Consol Defendant, represented by
FREDRIC LEIGH SHENKMAN, COOPER LEVENSON, PA, WILLIAM J. HUGHES,
JR., COOPER, LEVENSON, APRIL, NIEDELMAN & WAGENHEIM, PA & SABRINA
ARLENE PERELMAN, WEIL GOTCHAL & MANGES LLP.

M.D. SASS MUNICIPAL FINANCE PARTNERS-VI, LLC, Consolidated 12-3010
(FLW) and 12-4050, Consol Defendant, represented by FREDRIC LEIGH
SHENKMAN, COOPER LEVENSON, PA, WILLIAM J. HUGHES, JR., COOPER,
LEVENSON, APRIL, NIEDELMAN & WAGENHEIM, PA & SABRINA ARLENE
PERELMAN, WEIL GOTCHAL & MANGES LLP.

CCTS TAX LIENS I, LLC, Consolidated from 12-3010 (FLW) and 12-
4050, Consol Defendant, represented by STEVEN MARK JANOVE, LAW
OFFICES OF STEVE M. JANOVE, LLC.

CRESTAR CAPITAL, LLC, Consolidated from 12-2644 (FLW), Consol
Defendant, represented by JAY E. KAGAN, DILWORTH PAXSON LLP &
MATTHEW PETER FARANDA-DIEDRICH, DILWORTH PAXSON LLP.

ROYAL BANK AMERICA, Consolidated from 12-1893 (FLW), Consol
Defendant, represented by R. BRENDAN FEE, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
LLP.

M.D. SASS TAX LIEN MANAGEMENT LLC, Consolidated from 12-2869 (FLW)
and 12-4050, Consol Defendant, represented by FREDRIC LEIGH
SHENKMAN, COOPER LEVENSON, PA, WILLIAM J. HUGHES, JR., COOPER,
LEVENSON, APRIL, NIEDELMAN & WAGENHEIM, PA & SABRINA ARLENE
PERELMAN, WEIL GOTCHAL & MANGES LLP.

RICHARD PISCOTTA, JR, 12-4050, Consol Defendant, represented by
ARNOLD CARL LAKIND, SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN, BLADER &
LEHMANN, PC.

MOORING TAX ASSET GROUP, LLC,, 12-4050, Consol Defendant,
represented by AYTAN YEHOSHUA BELLIN, BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC.

National Tax Lien Association, Interested Party, represented by
STEPHEN V. FALANGA, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP.
BASILIS N. STEPHANATOS, Interested Party, Pro Se.


NEW YORK, NY: Faces "McClain" Suit Alleging Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert McClain v. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation
and The City of New York, Case No. 1:14-cv-06642-PKC-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014) is brought to remedy alleged
discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex in the terms
conditions and privileges of employment in violation of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967.

NYC is a New York municipal corporation headquartered in the
Borough of Manhattan.  The Mayor of the City of New York is head
of the executive branch of New York City's government.  New York
City Department of Parks and Recreation is an agency of the City.
The commissioner of DPR is the highest level employee appointed by
the Mayor of the City of New York.  DPR is responsible for
maintaining the City's parks system, preserving and maintaining
the ecological diversity of the City's natural areas, and
furnishing recreational opportunities for the City's residents and
visitors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald Graves, Esq.
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (973) 763-9029
          Facsimile: (973) 763-9027
          E-mail: ggravesesq@aol.com


NNN CAPITAL: "Weiss" Suit Removed to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Cottonwood Capital Property Management II, LLC,
Cottonwood Capital Property Management, LLC, and Daniel Shaefer
removed the class action lawsuit titled Weiss v. NNN Capital Fund
I, LLC, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00029739-CU-FR-CTL, 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-02689-H-NLS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of securities laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq.
          Nicole M. Catanzarite-Woodward, Esq.
          Eric V. Anderton, Esq.
          CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION
          2331 West Lincoln Avenue
          Anaheim, CA 92801
          Telephone: (714) 520-5544
          Facsimile: (714) 520-0680
          E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com
                  ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com
                  eanderton@catanzarite.com

Defendants Cottonwood Capital Property Management, LLC, Cottonwood
Capital Property Management II, LLC and Daniel Shaefer are
represented by:

          Henry H. Oh, Esq.
          SHUMENER, ODSON & OH LLP
          550 S. Hope Street, Suite 1050
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 344-4203
          Facsimile: (213) 344-4193
          E-mail: hoh@soollp.com


ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL: La. Supreme Court Throws Out "Oliver" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit EDDIE OLIVER, OSCARLENE NIXON AND MILDRED GOODWIN, v.
ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, NO. 2014-C-0329, CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 2014-C-0330, is a class action which arose out of the
termination of approximately 7,600 former teachers and other
permanent employees of the Orleans Parish School Board (the
"OPSB") as a result of Hurricane Katrina and the State of
Louisiana's subsequent takeover of Orleans Parish schools.

In an Oct. 31, 2014 order available at http://is.gd/bVgXnFfrom
Leagle.com, the Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed judgments of
the lower courts and dismissed the class action suit.

The Supreme Court opined: "Res judicata applies where a second
action asserts a cause of action which arises out of the
transaction or occurrence which was the subject matter of a prior
action.  This class action suit asserts causes of action arising
out of the OPSB and State's actions in placing the class members
on disaster leave, terminating them allegedly in violation of
their employment contracts, Teacher Tenure Law and OPSB policy,
placing the schools in the hands of the State's Recovery School
District (RSD), and failing to abide by certain statutes in
staffing the RSD schools, all as a result of Hurricane Katrina and
the implementation of Act 35. The United Teachers of New Orleans
(UTNO) suits and arbitrations all arise out of that same
occurrence; in fact, some of the causes of actions are exactly the
same as those in this class action.  We agree with the court of
appeal that res judicata applies here but find no "exceptional
circumstances" which would preclude its application. We recognize
it is possible that there are some members of the class who were
not members of UTNO at the time of the UTNO suits and Global
Settlement. To the extent that res judicata would not apply to any
of the parties in this case, we find that neither the OPSB nor the
State defendant's violated the class members' due process rights.
Lack of a recall list does not constitute a due process violation,
the procedures used by the OPSB to locate their employees after
Katrina was sufficient to meet due process standards, and the vast
majority of those rehired by the OPSB were former OPSB employees.
Finally, there is no constitutionally protected property interest
in the right to 'priority consideration' for employment with a
third party, and the plaintiffs offered no proof they were not
given priority consideration."


PANASONIC CORP: Interim Lead Counsel Named in Capacitor Case
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato of Northern District of California
appoints interim lead class counsel in the case entitled IN RE
CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master File No. 14-CV03264-JD
(N.D Cal.)

In this consolidated class action, the court appoints:

     -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm as the interim lead class counsel
for the putative direct purchaser plaintiff class; and

     -- the Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy to serve as the interim
lead counsel for the putative class of indirect purchasers.

In appointing Joseph Saveri Law Firm as interim lead class counsel
for the putative direct purchaser plaintiff, Judge Donato convey
that the law firm invested a great deal of time and effort to
investigate and develop the potential claims in this action, the
firm also has the support of many of the plaintiffs' counsel,
which the court does find to be a significant factor in the Firm's
Favor.

In the case of the appointment of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
Judge Donato expresses that the Cotchett firm has significant
experience in handling complex class actions, including cases
involving antitrust claims. The fact that the Cotchett firm is
located in the San Francisco area also supports their appointment
as lead counsel, as that will eliminate the need for liaison/local
counsel, resulting in greater efficiency.

A copy of Judge Donato's Order dated October 31, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/DAhAjOfrom Leagle.com.

Chip-Tech, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by C. Andrew Dirksen, Gold
Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP, Joseph J. DePalma, Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC, Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP,
Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Eric L. Cramer,
Berger & Montague, P.C., James W Anderson, Heins Mills Olson,
P.L.C., James Gerard Beebe Dallal, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Michael
C Dell'Angelo, IV, Ruthanne Gordon, Berger & Montague PC, Ryan
James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Vincent J. Esades,
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc.

Dependable Component Supply Corp., Plaintiff, represented by
Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. & Michael C
Dell'Angelo, IV.

In Home Tech Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth
R. Odette, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M Silton,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Alexander Dewitt Singh Kullar, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas
Alvarez Smith LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas
Alvarez & Smith LLP, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
Gabriel Dash Zeldin, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP
& Michael Harrison Pearson, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP.

Everett Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC, Anne Elizabeth
Smith, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, Kathleen Kopach Woods, Shaffer
Lombardo Shurin, Richard Lombardo, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin &
William Robert Pointer, II, Duncan Firm.

Fredrick P. Hege, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Mike Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Michael W. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Jane Schmit, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Johnny Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

John E. McDowell, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Marta Michaud, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Timothy Duffy, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Sean G. Tarjoto, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Todd Stowater, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

David C. Keller, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Jamie Thaemert, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Scot Dunlap, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Scott Huffman, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Ashley Emison,
Langdon Emison, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC & James Kent Emison, Langdon and
Emison.

Charles Rusher, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Ashley Emison,
Langdon Emison, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC & James Kent Emison, Langdon and
Emison.

Jennifer Rusher, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Ashley Emison,
Langdon Emison, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC & James Kent Emison, Langdon and
Emison.

David Standridge, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Ashley Emison,
Langdon Emison, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC & James Kent Emison, Langdon and
Emison.

Troy Gibson, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Ashley Emison,
Langdon Emison, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC & James Kent Emison, Langdon and
Emison.

Garth Russell, M.D., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

BHRAC, LLC, doing business as Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Plaintiff,
represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Beverly Hills Leasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Cetacea Sound, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Computing Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC, Daniel
Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC,
Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis
LLC, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro
Davis LLC, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson
Shapiro Davis LLC, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC, Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC & Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

WE 3 Gossett, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC, Daniel
Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC,
Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis
LLC & Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro
Davis LLC.

Autorama, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis LLC.

eIQ Energy Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Austin B Cohen, Levin
Fishbein Sedran and Berman, Howard J Sedran, Levin Fishbein Sedran
and Berman, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Keith
J Verrier, Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman, Ria C. Momblanco,
Fine Kaplan and Black, R.P.C. & Roberta D. Liebenberg, Fine Kaplan
and Black, RPC.

Toy-Knowlogy Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Eric B. Fastiff,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Steven Noel Williams,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

CAE SOUND, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Noel Williams,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Michael Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Alexander
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc. & Michael Brooks.

Steve Wong, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Wing Lee, Minami Tamaki
LLP & Daniel R. Shulman, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett,
P.A..

David A Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Michael
Schack, Law Offices of Alexander M. Schack.

Walker Component Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Panasonic Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul
Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Ian L Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Mollie C Richardson,
Winston and Strawn LLP & Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP.

PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston
& Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian L
Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Mollie C Richardson, Winston and
Strawn LLP & Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP.

Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd., a Japanese corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul
Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Ian L Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Mollie C Richardson,
Winston and Strawn LLP & Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP.

Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul
Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Ian L Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Mollie C Richardson,
Winston and Strawn LLP & Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP.

Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Christopher J. Cox, Weil Gotshal & Manges, David R. Singh, Steven
A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP & David R Singh, Weil, Gotshal
and Manges LLP.

Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock,
Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher J. Cox, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, David R. Singh, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
& David R Singh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP.

NEC Tokin Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendant,
represented by George Arnold Nicoud, III, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Eli Martin
Lazarus, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP.

NEC Tokin America, Inc., Defendant, represented by George Arnold
Nicoud, III, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Austin Van Schwing,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Eli Martin Lazarus, Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP.

KEMET Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jacob R. Sorensen,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Lindsay A. Lutz, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman & Roxane Alicia Polidora, Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman LLP.

KEMET Electronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jacob R.
Sorensen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Lindsay A. Lutz,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman & Roxane Alicia Polidora,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, Defendant,
represented by Chul Pak, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati,
Edmundo Clay Marquez, Wilson Sonsini et al, Jeffrey C. Bank,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Jonathan M. Jacobson, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Jeffrey James VanHooreweghe, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Nichicon Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendant,
represented by Daniel William Fox, K&L Gates LLP.

Nichicon (America) Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel
William Fox, K&L Gates LLP, Lauren Nicole Norris, Lauren Britt
Salins, Michael Edward Martinez, K&L Gates LLP, Scott M Mendel &
Steven M Kowal.

AVX Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce Douglas Sokler,
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo & Evan Nadel, Mintz
Levin.

Rubycon Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendant,
represented by Djordje Petkoski, Hunton and Williams LLP, Leslie
Kostyshak, Hunton amd Williams LLP & Michael Brett Burns, Hunton
and Williams, LLP.

Rubycon America Inc., Defendant, represented by Djordje Petkoski,
Hunton and Williams LLP, Leslie Kostyshak, Hunton amd Williams LLP
& Michael Brett Burns, Hunton and Williams, LLP.

Elna Co. Ltd., a Japanese corporation, Defendant, represented by
Heather S. Tewksbury, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP &
Thomas Mueller, WilmerHale.

Elna America Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather S. Tewksbury,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & Thomas Mueller,
WilmerHale.

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Pinkston, Pepper Hamilton, Benjamin J. Eichel, Pepper Hamilton,
LLP, Frank H. Griffin, Pepper Hamilton, Barbara T. Sicalides,
Pepper Hamilton LLP, Benjamin Jesse Eichel, Pepper Hamilton LLP &
Thomas F. Fitzpatrick, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Samsung Electro-Mechanics, a South Korean corporation, Defendant,
represented by Derek Ludwin & Anita Fern Stork, Esq., Covington &
Burling LLP.

Samsung Electro Mechanics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Derek Ludwin & Anita Fern Stork, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP.

Rohm Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christina Joanne Brown, O'Melveny & Myers & Michael Frederick
Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christina Joanne Brown, O'Melveny & Myers, Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP.

United Chemi-con Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles F.
Rule, Cadwalader Wickersham and Taft LLP, Daniel J. Howley,
Cadwalader Wickersham and Taft LLP, Joseph J. Bial, Cadwalader
Wickersham & Taft LLP, Ruth Landis Hawley, Kaufhold Gaskin LLP &
Steven Shea Kaufhold, Kaufhold Gaskin LLP.

Hitachi Chemical Company America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Chul Pak, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Edmundo Clay
Marquez, Wilson Sonsini et al, Jeffrey C. Bank, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati, Jonathan M. Jacobson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
& Rosati & Jeffrey James VanHooreweghe, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati.

Hitachi AIC Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Edmundo Clay
Marquez, Wilson Sonsini et al & Jonathan M. Jacobson, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

TDK Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Park Chiu,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

TDK-EPC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Park Chiu,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

TDK U.S.A. Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Quathimatine Holdings, Inc., Movant, represented by Todd Anthony
Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Schuten Electronics, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Brent
W Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Kit A. Pierson,
Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC & Matthew W Ruan, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by Jacklin Chou
Lem -- jacklin.lem@usdoj.gov -- at United States Department of
Justice.


PFIZER INC: May Face Suits Over Viagra-Melanoma Link
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
with a recent scientific study prompting plaintiff's lawyers to
advertise for clients, suits by Viagra users aiming to link use of
the drug with the development of melanoma will be hitting
courtrooms soon.

The race to the courthouse was prompted by a study published in
June by JAMA Internal Medicine, which reported that Viagra users
were 84 percent more likely to develop skin cancer over a 10-year
period.  Television commercials and online ads from law firms are
targeting men who took Viagra and developed melanoma.

But the lawyers filing those suits will have to demonstrate that
taking the erectile dysfunction drug was the cause of the
plaintiffs' skin cancer, as some have criticized the JAMA study
for merely showing a correlation.

The study looked at 26,000 men, finding that those who had taken
Viagra -- 6 percent of the total -- had roughly double the risk of
developing melanoma than those who never took the drug.  Among
subjects who were actively taking the drug, the risk of developing
melanoma was 84 percent greater, the study suggested.  The study's
authors are affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Brown
University, Indiana University and Tianjin Medical University in
China.

Thomas Kline -- Tom.Kline@KlineSpecter.com -- of Kline & Specter
in Philadelphia said his firm is evaluating claims of Viagra users
who developed melanoma, and expects to bring suits on behalf of
some of them in the near future.

"We believe the claims are significant and meritorious.  I expect
we will be in the forefront of any litigation which develops,"
Mr. Kline said.

Mr. Kline wouldn't indicate how many cases his firm will file or
which venue they will select, but he said, "we fully expect,
sometime, within weeks, not months, we will be filing lawsuits on
behalf of people that are melanoma-Viagra victims."

Hunter Shkolnik -- Hunter@NapoliBern.com -- of Napoli Bern Ripka
Shkolnik in New York likewise said he is evaluating claims by
Viagra users who developed melanoma, and he expects to take some
cases to court soon.  He plans to file his cases in the Eastern
District of New York, he said, but declined to reveal the number
of cases.

Mr. Shkolnik said he was selecting cases carefully, looking for
long-term users of Viagra who have a definitive diagnosis of
melanoma.  He said he also is looking at whether potential
plaintiffs took steps to protect themselves from sunburn.
"A white-skinned person who goes out and fries themselves with
baby oil is not as good a client as someone who habitually uses
sunblock," Mr. Shkolnik said.

Television ads seeking Viagra users who develop melanoma play a
critical role in educating the public about the connection,
Mr. Shkolnik said.  But from what he's seen, this group of cases
won't turn into a "megatort" in the way that some other drugs
have, he said.

The plaintiff bar has taken on Viagra before, with less than
successful results.  The drug's maker, Pfizer, saw a crop of suits
after a 2006 study suggested that users of the drug who have a
history of heart problems had an increased risk of blindness.  But
the cases were largely dismissed after a federal judge in
Minnesota -- presiding over multidistrict litigation by Viagra
users who lost their vision -- ruled than an expert report by the
author of that study was full of errors.

In the Viagra MDL, Judge Paul Magnuson of the District of
Minnesota expressed "serious concerns" about the reliability of a
report by the plaintiffs' only general causation expert,
Gerald McGwin of the University of Alabama-Birmingham.
Mr. McGwin's study found that users with a history of heart
attacks had a statistically significant increased risk of
suffering nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, an eye
condition that can result in partial or total blindness.  But the
study, which had 76 subjects, included some patients who started
taking Viagra after they developed vision problems, the judge
said.

Mr. Kline said he is mindful of the outcome of the blindness
litigation but says of the melanoma litigation: "We believe this
is different.  We believe this is a very large-scale study which
shows there is a significant association between the drug and
melanoma."

The nature of the connection between Viagra use and melanoma is
likely to be at the center of the litigation.  Kelly Jones, a
member of the Drug and Medical Device Steering Committee of DRI:
The Voice of the Defense Bar, formerly the Defense Research
Institute, said she considers the filing of suits by Viagra users
who developed melanoma to be likely, given the advertising
activity by the plaintiff's bar.

But whether such suits succeed or develop into a mass tort
"depends on the viability of plaintiffs' scientific causation
proof," Ms. Jones, of Harris Beach in Newark, said in a statement.
Ms. Jones said there does not appear to be any reliable scientific
evidence that use of Viagra causes Melanoma.

"The anecdotal study published earlier this year noted a mere
correlation between Viagra use and incidence of melanoma that was
based on self-reported participant information; it did not
evaluate cause and effect.  It is important to keep in mind that a
correlation or association is not equal to causation, and early
signals in research must be followed up by well-controlled
epidemiological studies."

Mr. Kline said he is aware of the argument being advanced that the
JAMA study did not show causation between taking Viagra and
developing melanoma but is confident the study's large number of
participants and 10-year duration, and the authors' affiliation
with Harvard and other top universities, makes it an "impressive
and significant and very important piece of medical information."

Mr. Kline said his firm, which includes five physician-attorneys,
takes a critical eye to potential mass-tort cases and does not
pursue all of them.  But while lawyers in a newly developing tort
like to get to the courthouse first, in some of the melanoma
cases, clients "have a time clock on their life expectancy," so he
is eager to pursue their testimony and provide them a remedy as
soon as possible, he said.

Mr. Kline's firm has used online advertising to find Viagra users
who developed melanoma, but several other firms have placed
television ads seeking such clients.

Law firms advertising on television for Viagra users with melanoma
include Davis & Crump of Gulfport, Miss., the Miller Law Firm of
McComb, Miss., the Dampier Law Firm of Fairhope, Ala., and the
Goldwater Law Firm of Scottsdale, Ariz., according to iSpot, a
company providing data about TV ads.

Pfizer is not aware of any suits that have been filed so far that
claim a linkage between Viagra usage and melanoma, company
spokesman Steven Danehy said.

Asked to comment about the JAMA study and potential litigation, he
said in a statement, "There is no mention of melanoma in the
Viagra product labeling.  To date, Pfizer has not identified
melanoma as a safety concern with the use of Viagra.

"Pfizer is committed to ensuring patient safety and regularly
monitors and evaluates any adverse events reported to Pfizer
directly or indirectly through secondary sources," the statement
said.


PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Lawyers Get $91MM in Neurontin Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge gave plaintiffs lawyers $91 million -- a 28
percent cut -- in a $325 million settlement with Pfizer Inc. over
allegedly fraudulent marketing of its epilepsy drug Neurontin.

"Public policy militates in favor of a considerable fee award, as
lawsuits which help curtail fraudulent drug marketing provide a
valuable service in helping to safeguard the health and welfare of
the general public," U.S. District Chief Judge Patti Saris in
Boston wrote.

Her order Nov. 10 in In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation sprang from the decade-old multidistrict litigation
against Pfizer and its Warner-Lambert Co. unit.  Plaintiffs
lawyers sought one-third of the common fund, or $108.3 million.

The parties settled in June, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined
Pfizer's bid to review a $47 million verdict for plaintiff Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan Inc. from a five-week bellwether trial in
2010. That award was subject to trebling under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Pfizer had already settled Justice Department charges related to
marketing the drug for unapproved, off-label uses in 2004 for $430
million.

In analyzing the requested fee, Saris wrote that the plaintiffs
lawyers gave the court a $27.4 million "lodestar" amount for their
work but did not provide hourly rates or hours worked.  In class
actions, courts typically apply a multiplier to a lodestar figure
-- and, citing case law, Saris noted that multipliers of between
one and three are the norm. In this case, the multiplier of 3.32 -
- to arrive at $91 million -- was "well within the acceptable
range," she wrote.

Plaintiffs lawyers declined to disclose their fees in the Kaiser
bellwether case settlement, but Saris said they subtracted that
amount to arrive at the $27.4 million lodestar.

She pointed to a study of class action fee awards during 2006 and
2007 by Vanderbilt University Law School professor Brian
Fitzpatrick, who found that U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit awards averaged 27 percent; the median amount was 25
percent.

"Setting attorneys' fees at the end of a decade-long multidistrict
litigation is a sour task.  The court's decision not to award the
requested fees of 33 1/3 percent does not diminish its view of the
excellent lawyering here," Saris wrote.

Judge Saris "granted a fair award and the committee members are
very pleased," said Tom Greene of Greene LLP, chairman of the
plaintiffs steering committee and colead class counsel.

The plaintiffs' steering committee also includes lawyers from
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein;
Barrett Law Office; the Law Offices of Daniel Becnel Jr.; and
Dugan & Browne.

Pfizer counsel Sheila Birnbaum, a New York partner at Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, referred inquiries to Pfizer.
"The court's approval [Mon]day is the final step in resolving, on
a class basis, all third-party payor claims regarding off-label
promotion and state antitrust claims in connection with Neurontin.
Under the agreement, Pfizer does not admit to any wrongdoing and
will pay a previously disclosed amount of $325 million," Pfizer
spokeswoman Christine Lindenboom said.


PORT AUTHORITY OF NY/NJ: Faces "Hindi" Suit Over Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oren Hindi and Maysam Aljader v. The Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey, Case No. 1:14-cv-08984-LTS (S.D.N.Y.,
November 12, 2014) is brought to redress the alleged
discrimination against the Plaintiffs in the terms, conditions,
and privileges of their employment, as well as the deprivation by
the Defendants, under the policies, ordinances, custom and usage
of all rights, privileges and immunities secured to the Plaintiffs
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey builds, operates,
and maintains critical transportation responsible for moving
millions of people and transports throughout the New York/New
Jersey region.  Port Authority is headquartered in New York City.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas Ricotta, Esq.
          WHITE RICOTTA & MARKS, P.C.
          86-12 37th Avenue
          Jackson Heights, NY 11372
          Telephone: (347) 464-8694
          Facsimile: (800) 483-4508
          E-mail: tricotta@newyorkstateemploymentattorney.com


PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTORS: Removes "Harris" Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Harris v. Professional Contractors
Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 2014-16003 CA (09), was removed
from the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for
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-62563-JIC to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.  Specifically, Dana Harris, a former employee of the
Defendants, alleges unpaid wage compensation due pursuant to the
FLSA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marissa D. Kelley, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF
          & SITTERSON, P.A.
          New River Center, Suite 2100
          200 East Las Olas Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 462-9500
          Facsimile: (954) 462-9567
          E-mail: mkelley@stearnsweaver.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Suits in Texas for IPO Underwriting
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. as underwriter of an initial
public offering is facing lawsuits in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas, according to the company's Nov.
3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York. On October 6, 2014, another purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas and was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas. Both lawsuits were
filed against the Company, certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers and certain institutions that
served as underwriters in the initial public offering. Each
lawsuit was brought by a purported stockholder of the Company
seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased
or otherwise acquired securities pursuant and/or traceable to
SCUSA's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with the initial public offering. Each complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus contained misleading
statements concerning the Company's auto lending business and
underwriting practices. Each lawsuit asserts claims under Section
11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages
and other relief.


SEBO'S NURSING: Suit Seek Damages Over Violations of FMLA & FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Mangiaracina v. Sebo's Nursing and Rehabilitation Center,
LLC, and Kimberly Urban, Case No. 2:14-cv-00413 (N.D. Ind.,
November 11, 2014) is an action for damages and injunctive relief
caused by, inter alia, the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Sebo's Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC is an Indiana,
domestic, for-profit corporation headquartered in Hobart, Indiana.
Kimberly Urban, a resident of Porter County, Indiana, had the
title of Administrator at Sebo's Hobart location.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marissa McDermott, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT LAW OFFICE
          9013 Indianapolis Boulevard
          Highland, IN 46322
          Telephone: (219) 838-9200
          Facsimile: (219) 972-7110
          E-mail: marissa@mcdermottlegal.net


SHAMROCK CARTAGE: "Clugston" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted conditional class
certification of a labor violations lawsuit brought by Michael D.
Clugston against Shamrock Cartage and Spotting Services, et al.

Shamrock is a company that provides cartage pickup and delivery,
as well as spotting or yard jockeying and yard management services
for clients in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and
North Carolina.

The other defendants are Daniel O'Brien, president of Shamrock,
and Matthew Harper, vice-president of Operations and co-owner.

Mr. Clugston worked as a spotter for the Defendants.  Spotters are
drivers who are responsible for moving truck trailers on or about
Defendants' customers' premises.

In the complaint, Mr. Clugston alleges that he was not paid any
overtime premiums for hours that he worked over 40 during a given
workweek.

In an Oct. 30, 2014 Order, Judge Pratt finds that Mr. Clugston has
made a sufficient showing at this stage of the case that the
putative collective action members are similarly situated.

Because the parties have not yet conferred to discuss the proposed
notice and opt-in form, the Motion to Approve Notice of Lawsuit
and Opt-In Form is denied, the Court ruled.

Judge Pratt further orders Defendants to produce the contact
information for the putative class members, with the exception of
birth dates and telephone numbers. In the event Mr. Clugston
requires this additional information, he may file a motion with
the Court demonstrating a need for the additional information in
order to provide notice to the putative collective action members.
Defendants may file a motion for a protective order to limit the
use of the contact information if they believe such an order is
necessary. The parties are to confer with the Magistrate Judge to
set a Case Management Plan, in which the parties will be provided
with deadlines for them to confer and agree on a proposed Notice
of Collective Action to be filed with the Court for approval.

The case is MICHAEL D. CLUGSTON, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SHAMROCK CARTAGE AND
SPOTTING SERVICES, DANIEL O'BRIEN, and MATTHEW HARPER, Defendants,
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01047-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.).  A copy of Judge
Pratt's Order is available at http://is.gd/LXsZw3from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL D. CLUGSTON, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew D.
Derringer & Ronald E. Weldy -- weldy@weldylaw.com -- of WELDY &
ASSOCIATES.

Defendants SHAMROCK CARTAGE AND SPOTTING SERVICES, DANIEL O'BRIEN
and MATTHEW HARPER are represented by Natascha B. Riesco, Esq. --
nriesco@seyfarth.com -- and Noah A. Finkel, Esq. --
nfinkel@seyfarth.com -- of SEYFARTH SHAW LLP.


SIRIUS XM: Court Approves Class Action Notices to Unpaid Interns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Adam Klasfeld reports that a
former "Howard Stern Show" go-fer turned a corner in a case
against Sirius, as a federal judge conditionally certified a class
November 7 afternoon.

Noting that the statute of limitations clock is clicking away for
many potential plaintiffs, lawyers for Melissa Tierney, the former
intern who sued the radio network in April, wanted U.S. District
Judge Valerie Caproni to act quickly on their bid to send out
class-action notices.

Virginia & Ambinder attorney LaDonna Lusher told the judge at a
hearing November 7 that Tierney's experience was similar to that
of interns throughout Sirius' five locations in New York, Los
Angeles, Washington, Nashville and New Jersey.

A human-resources officer for Sirius even conceded that all Sirius
interns get screened through the same centralized program, Lusher
said.

Judge Caproni seemed skeptical how similar the interns'
experiences were.

"If you're working at the 'Howard Stern Show' you'd be doing
different things than if you're working for 'NFL Today,'" she
said.

After Lusher said that Tierney's internship consisted mostly of
running errands, taking breakfast orders and getting food, Caproni
cut to the chase and called the plaintiff a former "go-fer."

Her lawyer agreed that was true.

Other co-plaintiffs had more substantial tasks, including a former
"Opie & Anthony Show" intern who says that he also cut ads, Lusher
said.

Attorney Matthew Lampe, representing Sirius for Jones Day, said
that ex-interns provided only "bare-naked statements" to support
their case so far, and want to radically enlarge the case on that
basis.

"There's a massive expansion of litigation that's hanging in the
balance," he said, estimating about 1,000 potential plaintiffs in
the five cities.

Lampe likened the Sirius interns' suit to the 1947 case Walling v.
Portland Terminal, in which the Supreme Court let a railroad
company put workers through roughly a week of unpaid "practical
training."

Lusher countered that Walling hinged upon the finding that, unlike
Sirius, the railroad got no "immediate advantage" from its
employees.

In response, Caproni quipped that, without Tierney's internship,
"Howard Stern Show" staffers could have gotten their "own damn
coffee," to laughter in the court.

After a brief pause in a roughly hour-long hearing, the judge
ruled for the interns.

Sirius and its challengers have been asked to agree upon class-
action notices by Nov. 21, and the radio network will have the
opportunity to decertify the class pending the production of
evidence in the discovery phase.

The lawsuit is among a growing number of labor actions by former
unpaid interns who allegedly come to regret performing free work
for which others employees get paid.

The Southern District of New York alone has heard cases against
Gawker; Hearst-owned magazines such as Harper's Bazaar, Cosmo,
Marie Claire, Esquire, Redbook and Seventeen; and Fox Searchlight,
which came under fire by interns for the movie "Black Swan."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Suzanne Leeds Klein, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
          111 Broadway, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  llusher@vandallp.com
                  sleeds@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          Facsimile: (516) 747-5024
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


SKINNYGIRL COCKTAILS: "Langendorf" Can't Proceed as Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Langendorf alleges that Skinnygirl Margarita, a pre-mixed
alcoholic beverage, contains the non-natural preservative sodium
benzoate, and thus the text "all natural" on the label is false
and misleading.  Langendorf sued the makers and promoters of the
product (1) under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act; (2) under Illinois statutes concerning
express and implied warranties; and (3) under breach-of-contract,
unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel theories.  Langendorf
sought to represent an Illinois-wide class of purchasers of the
product, and moved for class certification.

District Judge Manish S. Shah denied the class certification
motion in an Oct. 30, 2014 Memorandum and Opinion available at
http://is.gd/m3UDK5from Leagle.com.

The case is AMY LANGENDORF, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SKINNYGIRL COCKTAILS, LLC,
BETHENNY FRANKEL, SGC GLOBAL, LLC, and BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE,
INC., Defendants, NO. 11 CV 7060 (N.D. Ill.).

Amy Langendorf, Plaintiff, represented by Larry D. Drury, of Larry
D. Drury, Ltd. & James R. Rowe -- JR@RoweLegal.com -- of The Law
Firm of Rowe & Associates.

Skinnygirl Cocktails, LLC, Defendant, represented by Francis A
Citera -- citeraf@gtlaw.com & Paul Joseph Ferak --
ferakp@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Bethenny Frankel, Defendant, represented by Christopher T. Sheean
-- csheean@smbtrials.com -- of Swanson, Martin & Bell LLP; as well
as Howard Weitzman -- hweitzman@kwikalaw.com , Laura Diane
Castner, Patricia Anne Millett -- pmillett@kwikalaw.com & Suann
Caulfield MacIsaac -- smacisaac@kwikalaw.com -- of Kinsella
Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP.

SGC Global, LLC, Defendant, represented by Francis A Citera --
citeraf@gtlaw.com & Paul Joseph Ferak -- ferakp@gtlaw.com -- of
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher T. Sheean & Richard J. Keating, Jr., of Swanson,
Martin & Bell, LLP; as well as Kimberly Zafran --
kzafran@chadbourne.com , Michael Samalin --
msamalin@chadbourne.com , Stacey Trimmer --
strimmer@chadbourne.com , Donald I Strauber --
dstrauber@chadbourne.com & Mary T Yelenick --
myelenick@chadbourne.com -- of Chadbourne & Parke LLP.


SPECIALIZED LOAN: C.D. Cal. Remands Jackson et al. Case
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Margaret M. Morrow of the U.S. District Court of
the Central District of California granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand and denied defendant's motion to dismiss the case, entitled
HERTIS JACKSON, an individual; JOHN T. BORENIN, an individual;
KASSEM DICKENS, an individual; DIANE DIEMER, an individual;
DEBORAH KAMBICH, an individual; EDWARD MARTINEZ, an individual;
RAY MENDOZA, an individual; LINDA PRICE, an individual; IAN
SIMANGO, an individual; ANDREA SOMERVILLE, an individual; ESEQUIEL
VENEGAS, an individual; and BRIAN WOODS, an individual,
Plaintiffs, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Colorado Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendant.,
Case No. CV-14-05981 MMM (PLAX) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are 12 individuals, each with a home mortgage loan that
is being serviced by Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (SLS). The
complaint alleges claim for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud,
conversion, conspiracy to commit conversion, violation of the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil
Code Section 1788 et seq., violation of California Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 et seq., and unjust enrichment. They seek general damages,
special damages, restitutionary damages, and pre- and post-
judgment interest. Each plaintiff expressly disclaims that his or
her total damages exceed $75,000 and asserts that he or she is not
seeking injunctive or declaratory relief.

The case was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

SLS timely removed the action invoking the court's diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). SLS filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint which plaintiff oppose and the latter
filed a motion to remand of which the former opposed.

Plaintiffs also seeks attorneys' fees via 28 U.S.C. Section
1447(c).

Judge Morrow granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the case and
expresses that since it is remanding, SLS's motion to dismiss is
moot and hence, it is denied. Plaintiffs' request for attorneys'
fees is also denied.

A copy of Judge Morrow's Order dated October 31, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/9dc1vtfrom Leagle.com.

Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Justin
D. Balser -- justin.balser@akerman.com -- & Bryan M Leifer --
bryan.leifer@akerman.com -- at Akerman LLP.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: 73 Riata Liability Suits Pending as of Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. is aware of seventy-three lawsuits from
plaintiffs alleging injuries caused by, and asserting product
liability claims concerning, Riata and Riata ST Silicone
Defibrillation Leads as of October 31, 2014, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2014.

Of the seventy-three lawsuits, thirty-nine cases are pending in
federal courts, including three in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, twenty-nine in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, one in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, one in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, one in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York, one in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, two in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and
one in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. The remaining thirty-four lawsuits are pending in
state courts across the country, including seven in Minnesota,
twenty in California, one in Alaska, one in Indiana, one in
Georgia, one in Kentucky, one in Florida, one in South Carolina
and one in Illinois.

Most of the lawsuits have been brought by single plaintiffs, but
some of them name multiple individuals as plaintiffs. The seventy-
three lawsuits include eight separate multi-plaintiff lawsuits
that have been initiated against the Company that involve more
than one unrelated plaintiff: a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining
twenty-nine unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior Court of
California for the city and county of Los Angeles on April 4,
2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining two unrelated claimants
was filed in the Superior Court of California for the city and
county of Los Angeles on April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit
joining two claimants was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013; a
multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining three unrelated claimants was
filed in the Superior Court of California for the city and county
of Los Angeles on April 29, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit
joining twenty-one unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior
Court of California for the city and county of Los Angeles on July
15, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining thirty unrelated
claimants was filed in the Superior Court of California for the
city and county of Los Angeles on April 2, 2014; a multi-plaintiff
lawsuit joining twenty-eight unrelated claimants was filed in the
Superior Court of California for the city and county of Los
Angeles on June 10, 2014; and a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining
fifty-eight unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior Court of
California for the city and county of Los Angeles on October 3,
2014.

On June 24, 2014, the judge presiding over the three cases in the
District of Minnesota granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment, dismissing four of the plaintiffs' five manufacturing
defect causes of action as preempted by the Medical Device
Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The judge
also noted that the plaintiffs' fifth manufacturing defect claim
relating to lead sterilization should not proceed unless the
plaintiffs can show proof that the Company failed to comply with
Premarket Approval (PMA) requirements with respect to that claim.
Plaintiffs have not taken substantive steps to further pursue
their remaining claim.

In November 2013, an amended claim was filed in a Canadian
proposed class proceeding alleging that Riata leads were prone to
insulation abrasion and breach, failure to warn and conspiracy.
The plaintiffs took no action between their 2008 filing and the
amended claim they filed in November 2013. The Company has filed
its statement of intent to defend in response to the amended
claims, and the plaintiffs have not taken any further action.

Although some of the claimants in the aforementioned suits allege
no specific injuries, the majority of the claimants allege bodily
injuries as a result of surgical revision or removal and
replacement of Riata leads, or other complications, which they
attribute to the leads. The majority of the claimants who seek
recovery for implantation and/or surgical removal of Riata leads
are seeking compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and
declaratory judgments that the Company is liable to the claimants
for any past, present and future evaluative monitoring, and
corrective medical, surgical and incidental expenses and losses.
Several claimants also seek punitive damages. The Company is
financially responsible for legal costs incurred in defense of the
Riata product liability claims, including any potential
settlements, judgments and other legal defense costs. The Company
believes that a material loss is not probable and estimable and
the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of
loss at this time.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Canadian Court Junks Appeal in Silzone Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Province of Ontario entered an order
dismissing an appeal in a suit against St. Jude Medical, Inc. by
some patients who received a heart valve product with Silzone
coating, according to the company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 27, 2014.

Beginning in March 2000, the Company was sued in various
jurisdictions by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone coating, which the Company stopped selling in January
2000. The Company's outstanding Silzone cases consist of one
individual case in Ontario for which no substantive activity or
proceedings have occurred since the case was filed in 2004.
The Company has remaining historical insurance coverage of
approximately $10 million and believes any potential costs or
losses in excess of that are not reasonably possible.

In June 2012, the Ontario Court ruled in the Company's favor on
all nine common class issues in a class action involving Silzone
patients, and the case was dismissed. On July 2, 2014, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice approved a settlement of the class
action, the essential terms of which included a dismissal of the
plaintiffs' previously filed appeal and a payment to the Company
in the amount of $250,000 Canadian Dollars. By order dated August
20, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Province of Ontario entered
an order dismissing the appeal.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Feb. Trial Date Set in Minn. Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The federal district court in Minnesota has set a trial date of
February 23, 2015 in the March 2010 Securities Class Action
Litigation against St. Jude Medical, Inc., according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2014.

In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers (collectively, the defendants) on
behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between
April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit relates to the
Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated
October 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages
and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown
in demand for its products and was not receiving anticipated
orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Class members allege
that the defendant's failure to disclose the information resulted
in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially
inflated price. In December 2011, the Court issued a decision
denying a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in October
2010. In October 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and the discovery phase of the
case closed in September 2013. On October 15, 2013, the defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing concerning that
motion took place with the Court in January 2014 and the Court
issued an order on August 11, 2014 granting in part and denying in
part defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court has set a
trial date of February 23, 2015. Based on filings they have made,
the class members are claiming damages of approximately $475
million.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Amended Complaint Filed in 2012 Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the December 2012 Securities Litigation
against St. Jude Medical, Inc. has filed a second amended
complaint, according to the company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 27, 2014.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants
between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,
which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning
its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported
class period. On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in
Minnesota against the Company and certain officers for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company
between October 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012. The second
complaint alleged similar claims and sought similar relief. In
March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a
lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaint
was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or misleading
representations made during the class period extending from
February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012. In September 2013, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled on the motion to
dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting the motion in
part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint. Like the original consolidated amended
complaint, the plaintiffs did not in the second amended complaint
assert any specific amount of compensation that that they seek.


SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Deposition to Take Place in Larkspur, Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd issued an order on November 5,
2014, regarding a discovery dispute in JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2,
Plaintiffs, v. SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, a California Corporation,
Defendant, CASE NO. 5:13-CV-03376 LHK (HRL), (N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Successfulmatch.com operates several dating websites,
including PositiveSingles.com, which focuses on persons with
sexually transmitted diseases. Plaintiffs, who are former members
of PositiveSingles.com, claim that defendant shared their dating
profiles among multiple affiliated websites and fraudulently and
deceptively failed to disclose that their profiles could be viewed
on those affiliated sites. They sue for themselves and on behalf
of a putative class of non-California residents who registered for
use of the PositiveSingles.com website or any other website
indicating that it was "Powered by PositiveSingles.com" during the
four year period prior to March 15, 2013.

Plaintiffs served a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) notice for
defendant's deposition to take place in Larkspur, California.
Defendant's sole employee, Jason Du, will testify on behalf of the
company. Du lives in Chengdu, China. At issue in Discovery Dispute
Joint Report (DDJR) No. 1 is whether Du should be deposed in
Larkspur or in Chengdu.  Upon consideration of the parties'
respective arguments, Magistrate Judge Lloyd concluded that it
will be less costly and disruptive to have the deposition proceed
in Larkspur, California, than to have the deposition proceed in
China.

As for the question of which side should bear the necessary
expenses -- defendant having chosen this forum, it shall bear the
entire cost of Du's travel and lodging, Magistrate Judge Lloyd
added.

The court notes that at the time DDJR No. 1 was filed, the
pleadings were not yet settled. However, plaintiffs recently filed
their second amended complaint, and defendant has answered.
Accordingly, the court denied as moot defendant's request for an
order delaying the deposition until after anticipated motions to
dismiss are resolved.  A copy of the ruling is available at
http://is.gd/LZJQMWfrom Leagle.com.

Jane Doe 1, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green, Green &
Noblin, P.C., James Robert Noblin -- jrn@classcounsel.com -- Green
and Noblin, P.C. & Lesley Elizabeth Weaver -- lew@classcounsel.com
-- Green & Noblin, P.C.

Jane Doe 2, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green, Green &
Noblin, P.C., James Robert Noblin, Green and Noblin, P.C. & Lesley
Elizabeth Weaver, Green & Noblin, P.C.

Successfulmatch.com, Defendant, represented by Virginia Anne
Sanderson -- ginny@KRInternetLaw.com -- Kronenberger Burgoyne,
LLP.


TD BANK: Settlement in "Keller" FLSA Action Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants final certification of
the settlement class and collective action, approves the
settlement agreement, and awards attorneys' fees, costs, and
service payments in the case AUBREY KELLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
TD BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-5054 (E.D.
Pa.).

Plaintiffs Aubrey Keller and Alyxandria Garcia are former
employees of defendant TD Bank, Inc.  Keller initiated the filing
of a hybrid putative collective action under Section 16(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and
class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, violations
of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment Collection Law.  Later through Plaintiff Garcia, the
complaint was amended three times, and on the third amended
complaint, plaintiffs sought relief under the wage and hour laws
of fifteen states and the District of Columbia, which encompass
the locations in which defendant conducts business. Plaintiffs
also maintained their claims under the FLSA. Plaintiffs' FLSA
claims were brought as a collective action on behalf of "all
tellers, personal bankers, and other similar non-exempt employees
presently and formerly employed" by TD Bank who were "subject to
Defendants' unlawful practices and policies" within the last three
years. Plaintiffs' state law claims were brought as a Rule 23
class action "on behalf of all tellers and other similar non-
exempt positions presently and formerly employed by Defendants"
who were "subject to Defendants' unlawful pay practices" within
the applicable statute of limitations period.

The Court preliminary certified a settlement class and collective
action and granted preliminary approval of the parties' settlement
agreement. The Court preliminary certified, for purposes of
settlement only, four Settlement Classes under Rule 23(b)(3). The
Court also preliminary certified, for settlement purposes only, a
collective action opt-in class under Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).  The claims administrator then sent mailed
notice and claim forms out to potential class members. Such
informed each participant of the settlement, the claims they are
releasing, and the formula for calculating each individual's
settlement payment. The claims administrator received 9,015 timely
and valid claims forms and 130 requests for exclusion. The claims
administrator did not receive any objections to the settlement.
The Court held a final fairness hearing and no objectors appeared
at the hearing.

In his memorandum dated November 4, 2014, available at
http://is.gd/NTKZS7from Leagle.com, Judge Restrepo certifies Rule
23 state law class action and the FLSA collective action. He
approves the proposed settlement agreement in full, awards class
counsel the attorneys' fees and costs and awards service payments
to named plaintiffs.

TD BANK, N.A.., Defendants, represented by Heather Zalar Steele,
Esq. -- hsteele@laborlawyers.com -- Kathleen McLeod Caminiti, Esq.
-- kcaminiti@laborlawyers.com -- Jonathan Shapiro, Esq. --
jshapiro@laborlawyers.com -- at FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP


TESCO PLC: US Law Firms Mull Suit Over Accounting Irregularities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Warmoll, writing for Financial Director, reports that the
shamed supermarket giant under criminal investigation by the
Serious Fraud Office -- is facing a double whammy of a wave of
potential lawsuits from disgruntled institutional investors, and
negative coverage from Warren Buffet's GBP427 million loss on its
shares.

Currently five US law firms are already considering launching
class actions against the supermarket chain after GBP263 million
of accounting irregularities were exposed in September.

Scott & Scott says it is liaising with a number of European
investors such as asset managers and pension funds to determine
whether to join a class action, reports the FT.

At the end of October, a proposed class action lawsuit in the US
by investors over Tesco's accounting irregularities was filed in a
New York federal court.

The lawsuit was lodged by Irving Fireman's Relief and Retirement
Fund on behalf of purchasers of Tesco's American depository shares
from February 2 to September 22, reports Reuters.  It accused
Tesco and former CEO Philip Clarke and ex-CFO Laurie McIlwee of
making false and misleading statements and failing 'to disclose
the truth regarding the company's financial condition'.

Staying in the US, legendary investor Warren Buffett, who publicly
declared that his investment in Tesco was a "huge mistake", has
recorded a $678 million (GBP427 million) loss on his investment in
the grocer in just three months.

The Berkshire Hathaway billionaire -- dubbed the Sage of Omaha --
who was Tesco's fourth biggest investor, recently sold 75 million
of his 322 million shares, taking his holding down by 0.98
percentage points to 3%.

Tesco has already suspended eight executives.  On Nov. 10, Tesco
shares were up 4.45p at 188.9p.


TEST MASTERS: Ordered to Pay $90,000+ in Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that a test prep
company has been ordered to pay more than $900,000 in legal fees
and costs to plaintiffs who accused the company of violating
District of Columbia consumer protection laws.

Three prospective law students who signed up for LSAT prep courses
through Test Masters Educational Services Inc. (TES) sued the
company in 2004, claiming they were deceived into thinking they
were enrolling in TestMasters, a competitor.

A federal district judge in Washington ruled in favor of TES,
dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection
Procedures Act.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
reinstated the consumer protection claims, which involved
allegations that TES failed to correct the plaintiffs' alleged
misunderstanding about which company they were contacting.

U.S. District Senior Judge Royce Lamberth in December 2013 found
that TES was liable and awarded each of the plaintiffs $1,500 in
damages.  As the winning party, the plaintiffs filed a petition
asking for $963,415 in attorney fees and costs. They argued that
TES' "scorched-earth litigation tactics" over the past decade
drove up their fees.

Lawyers for TES urged the court not to award any fees, calling the
request "grossly abusive," unreasonable and unjustified.  They
argued that the lawsuit was financed and directed by TestMasters
founder Robin Singh and that Mr. Singh, as a nonconsumer
competitor, wasn't entitled to the benefits of the consumer
protection law.

There's a long history of bad blood between Mr. Singh and TES.
Mr. Singh unsuccessfully took TES to court over its use of the
name "Test Masters."  In the 2011 opinion reviving the consumer
protection claims in the D.C. case, the D.C. Circuit noted that
Singh was funding and directing the litigation.

In his ruling on Nov. 10 awarding fees, Judge Lamberth rejected
TES' claims that the plaintiffs failed to provide necessary
documents to support the fee petition and found that TES didn't
make specific enough objections to certain billing entries.  The
company's "broad objections, lacking even specific invoice numbers
or dates to help identify the problematic billing entries, are not
sufficient to rebut the presumption that plaintiffs' hours request
is reasonable," the judge wrote.

The judge found that the hourly rates charged by the plaintiffs'
lawyers -- between $250 and $400 -- were reasonable.  Judge
Lamberth acknowledged that there was a large difference between
the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiffs and the amount of
money their lawyers sought, but said the court didn't require fee
awards to be "proportionate to a merits award."  Mr. Singh's role
in financing the litigation didn't undermine the fee request, he
added.

The judge did reduce the fee request to account for work on an
unsuccessful motion for sanctions filed by the plaintiffs. He
awarded $854,623 in fees and $73,083 in costs, for a total of
$927,707.

Hassan Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei in Washington, a lead attorney
for the plaintiffs, said on Tuesday that they were pleased with
the ruling.  TES, he said, "took an all or nothing approach --
they refused to engage in any analysis of the actual bills."

A lawyer for TES, Kevin Jewell -- kevin.jewell@chamberlainlaw.com
-- of Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry in Houston,
could not immediately be reached.


UNITED STATES: FDA Faces Suit Over Livestock Feed Additive
----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Newman, Jacob Bunge and Kelsey Gee, writing for
The Wall Street Journal, report that a coalition of advocacy
groups sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, seeking to
vacate its approvals of several livestock-feed products that are
widely used to add weight to farm animals such as turkeys, cattle
and pigs.

In two different lawsuits filed on Nov. 6 in the U.S. District
Court of Northern California in San Francisco, groups including
the Center for Food Safety, the Humane Society of the United
States and United Farm Workers of America argue that in approving
drugs like Topmax, a medicated feed additive used to produce lean
muscle instead of fat, the FDA failed to adequately consider the
drugs' collective effects on animal welfare, worker safety,
wildlife and U.S. waterways.

The legal action is the latest dispute over a class of drugs known
as beta-agonists that were developed to treat asthma in humans.
In recent years they have become pervasive in U.S. livestock
farming to promote muscle gain.  The products targeted in the
lawsuits are based on ractopamine, which the FDA first approved
for use in pigs in 1999.

Merck & Co. in August 2013 suspended sales of a similar product,
Zilmax, or zilpaterol, because of concerns in the beef industry
that the drug made it hard for some animals to walk.

Critics of ractopamine say it also can have detrimental effects on
animals, resulting in stiffness, lameness and even death.  Some
other governments ban the drug, including the European Union and
China.

Elanco, the animal-health unit of Eli Lilly & Co., makes Paylean
for pigs, Topmax for turkeys, and another ractopamine-based
product called Optaflexx for cattle.  An Elanco spokeswoman said,
"FDA approved ractopamine nearly 15 years ago and we remain
confident in its safety and the FDA's approval process."

Elinore White, a spokeswoman for Zoetis, which recently won
approval for two generic ractopamine products for cattle and pigs
said, "We at Zoetis stand by the safety and efficacy of our
generic ractopamine products and believe they deliver value to our
customers."

An FDA spokeswoman said the agency doesn't comment on pending
litigation.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits say that in approving 11 new and
combined animal drugs containing ractopamine between 2008 and
2014, the FDA failed to fulfill its duties under the National
Environmental Policy Act.  The federal law requires the agency to
conduct an environmental analysis on the impact of such drugs.

"The FDA's actions have far-reaching impacts on millions of
animals, millions of acres of habitat, and thousands of farm
workers throughout the United States," Jonathan Lovvorn, senior
vice president at the Humane Society, said in a statement.
"America's animal factories are pumping out uncounted tons of
ractopamine-laced animal waste into the environment each year, and
the FDA has no idea what the long-term environmental effects might
be."

Drugs targeted in the suits include those in which ractopamine is
the single active ingredient, as well as others in which is it
combined with antibiotics, some of which belong to the same class
as those considered important to human health.

According to the lawsuits, residue from the drugs can remain
active in animal waste, and when applied to fields, or escaped
from manure lagoons, it can imperil the surrounding habitat,
contaminating groundwater and endangering wildlife.


UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA: Facing Class Suit by Student Athletes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denise McAllister, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that former University of North Carolina football player Michael
McAdoo filed a federal class action alleging the university failed
to provide him and others with the education they were promised in
return for playing for the school.

McAdoo -- not to be confused with James Michael McAdoo, the former
UNC basketball player -- and other students took so-called "paper
classes" in the African and Afro-American Studies Department
(AFAM) at UNC's Chapel Hill campus.

These courses were classified as "independent studies classes,"
but the students never met with a teacher and never had to do any
coursework except for one research paper that was graded by a
secretary, Deborah Crowder, the lawsuit says.  Crowder, who
created the irregular classes for both students and student-
athletes, is alleged to have given players high grades for low-
quality work.

According to a recent report by Kenneth Wainstein, whose law firm
was which was hired by the UNC chancellor to conduct an
investigation into the misconduct, the academic scheme, which
lasted between 1993 and 2011, was designed to help struggling
students stay in school and keep scholarships.

"UNC entered into scholarship agreements with football student-
athletes under which the football student-athletes agreed to
become students at, and play football for, UNC," McAdoo's lawsuit
says.

"UNC coaches and other representatives enticed these football
student-athletes to sign the agreements with promises of a
legitimate UNC education, which is widely regarded as one of the
best public university educations available in the United States.
UNC, however, did not provide the promised legitimate education,"
the suit continues.

Instead, the student-athletes were funneled into a "shadow
curriculum" in the AFAM Department by football coaches and
academic counselors who indicated that their football
responsibilities were so time-intensive that 'shadow curriculum'
courses were a must."  As a result, the students didn't receive
the education "they were promised or deserved," the complaint
states.

All papers were given high grades, even those with plagiarized
material.

According to the Wainstein report, published by the law firm of
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, McAdoo submitted a plagiarized
paper for a Swahili 3 course in the summer of 2009.

According the McAdoo's lawsuit, "If football student-athletes
wanted to be considered dedicated team members and have the
opportunity to pursue their athletic ambitions, they had
essentially no choice but to accept the 'shadow curriculum'
courses in which they were enrolled."

Wainstein found that nearly 3,100 students took the irregular
paper classes, and nearly 50 percent were student-athletes, the
majority of those being football players.  When Crowder retired in
2009, the football program had to adjust to the "reality of having
to meet academic requirements with real academic work," the report
says.  When she left, the football program saw a decrease in
grades.

To deal with the loss of Crowder's classes, football counselors
approached the AFAM Department Chair, Julius Nyang'oro, who knew
about and approved of the paper classes and the inflated grades
for struggling students, the report says.  The counselors asked
him to continue the classes, which he did.

As Crowder had done before him, Nyang'oro "graded the papers, but
did so with an eye to boosting student GPAs, regardless of paper
quality."

McAdoo was one of those students. He had been recruited by UNC
football Coach Butch Davis, who had stressed to him the program's
commitment to the education of UNC's student-athletes.

The complaint says that during one visit to McAdoo's home, Davis
told McAdoo's grandparents, "I can't guarantee that Michael will
play in the NFL, but one thing I can guarantee is that he will get
a good education at the University of North Carolina."

"The UNC football coaches' assurances as to the UNC football
team's commitment to education were decisive to Mr. McAdoo's
decision to accept UNC's scholarship offer," the lawsuit says.

Soon after McAdoo arrived at Chapel Hill, he realized that the
coach's promises of a good education were false, the lawsuit says.

"Although Mr. McAdoo had expressed interest in criminal justice
when being recruited, once on campus he was told that football
student-athletes were urged to consider only three options for a
major: Exercise Sport Science, Communications, or African-American
Studies," the complaint states.

When McAdoo asked why, he was told that only these majors would
accommodate his football practice and playing schedule, "and that
the football program has 'relationships' with professors in those
departments."

The complaint says McAdoo questioned his taking the courses and
said he wanted to engage in more meaningful studies, but
representatives of the football program said he had to take the
paper classes so that he could focus on football.  "Taking the
courses was part and parcel of being on the team, and not doing so
signaled lack of commitment."

"This emphasis on eligibility at the expense of education, and the
systematic funneling of football student-athletes into 'shadow
curriculum' courses designed not to educate ran directly counter
to Coach Davis' promise that Mr. McAdoo would 'get a good
education at the University of North Carolina,'" the complaint
states.

Wainstein's report said Davis knew about the paper classes but
that he didn't know they were "so bereft of academic rigor" or
that the papers were graded by a secretary with little or no
regard to quality.

McAdoo says in his lawsuit that he and others in his situation
were promised a quality education, which he never received.

"In offering a football scholarship to Plaintiff and each Class
member, UNC promised to provide Plaintiff and each Class member
with a legitimate UNC education, and not a fictional one funneled
through a 'shadow curriculum,'" the lawsuit says.  "By failing to
provide the promised legitimate education, UNC breached its
contract with Plaintiff and each member of the Class."


VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: CEO Indicted in Varicose-Vein Treatment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Carlson, writing for Star Tribune, reports that in a rare
criminal indictment of a health care executive, a Texas grand jury
has charged the chief executive of a large Minnesota med-tech firm
with conspiring to sell a varicose-vein treatment device for
unapproved uses.

Howard Root, 53, longtime CEO of Maple Grove-based Vascular
Solutions, was indicted on Nov. 13 by a San Antonio grand jury on
one felony count of conspiracy and eight misdemeanor charges of
selling unapproved and adulterated medical devices.  Prosecutors
filed the same charges against the corporation, which has grown
into one of Minnesota's biggest device makers.

Prosecutors say the company marketed a device called the Vari-Lase
to seal off veins deep in the leg, even though the device was
approved only to treat superficial blood vessels near the surface
of the skin.  The company marketed the device for use on the
deeper perforator veins even after a clinical trial recorded
numerous adverse results in patients, according to the indictment.

"These charges involve a deceptive sales campaign led by the CEO
of a public company," Joyce Branda, acting assistant attorney
general for the Justice Department Civil Division, said in a
prepared statement.  "We will take action to hold corporations and
their leaders responsible when they violate laws intended to
protect public health."

Mr. Root, a lawyer and entrepreneur who co-founded the company in
1997, said he intends to plead not guilty.

"Allegations that we conducted an off-label campaign resulting in
almost no sales are absurd and will not stand," Mr. Root said in a
prepared statement.  "We welcome the chance to demonstrate the
truth before the court."

The Vari-Lase "short kit," as it is referred to by the company,
was supposed to revolutionize vericose-vein treatment and generate
major revenue for the company because it eliminated the need to
surgically strip out diseased veins.  Doctors simply insert a
fiber-optic cable through a catheter to deliver laser energy
inside a vein, sealing it off.

But the device was voluntarily pulled from the market in July
after the company paid $520,000 to settle a civil whistleblower
lawsuit alleging the same off-label marketing at issue in the new
criminal case.

The Food and Drug Administration approved use of the Vari-Lase
short kit in 2007, but only to treat superficial veins that lie
near the surface of the skin.  Although it is often legal for
doctors to put devices to unapproved uses, it's generally illegal
for companies to specifically promote any unapproved uses.

Vascular Solutions employs about 400 people and its $110.5 million
in sales in 2013 placed it 64th in the Star Tribune 100 list of
biggest publicly held companies in Minnesota.

While vowing to fight the charges in court, the company didn't
hold back in public statements about the case.  "The indictment is
the profoundly flawed product of government attorneys who have
conducted a misguided and abusive investigation," a company
statement said.

The company also downplayed the significance of the device in
Vascular Solutions' product catalog, noting that it created
revenue of $534,000 over seven years, or 0.1 percent of company
sales.  Executives promised to reveal what it called the motives
for prosecutors' "abusive conduct" in future court filings.

Vascular Solution's stock price on Nasdaq dipped on Nov. 13 and
then recovered, ending the day virtually unchanged near its all-
time high, at $30.59.

The criminal case stems from allegations in a civil whistleblower
lawsuit filed in 2010 by a former sales representative.

Hundreds of whistleblower cases are filed against health care
companies each year, but the government joins only a small
fraction, as it did in the civil case against Vascular Solutions.

Even after the Food and Drug Administration announced in 2010 it
would bring more cases against executives, only a handful have
been filed.  The most prominent was in 2011, when four executives
of the Johnson & Johnson spine division Synthes were sentenced to
prison time for failing to stop the company from doing an
unauthorized clinical trial of a new bone cement.  Several
patients died during the experimentation.

Vascular Solutions denies that any of its patients' adverse events
were that severe.  However, one complication alleged in court
files involves deep-vein thrombosis, which can lead to a
potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism.

The Justice Department alleges business pressures drove off-label
promotion at Vascular Solutions.

In 2009, Vari-Lase held about 35 percent of the market for devices
used to seal off varicose veins.  A competing company, meanwhile,
touted a device that also had approval to treat deeper veins.

Vascular Solutions sought the same FDA approval, and launched a
clinical trial to bolster its claim.  The government says 14
percent of the patients in that study had small clots emerge from
perforator veins into deeper veins, creating a risk of deep vein
thrombosis, while 25 percent had an "abnormal burning sensation"
six months after the procedure.

"Internally, Vascular Solutions employees admitted that the trial
was 'lacking some key data points' and that the data was . . .
'less than optimal,' "the Justice Department said in its
whistleblower suit. Yet "the Vice President of Marketing sent an
e-mail to the entire sales force indicating that the company had
"completed a successful clinical trial on using laser for
perforators."

The company disputes that the internal communications indicated
wrongdoing.


VCA ANTECH: Class Suit Transferred From N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the Northern District of
California granted defendants' motion to transfer venue in the
case TONY M. GRAHAM, et AL., Plaintiffs, v. VCA ANTECH, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-021587-MEJ (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Tony Graham and Pamela Moe purchased goods and services
from defendants through their facilities in Tulsa, Oklahoma and
Corte Madeira and San Leandro California respectively. They allege
that defendants routinely and improperly imposed "Biohazard Waste
Management" surcharges. They filed their putative class action,
asserting 11 causes of action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class before the Northern District of California.

Defendants filed the motion to transfer venue to the Central
District since they maintain their principal places of business in
the Central District. They do not maintain any corporate offices
in the Northern District and their only contacts with the Northern
District are the presence of a number of animal hospital
facilities.

In granting defendants' motion to transfer venue, Magistrate Judge
James use the following factors: (1) plaintiffs' choice of forum;
(2) parties contacts with transferee forum; (3) convenience of
witnesses and parties; (4) familiarity of forum with applicable
law; (5) ease of access to evidence; (6) relative cost of
litigation; and (7) local interest in the controversy. He observed
that the only one factor -- the Plaintiffs' choice of forum --
weighs against transfer, and that only slightly. The remaining
factors either weigh in favor of transfer or are neutral.

A copy of Magistrate Judge James order dated October 31, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/91OADVnedlinkfrom Leagle.com.

VCA Animals Hospital, Inc., Defendant, represented by Hyongsoon
Kim, Esq. -- kimh@akingump.com -- John Adam Karaczynski, Esq. --
jkaraczynski@akingump.com -- at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Dec. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

NATALIE GORDON, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff,

vs.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., LOWELL C. MCADAM, RICHARD L. CARRION
REXACH, MELANIE L. HEALEY, MARTHA FRANCES KEETH, ROBERT W. LANE,
M.D., SANDRA O. MOOSE, M.D., JOSEPH NEUBAUER, DONALD T.
NICOLAISEN, CLARENCE OTIS, JR., HUGH B. PRICE, RODNEY EARL SLATER,
KATHRYN A. TESIJA, AND GREGORY D. WASSON,

Defendants.


Index No. 653084/2013

CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS
ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO WERE RECORD OR BENEFICIAL OWNERS
OF VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH 1,
2013, THROUGH AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 21, 2014.

The purpose of this Settlement Notice is to inform you of the
proposed settlement of the action, Gordon v. Verizon
Communications, Inc., No. 653084/2013.  Plaintiff Natalie Gordon,
on behalf and all others similarly situated, and defendants
Verizon Communications, Inc., Lowell C. McAdam, Richard L. Carrion
Rexach, Melanie L. Healey, Martha Frances Keeth, Robert W. Lane,
M.D., Sandra O. Moose, M.D., Joseph Neubauer, Donald T.
Nicolaisen, Clarence Otis, Jr., Hugh B. Price, Rodney Earl Slater,
Kathryn A. Tesija, and Gregory D. Wasson, have entered into the
Settlement, subject to Court approval.

A hearing will be held on December 2, 2014 at 10:30 a.m., at the
Supreme Court of New York, 60 Centre Street, Commercial Division,
Courtroom 218, New York, New York 10004, to determine (1) whether
the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Class; (2) whether to enter judgment dismissing
the Action with prejudice and extinguish and release all Settled
Claims such that no member of the Class could sue on such claims
again; (3) whether, for purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement
Class should be finally certified; (4) if the Court approves the
Settlement, whether to grant the application of Plaintiff's
counsel for attorney fees and expenses; and (5) address any other
matters that come before the Court.

If the Court approves the Settlement, the parties to the Action
will ask the Court to enter an Order and Final Judgment dismissing
the Action with prejudice on the merits.


VIOLIN MEMORY: N.D. Cal. Ruled on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne G. Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District Court of California granted, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case entitled IN RE VIOLIN
MEMORY SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 13-CV-5486 YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs brought this consolidated amended complaint on behalf
of themselves and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired
Violin Memory securities in connection with the initial public
offering or IPO of Violin Memory, Inc.  Plaintiffs assert strict
liability and negligence claims under Section 11, 12(a) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1993. The two specific Violin Memory
products at issue in the consolidated amended complaint are the
6000 Series Flash Memory Arrays -- 6000 Flash Arrays -- and the
Velocity Peripheral Component Interconnect Express Flash Memory
Cards -- PCIe Cards.

Defendants are composed of Violin Memory, Donald Basile, Dixon
Doll, Cory Sindelar, Howard Bain III, Larry Lang, Jeff Newman,
Mark Rosenblatt, David Walrod -- Violin Memory Defendants -- and
J.P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch,
Barclays Capital Inc., Robert Baird and Co., Pacific Crest
Securities LLC, and EM Securities LLC -- Underwriter Defendants.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that,
generally, plaintiffs have failed to meet the pleading standard
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9, and have failed to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).  Each group of defendants has
joined in the other's motion to dismiss, and has also filed
requests for judicial notice.  The Violin Memory defendants have
filed a separate appendix to their motion.

Plaintiffs moved to strike the appendix and opposed certain
request for judicial notice.

Judge Rogers made the following pronouncement:

     (1) Defendants' requests for judicial notice are granted in
part;

     (2) Plaintiffs' motion to strike is granted in part;

     (3) Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim based on statements about
PCIe Cards is dismissed;

     (4) Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim based on statements about
the Company's work with Toshiba is dismissed;

     (5) Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim based on statements about
the 6000 Flash Arrays is dismissed;

     (6) Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 11
claim based on statements about the Company's government contracts
is dismissed;

     (7) Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 11
claim based on statements about the Donald Basile's former
employment is denied, and Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend to
address loss causation;

     (8) Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim based on alleged GAAP
violations is dismissed;

     (9) Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section
12(a)(2) claim is granted with leave to amend; and

    (10) Plaintiffs' Section 15 claim is dismissed in part.

A copy of Judge Rogers' Order dated October 31, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/ityNLWfrom Leagle.com.

William Merlino, Movant, is represented by Michael M. Goldberg,
Esq. -- mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP; and Joseph M. Barton, Esq. -- barton@glancylaw.com -- at Law
Offices of Joseph M. Barton.

Yun-Chung Tsai, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Casey Edwards Sadler, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Joseph M. Barton, Law Offices of Joseph M. Barton,
Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Robert Vincent
Prongay, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Alan Richards, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Philip Campisi,
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Frederic S. Fox, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer & Mario
Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Richard L. Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz
Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP & Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Donald G. Basile, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexis Jeuk-Ling Yee-Garcia,
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christin Joy Hill, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Michael David Torpey, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Stephen Michael Knaster, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Cory J. Sindelar, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexis Jeuk-Ling Yee-Garcia,
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christin Joy Hill, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Michael David Torpey, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Stephen Michael Knaster, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Violin Memory, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexis Jeuk-Ling Yee-Garcia,
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christin Joy Hill, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Michael David Torpey, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Stephen Michael Knaster, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Dixon R. Doll, Jr., Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexis Jeuk-Ling Yee-Garcia,
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christin Joy Hill, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Michael David Torpey, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Stephen Michael Knaster, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Howard A. Bain III, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexis Jeuk-Ling Yee-Garcia,
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christin Joy Hill, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Michael David Torpey, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Stephen Michael Knaster, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Larry J. Lang, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexis Jeuk-Ling Yee-Garcia,
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christin Joy Hill, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Michael David Torpey, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Stephen Michael Knaster, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Jeff J. Newman, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexis Jeuk-Ling Yee-Garcia,
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christin Joy Hill, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Michael David Torpey, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Stephen Michael Knaster, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Mark N. Rosenblatt, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexis Jeuk-Ling Yee-Garcia,
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christin Joy Hill, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Michael David Torpey, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Stephen Michael Knaster, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

David B. Walrod, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexis Jeuk-Ling Yee-Garcia,
Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christin Joy Hill, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Michael David Torpey, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Stephen Michael Knaster, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick
Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP, James Neil Kramer, Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Julian Wonjung Park, Latham Watkins
LLP.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick
Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP, James Neil Kramer, Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Julian Wonjung Park, Latham Watkins
LLP.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Defendant,
represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP, James
Neil Kramer, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Julian Wonjung
Park, Latham Watkins LLP.

Barclays Capital Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick Edward
Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP, James Neil Kramer, Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe LLP & Julian Wonjung Park, Latham Watkins LLP.

Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Patrick Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP, James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Julian Wonjung Park, Latham
Watkins LLP.

Pacific Crest Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick
Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP, James Neil Kramer, Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Julian Wonjung Park, Latham Watkins
LLP.

EM Securities, LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick Edward
Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP, James Neil Kramer, Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe LLP & Julian Wonjung Park, Latham Watkins LLP.

Joseph Jaspersen, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip C Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Ali Shehk, Movant, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt, Levi and
Korsinsky, Adam Marc Apton, Levi Korsinsky, LLP, Mario Man-Lung
Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Mark Punzalan, Punzalan Law,
P.C. & Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.


WASHINGTON PRIME: Suit Over Glimcher Realty Trust Merger Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit challenging the proposed Merger
transactions of Washington Prime Group Inc. and Glimcher Realty
Trust has been filed in Maryland state court, according to
Washington Prime's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

A putative class action lawsuit challenging the proposed Merger
transactions has been filed in Maryland state court. The action
was filed on October 2, 2014 and is captioned Zucker v. Glimcher
Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-005675 (Circ. Ct. Baltimore City).
The Zucker complaint alleges that the trustees of Glimcher
breached their fiduciary duties to Glimcher shareholders by
agreeing to sell Glimcher for inadequate consideration and
agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the merger
agreement. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Glimcher, WPG and
certain of their affiliates aided and abetted these purported
breaches of fiduciary duty. The Zucker complaint further alleges
that the trustees of Glimcher were incentivized to enter into the
merger agreement due to their ownership of large amounts of
restricted stock and/or stock options and that Mr. Glimcher would
be employed by the surviving entity and that he, in addition to
another trustee of Glimcher, would join the board of the surviving
entity. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction
barring the merger.


WASHINGTON PRIME: Second Suit Over Glimcher Realty Merger Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A second putative class action lawsuit challenging the proposed
Merger transactions of Washington Prime Group Inc. and Glimcher
Realty Trust has been filed in Maryland state court, according to
Washington Prime's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

On October 23, 2014, a second putative class action lawsuit
challenging the merger was filed in Maryland state court. The
action is captioned Motsch v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-
14-006011 (Circ. Ct. Baltimore City). The Motsch complaint alleges
breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Glimcher trustees and
aiding and abetting claims against Glimcher, WPG and certain of
their affiliates substantially similar to those asserted in the
Zucker complaint. The Motsch complaint also asserts a derivative
claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Glimcher trustees.


WELLS FARGO: Seeks Review of $203-Mil. Award in Overdraft Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers
unhappy with a megamillion-dollar judgment against their client
are using a recent appellate loss as ammunition to fight for
stricter class action standards.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last month
to affirm a $203 million award against Wells Fargo & Co. in a case
challenging the bank's handling of overdraft charges.

According to Wells Fargo's lawyers at Covington & Burling, who are
seeking en banc review, the panel failed to grapple with conflicts
between more liberal California case law and stricter federal
rules for class actions.

Many class members would not have been able to prove they were
harmed by statements the court deemed misleading, the petition
states. But the Ninth Circuit approved the judgment based on
"idiosyncrasies in California class action procedures," which hold
plaintiffs do not need to provide individualized proof of injury.
The ruling under California's Unfair Competition Law flies in the
face of federal rules which hold class members to stricter
requirements, Wells Fargo argues in the petition filed on Nov. 12.

"The panel's decision blesses an enormous award of monetary relief
to individuals who could not have prevailed on their claims but
for the use of the class action mechanism," the lawyers wrote.
"Absent further review, this misuse of the class mechanism will
continue in the many UCL actions populating the dockets of this
circuit."

The petition was signed by Washington, D.C., partner Robert Long
-- rlong@cov.com -- Sonya Winner -- swinner@cov.com -- in the
firm's San Francisco office, argued the case before the Ninth
Circuit panel in early October.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein partner Michael Sobol, who
argued the appeal for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond
to a phone message or email seeking comment.  Ms. Winner declined
to comment.

If Wells Fargo is granted its en banc hearing, it will be the
third time the Ninth Circuit has reviewed the $203 million
judgment.  The court first struck down the judgment in 2012,
ruling U.S. District Judge William Alsup had improperly penalized
Wells Fargo for conduct protected under federal law.  Judge Alsup
then reinstated the $203 million judgment under a different
rationale that was upheld by judges M. Margaret McKeown, Sidney
Thomas and William Fletcher.

The bank's lawyers argue last month's opinion emphasizes a divide
between state law and federal class action requirements enshrined
in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Article III of the
Constitution.

"This bedrock limitation on class actions in federal court is
under fire," the lawyers wrote, "not just in this case but in many
others like it."

The Wells Fargo team contends the California Supreme Court's 2009
ruling in In re Tobacco II, which held absent class members may
recover "without individualized proof of deception, reliance and
injury" is in conflict with Wal-Mart v. Dukes.  The landmark U.S.
Supreme Court ruling held a class action cannot strip defendants
of their right to defend individual claims.

Cooley partner Whitty Somvichian -- wsomvichian@cooley.com --
agrees the discord between state and federal law must be resolved.
The discrepancy has led to decisions from different courts that
can be difficult to reconcile, he said.

"The substantive state law is being used to circumvent what we
feel are federal requirements once the plaintiffs decide to
proceed in federal court," Mr. Somvichian said.

Justin Berger -- jberger@cpmlegal.com -- a principal at Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy, doesn't think Wells Fargo will be granted an en
banc audience.

"It's kind of just the next wave of attacks on class actions in
general," he said.  "And their position really is to do away with
class actions."

There is no meaningful discrepancy between state and federal class
standing regulations, Mr. Berger said.  Cases such as Dukes
regulate damages, he said, whereas cases such as Wells Fargo's
deal solely with restitution.

But Paul Riehle, a partner at Sedgwick in San Francisco, says the
fight may be just beginning.  "This issue is one that does cry out
for en banc review," he said, "and it may ultimately be resolved
by the United States Supreme Court."


                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *