CAR_Public/160517.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 17, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 98



                            Headlines


201E 15TH: Faces "Nikita" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
7 CALL CENTER: Certification of Class Sought in "Caamano" Suit
ALL-WAYS CONTRACTORS: Court Refuses to Certify "Leipolt" Class
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Arguments in Class Action Certification Heard
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: La Colosa Class Actions Pending

ASIAN SUPERMARKET: "Huang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ASSURED GUARANTY: Settlement Fairness Hearing on July 8
ATLANTIC CAPITAL: Memorandum of Understanding Reached in Action
ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Appeal Not Yet Set
ATS MEDICAL SERVICES: "Goodner" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

AUDIOEYE INC: Shareholder Action Pending in Arizona
BAG TAVERN: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Sotelo" Suit Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over Interest Rate Swaps
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Sought in "Gershman" Suit
BEST BUY STORES: Amended Class Cert. Bid Due June 24 in "Herron"

BLUE CROSS: Albion College Sues Over ERISA Violation
BLUE CROSS: "John's Lumber" Sues Over Hidden Fees
BLUE CROSS: "Hill" Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to N. Ala.
BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM: Class and Subclass Certification Sought
CALLSMART INC: Bid to Certify "Dolemba" Class Continued to July 7

CAN-FITE BIOPHARMA: Response to Israel Class Action Filed
CANYON PROPERTIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT: Conditional Class Certification Bid Granted
CATALINAN RESTAURANT: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Farrar" Suit
CFS CONSTRUCTION: Faces N.Y. Suit for Labor Law Violations

CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Class Action Deal Has Preliminary Approval
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Underway in Naylor Farms Case
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in "Dodson" Case
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in "Donelson" Case
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: To Defend Against "West" Class Suit

CHRYSLER GROUP: Dec. 1 Class Cert. Hearing in "DeCoteau" Suit
CIGNA HEALTH: Judge Stays "Weil" Suit Pending Settlement Talks
CLIENT SERVICES: Rhonda Bower Seeks Class Certification
CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Certification of "Labriola" Class Sought
COMCAST CORPORATION: Sued Over Racial Discrimination Practices

COOK MEDICAL: "Homes" Sues Over Filter Malfunction
COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Cir. Vacates Portion of Judgment in "Maple"
CYPRESS SECURITY: "Rita" Labor Suit Goes Back to State Court
DAVE & BUSTER'S: "Nunnally" FLSA Suit Removed to Cal. Dist. Court
DEUTSCHE BANK: Reviewing Newly-Filed Pleadings in SDNY Action

DR. ALTON J. HALL: Faces "Mason" Lawsuit for FLSA Violation
DUKE ENERGY: Faces Newton and Allison Class Action
EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed
ELBIT IMAGING: Updates on 1999 Class Action
ELH MGMT: Faces "Lebron" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws

ESHAI CORP: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Barnes" Suit Claims
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
FELDER SERVICES: Faces "Gushiniere" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FIRST STUDENT: Faces Suit Seeking Back Wages Under Federal Law
FOGO DE CHAO: Anticipates Negotiations with Union

FRITO-LAY INC: Jane Roe Seeks Certification of Applicants' Class
FTS INT'L: "Lloyd" Suit Alleges Failure to Properly Pay Employees
GATE GOURMET: "Little" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Bryde" Class Suit in N. Dist. California
GERARDO GOVEA: Faces "Pinto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

GLOBAL CONTRACT: N.Y. Judge Narrows "Motta" Suit
GOLDEN ORCHID: Faces "Hu" Class Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
GREATBATCH INC: "Israel" Sues over Incentive Plan
GREATER HARLEM: "Kamara" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime
GRUBHUB INC: Must File Motion to Deny Class Cert. By June 2

HCSB FINANCIAL: Appeal to Be Heard in 2nd Quarter 2016
HCSB FINANCIAL: Court of Common Pleas Approved Settlement
HESPERIA, CA: Faces Victor Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
HOOPER HOLMES: Judge Suspends Ruling, Lets Parties Pursue Deal
ICONIX BRAND: 3 Securities Class Actions Pending

IDENTIV, INC: "Ruggiero" Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
IDENTIV, INC: To Defend Against Shareholder Lawsuits
ILLINOIS: Class of Medicaid-Enrolled Children Certified
ISUSHI CAFE: Faces "Fung" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
J. CREW GROUP: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Thurston" Suit

JC PENNEY: Judge Applies Foreign Law on Statute of Limitations
JOURNAL MEDIA: Says Settlement Documentation Being Finalized
KAG WEST: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Souza" Action Claims
KANSAS: Health Dept Sued Over Termination of Planned Parenthood
KELLY SERVICES: Certification of Two "Dolemba" Classes Sought

KIOR INC: Judge Trims Claims in "Carlton" Suit
LAND-AIR EXPRESS: Faces "Chain" Suit Over WARN Act Violation
LANDEC CORPORATION: Still Defends Wage & Hour Action in Calif.
LANNETT COMPANY: Faces UFCW Local Suit Over Digoxin Drugs
LEAL MEDICAL: "Galindo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

LINCOLN TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
LIRIO MIJANGO CORP: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
LOUISIANA: Court Wants Plaintiff to Appear in Person
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: To Defend Against "Gathmann-Landini" Suit
LUXE WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Pena" Suit Claims

M1 AUTO COLLISIONS: Class Action Notice Modified
MDL 2641: "Ruden" Product Liability Suit Remanded to State Court
MARRONE BIO: Case Deferred Pending Outcome of Mediation
MICHAEL HARRISON: Illegally Collects Debt, "Trombley" Suit Says
MODERN METHOD: "Espinoza" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

MONTGOMERY, PA: Sued in Penn. Over Criminal History Records
MOONSTONE FOODS: "Padilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MULTNOMAH, NE: Faces "Stanko" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
MUY PIZZA: "Finstad" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MV TRANSPORTATION: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says

NANTKWEST INC: "Sudunagunta" Case Pending in California
NIMBLE STORAGE: Has Not Yet Responded to Securities Litigation
NORTH PINELLAS CHILDREN'S: "Lodge" Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Charitable Real Estate Tax
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Certification of TCPA Class Sought

NRA GROUP: Bid to Certify Class in "Bernal" Suit Denied as Moot
NYMOX PHARMACEUTICAL: NJ Court Dismissed "Sapir" Case
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Discovery in "Weiner" Suit Bifurcated
OS RESTAURANT: "Sears" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PASON SYSTEMS: Faces "Ricalo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Fee-Shifting Policies
PAYMENT DATA SYSTEMS: Claims Against Kirby and Long Dismissed
PERRY ELLIS: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
PHO QUYEN: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
PIERCE & ASSOCIATES: "Zuniga" Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

PLANESPHERE INC: Class Certification Hearing Set for August 25
PLATINUM SUPPLEMENTAL: Certification of 2 "Flynn" Classes Sought
PREMIER DIRECTIONAL: "Parrish" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Defending Against "Coleman" Suit
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Has Not Yet Answered "Vasquez" Case

PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Ramnath" Parties Engaged in Discussions
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Martin" Parties Agreed to Settlement
REACHLOCAL INC: Has Confidential Settlement Agreement
REGINA CAELI: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Kruse" Suit
REVEL SYSTEMS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Williams" Suit Says

RIGHTSCORP INC: "Blaha" Parties in Talks Over Suggested Revisions
RIGHTSCORP INC: Brown-Jenkins Suit in Georgia Now Closed
ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Defending Class Action in California
SAMIA TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Litigation in Early Stages

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Hart" Settlement Subject to Final Negotiations
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against Lanier Trust Action
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Consolidated Complaint Filed in "Gernandt"
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Dismissal of Amended Class Action Sought
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

SCIVAC THERAPEUTICS: Pre-Trial Hearing Rescheduled to June 28
SFR INVESTMENTS: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Lose Class Cert. Bid
SHAMROCK FOODS: "Zubia" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
SHIVA AMBULETTE: "Muniz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SOLO CONSTRUCTION: "Flanagin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

SOUTHERN CONCRETE: "Morris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
STANDARD INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment; Certification Denied
STRATEGIC REALTY: Distribution of Settlement Proceeds Commenced
SUNRUN INC: "Greenberg" Sues Over Artificially Inflated IPOs
SWEETGREEN INC: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Wilson" Suit Says

TILLY'S, INC: Deadline to File Opening Brief Not Yet Set
TILLY'S, INC: Parties Reached Resolution in "Rebolledo" Case
TILLY'S, INC: "Whitten" Case in Pre-Certification Discovery
TILLY'S, INC: To Defend Against "Ward" Case in Calif.
TOWERSTREAM CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

TRAVEL RESORTS: Faces "Lugo" Lawsuit for Illegal Debit Under EFTA
TRS STAFFING: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TURTLE BEACH: Briefing Completed in Class Action Appeal
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Cal. Judge Asks Gov't to Weigh In on Accord
ULTA SALON: Defending 4 Putative Employment Class Action

UNIFUND CCR: Kelly Massey Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Huffman" Suit
VALE S.A.: Judge Consolidated Securities Actions
VALE S.A.: Litigation Related to Dam Failure at Early Stage
VERINT SYSTEMS: Motion to Certify Remains Under Consideration

VERONA GARDENS: "Sutherland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
VIMPELCOM LTD: Defending Against Securities Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: ASA Appeals Employment Tribunal Decision
WATTS REGULATOR: "Sharp" Suit Transferred to Nebraska Dist. Ct.
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Class Certification Sought in "Vogelman" Suit

WINTERS LANDSCAPE: Faces "Magana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WOOD GROUP: Faces "McLemore" Lawsuit for FLSA Violation
XBIOTECH INC: To Make Procedural Motions in California Case


                            *********


201E 15TH: Faces "Nikita" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Nikita, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. 201E 15th Owners Corp. and Joseph Petrelli, Case No. 1:16-cv-
03320 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a multi-unit cooperative building with both
commercial and residential premises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph D. Nohavicka, Esq.
      MAVROMIHALIS PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
      3403 Broadway
      Astoria, NY 10006
      Telephone: (718) 777-0400
      Facsimile: (718) 777-0599
      E-mail: jnfirm@aol.com


7 CALL CENTER: Certification of Class Sought in "Caamano" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Caamano, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
current and former employees of the Defendants, asks the Court to
conditionally certify the collective action entitled ANA CAAMANO
v. 7 CALL CENTER INC., CHABAN WELLNESS LLC, ALEJANDRO J. CHABAN,
and RONALD DAY, Case No. 16-CV-20932-GAYLES/TURNOFF (S.D. Fla.),
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  She also asks the Court to
appoint her as representative of the Collective Action with
authority to appear at any mediation/settlement conference on
behalf of and to bind the Class, and to permit her to send
supervised notice to all others similarly situated of their opt-in
rights.

The Putative Class is defined as:

     All persons who are currently, or who were, employed by 7
     Call Center Inc., Chaban Wellness, Alejandro J. Chaban,
     and/or Ronald Day from March 15, 2013 to the present as a
     sales employees, as Sales Representatives, Customer
     Retention Specialists, or other similarly titled positions,
     either directly by Defendants or through any of their
     subsidiaries or affiliated companies.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=twtzpjr1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


ALL-WAYS CONTRACTORS: Court Refuses to Certify "Leipolt" Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Rudolph T. Randa entered a decision and order in the
purported class action lawsuit entitled MATTHEW LEIPOLT,
CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, et al. v. ALL-WAYS CONTRACTORS, Inc., Case No.
15-C-628 (E.D. Wisc.), stating that:

   (1) Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint
       is denied;

   (2) Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery is denied;

   (3) All-Ways' motion for a protective order is denied;

   (4) Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied;

   (5) Plaintiffs' motion to stay class certification deadlines
       is denied;

   (6) Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief
       is granted; and

   (7) All-Ways' motion for summary judgment is granted.

The lawsuit is a putative class action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  All-Ways moved for summary judgment, arguing that
it is exempt from the FLSA pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act
exemption.  The Court agrees. All-Ways' motion for summary
judgment is granted, and the matter is dismissed in its entirety.

All-Ways is a Wisconsin corporation engaged in commercial
landscaping related to public and private commercial road building
projects, commercial snowplowing, and commodity trading in salt
and topsoil used in commercial and public road building projects.
The named plaintiffs, Matthew Leipolt and Christopher Adams, were
employed by All-Ways as truck drivers.

A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=170Hi47x

Matthew Leipolt, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Yingtao Ho, Esq.
     The Previant Law Firm SC
     310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW
     Milwaukee, WI 53203
     Tel: 888-213-0123
     Local: 414-203-0514

All-Ways Contractors Inc, Defendant, represented by:

     Laura L Malugade, Esq.
     Myriem Bennani, Esq.
     Thomas P Krukowski, Esq.
     Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC
     555 East Wells Street, Suite 1900
     Milwaukee, WI 53202-3819
     Tel: (414) 978-5497
     Fax: (414) 223-5000
     E-mail: lmalugade@whdlaw.com
             mbennani@whdlaw.com


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Arguments in Class Action Certification Heard
----------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that arguments in the class
action certification were heard in October 2015, and the Company
awaits the Court's judgment.

AngloGold Ashanti, along with other mining companies including
Anglo American South Africa, ARM, Gold Fields, Harmony, DRDGold,
Village Main Reef, Randgold and Exploration, and Sibanye, were
served with a consolidated class action application on 21 August
2013, as well as a request for an amendment to alter the scope of
the classes previously proposed by these representatives. The
applicants requested certification of two industry-wide classes: a
Silicosis Class and a Tuberculosis Class, which each cover current
and former underground mineworkers who worked on the mines from 12
March 1965 and who have contracted the respective diseases (or the
dependents of mineworkers who died of those diseases). The
applicants envisage a two-stage process in the class action. The
first stage is to resolve common issues and the second stage
allows the individuals to opt in to the class to make their claims
against the respondent mining companies.

If the Court declines to certify the Silicosis and Tuberculosis
Classes, then the applicants request that the Court certify 32
distinct classes -- one for each respondent mining company named
in the application -- composed of the current and former
mineworkers who have contracted silicosis or tuberculosis (or the
dependents of mineworkers who died of those diseases).

"Arguments in the class action certification were heard in October
2015, and we await the Court's judgement," the Company said.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: La Colosa Class Actions Pending
--------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that four (4) class action
lawsuits are pending in relation to AngloGold Ashanti Colombia
S.A. (AGAC)'s Santa Maria-Montecristo and La Colosa projects,
which are in their pre-feasibility phase. Each lawsuit aims to
stop exploration and mining in certain restricted areas affected
by the projects due to environmental concerns or alleged breaches
of environmental laws. In one of these lawsuits, the court granted
the plaintiff a preliminary injunction, suspending the mining
concession contracts of the Santa Maria-Montecristo project in
September 2011. The injunction remains in place and has been
challenged by AGAC; however, it is not a critical path item for
the project.

While plaintiffs in all cases have petitioned the court to cancel
concession contracts for the mining projects, the company believes
that courts and judges in Colombia do not have the authority to
order such cancellations. Such power, by law, vests solely in the
mining authority, which has the discretion to declare concessions
void if a contractor breaches applicable environmental laws or
regulations. To date, the company is not aware of the Colombian
government having ever declared a concession void for these
reasons. AGAC continues to oppose, through a variety of integrated
legal and political strategies, the class action lawsuits that
have been filed against it. If plaintiffs prevail and AGAC's three
core concession contracts are cancelled, the company would be
required to abandon the La Colosa project and all of AGAC's other
existing mining concession contracts and pending proposals for new
mining concession contracts would also be cancelled.


ASIAN SUPERMARKET: "Huang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Xue Fang Huang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Asian Supermarket Corp., Asian Supermarket
Group Inc., Yu Zhang, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00515-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y., May 4, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime  wages, liquidated  damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket in Albany upstate New
York located at 1245 Central Ave., Albany, New York 12205.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY  11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ASSURED GUARANTY: Settlement Fairness Hearing on July 8
-------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2016, that the settlement fairness hearing for putative class
cases is scheduled for July 8, 2016.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including GICs. These
cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 ("MDL 1950"). Five of these
cases named both AGMH and AGM: (a) Hinds County, Mississippi v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wachovia
Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington County,
Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the federal claims
for these five cases, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint. The Corrected Third Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint, filed on October 9, 2013, lists neither
AGM nor AGMH as a named defendant or a co-conspirator. T

he complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The other four cases
named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that the defendants
violated California state antitrust law and common law by engaging
in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation, thereby depriving
the cities or municipalities of competition in the awarding of
GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying higher fees for
these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v. AIG Financial
Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v. AIG Financial
Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v. AIG Financial
Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing Authority v. AIG
Financial Products Corp. When the four plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint in September 2009, the plaintiffs did not
name AGMH as a defendant. However, the complaint does describe
some of AGMH's and AGM's activities. The consolidated complaint
generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and other costs.

In April 2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in
part the named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated
complaint.

On September 22, 2015, the remaining parties to the putative class
action reported to the MDL 1950 Court that settlements in
principle had been reached and a motion for preliminary approval
of those putative class claims was filed on February 24, 2016.

The parties have reported that final settlement with those
remaining defendants would resolve the putative class case. The
settlement fairness hearing for those putative class cases is
scheduled for July 8, 2016. The Company cannot reasonably estimate
the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from
these lawsuits.


ATLANTIC CAPITAL: Memorandum of Understanding Reached in Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Capital Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a
Memorandum of Understanding has been reached in the class action
lawsuits related to the merger agreement.

On October 31, 2015, Atlantic Capital completed its acquisition of
First Security and its subsidiary FSGBank, N.A. ("FSGBank"). In
connection with the acquisition, Atlantic Capital's subsidiary
Atlantic Capital Bank, a Georgia chartered commercial bank merged
with and into FSGBank, N.A, which subsequently changed its name to
Atlantic Capital Bank, N.A. (the "Bank").

Two putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in
connection with the merger. Knutson v. First Security Group, Inc.
et al., filed April 15, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton
County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board
of directors, and Atlantic Capital as defendants. Meade v. Kramer,
et al., filed April 24, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton
County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board
of directors, FSGBank, Atlantic Capital and the Bank as
defendants. Each of these complaints alleges, among other things,
that the First Security directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the negotiation and approval of the merger
agreement and that the other named defendants, including Atlantic
Capital, aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.

Among other relief, the plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief
preventing parties from consummating the merger, rescission of the
transactions completed by the merger agreement, an award of
attorney's fees and expenses for plaintiffs and other forms of
relief.

On June 1, 2015, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating
these two suits under the caption In re First Security Group, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 15-0212. On June 25, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated class action
complaint in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Chattanooga.
The amended complaint repeats many of the same allegations of the
original complaints but also makes additional allegations with
respect to disclosures contained in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus. On July 24, 2015, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On August 25, 2015, First Security, Atlantic Capital and the other
named defendants and the plaintiffs entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of the
lawsuits. The MOU agreed on the terms of a settlement of the
lawsuits, including the dismissal with prejudice of the suit
captioned In re First Security Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation
and a release of all claims that were made or could have been made
therein against all of the defendants. The proposed settlement is
conditioned upon, among other things, consummation of the merger,
the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, and
final approval of the proposed settlement by the Chancery Court
for Hamilton County, Tennessee after notice is given to
shareholders.

In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in
the MOU, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will
seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the settlement and if the court does not approve the proposed
settlement, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU
would become void. The settlement will not affect the amount of
the merger consideration that First Security shareholders received
in the merger.


ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Appeal Not Yet Set
----------------------------------------------
Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing for the appeal
has not been set.

On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint,
captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-
01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against us, certain of our
directors and officers and the underwriters of our November 2012
initial public offering. The complaint alleges that all defendants
violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that we and certain of our
directors and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act
by making material false and misleading statements and omissions
in the offering's registration statement, and that we and certain
of our directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making false and misleading statements and omissions in the
registration statement and in certain of our subsequent press
releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen
collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT
device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our
common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013,
inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount.

On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The
Company replied to the opposition briefs on August 11, 2014. On
October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing
all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. The Court's
order provided plaintiffs with a deadline of October 26, 2014 to
file a motion for leave to amend their complaint and the
plaintiffs did not file such a motion by that date. On October 30,
2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3,
2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have
appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed
their opening appellate brief. Defendants' filed their answering
brief on April 13, 2015, and plaintiffs filed their reply brief on
May 18, 2015. A hearing for the appeal has not been set.

The Company is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focused on
the development of novel therapeutics and delivery methods for the
treatment of breast cancer and other breast conditions.


ATS MEDICAL SERVICES: "Goodner" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Goodner and Patrick Baumgartner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ATS
Medical Services, LLC d/b/a Priority One f/k/a ATS Medical
Services, Inc. and Bradley Bull, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01131-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind., May 6, 2016), seeks overtime
compensation, unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a private ambulance service that provides
emergency services and non-emergency transportation where the
Plaintiffs worked as paramedics and emergency medical technicians.
The Plaintiffs claim to have been denied overtime pay for hours
rendered in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
      Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
      GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
      3091 E. 98th St.
      Indianapolis, IN 46290
      Telephone: (317) 706-1100
      Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
      E-Mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com

           - and -

      Jennifer Durham, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER DURHAM
      24 East Main St.
      Mooresville, IN 46158
      Telephone: (317) 584-3487
      Facsimile: (317) 584-3493
      E-Mail: jennifer@jdurhamlaw.com


AUDIOEYE INC: Shareholder Action Pending in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend a shareholder class action lawsuit in Arizona.

In April 2015, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
against us and our former officer Nathaniel Bradley and former
officer Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona. The plaintiffs allege various causes of
action against the defendants arising from our announcement that
our previously issued financial results for the first three
quarters of 2014 and the guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014
and the full year of 2014 could no longer be relied upon.  The
complaints seek, among other relief, compensatory damages and
plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees. The Court has
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

"We have responded to the complaints and also filed a motion to
dismiss. We believe that the lawsuits have no merit and intend to
mount a vigorous defense. Given the current stage of the
proceedings in this case, our management currently cannot assess
the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate the range of
losses, related to these matters. As of December 31, 2015, we have
paid the deductible pursuant to the D&O insurance policy, in the
amount of $100,000 regarding this matter," the Company said.

AudioEye provides web accessibility solutions for clients'
customers through its Ally Platform Products.


BAG TAVERN: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Sotelo" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Sotelo and Marco Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated v. The Bag Tavern LLC, FJM of
IL Incorporated, Richard Alexander Ross, and James R. Blomberg,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04958 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants operate a chain of hamburger restaurants in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over Interest Rate Swaps
---------------------------------------------------------------
Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Bank Of America Corporation;
Bank Of America, N.A.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated; Barclays PLC; Barclays Bank PLC; Barclays Capital
Inc.; BNP Paribas, S.A.; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Citigroup,
Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Citigroup
Global Markets Limited; Credit Suisse AG; Credit Suisse Group AG;
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Credit Suisse International;
Deutsche Bank AG; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Goldman Sachs Bank USA; Goldman
Sachs Financial Markets, L.P.; Goldman Sachs International; HSBC
Bank PLC; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Icap
Capital Markets LLC; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P. MORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities
PLC; Morgan Stanley; Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A.; Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC; Morgan Stanley Capital Services LLC; Morgan Stanley
Derivative Products Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC;
Morgan Stanley Bank International Limited; The Royal Bank Of
Scotland Group PLC; Royal Bank Of Scotland PLC; RBS Securities
Inc.; Tradeweb Markets LLC; UBS AG; and UBS Securities LLC, Case
No. 1:16-cv-04950 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct
aimed at blocking exchange-style execution for buy-side users of
interest rate swaps ("IRS").

The Defendants are the primary incumbent dealers of IRS in the
United States and, collectively, dominate the market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George A. Zelcs, Esq.
      Randall P. Erwing Jr., Esq.
      Chad E. Bell, Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
      205 N. Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 641-9750
      Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
      E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
              rewing@koreintillery.com
              cbell@koreintillery.com

         - and -

      Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
      Robert E. Litan, Esq.
      Robert King, Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
      One U.S. Bank Plaza
      505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-4844
      Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
      E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
              rlitan@koreintillery.com
              rking@koreintillery.com

         - and -

      Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
      Kate Lv, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
              klv@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
      Sylvia Sokol, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 233-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
              dbroggi@scott-scott.com
              ssokol@scott-scott.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Sought in "Gershman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned LIZA GERSHMAN, SEAN
PORTER, and CHANDRA LAW, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC. a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-05332-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
notifies the Court that on September 22, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., they
will move for an order certifying these Classes:

     California-Only UCL and CLRA Class:
     All California consumers who, within the applicable statute
     of limitations, purchased Flintstones Healthy Brain Support
     until the date notice is disseminated.

     Illinois-Only Class Action
     All Illinois consumers who, within the applicable statute of
     limitations, purchased Flintstones Healthy Brain Support
     until the date notice is disseminated.

     Florida-Only Class Action
     All Florida consumers who, within the applicable statute of
     limitations, purchased Flintstones Healthy Brain Support
     until the date notice is disseminated.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, P.C., Boodell & Domanskis, LLC and Harke Clasby
& Bushman LLP as Class Counsel, and appoint them as Class
Representatives.

A copy of the Notice is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uh0Kp3XL

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          Max A. Stein, Esq.
          Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
          BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC
          One North Franklin, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 938-1670
          E-mail: SWeltman@boodlaw.com
                  mstein@boodlaw.com
                  ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street
          Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312.236.0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

               - and -

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Sarah Clasby Engel, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, Florida 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com
                  sengel@harkeclasby.com
                  hbushman@harkeclasby.com


BEST BUY STORES: Amended Class Cert. Bid Due June 24 in "Herron"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAD HERRON, individually, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BEST BUY STORES, LP,
a Virginia limited partnership, Defendant, Case No. 2:12-CV-02103-
TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted the "Ex
Parte Application for an Order Continuing Plaintiff's Deadline to
File Amended Motion for Class Certification" from May 27, 2016 to
June 24, 2016.

The Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification shall be
due on or before June 24, 2016.

Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P. shall file an opposition to
Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification in accordance
with Local Rule 230(c), making it due and served not less than 14
days preceding the continued hearing date.

Plaintiff shall file a reply to Plaintiff's Amended Motion for
Class Certification in accordance with Local Rule 230(d), making
it due and served not less than seven days preceding the continued
hearing date.

A copy of the Court's May 6, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/CMKVDf from Leagle.com.

Chad Herron, Plaintiff, represented by Demetrius Xavier Lambrinos
-- dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP,
Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Stonebarger Law, Anne Marie Murphy --
amurphy@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Elaine
Wing Ling Yan, Stonebarger Law, APC, Jonathan C Hsieh, Cotchett,
Pitre & Mccarthy, LLP, Niall P. McCarthy -- nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
-- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP & Richard David Lambert,
Stonebarger Law.

Best Buy Stores, LP, Defendant, represented by Jill S. Casselman -
- JCasselman@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP & Michael Aaron
Geibelson -- MGeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP.

Dell Inc., Intervenor Defendant, represented by Alyssa E. Ramirez
-- aramirez@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,
Kevin P. McCormick -- kmccormick@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP, pro hac vice, Kimball R. Anderson -- kanderson@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Krista M. Enns --
kenns@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP & Loren G. Rene --
lrene@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP.


BLUE CROSS: Albion College Sues Over ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
ALBION COLLEGE AND ALBION COLLEGE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN,
Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant,
2:16-cv-11624-AC-MKM (E.D. Mich., May 6, 2016), alleges that BCBSM
misappropriated the Albion and Albion College Employee Benefit
Plan assets in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Albion is a private educational institution.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a nonprofit corporation and
independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Aaron M. Phelps, Esq.
     VARNUM LLP
     Bridgewater Place, PO Box 352
     Grand Rapids, MI, 49501-0352
     Phone: (616) 336-6000
     Fax: (616) 336-7000
     E-mail: amphelps@varnumlaw.com


BLUE CROSS: "John's Lumber" Sues Over Hidden Fees
-------------------------------------------------
John's Lumber And Hardware Co. and John's Lumber and Hardware
Employee Benefit Plan, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Of
Michigan, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-11623-PDB-EAS (E.D. Mich.,
May 6, 2016) seeks to recover the misappropriated funds and obtain
all other relief to which they are entitled under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

John's Lumber is a Michigan-based lumber and hardware company,
with its principal location in Clinton Township, Michigan. It
offers health care benefits and engaged the services of Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan. The complaint alleges that the Defendant
skimmed additional administrative fees from their plan to pay
claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron M. Phelps, Esq.
      Bridgewater Place, PO Box 352
      Grand Rapids, MI, 49501-0352
      Phone: (616) 336-6000
      Fax: (616) 336-7000
      Email: amphelps@varnumlaw.com


BLUE CROSS: "Hill" Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to N. Ala.
---------------------------------------------------------
Ross Hill, Angie Hill, Kevin Bradberry and Christy Bradberry,
Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and Affiliates,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00743-RDP (D.S.D., April 8, 2016) has
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on May 6, 2016, and assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
03016.

Defendants are into health care insurance.  The complaint accuses
the Defendant of dividing the market amongst its member
affiliates, thus artificially inflating premium costs.

Plaintiffs represented by:

      Clint Sargent, Esq.
      Kevin Bradberry, Esq.
      Christy Bradberry, Esq.
      MEIERHENRY SARGENT LLP
      315 S Phillips Avenue
      Sioux Falls, SD 57104-6318
      Tel: (605) 336-3075
      Fax: (605) 336-2593
      Email: clint@meierhenrylaw.com

BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM: Class and Subclass Certification Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned KEVIN WOODRUFF, on behalf
of himself and classes of those similarly situated v.
BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM SERVICES, INC., formerly TIMEC COMPANY,
INC., a corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-04105-EMC (N.D. Cal.), asks
the Court to certify a class consisting of Timec temporary, or
"Turnaround" employees who worked for Timec as a Safety Attendant,
Laborer, and General Helper at a refinery in California at any
time since September 11, 2010.

The Proposed Subclass consists of all members of the Class, who
have separated from employment with Timec within the statute of
limitations period applicable to claims under Section 203 of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff
& Lowe, LLP and Leigh Law Group as Class Counsel.

A hearing to consider the Motion will be held on September 22,
2016, 1:30 p.m.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=209pVG8U

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Mullan, Esq.
          Chaya M. Mandelbaum, Esq.
          Michelle G. Lee, Esq.
          Erin M. Pulaski, Esq.
          RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, L.L.P.
          351 California Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-9800
          Facsimile: (415) 434-0513
          E-mail: jtm@rezlaw.com
                  cmm@rezlaw.com
                  mgl@rezlaw.com
                  emp@rezlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay T. Jambeck, Esq.
          Mandy G. Leigh, Esq.
          LEIGH LAW GROUP
          870 Market Street, Suite 1157
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 399-9155
          Facsimile: (415) 795-3733
          E-mail: jjambeck@leighlawgroup.com
                  mleigh@leighlawgroup.com


CALLSMART INC: Bid to Certify "Dolemba" Class Continued to July 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 5, 2016, in the case captioned
Scott Dolemba v. CallSmart, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-04863 (N.D.
Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L.
Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue the Plaintiff's
      motion for class certification is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued to July 7, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.;

   -- initial status hearing is set for July 7, 2016, at 9:30
      a.m.; and

   -- the Motion's hearing date of May 11, 2016, is stricken.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=02USpr43


CAN-FITE BIOPHARMA: Response to Israel Class Action Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a
response to the class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On June 29, 2015, we received a lawsuit, filed
with the District Court of Tel-Aviv, requesting recognition of
this lawsuit as a class action. The lawsuit named the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and directors as defendants. The lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that we misled the public with regard
to disclosures concerning the efficacy of our drug candidate,
CF101. The claimant alleges that he suffered personal damages of
over NIS 73,000, while also claiming that our shareholders
suffered damages of approximately NIS 125 million.

"On November 27, 2015 and December 1, 2015, we filed a motion to
dismiss the action in part and on March 31, 2016, we filed a
response to the lawsuit. We strongly believe the lawsuit and its
allegations to be baseless and without merit, and will vigorously
defend this action," the Company said.

Can-Fite BioPharma is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
that develops orally bioavailable small molecule therapeutic
products for the treatment of autoimmune-inflammatory, oncological
and ophthalmic diseases.


CANYON PROPERTIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abida Nasreen, Khurram Shahzad, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated employees v. Canyon Properties, Inc., Canyon
Properties, LLC, Canyon Properties II, LLC, MPS Properties, Inc.,
Ho 110 Inc., Dack, LLC, LBBC Donuts LLC, Ronald Portnoy, MP Singh,
Canyon Donuts Bellmore, Inc., Canyon Donuts Plainview, Inc.,
Canyon Donuts Seaford, Inc., John Doe I and John Doe II, Case No.
2:16-cv-02233-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Dunkin Donuts franchises in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Debra L. Wabnik, Esq.
      David R. Ehrlich, Esq.
      STAGG, TERENZI, CONFUSIONE & WABNIK, LLP
      401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 812-4500
      E-mail: dwabnik@stcwlaw.com
              dehrlich@stcwlaw.com

         - and -

      Andrew C. Laufer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW C. LAUFER, PLLC
      255 West 361h Street, Suite 1104
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 422-1020
      E-mail: info@lauferlawgroup.com


CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT: Conditional Class Certification Bid Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kimberly A. Jolson issued an Opinion and Order in the
lawsuit entitled KAILEY N. FORD v. CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-18 (S.D. Ohio), granting in part
and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification, expedited discovery, and court-supervised notice to
potential opt-in plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff filed the proposed collective and class action
lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees
alleging, inter alia, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
against Carnegie, her former employer and the owner of four
McDonald's franchises.  The Plaintiff and the putative class
members are current and former hourly, non-exempt employees at the
Defendant's McDonald's franchises, each of which "enforced the
same policies and procedures, including payroll procedures."

In the Opinion and Order, Judge Jolson ruled that the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional class certification under the FLSA is
granted, and the Plaintiff's motions for expedited discovery and
Court-supervised notice are denied as moot.

Counsel for the parties are ordered to meet and confer and submit
an agreed notice to the Court within 14 days of the issuance of
the Opinion and Order.  If counsel are unable to reach an
agreement, the Court ruled that the Plaintiff may file her
proposed notice by the same deadline, and the Defendant may file
its specific objections to the proposed notice no later than 14
days after the Plaintiff files her proposed notice.  The Plaintiff
may respond to the Defendant's objections within five days.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RzoRjhOZ

Kailey N Ford, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Matthew James Porter Coffman, Esq.
     Coffman Legal, LLC
     1457 S High St
     Columbus, OH 43207-1044

          - and -

     Daniel I'Anson Bryant, Esq.
     Bryant Legal, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Tel: 614-704-0546
     Fax:  614-573-9826
     Email:  dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

Carnegie Management Services, Inc, Defendant, represented by:

     Monica L Waller, Esq.
     Eric S Bravo, Esq.
     Lane Alton & Horst LLC
     Two Miranova Place, Suite 220
     Tel: 614-228-6885
     Fax: 614-228-0146
     E-mail: mwaller@lanealton.com
             ebravo@lanealton.com


CATALINAN RESTAURANT: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Farrar" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge M. James Lorenz of the Southern District of
California denied defendants' motion to stay or dismiss in the
case JERI FARRAR, Plaintiff, v. CATALINAN RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.
et al., Defendants, Case No. 15cv2407-L(RBB) (S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Jeri Farrar contends that defendants Catalina Restaurant
Group, Inc. and Food Management Partners, Inc. violated the
federal and California Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification
Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 2101 et seq. & Cal. Labor Code Sections
1400 et seq. (WARN), and the California Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 (UCL), by failing to provide
proper notice and severance pay before a mass layoff. She seeks
declaratory and monetary relief on her own behalf and on behalf of
a putative class.

Defendants move to dismiss or stay the action until the resolution
of Fast v. Food Management Partners, Inc. et al., case no.
15cv2626, pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. Defendants argue that the action
should be dismissed or stayed as duplicative of Fast based either
on the first-to-file rule of comity, or the court's inherent
authority to manage its docket in the interests of efficiency and
judicial economy.

A copy of Judge Lorenz's order dated May 2, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/MRMBb7from Leagle.com.

Jeri Farrar, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Jeffrey Robert Dingwall at Eight & Sand.

Defendants, represented by Jennifer L. Santa Maria --
jennifer.santamaria@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C.


CFS CONSTRUCTION: Faces N.Y. Suit for Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL CASTILLO, LUIS PEREZ JUAREZ, LUIS ARMANDO
GALEAS, MANUEL DE JESUS CARRASCO, ROBERTO MENDOZA, ROQUE
RODRIGUEZ, ERIN PACHECO, EDGAR MEJIA-ROSENDO, and VIRGILIO
DE JESUS RAMOS BUSTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CFS CONSTRUCTION SPECIALISTS,
INC., THOMAS SPNDONE and GEORGE F. KURZ, as individuals, CV 16
02283 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2016), was filed for alleged violations of
Federal and New York State labor laws.

CFS Construction Specialists Inc. is a small organization in the
single-family housing construction companies industry located in
South Ozone Park, NY.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Puja Sharma, Esq.
     HELEN F.'DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
     69-12 Austin Street
     Forest Hills, NY 11375
     Phone: 718-263-9591
     Fax: 718-263-9598


CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Class Action Deal Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement in a
class action lawsuit has been preliminarily approved by the court.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Little Big Burger, a class
action lawsuit was filed in Oregon by certain current and former
employees of Little Big Burger asserting that the former owners of
Little Big Burger failed to compensate employees for overtime
hours and also that an employee had been wrongfully terminated.
The plaintiffs and defendants agreed to enter into a settlement
agreement pursuant to which the former owners of Little Big Burger
will pay a gross settlement of up to $675,000, inclusive of
plaintiffs' attorney's fees of $225,000. This settlement was
preliminarily approved by the court on February 2, 2016. The
parties are proceeding with distributing the claim forms and
notices of settlement to the class members and ultimately will
disburse settlement payments to those who opt in.

In connection with our acquisition of Little Big Burger, the
sellers agreed that the 1,619,646 shares of the Company's common
stock certain of the sellers received from the Company and an
additional $200,000 in cash would be held in escrow until such
time as the litigation was fully resolved. The Company does not
expect to have to expend any funds related to the settlement as
certain of the Sellers have agreed to retain the obligations and
have set aside sufficient funds to cover the settlement. However,
as the Company assumed all liabilities of Little Big Burger in the
acquisition and would be required to fulfill the settlement if the
sellers were unable or otherwise failed to fully fund the
settlement, the Company has reflected the $675,000 settlement
amount in accrued liabilities, with an offsetting asset in other
current assets, in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as
of December 31, 2015.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Underway in Naylor Farms Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing and
information and documents continue to be exchanged in the case,
Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class representative on
behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy,
L.L.C.

The Company said, "On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was
filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma ("Naylor Farms Case") alleging that
we improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid
to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in
the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in
Oklahoma. The purported class includes non-governmental royalty
interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in
Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of
leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive
damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class."

"We have responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the
allegations and raised arguments and defenses. Discovery is
ongoing and information and documents continue to be exchanged.
The class has not been certified, but the motion for class
certification and responsive briefs were filed in the fourth
quarter of 2015, and we expect a hearing on class certification to
be held in the second quarter of 2016.

"We are not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss
or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Naylor Farms Case
will have on our financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matters, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter.

"Plaintiffs in the Naylor Farms Case have indicated, if the class
is certified, they seek damages in excess of $5 million which may
increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be
comprised of interest. We dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute that
the case meets the requirements for a class action and are
vigorously defending the case."

Founded in 1988, the Company is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Oklahoma City and a pure play Mid-Continent
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production
company.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in "Dodson" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class has not been
certified and discovery has not yet commenced in the case, Amanda
Dodson, individually and as class representative on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

The Company said, "On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson, filed a
complaint against us in the District Court of Mayes County,
Oklahoma, ("Dodson Case") with allegation similar to those
asserted in the Naylor Farms case related to post-production
deductions, and include clams for breach of contract, fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and
seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages,
interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the
alleged class.  The alleged class includes non-governmental
royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in
Oklahoma."

"We have responded to the Dodson petition, denied the allegations
and raised a number of affirmative defenses. At this time, a class
has not been certified and discovery has not yet commenced.

"We are not currently able to estimate a reasonable possible loss
or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Dodson Case will have
on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows
due to the preliminary status of the matters, the complexity and
number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and
uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of
the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the
scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, and the
ultimate potential outcome of the matter. We dispute plaintiffs'
claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class
action and are vigorously defending the case."

Founded in 1988, the Company is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Oklahoma City and a pure play Mid-Continent
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production
company.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in "Donelson" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery has commenced
and is ongoing in the case, Martha Donelson and John Friend, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

The Company said, "On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was
filed against us, as well as several other operators in Osage
County, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners and
surface lessees. The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery for
trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. Relief
sought includes declaring oil and natural gas leases and drilling
permits obtained in Osage County without a prior NEPA study void
ab initio, removing us from all properties owned by the class
members, disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitive
damages."

"We have joined in Motions to Dismiss filed by the defendants,
which is still pending.  In a case with similar claims, also
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, the court determined the Bureau of Indian
Affairs violated the National Environmental Protection act by not
conducting environmental assessments before granting leases and
permits on Osage tribal lands in Osage County, Oklahoma, and
therefore found both the lease and the two related drilling
permits void ab initio.

"At this time, discovery has commenced and is ongoing.  A class
has not been certified. As such, we are not yet able to estimate a
possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any.  We dispute
plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements
for a class action and are vigorously defending the case."

Founded in 1988, the Company is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Oklahoma City and a pure play Mid-Continent
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production
company.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: To Defend Against "West" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has filed
its response, denying allegations, in the case, Lisa West and
Stormy Hopson, individually and as class representatives on behalf
of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

On February 18, 2016, an alleged class action was filed against
us, as well as several other operators in the District Court of
Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma ("West Case"), alleging
claims on behalf of named plaintiffs and all similarly situated
persons having an insurable real property interest in Cleveland,
Lincoln, McClain, Okfuskee, Oklahoma, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie and
Seminole Counties, Oklahoma (the "Class Area").  The plaintiffs
allege the oil and gas operations conducted by us and the other
defendants have induced or triggered earthquakes in the Class
Area.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to require the defendants to
reimburse plaintiffs and class members for earthquake insurance
premiums from 2011 through a future date defined as the time at
which the court determines there is no longer a risk our
activities induce or trigger earthquakes, as well as attorney fees
and costs and other relief.  The plaintiffs have not asked for
damages related to actual property damage which may have occurred.

"We have responded to the petition, denied the allegations and
raised a number of affirmative defenses. At this time, a class has
not been certified and discovery has not yet commenced.  We are
not currently able to estimate a reasonable possible loss or range
of loss or what impact, if any, the West Case will have on our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to
the preliminary status of the matters, the complexity and number
of legal and factual issues presented, and uncertainties with
respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and
defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of
the properties and agreements involved, and the ultimate potential
outcome of the matter. We dispute the plaintiffs' claims, dispute
that the case meets the requirements for a class action and are
vigorously defending the case," the Company said.

Founded in 1988, the Company is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Oklahoma City and a pure play Mid-Continent
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production
company.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Dec. 1 Class Cert. Hearing in "DeCoteau" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Morrison C. England of the Eastern District of
California issued a scheduling order in the case DEBORAH DeCOTEAU,
individually, and on behalf of a class similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC (n/k/a FCA US LLC),
et al., Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-00020-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.)

The parties filed a joint status report before the court.

Judge England granted Defendants' request to bifurcate the
discovery process. All discovery in Phase I shall be limited to
facts that are relevant to whether the action should be certified
as a class action and shall be completed by July 22, 2016.  All
motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate
judge's calendar in accordance with the local rules of the court.

The hearing on the certification motion shall be on December 1,
2016, at 2:00 p.m. All papers should be filed in conformity with
the Local Rules. However, the parties shall comply with the
following filing deadlines:

Plaintiff's motion shall be filed not later than September 22,
2016. Defendants' response shall be filed not later than October
20, 2016. Plaintiff's reply shall be filed not later than November
17, 2016

The court placed a page limit for points and authorities. All
requests for page limit increases must be made in writing to the
court setting forth any and all reasons for any increase in page
limit at least seven days prior to the filing of the motion.

The scheduling order will become final without further order of
the court unless objections are filed within seven court days of
service of the order.

A copy of Judge England's scheduling order dated May 3, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/oazWuTfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Jordan Laurence Lurie --
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Cody Robert Padgett --
Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Kenneth Friedl --
Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek Hany Zohdy -- at
Capstone Law

FCA US, LLC, Defendant, represented by John W. Rogers --
jrogers@thompsoncoburn.com -- Kathy A. Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- at Thompson Coburn LLP; Mary A.
Stewart -- mstewart@donahuedavies.com -- Robert Edmund Davies --
rdavies@donahuedavies.com -- Gregory Alexander Nelson --
gnelson@donahuedavies.com -- at Donahue Davies, LLP


CIGNA HEALTH: Judge Stays "Weil" Suit Pending Settlement Talks
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the Central District of
California approved the parties' stipulation in the case ANNETTE
WEIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, May 3, 2016, Case No. 2:15-cv-07074-
MWF-JPR (C.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Annette Weil and defendants Cigna Health and Life
Insurance Co., Cigna Health Management, Inc., and Cigna Behavioral
Health, Inc. (Cigna) request the court, as to plaintiff's claims
against Cigna, to:

     -- stay the case for a period of 90 days to enable them
either to reach a resolution or notify the court that they are
unable to do so,

     -- extend all dates in the stipulated case schedule by 90
days, such that, most immediately, the deadline for class
certification discovery for plaintiff and Cigna would be July 28,
2016, and the deadline for plaintiff's motion for class
certification against Cigna would be August 25, 2016, and

     -- direct plaintiff and Cigna, on or before June 15, 2016, to
update the court on the status of settlement negotiations.

District Judge Fitzgerald approved the parties' stipulation and
ordered to stay case pending settlement discussions and to extend
time to complete class discovery if settlement is not achieved.

A copy of Judge Fitzgerald order dated May 3, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/Lh3pRHfrom Leagle.com.

Annette Weil, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Caridas --
acaridas@zuckerman.com -- Andrew N Goldfarb --
agoldfarb@zuckerman.com -- D Brian Hufford --
dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Jason S Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com
-- at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP; Meiram Bendat -- at Psych Appeal Inc.

Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Cigna Health Management,
Inc., Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Jeremy P Blumenfeld -- jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Molly
Moriarty Lane -- molly.lane@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP

MCMC, LLC, Defendant, represented by Melvin N A Avanzado --
info@avanzadolaw.com -- Elaine W Yu -- elaine.yu.law@gmail.com --
at The Avanzado Law Firm


CLIENT SERVICES: Rhonda Bower Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Bower moves the court to certify the class described in the
lawsuit styled RHONDA BOWER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 16-
cv-546 (E.D. Wisc.).  She further asks that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant her (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on the Plaintiff's Counsel.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp.,
662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index,
Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.

The Plaintiff contends that she is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.  As
the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described
in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with
unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one
paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice
until an amended motion is filed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0owrEuwq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Certification of "Labriola" Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class under the Fair
Labor Standards Act in the collective action styled Michelle
Labriola, Anna Lapina, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated v. CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, DBA
as THE PINK MONKEY and John Doe One and John Doe Two, Case No.
1:15-cv-04123 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to (i) allow the Plaintiffs'
claims to be tolled, (ii) order the Defendants to produce records
of those working more than 40 hours and working five or more days
in a week, during the relevant time period, (iii) order the
Defendants to produce the full names, aliases, addresses, phone
numbers, e-mail addresses and last date(s) of performance of all
potential Collective members, and the last known work and home
physical and e-mail addresses and phone numbers of the dancers,
who danced for Pink Monkey from May 17, 2012, to the present, no
later than two weeks after the date of the entry of the Order,
(iv) approve a notice, and (v) approve transmittal of the Notice
to members of the class via US Mail, e-mail, and text message.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JndxYRcR

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, ILL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com


COMCAST CORPORATION: Sued Over Racial Discrimination Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilbert Spencer, Jr., on behalf of himself, individually, and all
others similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable
Communications Management, LLC, and Comcast Cablevision
Communications, Inc., Case No. 160500509 (Phil. Comm. Pleas, May
4, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged racial
discriminatory practices.

The Defendants operate a mass media company headquartered in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin F. Robinette, Esq.
      POST & POST LLC
      200 Berwyn Park, Suite 102 920
      Cassatt Road Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 240-9180
      Facsimile: (610)240-9185
      E-mail: irobinette@postandpost.com


COOK MEDICAL: "Homes" Sues Over Filter Malfunction
--------------------------------------------------
Olenda Homes, individually and as a representative of all
similarly situated persons v. Cook Medical Incorporated a/k/a Cook
Medical, Inc., Cook Incorporated and William Cook Europe ApS, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00066-GNS (W.D. Ky., May 6, 2016) seeks compensatory
damages, together with interest, attorney fees, costs of suit and
any other relief including any punitive damages for misconduct,
breach of warranty and gross negligence pursuant to Kentucky
Common Law and the Kentucky Product Liability Act.

Cook is a manufacturer, distributor and marketer of medical
devices, including the Cook Celect Vena Cava Filter, a device
designed and manufactured to prevent pulmonary embolism, designed
to filter blood clots (thrombi) that travel from the lower
portions of the body to the heart and lungs. The Cook Filter is
designed to prevent deep vein thrombosis, from reaching the lungs,
where the pulmonary emboli can be fatal.

Plaintiff had a procedure performed in which a Cook Filter was
placed within her inferior vena cava. Plaintiff's Cook Filter had
tilted causing acute deep vein thrombosis in the left lower
extremity.

Plaintiffs represented by:

      Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
      Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
      Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
      BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
      601 Washington St.
      Paducah, KY 42002
      Phone: (270) 442-1422
      Fax: (270) 443-8788
      Email: mark.bryant@bryant.law
             emily.roark@bryant.law


COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Cir. Vacates Portion of Judgment in "Maple"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Harold Maple appeals the district court's dismissal,
without leave to amend, of his putative class-action complaint
alleging deceptive labeling in violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act resulting from his purchase of "VitaRain
Tropical Mango Vitamin Enhanced Water Beverage."

Defendants Costco Wholesale Corporation and Niagara Bottling LLC
cross-appeal, challenging the court's decision to dismiss "without
prejudice."

In a May 9 Memorandum available at https://is.gd/on1754 from
Leagle.com, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the matter with
instructions to re-enter the judgment "with prejudice."

According to the Ninth Circuit:

     1. The district court correctly held that the complaint
        failed to state a claim. See Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v.
        City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2007)
        (holding that we review de novo a dismissal for failure
        to state claim). As a matter of law, the name of the
        beverage is not "likely to mislead a reasonable
        consumer." Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 204 P.3d
        885, 894-95 (Wash. 2009).  The district court's decision
        in Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co., No. CV-09-0395, 2010 WL
        2925955 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2010) (unpublished), is not
        to the contrary.  In that case, the court found important
        that the beverage's name -- "vitaminwater" -- contained
        the full names of two of the ingredients and that the
        label included misleading statements such as
        "vitamins+water = what's in your hand."  Here, the term
        "Vita" could mean many things, rain could not be an
        actual ingredient, and the label contains no misleading
        statements.

        To the extent that Plaintiff's claim challenges the
        labeling of the type of "caffeine" or "tonic" as
        "natural" or "all natural" and the failure to describe
        the caffeine and other ingredients as "unnatural," the
        claim fails because Plaintiff has not alleged that he
        read those parts of the label. Accordingly, he cannot
        establish causation. See, e.g., Indoor
        Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash.,
        Inc., 170 P.3d 10, 22 (Wash. 2007) ("A plaintiff must
        establish that, but for the defendant's unfair or
        deceptive practice, the plaintiff would not have
        suffered an injury.").

     2. The district court correctly held that dismissal
        without leave to amend was proper. On appeal,
        Plaintiff argues that amendment could save the
        complaint because he could allege a subclass of
        plaintiffs who did read the relevant parts of the
        label. But because Plaintiff's own individual claim
        fails, dismissal without leave to amend was correct;
        the potential existence of other classes of which
        Plaintiff is not a member is irrelevant. Sanford v.
        MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 560-61 (9th Cir.
        2010); Boyle v. Madigan, 492 F.2d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir.
        1974) (citing O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494
        (1974)).

     3. The district court abused its discretion by dismissing
        the action without prejudice. See WPP Luxembourg Gamma
        Three Sarl v. Spot Runner, Inc., 655 F.3d 1039, 1048
        (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that we review for abuse of
        discretion "a district court's decision to dismiss
        without prejudice."). The court's only reason, that
        it "ha[d] not considered the merits of this case," is
        contrary to law. See, e.g., Federated Dep't Stores,
        Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981) (holding
        that a "dismissal for failure to state a claim under
        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a
        'judgment on the merits'"); accord Plaut v.
        Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228 (1995).

The case is, HAROLD MAPLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; NIAGARA BOTTLING
LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees.
HAROLD MAPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and NIAGARA BOTTLING
LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants. HAROLD
MAPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation, Defendants, and NIAGARA BOTTLING LLC, a
California limited liability company, Defendant-Appellant, Nos.
13-36089, 14-35038, 14-35059 (9th Cir.).


CYPRESS SECURITY: "Rita" Labor Suit Goes Back to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of
California remanded the case to the state court the case of
ALFREDO RITA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CYPRESS SECURITY, LLC, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY D/B/A CYPRESS PRIVATE
SECURITY, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00614-WHO (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Alfredo Rita and William Ku filed a putative class
action against Cypress Security, LLC, d/b/a Cypress Private
Security asserting violation of California Labor Code Section 200,
violation of California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 et seq., breach of contract, breach of implied good faith
and fair dealing, constructive fraud, intentional
misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation in San Francisco
Superior Court.

Cypress is a private security company which contracts with the
California Department of General Services (CDGS) to provide
security services in at least one of their buildings within San
Francisco, California.

Plaintiffs allege that Cypress violated California Government Code
Section 19134 by failing to provide benefits and/or cash-in-lieu
payments to their employees as required by California law. They
claim that the contract Cypress entered into with CDGS expressly
states that Cypress must comply with section 19134.

On February 5, 2016, Cypress removed the case to the present
district, claiming federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1441(a). The removal notice asserted that
because plaintiffs' claims arose out of their employment, which is
governed by a CBA, their complaint is preempted under section 301
of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).

Judge Orrick remanded the case to the state court as the district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Orrick's order dated May 4, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/yfDyXYfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Maurice Gimbel --
peter@peninsulacomp.com -- Nadeem Hashim Makada --
attysfnm@gmail.com -- at Law offices of Nadeem Makada

Cypress Security, LLC, a California limited liability company
d/b/a Cypress Private Security, Defendant, represented by Jaemin
Chang -- jchang@foxrothschild.com -- Alex Hernaez --
ahernaez@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox Rothschild LLP


DAVE & BUSTER'S: "Nunnally" FLSA Suit Removed to Cal. Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Dave & Busters, Inc. filed a Notice to Federal Court of
Removal of Civil Action 30-2014-00696637-CU-WT-CXC, from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division.  The state suit is CHERISH
NUNNALLY, individually as an aggrieved employee and private
attorney general, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DAVE & BUSTE'S, INC., a Missouri corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case 8:16-cv-00855-DOC-
KES (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2016).  It was filed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Dave & Buster's (D&B) is an American restaurant and entertainment
business.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Alaya B. Meyers, Esq.
     Maria R. Harrington, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     2050 Main Street, Suite 900
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Phone: 949.705.3000
     Fax: 949.724.1201
     E-mail: ameyers@littler.com
             mharrington@littler.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Reviewing Newly-Filed Pleadings in SDNY Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2011-4 said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 30, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas is reviewing newly-filed
pleadings in the SDNY Action.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA"), as the indenture
trustee, has been named as a defendant in civil litigation
concerning its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. On June 18, 2014, a group of
investors ("Plaintiff Investors") filed a civil action against
DBTCA and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") in New
York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the
benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for
alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBTCA's
and DBNTC's alleged failure to perform their obligations as
trustees for the trusts (the "NY Derivative Action"). An amended
complaint was filed on July 16, 2014, adding Plaintiff Investors
and RMBS trusts to the NY Derivative Action.  On November 24,
2014, the Plaintiff Investors moved to voluntarily dismiss the NY
Derivative Action without prejudice.

Also on November 24, 2014, substantially the same group of
Plaintiff Investors filed a civil action against DBTCA and DBNTC
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "SDNY Action"), making substantially the same
allegations as the New York Derivative Action with respect to 564
RMBS trusts (542 of which were at issue in the NY Derivative
Action).

The SDNY Action is styled both as a derivative action on behalf of
the named RMBS Trusts and, in the alternative, as a putative class
action on behalf of holders of RMBS representing interests in
those RMBS trusts. DBTCA is reviewing these newly-filed pleadings.
DBTCA has no pending legal proceedings (including, based on
DBTCA's preliminary evaluation, the litigation disclosed in this
paragraph) that would materially affect its ability to perform its
duties as Trustee on behalf of the Certificate-holders.


DR. ALTON J. HALL: Faces "Mason" Lawsuit for FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Renee Mason and all similarly situated persons v. Dr. Alton J.
Hall, d/b/a Animal Medical Center, d/b/a Vaccine Wholesale, d/b/a
Natchez Animal Supply Center, d/b/a National Animal Identification
Center; Low Cost Vaccinations LLC; and John Does 1-15, Case 5:16-
cv-00036-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss., May 6, 2016), was filed pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dr. Alton J. Hall is a veterinarian.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel Dillard, Esq.
     JOEL F. DILLARD, PA
     405 Tombigbee St.
     Jackson, MS 39201
     Phone: 601-487-7369
     Fax: 601-487-1110
     E-mail: joel@joeldillard.com


DUKE ENERGY: Faces Newton and Allison Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Florida, LLC said in its Amendment No. 2 to Form SF-1
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
31, 2016, that on February 26, 2016, DEF was served with a class
action lawsuit, William B. Newton and Noreen Allison v. Duke
Energy Florida, LLC and Florida Power and Light Company, Case No.
16-CV-60341. The plaintiffs allege that the nuclear cost recovery
statute is unconstitutional on various grounds. The nuclear cost
recovery statute is Section 366.93, F.S. The putative plaintiffs
seek a refund of costs paid by DEF customers pursuant to the
nuclear cost recovery statute. We cannot predict the outcome of
this suit. The Financing Act is not the subject of this
litigation.


EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eiger Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiff
in a class action lawsuit has filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

In July 2015, following Celladon's announcements of the negative
CUPID 2 data and the suspension of further research and
development activities and the subsequent declines of the price of
Celladon's common stock, three putative securities class action
complaints (captioned Fialkov v. Celladon Corporation, Case No.
15-cv-1458-AJB-DHB, Lorusso v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-
cv-1501-L-JLB and Jacobs v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-
1529-AJB-MDD ) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California against Celladon and certain of
Celladon's current and former officers.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the clinical trial
program for MYDICAR, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Celladon's common stock. The complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees.

On September 1, 2015, six stockholders (or groups of stockholders)
filed motions to consolidate the three putative securities class
actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs (the "Motions to
Consolidate"). A hearing on the Motions to Consolidate was held on
December 3, 2015.

On December 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the three putative
securities class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff to
represent the putative class. On February 29, 2016, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The Company said, "It is possible that additional suits will be
filed, or allegations made by stockholders, with respect to these
same or other matters and also naming us and/or Celladon's former
officers and directors as defendants. We believe that we have
meritorious defenses and intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, we are
not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or
possible losses relating to these claims."

On March 22, 2016, Celladon Corporation ("Celladon") and
privately-held Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Private Eiger")
completed a business combination in accordance with the terms of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger
Agreement"), dated as of November 18, 2015, by and among Celladon,
Celladon Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Celladon
("Merger Sub") and Private Eiger, pursuant to which Merger Sub
merged with and into Private Eiger, with Private Eiger surviving
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Celladon. This transaction is
referred to as "the merger" or "the Merger." Immediately following
the Merger, Celladon changed its name to "Eiger
BioPharmaceuticals, Inc." In connection with the closing of the
Merger, our common stock began trading on The NASDAQ Global Market
under the ticker symbol "EIGR" on March 23, 2016.


ELBIT IMAGING: Updates on 1999 Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016,
that the next hearing in the 1999 class action was postponed to
April 12, 2016.

In November 1999, a number of institutional and other investors
(the "Plaintiffs"), holding shares in Elscint Ltd.( a subsidiary
of the Company which was merged into the Company ("Elscint")
instituted a claim against the Company, Elscint, the Company's
former controlling shareholders, past officers in the said
companies and others. Together with the claim a motion was filed
to certify the claim as a class action on behalf of everyone who
was a shareholder in Elscint on September 6, 1999 and until the
submission of the claim, excluding the Company and certain other
shareholders.

The plaintiffs argued that a continued and systematic oppression
of the minority shareholders of Elscint took place, causing the
minority monetary damage. According to the plaintiffs, said
oppression started with the oppressive agreements made by Elscint
for the realization of its main assets, continued with the sale of
the control in the Company by Elron Ltd (and therefore indirectly
also in Elscint) to companies held by former controlling
shareholders("Harmful Sale"),continued further with the breach of
a tender offer made by Company to purchase the minority shares in
Elscint("Breach of Tender Offer") and ended with an agreement
between Elscint and companies held by the former controlling
shareholder for the acquisition by Elscint of the hotels portfolio
and the Arena commercial center in Israel in exchange to excessive
payment from Elscint. ("Hotels and Marina Transactions"). It
should be mentioned that the Harmful Sale allegation is directed
first and foremost against Elron which was the controlling
shareholder of the Company at that time.

Due to these acts the Plaintiffs allege that the value of
Elscint's shares dropped during the period between February 24,
1999 and the date at which the claim was instituted from $13.25
per share to $7.25. The main relief sought in the original claim
was an order for the Company to consummate the purchase offer for
$14 per share, and alternatively, to purchase Elscint's shares
held by the Plaintiffs at a price to be set by the court. Further
alternatively, the plaintiffs asked the court to grant injunction
prohibiting the execution of Hotels and Marina Transactions and
for the restitution of all money paid in connection with the
transactions.

In January 2009, the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the claim as a class action, which was appealed
by them to the Israeli Supreme Court in March 2009. In May 2012,
the Israeli Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff's motion to certify
the claim as a class action with regard to the Hotels and Marina
Transactions. In addition, the Supreme Court has upheld the
Harmful Sale allegation that related to Elron and rejected certain
other claims that were included in the original proceedings.

The Supreme Court noted that even though the claim was based on
`countless` allegations and on `dozens` of legal grounds, the
claim was certified as a class action based on only two causes of
action: oppression of minority on the one hand and breach of
fiduciary duties and recklessness on the other hand.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court with
instructions.

In March 2014 the plaintiffs filed an amended statement of claim
in which they argued for oppression of the minority of Elscint,
mainly by: (a) refraining from distributing dividends; (b)
directing Elscint's profits to its control-holders in unfair
transactions; (c) executing the Harmful Sale transaction; (d)
executing the Hotels and Marina Transactions.; (e) refraining from
executing a tender offer for the minority shares in Elscint.

On May 8, 2013, the Company filed the District Court a motion to
order that parts of the amended statement of claim be struck out
as they do not correspond with the Supreme Court's decision dated
May 28, 2012. More specifically, the Company argued that the
plaintiffs' allegation with regard to the alleged tender offer and
with regard to the alleged failure to distribute dividends can no
longer be trialed in this case. The Company consequently asked the
District Court to decide that the Company will remain a defendant
in this case only under its capacity as assignee of all rights and
obligations of Elscint (as Elscint had merged into the Company and
ceased to exist as a legal entity).

The District Court dismissed this motion on June 30, 2013,
stating, mainly, that the legal ground of "oppression of minority"
could possibly contain claims regarding the alleged tender offer
and the alleged failure to distribute dividends.

Following a motion filed by Directors of Elscint, the district
court ordered the Company to state whether it would acknowledge
that it made an obligation to its directors (and an obligation
that Elscint made to its directors) to indemnify the directors.
The Company informed the court that it acknowledged such
previously made indemnification obligations which are subject to
some reservations.

The court accepted a motion filed by Elscint's directors, and
decided to designate the next court session (scheduled to October
19, 2015) for hearing of evidence and summaries only regarding the
defendants claim that the Company's debt restructuring agreement
had exempted the Company and most of the defendants (other than
Elron and its directors) from any alleged liability. This
exemption from liability claim was dismissed on October 20, 2015.

The court ordered the defendants to file their evidence in chief
until February 14, 2016, and a pre-trial was set to February 21,
2016, in order to decide how to hear the evidence. Following a
notice filed by the Company regarding the meaningful progress in
reaching a settlement agreement, on February 11, 2016, the court
ordered that the pre-trial that was set to February 21, 2016 will
be dedicated to matters involving the proposed settlement, and to
setting a new timeline to file the defendants' evidence in chief.
The next hearing postponed to April 12, 2016.

Taking into account the significant change in the course of this
proceeding after the Supreme Court's ruling (namely, the final
dismissal of some parts of the motion to certify the claim as a
class action, and the certification of other parts of the claim as
a class action), the fact that the certified causes of actions and
their scope with regard to each of the defendants are not yet
fully clear, and the impracticability of assessing the monetary
exposure in this case and the limited legal precedent with regard
to certified class actions which were trialed on their merits, the
Company, based on the legal advice received, cannot at this stage,
estimate the prospects of this litigation.

The parties continue to negotiate towards a possible partial
settlement agreement in this matter.


ELH MGMT: Faces "Lebron" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
ELIGIO LEBRON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ELH MGMT LLC, 517 521 ST. MARKS L.P., Case
1:16-cv-02294 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2016), was filed pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime provisions, the New York Labor
Law's wage statement provisions, N.Y. Lab. Law, and the NYLL's pay
notice provisions.

ELH Mgmt. LLC is a Property Manager.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glendoval J. Stephens, Esq.
     CASTILLO STEPHENS LLP
     305 Broadway, Suite 1200
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: 212-385-1400
     Fax: 212-385-1401
     E-mail: cslawyers@attorney1.com


ESHAI CORP: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Barnes" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Okemia Barnes and Shyla Fernandes, on behalf of themselves, and
all others similarly situated v. EShai Corp., Eshai Logistics,
LLC, Courier Distribution Systems, LLC, and Does 1 through SO,
inclusive, Case No. BC619306 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 4, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages for
all hours worked, provide all rest breaks and provide all meal
periods required by California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a trucking company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Spivak, Esq.
      THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
      9454 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 303
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 499-4730
      Facsimile: (310) 499-4739
      E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melbourne Municipal Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Express Scripts Holding Company, George Paz, Timothy Wentworth,
Eric Slusser, David Queller, and James M. Havel, Case No. 1:16-cv-
03338 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Express Scripts Holding Company is the largest independent
pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM') in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
              avi@blbglaw.com


FELDER SERVICES: Faces "Gushiniere" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Gushiniere, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Felder Services, LLC, and Kevin Muscat, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00192 (S.D. Ala., May 4 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a janitorial services company located at
3400 Beltline Park Drive North, Mobile, AL, 36617.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ian David Rosenthal, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL PARKS LLP
      P. O. Box 1924
      Mobile, AL 36633
      Telephone: (251) 338-0949
      Facsimile: (251) 206-6760
      E-mail: idr@rosenthalparks.com


FIRST STUDENT: Faces Suit Seeking Back Wages Under Federal Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAMEKA BANKS, et al., v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT LLC and FIRST
STUDENT, INC., Case 2:16-cv-04316-KDE-DEK, (E.D. La., May 6,
2016), was filed seeking to require defendants to pay back wages
allegedly owed to Plaintiffs and the proposed plaintiff classes,
which Defendants failed to pay pursuant to state and Federal law.

First Student Management LLC is a bus route operator.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lindsey Cheek, Esq.
     THE CHEEK LAW FIRM
     639 Loyola Avenue, Suite 1810
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Phone: (504) 304-4333
     Fax: 504-324-0629
     E-mail: LCheek@TheCheekLawFirm.com

        - and -

     Patrick T. Cronin, Esq.
     CRONIN AND BERKOWITZ
     10000 Lincoln Drive, Suite 202
     Marlton, NJ 08054
     Phone: (856) 857-1776
     E-mail: ptc@croninandberkowitz.com

        - and -

     Steven A. Berkowitz, Esq.
     CRONIN AND BERKOWITZ
     10000 Lincoln Drive, Suite 202
     Marlton, NJ 08054
     Phone: (856) 350-6200
     E-mail: sberkowitz@berkpc.com


FOGO DE CHAO: Anticipates Negotiations with Union
-------------------------------------------------
Fogo De Chao, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that the restaurant is
currently engaged in the delivery of documents and information to,
and anticipates negotiations with, the union.

The Company said, "The Union of Workers in Hotels, Apart-Hotels,
Motels, Flats, Restaurants, Bars, Snack Bars and Similar in Sao
Paulo and the Region brought claims in 2011 on behalf of certain
employees of one of our Sao Paulo restaurants asserting that the
restaurant charged mandatory tips and did not properly calculate
compensation payable to or for the benefit of those employees. The
claims were initially dismissed in 2011 but the union pursued
various appeals of its claims. A regional labor court rendered a
decision in 2014 that partially granted one of the union appeals
and ordered the restaurant to make unquantified payments based on
its determination that the restaurant charged mandatory tips. At
that time, the restaurant recorded a reserve of R$100,000
(Brazilian Real), the amount established by the judge for the
calculation of court fees."

"The restaurant appealed to the superior labor court, which did
not grant the appeal. The decision of the regional labor court
became final in November 2015 and the claims were remitted to the
first labor court to proceed with the next phase of the matter.

"The restaurant is currently engaged in the delivery of documents
and information to, and anticipates negotiations with, the union.
At this time, the restaurant does not know how many employees
could be affected or the relevant time period for, or the
appropriate method of, calculating any amounts that may be
payable. In light of the forgoing and the inherent uncertainties
involved in Brazilian labor matters, we are currently unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or a range of possible
losses that may result from the union's claims; however, an
adverse outcome could materially and adversely affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows
in any particular reporting period."


FRITO-LAY INC: Jane Roe Seeks Certification of Applicants' Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JANE ROE, individually, and as
a representatives of the class v. FRITO-LAY, INC.; and DOES 1-10
inclusive, Case No. 3:14-CV-00751-HSG (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court
to enter an order certifying this proposed Class:

     Pre-Adverse Action Notice Class -- All individuals residing
     in the United States who were the subject of a consumer
     report obtained by Frito-Lay, Inc. for employment purposes
     and who were terminated or not hired within 60 days for the
     position for which the report was procured between
     December 20, 2011 to February 28, 2014 and for whom a
     disposition of "Background Check Review-Fail" or "Criminal
     Background Fail" was associated with the applicant in
     Frito-Lay, Inc.'s applicant tracking system and/or has an
     "Explanation Letter" in her file.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint these law firms as
counsel to represent the Class:

          Devin H. Fok, Esq.
          DHF LAW, P.C.
          234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (888) 651-6411
          Facsimile: (818) 484-2023
          E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua E. Kim, Esq.
          A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT
          9512 S. Central Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90002
          Telephone: (323) 563-3575
          Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
          E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org

               - and -

          John A. Girardi, Esq.
          V. Andre Sherman, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: jgirardi@girardikeese.com
                  asherman@girardikeese.com

The Court will commence a hearing on June 9, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mYTHLavl


FTS INT'L: "Lloyd" Suit Alleges Failure to Properly Pay Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN LLOYD on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. FTS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, LLC and J-W
WIRELINE COMPANY, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00109-DLH (D.N.D., May
6, 2016), alleges that Defendants allowed employees to work in
excess of forty hours per week at their facilities but refused to
compensate them properly for such hours in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, which requires employers to compensate non-
exempt employees for their overtime work.

FTS International Services, LLC, together with its subsidiaries,
provides oil and natural gas well stimulation services to the oil
and gas industry in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tim Newsom, Esq.
     Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
     Collin Wynne, Esq.
     YOUNG & NEWSOM, P.C.
     1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
     Amarillo, TX 79101
     Phone: (806) 331.1800
     Fax: (806) 398.9095
     E-mail: tim@youngfirm.com
             jyoung@youngfirm.com
             collin@youngfirm.com


GATE GOURMET: "Little" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Alfonso Little, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. 37-
02016-00010636-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01084-L-MDD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Gate Gourmet, Inc. is a provider of airline catering and
provisioning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William D. Turley, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Dennis M. Childs, Esq.
      COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH
      4401 Eastgate Mall
      San Diego, CA 92121-9109
      Telephone: (858) 550-6000
      Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
      E-mail: dchilds@cooley.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Bryde" Class Suit in N. Dist. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against General Motors,
LLC.

The case is captioned Plaintiff Philip Bryde, Jennifer Waters, and
Alvin Northington, individually and on behalf of all others
Similarly Situated v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-02421-
KAW (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2016).

General Motors, LLC designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial
services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: mgreenstone@glancylaw.com


GERARDO GOVEA: Faces "Pinto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Pinto v. Gerardo Govea and d/b/a Taqueria Govea, Case No.
4:16-cv-01236 (S.D. Tex., May 4, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gerardo Govea is an individual that engaged in selling Mexican
Food off a roadside truck.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarfraz Aftab Sharif, Esq.
      SHARIF ASSOC PC
      6161 Savoy, Ste 1000
      Houston, TX 77036
      Telephone: (713) 789-7500
      Facsimile: (713) 774-2423
      E-mail: sharifassociatespc@gmail.com


GLOBAL CONTRACT: N.Y. Judge Narrows "Motta" Suit
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted in part and denied in
part defendant's motion to dismiss in the case ESTHER MOTTA, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL CONTRACT SERVICES INC., et al.,
Defendants. JOY JOSEPH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL CONTRACT
SERVICES INC., et al., Defendants, Nos. 15 Civ. 8555 (LGS), 15
Civ. 8892 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.)

Esther Motta and Joy Joseph are current and former telephone call
center representatives of Global Contract Services Inc. (GCS), who
filed two lawsuits against GCS, GCS Supervisor Sean Worme, the New
York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MT") for defendants' alleged employment
discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation.

The Motta complaint asserts claims against GCS for unlawful
discrimination based on an employee's race, sex or national origin
under section 296(1)(a) of the New York State Human Rights Law,
N.Y. Exec. Law Section 290 et seq. (NYSHRL), and section 8-107(a)
of the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code Section
8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL"). The complaint also asserts a breach of
contract claim against GCS, which plaintiffs claim they are able
to bring as third-party beneficiaries of the contract between GCS
and the NYCTA/MTA. Both actions purport to proceed on behalf of a
class of all similarly situated persons employed by defendant GCS.
The Joseph complaint asserts claims against GCS for sexual
harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation under the
NYSHRL and the NYCHRL.

By opinion and order dated April 21, 2016, the motion to dismiss
filed by the NYCTA and the MTA was granted, dismissing all claims
against NYCTA and the MTA.

On January 22, 2016, GCS filed a motion to dismiss each of the
asserted claims against it in the Motta action but not the Joseph
action, and the class claims in both Motta and Joseph.

Judge Schofield granted the motion to dismiss as to the claims in
the Motta action and denied as to the claims in Joseph action.
A copy of Judge Schofield opinion and order dated May 4, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/6uBrhZfrom Leagle.com.


GOLDEN ORCHID: Faces "Hu" Class Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against olden Orchid,
LTD. d/b/a Kimlan Foods U.S.A.

The case is captioned Miao Xin Hu and John Does 1-100, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Golden Orchid, Ltd.
d/b/a Kimlan Foods U.S.A. and Kimlan Foods Co., LTD., Case No.
1:16-cv-02234 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2016).

The Defendants operates a Taiwanese food products company
headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

Miao Xin Hu and John Does 1-100 are pro se plaintiffs.


GREATBATCH INC: "Israel" Sues over Incentive Plan
-------------------------------------------------
Matthew Israel, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated stockholders of Greatbatch, Inc. Plaintiff, v. Pamela G.
Bailey, Joseph W. Dziedzic, Jean Hobby, Thomas Hook, M. Craig
Maxwell, Felippo Passerini, Bill R. Sanford, Peter H. Soderberg,
William B. Summers, Jr. and Greatbatch, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-00334-UNA (D. Del., May 6, 2016), seeks enjoinment,
reasonable attorney's, expert fees and such other and further
relief for violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and in breach of fiduciary duties.

Greatbatch, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, maintains its principal offices at 2595
Dallas Parkway, Suite 310, in Frisco, Texas. Greatbatch
manufactures and develops medical device technologies primarily
for large original equipment manufacturers. Pamela G. Bailey,
Joseph W. Dziedzic, Jean Hobby, Thomas Hook, M. Craig Maxwell,
Felippo Passerini, Bill R. Sanford, Peter H. Soderberg and William
B. Summers, Jr. are members of its board of directors.

Plaintiff purchased Greatbatch common stock.

The Greatbatch 2016 Stock Incentive Plan is an incentive
compensation to employees, non-employee directors, consultants and
service providers. Plaintiff alleges that the Plan contains
materially false and misleading statements that will prevent its
stockholders from making an informed decision about whether to
approve it or not.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq.
      Megan C. Haney, Esq.
      PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN, MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A.
      1200 North Broom Street
      Wilmington, DE 19806
      Tel: (302) 655-4200
      Email: jcp@pgmhlaw.com
             mch@pgmhlaw.com

             - and -

      Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
      Douglas E. Julie, Esq.
      Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
      PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP
      65 Broadway, Suite 828
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: 212-725-1000


GREATER HARLEM: "Kamara" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Kamara, Cecile Bell, Jamila Kamara, Dorothy Ojielo,
Barbara Strayhorn and Gail Torrence, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Greater Harlem
Nursing Home And Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Harlem Center for
Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC and the Allure Group, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03400 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and
statutory penalties for violations of the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act, New York State Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Greater Harlem Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. and
Harlem Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC are nursing
homes located at 30 West 138th Street, New York, New York 10037.
Both are owned by The Allure Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs worked as nurses for the Defendants and claim to have
been denied overtime compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven M. Warshawsky, Esq.
     THE WARSHAWSKY LAW FIRM
     Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 601-1980
     Email: smw@warshawskylawfirm.com


GRUBHUB INC: Must File Motion to Deny Class Cert. By June 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW TAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GRUBHUB, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the parties
appeared in court for a Case Management Conference on May 5, 2016.
At the conference, the parties discussed Defendants' intent to
file a motion to deny class certification on the grounds that,
unlike Plaintiff Raef Lawson ("Lawson"), most of the other drivers
are bound by arbitration agreements and therefore cannot be
members of a class represented by Lawson. Defendants also intend
to file a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

For the reasons discussed at the conference, Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley directed the Defendants to file a motion
to deny class certification by June 2, 2016. Plaintiffs'
opposition is due by June 23, 2016, and Defendants' reply, if any,
is due by June 30, 2016. The Court will hear oral argument on the
motion on July 13, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. To the extent possible,
Defendants should notice their motion to dismiss for the same
date.

A copy of the Court's May 6 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qlLj7y from Leagle.com.

Andrew Tan, in his capacity as Private Attorney General
Representative; individually and on behalf of all other simiarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David
Carlson -- mthomson@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.,
Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C. & Thomas Fowler -- tfowler@llrlaw.com  -- Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Raef Lawson, in his capacity as Private Attorney General
Representative; individually and on behalf of all other simiarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David
Carlson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Thomas Fowler

Grubhub, Inc., and Grubhub Holdings Inc, Defendants, represented
by Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada
-- dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher,
Justin Tyler Goodwin -- jgoodwin@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher & Theane Evangelis Kapur -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


HCSB FINANCIAL: Appeal to Be Heard in 2nd Quarter 2016
------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal in a class
action lawsuit is expected to be heard in the second quarter of
2016 by the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons,
filed a lawsuit against the Company and the Bank in the Court of
Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South
Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2012-CP-26-5546. The complaint
alleges that the plaintiff and other similarly situated persons
were contacted by employees of the Bank, that those employees
solicited a sale of Bank stock, and that the Bank employees did
not disclose material information about the Bank's financial
condition prior to their respective purchases of stock. The
complaint seeks the certification of a class action to include all
purchasers of Bank stock solicited between July 1, 2009 and
December 31, 2011. The plaintiff has asserted violations of the
South Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil
conspiracy, and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company and the Bank made a motion for summary judgment in
March 2014, which the court granted on April 8, 2014. Robert
Shelley subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which was
denied. Mr. Shelly subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the
South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Both parties have completed their briefing and it is expected this
matter will be heard in the second quarter of 2016 by the South
Carolina Court of Appeals. The ultimate outcome is unknown at this
time and a reasonably possible loss cannot be estimated.


HCSB FINANCIAL: Court of Common Pleas Approved Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court of Common
Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of South
Carolina, County of Horry, has entered a final order of approval
approving a class action settlement agreement.

On July 31, 2010, the Company completed a private placement of
subordinated promissory notes that totaled $12.1 million. The
notes currently bear interest at a rate equal to the current Prime
Rate in effect, as published by the Wall Street Journal, plus 3%;
provided, that the rate of interest shall not be less than 8% per
annum or more than 12% per annum. The Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmond has prohibited the Company from paying interest due on
the subordinated notes since October 2011 and, as a result, the
Company has deferred interest payments in the amount of
approximately $4.9 million as of December 31, 2015.

Effective as of September 16, 2015, the Company, the Bank, James
R. Clarkson, Glenn Raymond Bullard, Ron Lee Paige, Sr., and Edward
Lewis Loehr, Jr., the President and Chief Executive Officer,
Senior Executive Vice President, Executive Vice President, and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company and the Bank, respectively,
entered into a class action settlement agreement in potential
settlement of a putative class action lawsuit initiated by Jan W.
Snyder, Acey H. Livingston, and Mark Josephs, on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of a class of similarly situated
purchasers of the Company's subordinated debt notes.  The class
action lawsuit is seeking an unspecified amount of damages
resulting from alleged wrongful conduct associated with purchases
of the Company's subordinated debt notes.

On March 2, 2016, the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth
Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of Horry
entered a final order of approval approving the class action
settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company will establish
a settlement fund of approximately $2.4 million, which represents
20% of the principal of subordinated debt notes issued by the
Company, and class members will be entitled to receive 20% of
their notes, which will be paid from the settlement fund, in
exchange for a full and complete release of all claims that were
asserted or could have been asserted in the class action lawsuit.

In addition, the Company has separately executed binding
settlement agreements with all holders of subordinated promissory
notes who opted out of the class action settlement and agreed to
settle all other litigation relating to the subordinated
promissory notes. Like the class action settlement, these
settlements will be completed immediately upon the closing of the
private placement transaction and will be in full satisfaction of
the principal and interest owed on, and require the immediate
dismissal of all pending litigation related to, the respective
subordinated promissory notes. In each case, the Company and the
Bank also obtained a full and complete release of all claims
asserted or that could have been asserted with respect to the
subordinated promissory notes.


HESPERIA, CA: Faces Victor Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Valley Family Resource Center, Sharon Green, Harold Batts,
David Deen, Chris Dowdy, Renee Gullett, Nicholas Holt Francis,
Daniel Avila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated V. City of Hesperia, McMahon John, Ernesto MontesAND Does
1 through 25, inclusive, in their official and individual
capacities, Case No. 5:16-cv-00903 (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights
Act.

City of Hesperia is a city in San Bernardino County, California.

Victor Valley Family Resource Center, Sharon Green, Harold Batts,
David Deen, Chris Dowdy, Renee Gullett, Nicholas Holt Francis,
Daniel Avila are pro se plaintiffs.


HOOPER HOLMES: Judge Suspends Ruling, Lets Parties Pursue Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Magistrate judge has
suspended ruling in a class action lawsuit while the parties
pursue the possibility of a settlement.

On May 24, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to pay
overtime compensation to a purported class of certain independent
contractor examiners who, the complaint alleges, should be treated
as employees for purposes of federal law. The complaint seeks
award of an unspecified amount of allegedly unpaid overtime wages
to certain examiners.

The Company filed an answer denying the substantive allegations
therein. On August 1, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation to conditionally certify the class of all
contract examiners from August 16, 2010, to the present.

On August 29, 2014, the Company submitted its objections to the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate
has suspended ruling concerning those objections while the parties
pursue the possibility of a settlement.

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


ICONIX BRAND: 3 Securities Class Actions Pending
------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that three securities class
actions, respectively captioned Lazaro v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc.
et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04981-PGG,  Niksich v. Iconix Brand
Group, Inc. et al. , Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860-PGG and  Haverhill
Retirement System v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al  Docket No.
1:15 - cv 06658, are pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and
certain former officers and one current officer (each, a "Class
Action" and, together, the "Class Actions").

The plaintiffs in the Class Actions purport to represent a class
of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 20, 2013
to August 7, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and
individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the
Company's business operations and prospects. The Company and the
individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the
claims.  At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the
ultimate outcome of this legal matter.

Iconix Brand Group is a brand management company and owner of a
diversified portfolio of over 35 global consumer brands across
women's, men's, entertainment and home industry segments.


IDENTIV, INC: "Ruggiero" Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Identiv, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Ruggiero" class
action lawsuit has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On December 7, 2015, we and certain of our
present and former officers and directors were named as defendants
in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Ruggiero v. Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05583.  The
complaint in that lawsuit alleged violations of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations
that we made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose information in certain public filings and disclosures
between 2013 and 2015.  The complaint sought unspecified monetary
damages, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and equitable and
injunctive relief.  On December 16, 2015, that lawsuit was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice."

Identiv is a global security technology company that secures data,
physical places and things.


IDENTIV, INC: To Defend Against Shareholder Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------
Identiv, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company said it
intends to vigorously defend against a number of shareholder
lawsuits.

Between December 2015 and February 2016, a number of other
shareholder lawsuits were filed.

The Company said, "On December 16, 2015, we and certain of our
present and former officers and directors were named as defendants
in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Rok v. Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
of 1934."

In addition, three shareholder derivative actions were filed
between January and February 2016.

The Company said, "On January 1, 2016, certain of our present and
former officers and directors were named as defendants, and we
were named as nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, entitled Oswald v. Humphreys, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-00241-JCS, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and abuse
of control claims."

"On January 25, 2016, certain of our present and former officers
and directors were named as defendants, and we were named as
nominal defendant, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda,
entitled Chopra v. Hart, et al., Case No. RG16801379, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty claims.  On February 9, 2016, certain of
our present and former officers and directors were named as
defendants, and the Company was named as nominal defendant, in a
shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, entitled Wollnik v.
Wenzel, et al., Case No. HG16803342, alleging breach of fiduciary
duty, corporate waste, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment
claims.  These lawsuits generally allege that we made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information in
certain public filings and disclosures between 2013 and 2015.
Each of the lawsuits seeks one or more of the following remedies:
unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified exemplary or
punitive damages, restitution, declaratory relief, equitable and
injunctive relief, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

"We intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.  We cannot
currently predict the impact or resolution of each of these
lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss, which
could be material, and the resolution of these lawsuits may harm
our business and have a material adverse impact on our financial
condition."

Identiv is a global security technology company that secures data,
physical places and things.


ILLINOIS: Class of Medicaid-Enrolled Children Certified
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joan H. Lefkow entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
M.A. by and through his parents MIGUEL AVILA, SR. and HERMINA
AVILA, F.L. by and through his mother, JACQUETTA PEARSON, Y.R. by
and through her mother CAROLINA BARRANCO, H.S. by and through his
parents RICARDO SORIA and GEORGINA RIVERA, L.T., by and through
his parents MARY KATE TROST and TERRY TROST, individually and on
behalf of a class v. FELICIA F. NORWOOD, in her official capacity
as Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family
Services, Case No. 15 C 3116 (N.D. Ill.), granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The class is defined as:

     All Medicaid-enrolled children under the age of 21 in the
     State of Illinois, including children who are enrolled in a
     Medicaid waiver program, who received in-home shift nursing
     services or applied for in-home shift nursing services and
     received notices from the Illinois Department of Healthcare
     and Family Services that their requests for in-home shift
     nursing services had been denied, or reduced, or approved at
     a lower level than requested, or terminated by the Illinois
     Department of Healthcare and Family Services on or after
     January 1, 2014.

The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is granted, and
the Court decreed that pending further Court order, the Defendant
shall restore any in-home skilled nursing services to the
Plaintiffs and class members that were denied, reduced, lowered,
or terminated on or after January 1, 2014, and pending further
order, the Defendant shall not reduce, lower, or terminate any in-
home skilled nursing services to plaintiffs and class members
without demonstrating to this court, on notice and motion, that it
has complied with due process of law.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pvP2iHop


ISUSHI CAFE: Faces "Fung" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Fung, and other similarly situated individuals v. Isushi
Cafe II Inc., I Sushi Cafe Inc. and Saad Mahmoud, Case No. 1:16-
cv-21585-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503.5131
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


J. CREW GROUP: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Thurston" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied a motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled
Cheryl Thurston v. J. Crew Group, Inc., et al., Case No. ED CV15-
01331 JAK (MRWx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff brought the putative class action against J. Crew
Group, Inc., for violation of (i) the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990; (ii) the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (iii) the California
Disabled Persons Act; and (iv) California Financial Code.  The
claims presented are based on allegations that the Defendant
failed to provide accessible point-of-sale devices at its retail
locations to customers, who are visually impaired and who wanted
to make purchases using a debit card.

The Motion seeks to certify this nationwide class for the purpose
of seeking injunctive relief under the ADA:

     All visually-impaired individuals who have conducted or
     attempted to conduct any debit card transaction requiring a
     personal identification number or "PIN" at a Point of Sale
     machine at any J. Crew retail store in the United States
     during the two years preceding the filing of this Complaint
     through the date of final judgment in this action.

The Motion also seeks to certify this class of California
consumers for the purpose of seeking statutory damages under the
California Civil Code:

     All visually-impaired individuals who have conducted or
     attempted to conduct any debit card transaction requiring a
     personal identification number or "PIN" at a Point of Sale
     machine at any J. Crew retail store in California during the
     two years preceding the filing of this Complaint through
     the date of final judgment in this action.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r0OoOmjU


JC PENNEY: Judge Applies Foreign Law on Statute of Limitations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Miller Johnston of the Superior Court of Delaware
granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case ABDUR RAHAMAN as
Personal Representative of SHARIFA BELGUM and MAHAMUDUL HASAN
HRIDOY, Plaintiffs, v. J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., THE
CHILDREN'S PLACE, and WAL-MART STORES, INC. Defendants, C.A. No.
N15C-07-174 MMJ (Del Super.)

On April 24, 2013, Rana Plaza in Bangladesh collapsed. More than
1,000 people were killed and more than 2,000 people were injured.
On July 21, 2015, Plaintiffs Abdur Rahaman -- husband and as
personal representative of Sharifa Belgum, a worker in one of the
five garment factories in Rana Plaza -- and Mahamudul Hasan Hridoy
-- a worker in one of the five garment factories in Rana Plaza and
was injured in the collapse -- filed their complaint against
Defendants J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., The Children's Place,
Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The complaint asserts two claims, negligence and wrongful death.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants acted negligently in failing to
ensure safe and healthy working conditions for garment factory
employees at Rana Plaza. Plaintiffs seek to bring the lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of other similarly situated workers and
their representatives.

On September 18, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
arguing that complaint should be dismissed because plaintiffs'
claims were filed after the expiration of the one-year statute of
limitations period under Bangladesh law. Defendants also argue for
dismissal because the complaint fails to allege an essential
element of each claim, a duty of care imposed by law that
defendants owed to plaintiffs.

Judge Johnston granted defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Johnston's memorandum opinion dated May 4, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/yQVKDMfrom Leagle.com.

Jonathan Greenbaum, Esq. -- jg@coburngreenbaum.com -- Barry
Coburn, Esq. -- barry@coburngreenbaum.com -- at Coburn & Greenbaum
PLLC; Peter B. Andrews, Esq. -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com --
Craig J. Springer, Esq. -- cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- at
Andrews & Springer LLC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Mary E. Gately, Esq. -- mary.gately@dlapiper.com -- Victoria
Bruno, Esq. -- John Reed, Esq. -- john.reed@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP (US), Attorneys for Defendant The Children's Place, Inc

Robert P. Fletcher, Esq. -- robert.fletcher@leclairryan.com --
Robert F. Reklaitis, Esq. -- robert.reklaitis@leclairryan.com --
Jeffrey L. O'Hara, Esq. -- jeffrey.o'hara@leclairryan.com --
Andrew L. Cole, Esq. -- andrew.cole@leclairryan.com-- at LeClair
Ryan, Attorneys for Defendant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.

David Debold, Esq. -- ddebold@gibsondunn.com -- Thomas Dupree,
Esq. -- tdupree@gibsondunn.com -- Jason R. Meltzer, Esq. --
jmeltzer@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Stephen
C. Norman, Esq. -- snorman@potteranderson.com -- at Potter
Anderson & Corroon LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.


JOURNAL MEDIA: Says Settlement Documentation Being Finalized
------------------------------------------------------------
Journal Media Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the consolidated action
related to the merger with Gannett Co., Inc. has been stayed
pending finalization of proposed settlement documentation,
confirmatory discovery and a decision by the relevant court
regarding approval of the proposed settlement.

On October 7, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Gannett and Jupiter Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Gannett ("Merger Sub").

The Company said, "Members of our board of directors (the
"Board"), and the parties to the Merger Agreement, including us
and Gannett, are defendants in two class action lawsuits filed in
the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin that have been
consolidated into a single lawsuit. The first lawsuit, captioned
Seifert v. Aitken, et al., No. 2015-CV-009686, was filed by a
purported Company shareholder on November 24, 2015, and the second
lawsuit, captioned Sabattini v. Aitken, et al., No. 2015-CV-
010003, was filed by a purported Company shareholder on December
4, 2015. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action
captioned In re Journal Media Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
No. 15-CV-009686 (the "Consolidated Action")."

"The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action allege that our
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the merger contemplated by the
Merger Agreement and that Gannett and its affiliate aided and
abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs
seek, among other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief
enjoining the merger, and rescissory damages in an unspecified
amount.

"As discussed in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, the
parties to the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU"), dated February 16, 2016, providing for
the settlement of all claims, including those in the Consolidated
Action, that were or could have been brought in connection with
the merger.

"Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the Consolidated Action is
currently stayed pending finalization of proposed settlement
documentation, confirmatory discovery and a decision by the
relevant court regarding approval of the proposed settlement. If
the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve
and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.

"In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by us or our successor.
The settlement, including the payment by us or any successor of
ours of any such attorneys' fees, is also contingent upon, among
other things, the merger becoming effective under Wisconsin law.
There can be no assurance that the parties to the MOU will
ultimately enter into a settlement agreement or that the Circuit
Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into a settlement agreement. If
for any reason the Consolidated Action is not settled or the
settlement is not approved, the Company and its board will
continue to vigorously defend against the allegations in the
Consolidated Action, which the Company and its board believe are
without merit."


KAG WEST: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Souza" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Souza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kag West, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. RG16814354 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 4, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to timely compensate employees for all
wages earned, and failure to properly and accurately report wages
earned, hours worked, and wage rates.

Kag West, LLC operates a transportation company which is primarily
responsible for delivering petroleum based products throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
      Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
      Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
      550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
      Glendale, CA 91203-1922
      Telephone: (818) 547-5200
      Facsimile: (8180 500-9307
      E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com
              mike.falveylaw@gmail.com
              armand.falveylaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
      ALEXANDER KRAKOW+ GLICK LLP
      401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 394-0888
      Facsimile: (310) 394 0811
      E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com


KANSAS: Health Dept Sued Over Termination of Planned Parenthood
---------------------------------------------------------------
Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri; Planned Parenthood
of St. Louis Region; Orrin Moore, M.D.; Kristin Metcalfwilson,
WHNP-BC; Maria Ward, WHNP-BC; Viola Johnson, WHNP-BC; Cheryl Lyon,
WHNP-BC; Mary-Jo Drake, NP; Justine Flory, CNM; Kathleen Kafka,
FNP-BC; Sarah Kearns, WHNP-BC; Victoria Zadoyan, CNM; Sharon
Keogh, NP; Jane Doe #1; Jane Doe #2; and Jane Doe #3, on their
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Susan Mosier, M.D., Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, in her official capacity, Case No. 2:16-cv-02284-JAR-
GLR (D. Kan., May 4, 2016), arises out of the unlawful,
unwarranted and politically motivated decision by the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment, at the direction of
Governor Sam Brownback, to terminate Planned Parenthood of Kansas
and Mid-Missouri ("PPKM") and Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis
Region and Southwest Missouri ("PPSLR") from the Kansas Medicaid
program, including KanCare, the program from which nearly all
Medicaid beneficiaries receive services.

Susan Mosier, M.D., is Secretary of the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment, and in that role, governs Kansas
Department of Health and Environment, which is the state agency
that administers Kansas's Medicaid program.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arthur A. Benson II, Esq.
      Jamie Kathryn Lansford, Esq.
      BENSON & ASSOCIATES
      4006 Central Avenue, P.O. Box 119007
      Kansas City, MO 64171-9007
      Telephone: (816) 531-6565
      Facsimile: (816) 531-6688
      E-mail: abenson@bensonlaw.com
              jlansford@bensonlaw.com

         - and -

      Diana O. Salgado, Esq.
      Melissa A. Cohen, Esq.
      PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
      PUBLIC POLICY LITIGATION & LAW
      123 William St., 9th Floor
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 261-7800
      Facsimile: (212) 247-6811
      E-mail: diana.salgado@ppfa.org
              melissa.cohen@ppfa.org

         - and -

       Douglas N. Ghertner, Esq.
       SLAGLE, BERNARD AND GORMAN, P.C.
       600 Plaza West Building, 4600 Madison Avenue
       Kansas City, MO 64112-3031
       Telephone: (816) 410-4664
       Facsimile: (816) 561-4498
       E-mail: dghertner@sbg-law.com

          - and -

       Robert V. Eye, Esq.
       ROBERT V. EYE LAW OFFICE, LLC
       4840 Bob Billings Parkway, Suite 1010
       Lawrence, KS 66049
       Telephone: (785) 234-4040
       Facsimile: (785) 749-1202
       E-mail: bob@kauffmaneye.com


KELLY SERVICES: Certification of Two "Dolemba" Classes Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled HERMINIA DOLEMBA, on behalf
of plaintiff and the class defined below v. KELLY SERVICES, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-04971 (N.D. Ill.), asks the
Court to determine that the action may proceed as a class action
against Kelly Services pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The Classes the Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as:

     Class A: The class consists of (a) all persons (b) who, on
     or after a date four years prior to the filing of this
     action, and on or before a date 20 days following the filing
     of this action, (c) received calls from defendants on their
     cell phones, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a
     prerecorded or artificial voice.


     Class B: The class consists of (a) all persons with phone
     numbers in the Illinois area codes (b) who, on or after a
     date three years prior to the filing of this action, and on
     or before a date 20 days following the filing of this
     action, (c) received calls from defendants on their cell
     phones, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a
     prerecorded or artificial voice.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fEkJNDJc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379


KIOR INC: Judge Trims Claims in "Carlton" Suit
----------------------------------------------
District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, ruled on the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case DAVE CARLTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRED
CANNON, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. H-15-012 (SD Tex.)

KiOR, Inc., is a once-promising clean-tech start-up company that
hoped to commercialize technology to turn woodchips into oil. KiOR
attracted prominent investors, media attention, and state and
federal funding. The manufacturing of its product, and the
company, failed.

Lead plaintiffs, Dave Carlton and Sharon Kegerreis, sued KiOR, its
CEO, Fred Cannon, its CFO, John Karnes; and its cofounder and
majority shareholder, Vinod Khosla, under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78a-78pp, seeking to represent
purchasers of KiOR's stock between June 24, 2011 and March 17,
2014.

KiOR filed for bankruptcy protection after the suit was filed. The
court stayed the claims against KiOR and severed the claims
against the individual defendants. Plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint against Cannon, Karnes, and Khosla, alleging
that Cannon and Karnes violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5; and that all three individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a). The
plaintiffs alleged that the individual defendants knowingly made
false and misleading statements to investors in KiOR's
registration prospectus, quarterly and annual SEC filings,
earnings calls, press releases, and investor presentations. The
statements concerned the yields and costs at KiOR's demonstration
unit in Houston, Texas; the hurdles facing KiOR's production
capabilities at its commercial-scale plant in Columbus,
Mississippi; and the projected future yields at the Columbus
plant.

The individual defendants moved to dismiss. Cannon and Karnes
argued that the safe-harbor provision in the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109
Stat. 737, applies; that the third amended complaint failed to
allege the falsity of their statements with particularity; and
that the complaint failed to allege facts giving rise to a strong
inference of scienter. Khosla argued that he lacked the ability to
control either the company's day-to-day operations or the specific
misstatements alleged.

Judge Rosenthal granted with prejudice the motions to dismiss
filed by karnes and Khosla, while the claims against Cannon are
not dismissed and his motion to dismiss is denied. A status and
scheduling conference is set for May 25, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. to set
a scheduling order for discovery, subsequent motions, and trial.

A copy of Judge Rosenthal' memorandum and opinion dated May 4,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/apuaGtfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Berry, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Porritt --
nporritt@zlk.com -- Adam Marc Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- at Levi &
Korsinsky LLP

Dave Carlton, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Marc Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky LLP; Laurence M Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.; R. Dean Gresham -- at GRESHAM PC
Sharon Kegerreis, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Marc Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky LLP; Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.; James L
Gascoyne -- at Gascoyne Bullion PC

Fred Cannon, Defendant, represented by Amy Pharr Hefley --
amy.hefley@bakerbotts.com -- David D Sterling --
david.sterling@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker Botts LLP; Peter A.
Spaeth -- peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com -- Alexandra Boudreau --
alexandra.boudreau@wilmerhale.com -- Michael G Bongiorno --
michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- Peter J Kolovos --
peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com -- at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP

John K. Karnes, Defendant, represented by Noelle M Reed --
noelle.reed@skadden.com -- Wallis Mizell Hampton --
wallis.hampton@skadden.com -- at Skadden Arps

Vinod Khosla, Defendant, represented by Jan Nielsen Little --
jlittle@kvn.com -- Julia Sun Choe -- jchoe@kvn.com -- Steven P
Ragland -- sragland@kvn.com -- Justina Kahn Sessions --
jsessions@kvn.com -- at Keker Van Nest LLP


LAND-AIR EXPRESS: Faces "Chain" Suit Over WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor J. Chain, Jr., Peter Hayward, Gilbert Lewis, Anthony L.
Platoni, and Owen Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Land-Air Express of New England, Ltd., Case
No. 7:16-cv-03371 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

Land-Air Express of New England, Ltd. owns and operates a trucking
company in New York.

Victor J. Chain, Jr., Peter Hayward, Gilbert Lewis, Anthony L.
Platoni, and Owen Taylor are pro se plaintiffs.


LANDEC CORPORATION: Still Defends Wage & Hour Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Landec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend a wage and hour class action lawsuit in California.

On September 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a wage and hour class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in Santa
Barbara County. Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees, or former
employees, of the plant contract labor provider of Apio who allege
California Labor Code violations.

"The Company, and its contract labor provider, are vigorously co-
defending this lawsuit. The ultimate outcome of these matters is
uncertain and the Company is unable to estimate the amount or the
range or reasonably possible loss, if any. However, we believe we
have meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims," the Company
said.

Landec Corporation and its subsidiaries design, develop,
manufacture and sell differentiated products for food and
biomaterials markets and license technology applications to
partners.


LANNETT COMPANY: Faces UFCW Local Suit Over Digoxin Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------
UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Lannett Company, Inc., Allergan PLC, Impax
Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries Co., and West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02169-CMR (E.D. Penn., May 5, 2016), arises from
the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix, maintain, and stabilize the
prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline products.

Digoxin is s prescription drug that is used to treat mild to
moderate heart failure in adults, increase the heart contracting
functions for pediatric patients with heart failure, and control
the resting heart rate in adult patients with chronic atrial
fibrillation.

Doxycycline monohydrate is a prescription antibiotic used in
treating humans and animals.

The Defendants own and operate pharmaceutical companies that
manufacture and distribute generic digoxin and generic
doxycycline.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
      Paul Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
      161 Washington St., Suite 1025
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com
              scalato@lawgsp.com

         - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Jay L. Hines, Esq.
      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
      Matthew J. Perex, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
              jhimes@labaton.com
              dminerva@labaton.com
              kgarvey@labaton.com
              mperez@labaton.com

         - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
      One South Broad, Street, Suite 2300
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebennerg@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com
              apessin@finekaplan.com


LEAL MEDICAL: "Galindo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Roberto Limas Galindo and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Leal Medical Center, LLC, ABC-ALSY Adult Day Care
Centers, LLC, Leal Pharmacy, LLC, D&J Enterprises of Homestead,
Inc., Jhacnea P Leal, Yaima Delgado, Daniel Orozco, Henry
Mullales, Sr., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21609-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
May 6, 2016), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees,
overtime wages still owing, court costs, interest and any other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Leal Medical Center, LLC, ABC-ALSY Adult Day Care Centers, LLC,
Leal Pharmacy, LLC and D&J Enterprises jointly employed Plaintiff
as a maintenance man. Galindo claims to have been denied overtime
and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly.

Leal Medical Center (LMC) is s primary care provider for the
greater Homestead area. ABC-ALSY Adult Day Care Center is an
assisted living facility in Homestead, FL. D&J Enterprises, Inc is
a full service contracting firm involved in electrical and
lighting for commercial or residential electrical or lighting
work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


LINCOLN TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Thompson, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc., and
Does 1-50, Case No. BC619604 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 5, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc. operates a company located
at 250 W Manville St, Compton, CA 90220.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari E. Moss, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS
      15300 Ventura Blvd., Suite 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (310) 982-2984
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0389

         - and -

      Evan Selik, Esq.
      SELIK & ASSOCIATES, APC
      15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 602-4173
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0389


LIRIO MIJANGO CORP: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Oscar Daniel Pereira Garcia, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Lirio Mijango Corp., and Pedro Mijango, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-21616-KMW (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2016), seeks double
damages and reasonable attorney fees, overtime wages still owing,
interest and any other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Garcia worked for Defendants as a driver. He claims to be denied
overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

Lirio Mijango Corp. is a church located in 532 Nw 35th St. 5
Miami, FL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


LOUISIANA: Court Wants Plaintiff to Appear in Person
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, MITCHELL WILLIAMS v. LOUISIANA, ET AL., Civil Action
No. 16-93-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.), Magistrate Judge ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
denied a Motion to Allow Plaintiff to Attend by Telephone and
Motion in the Alternative filed by Plaintiff, Mitchell Williams.

On February 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a "Complaint and Class
Action Lawsuit Request for Expedited Review & Injunction" in the
Middle District of Louisiana.  Therein, Plaintiff alleges that he
seeks to run for President of the United States and expresses
dissatisfaction with write-in procedures for certain states.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that some states "flatly refused
to receive the Plaintiff's Declarations because they don't
recognize any write-in vote (New Mexico, Louisiana, Hawaii . .
.)."  Plaintiff further alleges that other states "do allow write-
in votes but they throw up mile high walls so that most cannot
qualify, often involve a petition drive to gather thousands of
names of voters in those states. Typical of these walls is the
required fileing [sic] in every county of Illinois."  Plaintiff
argues that "[t]hose states that show a willingness to deny anyone
free access to their ballot as a write-in candidate are violative
of the Freedom of Speech and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S.
Constitution."

On April 13, 2016, the Court scheduled a hearing pursuant to
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) to determine
whether all or any part of this case should be dismissed as
frivolous because (1) the complaint has no realistic chance of
ultimate success; or (2) it has no arguable merit in terms of the
arguable substance of the claims presented, both in law and in
fact; or (3) beyond doubt, the plaintiff can prove no set of facts
in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. See,
Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986).  That
hearing was scheduled to take place on May 16, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
at the Russell B. Long Federal Building and Courthouse, 777
Florida Street, Courtroom 5, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  Notice of
the hearing was sent to Plaintiff via certified mail and specified
that "failure to appear may result in the dismissal of this
action."

Plaintiff moved the Court for an order allowing him to attend the
May 16, 2016 hearing via telephone.  Plaintiff explains that his
"goats must be fed twice per day and he has no worker to do it in
his place," his "only drivable car" has significant operational
issues, and his "electric bicycle is no faster than normal
bicycles and would need recharging every 12 miles."  In the
alternative to participation by telephone, Plaintiff requests the
Court to "assign representation to local lawyers."

Judge Wilder-Doomes held that the "Spears" hearing is an
opportunity for Plaintiff to further explain his case so that the
Court can make a determination about the viability of his claims.
This process will be impeded if Plaintiff does not appear in
person.

Judge Wilder-Doomes also noted that the Plaintiff appears able to
navigate the legal issues specific to his case as well as the
procedural rules of this Court. Indeed, Plaintiff has previously
filed a successful motion for reconsideration in this matter.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not set forth any explanation of any
efforts he has undertaken to secure private counsel. In sum,
Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing that this is an
"exceptional circumstance" necessitating that the Court appoint an
attorney to represent him.  Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(1),
Plaintiff's alternative request for the Court to "assign
representation to local lawyers," which the Court treats as a
request to appoint counsel, is also denied.

A copy of the Court's May 6, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/j68SeO from Leagle.com.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: To Defend Against "Gathmann-Landini" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2016, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend the case by Rebecca Gathmann-Landini.

The Company said, "On October 9, 2015, certain of our current and
former hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the
Supreme Court of New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al
v. lululemon USA inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was removed to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. The lawsuit alleges that we violated various New York labor
codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime
compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of
damages. We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

"We have indemnification agreements with certain of our current
and former officers and directors that may require us, among other
things, to indemnify such current or former officers and directors
against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their
status or service as directors or officers and to advance their
expenses incurred as a result of any proceeding against them as to
which they could be indemnified."

lululemon athletica inc. is a designer, distributor, and retailer
of technical athletic apparel.


LUXE WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Pena" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elmer Pena v. Luxe Worldwide Hotels, LLC, E.H. Summit, Inc., Luxe
Sunset Boulevard Hotel, Luxe Sunset Boulevard, Luxe Sunset Blvd,
and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC619311 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 5, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel in Los Angeles County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


M1 AUTO COLLISIONS: Class Action Notice Modified
------------------------------------------------
After meeting and conferring regarding the proposed class notice
prepared by plaintiffs in the case, RAFAEL SANDOVAL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. M1 AUTO COLLISIONS CENTERS, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 13-cv-03230-EDL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties on April 29,
2016, filed a joint letter outlining disputes with regard to three
sections of the notice.  After considering the Parties' letter,
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. LaPorte ruled that:

     (A) The "Failure to issue accurate wage statements" section
of the notice shall state:

         "California law requires employers to issue wage
statements that accurately list the wages earned and hours worked,
among other things. Plaintiffs allege that Autowest's wage
statements do not list separate pay for rest breaks. The lawsuit
will determine whether wage statements provided by Autowest are
inaccurate."

     (B) The class notice shall include Plaintiffs' proposed
Section 5, "Why is this lawsuit a class action," modified as
follows:

         "The third bulleted item shall state: Plaintiffs Rafael
Sandoval, Luis Martin Calixto, and Adrian Ramirez have shown that
their rest break and wage statement claims (based on the rest
break claim) are typical of the claims of the rest of the Class;

         The fourth bulleted item shall state: Plaintiffs Rafael
Sandoval, Luis Martin Calixto, and Adrian Ramirez and the lawyers
representing the class will fairly and adequately represent the
class' interests;

         The fifth bulleted item shall be omitted.

         The seventh bulleted item shall state: Treating the rest
break and the related wage statement claims on a class-wide basis
will be more efficient than having many individual lawsuits.

     (C) The class notice shall contain Section 11 as proposed by
Plaintiffs, including both phone numbers for class counsel. The
class notice may also contain a link to a website created by class
counsel where class members can download the complaint,
Defendants' answer, and the Court's class certification order.

A copy of the Court's May 6, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hluDqx from Leagle.com.

Rafael Sandoval, Plaintiff, represented by Tomas Eduardo Margain,
CASA Legal, Hector R. Martinez, Mallison & Martinez, Huy Ngoc
Tran, Justice at Work Law Group, Joseph Donald Sutton, Mallison &
Martinez, Marco A Palau, Mallison & Martinez, Phung Hoang Truong,
Justice at Work Law Group & Stanley Scott Mallison, Mallison &
Martinez.

Luis Martin Calixto, Plaintiff, represented by Tomas Eduardo
Margain, CASA Legal, Hector R. Martinez, Mallison & Martinez, Huy
Ngoc Tran, Justice at Work Law Group, Joseph Donald Sutton,
Mallison & Martinez, Marco A Palau, Mallison & Martinez & Stanley
Scott Mallison, Mallison & Martinez.

Adrian Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Marco A Palau, Mallison
& Martinez, Huy Ngoc Tran, Justice at Work Law Group, Joseph
Donald Sutton, Mallison & Martinez, Stanley Scott Mallison,
Mallison & Martinez & Tomas Eduardo Margain, Justice at Work Law
Group.

M1 Auto Collisions Centers, M1 Colllision Care Centers, Inc.,
Autovest Collision Repairs, Inc., and Serramonte Auto Plaza Body
Shop, Inc., represented by Kara L. Arguello --
kara.arguello@berliner.com -- Berliner Cohen, Christine H. Long
-- christine.long@berliner.com -- Berliner Cohen, Eileen P.
Kennedy -- eileen.kennedy@berliner.com -- Berliner Cohen &
Jennifer Yuen-Sea Leung -- jennifer.leung@berliner.com -- Berliner
Cohen.


MDL 2641: "Ruden" Product Liability Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David G. Campbell of the District of Arizona ruled
on the parties' motions in the case entitled IN RE: BARD IVC
FILTERS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

The Court's Order relates to the matter, Wayne Ruden, Plaintiff,
v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., Defendants, MDL No. 2641, No. CV-16-
00344-PHX-DGC WO (D. Ariz.).

Defendant C.R. Bard, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware with a principal place of business in New Jersey.
Defendant Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of C.R. Bard, Inc. with a principal place of business
in Arizona. Defendant Sutter West Bay Hospitals, d/b/a California
Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) is a general medical and surgical
hospital with a principal place of business in California.

Wayne Ruden is a resident of California. In March 2004, Ruden had
a Bard Recovery Filter implanted in his inferior vena cava at one
of CPMC's facilities in San Francisco, California. In March 2015,
Ruden learned that the filter had fractured causing the
embolization of two arm fragments into the proximal right
pulmonary arteries, and the embolization of one fractured arm
fragment into the right atrium of his heart. Ruden explored
whether the fragments could be surgically removed, but experts at
Stanford University refused to perform the procedure because it
was too risky. As a result, Ruden must undergo regular medical
monitoring.

On October 7, 2015, Ruden filed an action against defendants C.R.
Bard, Inc., Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., and CPMC in San
Francisco County Superior Court.  C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard
Peripheral Vascular, Inc. removed the case to federal court in the
Northern District of California. Following removal, Ruden filed a
first amended complaint.

On February 4, 2016, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred Ruden's case from the
Northern District of California to the present court for inclusion
in MDL No. 2641.

Plaintiff filed a motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. Section
1447(c), while defendant CPMC moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims
under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or, in the alternative, to remand to California state
court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).

Judge Campbell granted plaintiff's motion to remand and granted in
part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss or in the
alternative to remand.  The case is remanded to the San Francisco
County Superior Court.

A copy of Judge Campbell's order dated May 4, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/gp2WJPfrom Leagle.com.


MARRONE BIO: Case Deferred Pending Outcome of Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Court has approved
a stipulation between the parties deferring action pending the
outcome of a mediation proceeding, and ordered the parties to
provide a status update on May 4, 2016.

The Company said, "On September 5, 2014, September 8, 2014,
September 11, 2014, September 15, 2014 and November 3, 2014, we,
along with certain of our current and former officers and
directors and others were named as defendants in putative
securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California."

"On February 13, 2015, these actions were consolidated as Special
Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v. Marrone Bio Innovations,
Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-KJN. On September 2, 2015,
an initial consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of (i) all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded
common stock directly in or traceable to our August 1, 2013
initial public offering; (ii) all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired our publicly traded common stock directly in
our June 6, 2014 secondary offering; and (iii) all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded common stock
on the open market between March 7, 2014 and September 2, 2014
(the "Class Action").

"In addition to us, the initial consolidated complaint names
certain of our current and former officers and directors and our
independent registered public accounting firm as defendants. The
initial consolidated complaint alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the issuance of allegedly false and
misleading statements about our business and prospects, including
our financial statements, product revenues and system of internal
controls. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused our stock
price to be artificially inflated. The action includes claims for
damages, fees and expenses, including an award of attorneys' and
experts' fees to the putative class.

"An amended consolidated complaint was filed on January 11, 2016.
On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation between the
parties deferring action pending the outcome of a mediation
proceeding, and ordered the parties to provide a status update on
May 4, 2016. The outcome of this matter is not presently
determinable.

The Company makes bio-based pest management and plant health
products.


MICHAEL HARRISON: Illegally Collects Debt, "Trombley" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandra Trombley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Michael Harrison t/a Michael Harrison Attorney At Law
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-02546-KM-MAH (D.N.J., May 6,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

The Defendants are in the business of providing collection
services to healthcare providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


MODERN METHOD: "Espinoza" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Jose Espinoza, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. Modern Method Gunite, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
4:16-cv-01279 (S.D. Tex., May 6, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant provides gunite, plaster, boulder creation and tile
cleaning services related to building pools and spas, other
structures, including retaining walls, wing walls, storm drainage
walls, and bases for boulder structures. Espinoza is a
construction worker and claims to have been denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


MONTGOMERY, PA: Sued in Penn. Over Criminal History Records
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antoine Ellli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Montgomery County and Montgomery County Correctional
Facility, Case No. 2:16-cv-02143-WB (E.D. Penn., May 5, 2016), is
an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of
disseminating criminal history record information on the prisons
inmate look-up tool.

Montgomery County is a political subdivision organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Montgomery County Correctional Facility is an agency of Montgomery
County responsible for the housing of pretrial detainees and
prisoners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan E. Denenberg, Esq.
      ABRAMSON & DENENBERG
      1315 Walnut St 12th Fl
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 546-1345
      Facsimile: (215) 546-5355
      E-mail: adenenberg@adlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
      One South Broad St Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
      E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com


MOONSTONE FOODS: "Padilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Padilla and Jessica Zamudio, on behalf of themselves and
other persons similarly situated v. Moonstone Foods Enterprises
LLC, Ruby Foods, Inc., Standard Foods, Inc., Sirajudden Virani,
and Faisal Merchant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04936 (N.D. Ill., May 4,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a Dunkin' Donuts franchise located at 62 E.
Jackson in Chicago Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
      Christopher Wilmes, Esq.
      HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM
      70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 604-2636
      E-mail: cwilmes@hsplegal.com
              mpiers@hsplegal.com

         - and -

      Lam Nguyen Ho, Esq.
      COMMUNITY ACTIVISM LAW ALLIANCE
      405 W Superior St, #506
      Chicago, IL 60654-8561
      Telephone: (773) 888-1404


MULTNOMAH, NE: Faces "Stanko" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Stanko and similarly situated citizens v. Multnomah County
Jail and Sheriff Daniel Staton, individually and in official
capacity, Case No. 7:16-cv-05002-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb., May 5, 2016),
is brought against for civil rights violation.

The Defendants operate the law enforcement office of Multnomah
County.

Rudy Stanko is a pro se plaintiff.


MUY PIZZA: "Finstad" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Finstad, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Muy Pizza Minnesota, LLC, Case No. 0:16-cv-01172 (D.
Minn., May 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Muy Pizza Minnesota, LLC owns and operates approximately 61 Pizza
Hut franchise stores in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
      PAUL McINNES LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 981-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 981-8101
      E-mail: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

         - and -

      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th
      Street Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      E-mail: fisher@nka.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


MV TRANSPORTATION: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrie Woods, individually and as a representative of the class
v. MV Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-05001 (N.D. Ill., May
5, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
required disclosures prior to procuring a consumer report on
applicants and employees.

MV Transportation, Inc. owns and operates a transportation
contracting firm in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, ID 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      E-mail: jgamboa@stephanzouras.com


NANTKWEST INC: "Sudunagunta" Case Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------
NantKwest, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the case, Sudunagunta v.
NantKwest, Inc., et al., is currently pending before the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

In March 2016, a securities class action complaint was filed in
federal district court in California against the Company related
to the recently announced restatement of certain interim financial
statements for the periods ending June 30, 2015 and September 30,
2015. The case, Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., is
currently pending before the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

The Company said,"The complaint names the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, as defendants, for
allegedly misrepresenting material facts and/or misleading
investors regarding the errors in our financial statements related
to stock-based awards to our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
and build-to-suit lease accounting related to one of our research
and development and good manufacturing practices facilities, and
the lack of effective internal financial controls. The complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees,
and equitable/injunctive or other relief."

Management intends to vigorously defend these proceedings. "At
this time, we cannot predict how the Court will rule on the merits
of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event
of an adverse outcome. Should we ultimately be found liable, our
liability could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred," the
Company said.

NantKwest is a pioneering clinical-stage immunotherapy company
focused on harnessing the power of the innate immune system by
using the natural killer cell to treat cancer, infectious diseases
and inflammatory diseases.


NIMBLE STORAGE: Has Not Yet Responded to Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nimble Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2016, that the Company has not yet
responded to any complaint in the case, In re Nimble Storage, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On December 17, 2015, a purported securities class action entitled
Vikramkumar v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors. A second purported securities class action entitled
Guardino v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed on December 23,
2015, and a third purported class action entitled Madhani v.

Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed on February 5, 2016, also
in the Northern District of California against the same parties.
The complaints in the three actions allege claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial results.

On March 28, 2016, the Court ordered that the three actions be
consolidated under the caption In re Nimble Storage, Inc.
Securities Litigation. The Company has not yet responded to any
complaint.


NORTH PINELLAS CHILDREN'S: "Lodge" Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Arely Lodge and other similarly
situated non-exempt human resources employees v. North Pinellas
Children's Medical Center, Inc. and Jay H. Klein, Case No. 16-
2009-CI, was removed from the Pinellas County Court to the U.S.
District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-01093-SDM-TGW to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants operate a pediatric hospital in Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 W Flager St Ste 2200
      Miami, FL 33130-6807
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jeffrey J. Wilcox, Esq.
      HILL WARD HENDERSON, PA
      101 E Kennedy Blvd-Ste 3700, PO Box 2231
      Tampa, FL 33602-5195
      Telephone: (813) 222-8725
      Facsimile: (813) 221-2900
      E-mail: jwilcox@hwhlaw.com


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Charitable Real Estate Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thornmeadow Partners, LP, on behalf of itself and all other
individuals v. Northshore University Health System, David Orr,
and Maria Pappas, Case No. 20l6CH0626B (Ill. Ch. Ct., May 5,
2016), seeks relief on behalf of itself and all other real estate
taxpayers in the State of Illinois who paid real estate taxes
based upon amounts which included charitable real estate tax
exemptions.

Northshore University Health System operates a hospital located at
2650 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry D. Drury, Esq.
      LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
      100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-7950
      E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Certification of TCPA Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action captioned MICHIGAN URGENT CARE & PRIMARY CARE
PHYSICIANS, P.C. v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, ALCON
LABORATORIES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-11463-
MAG-SDD (E.D. Mich.), may proceed as a class action against the
Defendants.

The Case arises from an alleged violation of a federal law
commonly referred to as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act or
Junk Fax Prevention Act by Defendants Alcon and Novartis.  The
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons
(b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of the
Action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d)
and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47
U.S.C. Section 227.

The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed class
representative and that Adam G. Taub & Associates and Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the
class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wLypsxcU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam G. Taub, Esq.
          ADAM G. TAUB & ASSOCIATES
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLC
          17200 W 10 Mile Rd., Suite 200
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 746-3790
          E-mail: adamgtaub@clgplc.net

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com


NRA GROUP: Bid to Certify Class in "Bernal" Suit Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 11, 2016, in the case entitled
Joseph Bernal v. NRA Group, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01904 (N.D.
Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Gary
Feinerman.

The minute entry states that given the filing of an amended
motion, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied as moot.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a7hZ7sFE


NYMOX PHARMACEUTICAL: NJ Court Dismissed "Sapir" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court
has dismissed the case by Roy Sapir.

On November 24, 2014, Roy Sapir, a shareholder of the Corporation,
filed a proposed class action suit in the United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, against the Corporation and the
President and the CEO of the Corporation. On February 10, 2016,
the Court dismissed the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs had until
February 24, 2016 to file an amended complaint and failed to file.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Discovery in "Weiner" Suit Bifurcated
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Morrison C. England of the Eastern District of
California issued a scheduling order in the case DAVID WEINER,
individually and on behalf of other members of the public
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a
Florida corporation, et al., Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-02597-MCE-CKD
(E.D. Cal.)

The parties filed a joint status report before the court.

Judge England granted defendants' request to bifurcate the
discovery process. All discovery in Phase I shall be limited to
facts that are relevant to whether the action should be certified
as a class action and shall be completed by August 25, 2016. The
hearing on the certification motion shall be on December 1, 2016,
at 2:00 p.m. All papers should be filed in conformity with the
Local Rules. However, the parties shall comply with the following
filing deadlines:

Plaintiff's motion shall be filed not later than October 6, 2016.
Defendants' response shall be filed not later than November 3,
2016 Plaintiff's reply shall be filed not later than November 17,
2016

The court placed a page limit for points and authorities. All
requests for page limit increases must be made in writing to the
court setting forth any and all reasons for any increase in page
limit at least seven days prior to the filing of the motion.

The scheduling order will become final without further order of
the court unless objections are filed within seven court days of
service of the order.

A copy of Judge England's scheduling order dated May 3, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/0GPc6kfrom Leagle.com.

David Weiner, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone --
dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Roland Karim Tellis -- Evan M. Zucker
-- ezucker@baronbudd.com -- Michael Isaac Miller --
imiller@baronbudd.com -- Peter Klausner --
peter.klausner.esq@gmail.com -- Mark Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com
-- at Baron & Budd, P.C.

Defendants, represented by Elizabeth Lemond McKeen --
emckeen@omm.com -- Ashley Pavel -- apavel@omm.com -- Catalina Joos
Vergara -- cvergara@omm.com -- Erika Maki Rasch -- erasch@omm.com
-- James Abbott Bowman -- jbowman@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers
LLP


OS RESTAURANT: "Sears" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
David Sears and Elizabeth Thomas, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, and
Bloomin' Brands, Inc., together  d/b/a Outback Steakhouse, Case
No. 8:16-cv-01115-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Outback Steakhouse in Clarkston,
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      Suite 404, 1515 S Federal Hwy
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8888
      E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
              gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


PASON SYSTEMS: Faces "Ricalo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Ricalo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pason Systems USA Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-00072-
BL(N.D. Tex., May 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pason Systems USA Corp. is a foreign for-profit corporation that
provides oilfield and drilling data services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Rochelle Owens, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
              rochelle@mooreandassociates.net
              curt@mooreandassociates.net


PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Fee-Shifting Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Solak, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of Paylocity Holding Corporation v. Steven I.
Sarowitz, MarK H. Mishler, Steven R. Beauchamp, Ronald V. Waters
III, Andres D. Reiner, Jeffrey T. Diehl and Paylocity Holding
Corporation, Case No. 12299 (Del. Ch., Ct., May 5, 2016), is an
action for damages as a result of the Defendants' adoption a fee-
shifting bylaw that allows Paylocity to shift legal fees to its
stockholders for actions.

Paylocity Holding Corporation is a provider of cloud-based payroll
and human capital management software solutions for medium-sized
organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com


PAYMENT DATA SYSTEMS: Claims Against Kirby and Long Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Payment Data Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court has signed an
order dismissing the claims against Peter Kirby and Michael Long,
but did not rule as to the other defendants.

On June 26, 2015, Michael McFarland, derivatively on behalf the
Company, and individually on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated shareholders of the Company, filed a class-
action lawsuit in United States District Court, District of
Nevada.

The Company said, "The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment by our Board of Directors and certain executive
officers and directors in connection with excessive and unfair
compensation paid or awarded during fiscal years 2013 and 2014.
The lawsuit seeks disgorgement of excessive compensation as well
as damages in an unspecified amount."

"As of March 17, 2016, the Court signed an order dismissing the
claims against Peter Kirby and Michael Long, but did not rule as
to the other defendants. We filed an unopposed motion for final
judgment as to everyone else and confirmed again with the
Plaintiff that they do not oppose dismissal of the whole case."

Payment Data Systems, Inc. was founded in July 1998 and
incorporated in the State of Nevada.  It is an integrated payment
solutions provider offering a range of customized services to
merchants, billers, banks, service bureaus, and card issuers.


PERRY ELLIS: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Perry Ellis Menswear, LLC
d/b/a Original Penguin, Case No. 1:16-cv-21587-MGC (S.D. Fla., May
4, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Perry Ellis Menswear, LLC designs, manufactures, and sells apparel
for men.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
      SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
      4200 NW 7th Avenue
      Miami, FL 33127
      Telephone: (786) 431-1333
      Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
      E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com

PHO QUYEN: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sarmiento, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pho Quyen Cuisine Enterprises, Co., Case No.
8:16-cv-01118-MSS-MAP (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Hillsborough
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


PIERCE & ASSOCIATES: "Zuniga" Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 5, 2016, in the case titled
Laura Zuniga, et al. v. Pierce and Associates, P.C., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-01897 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Milton I. Shadur.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Pierce and Associates' motion to supplement authority is
      granted;

   -- Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is moot;

   -- Pierce and Associates' motion to dismiss is granted; and

   -- the complaint and the Action are dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wOduYjch


PLANESPHERE INC: Class Certification Hearing Set for August 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John W. Darrah entered an order the purported class
action lawsuit styled Kaitlyn Ries v. Planesphere Inc., et al.,
Case No. 16 C 3667 (N.D. Ill.) setting schedules on the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class.  Judge Darrah ruled that
response to the Motion is due by June 8, 2016, and reply is due by
June 29.

A status hearing/ruling on the Motion is set for August 25, 2016,
at 9:30 a.m.  The status hearing set for May 26 is vacated.  The
Court further ruled that discovery is authorized as set forth on
the record.  Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures are to be exchanged by
June 9.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9cW7GqXP


PLATINUM SUPPLEMENTAL: Certification of 2 "Flynn" Classes Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Flynn asks the Court to determine that Counts I and II of
the action styled MICHAEL FLYNN, on behalf of plaintiff and the
class as defined below v. PLATINUM SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE, INC.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04980 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action
against Platinum.  He alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of a class, consisting of:

     (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior
     to the filing of the Action, and on or before a date 20 days
     following the filing of this action, (c) received calls from
     defendant on their cell phones, (d) placed using an
     automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice.

Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of a class, consisting of:

     (a) all persons with phone numbers in the Illinois area
     codes (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the
     filing of the Action, and on or before a date 20 days
     following the filing of this action, (c) received calls from
     defendant on their cell phones, (d) placed using an
     automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9cCcZ7bv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya G. Farbstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379


PREMIER DIRECTIONAL: "Parrish" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Parrish, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., Case No.
5:16-cv-00417 (W.D. Tex., May 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Premier Directional Drilling, L.P. operates a directional drilling
company that claims to have operations in oil and gas formations
such as the Eagle Ford Shale, Delaware Basin, Permian Basin,
Bakken Formation, Michigan Basin, Mississippian Lime Play, and
Marcelleus Formation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com

          - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Defending Against "Coleman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Noble Voice, LLC, are
parties to litigation captioned as Coleman v. Noble Voice, LLC, et
al., Case No. 15-CV-6791 (N.D. Ill.), a putative class action,
pursuant to which a consumer alleged that Noble Voice violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by contacting him in
relation to a job for which he applied online.  The action
complaint seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  The
lawsuit was filed in August 2015 and the Company timely filed its
answer.

"While the case is in preliminary discovery stages, the Company is
confident in its TCPA compliance practices.  While the outcome of
this lawsuit is uncertain, we believe that the claims asserted are
without merit and we intend to aggressively defend against the
claims," the Company said.


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Has Not Yet Answered "Vasquez" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company has not yet answered the case by Norma Vasquez.

The Company is party to litigation captioned as Norma Vazquez v.
Professional Diversity Network, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-13-WCO
(N.D.Ga.), a putative class action, pursuant to which a consumer
alleged that the Company violated the TCPA by sending her a text
message inviting her to attend a career fair.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  The lawsuit was filed
in January 2016 and the Company has not yet answered but is within
its time to do so.

"While the outcome of this lawsuit is uncertain, we believe that
the claims asserted are without merit and we intend to
aggressively defend against these claims," the Company said.


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Ramnath" Parties Engaged in Discussions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
parties in the case by Gauri Ramnath have engaged in discussions
to create a universal settlement.

The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, NAPW, Inc., are
parties to litigation captioned Gauri Ramnath, et al. v.
Professional Diversity Network, Inc., et al., No. BC604153 (Los
Angeles Superior Ct.), a putative class action alleging violations
of various California Labor Code (wage & hour) sections.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The complaint was filed in
December 2016 and the Company has answered.

"The parties have not yet begun to conduct discovery, but have
engaged in discussions to create a universal settlement.  While
the outcome of this lawsuit and its prospective settlement are
uncertain, we believe that its resolution will not have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial performance," the
Company said.


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Martin" Parties Agreed to Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
parties in the case by Crystal Martin have agreed to a settlement
in principle for a nominal amount.

The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, NAPW, Inc., are
parties to litigation captioned as Crystal Martin, et al. v. NAPW,
Inc., et al., No. BC606543 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct.), alleging
violations of various California Labor Code (wage & hour)
sections.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and civil
penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code. The complaint was
served in January 2016.  The parties have agreed to a settlement
in principle for a nominal amount.


REACHLOCAL INC: Has Confidential Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------
Reachlocal, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has entered
into a confidential settlement agreement and release with
plaintiffs to settle all of their claims in a class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "On May 2, 2014, a lawsuit, purporting to be a
class action, was filed by one of our former clients in the United
States District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint alleged breach
of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law. The
complaint sought monetary damages, restitution and attorneys'
fees. We filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2014, which was
denied on December 4, 2014."

"On February 5, 2016, we entered into a confidential settlement
agreement and release with plaintiffs to settle all of their
claims. The settlement was not material to our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

ReachLocal's mission is to provide more customers to local
businesses.


REGINA CAELI: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Kruse" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Kruse, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
moves the Court for conditional certification in the lawsuit
titled JOHN G. KRUSE and MARIE KRUSE v. REGINA CAELI, INC., a
foreign not for profit corporation; RICH BECKMAN, PETER IDLER,
DANIEL SAEGAERT, STEVEN KONSIN, NORBERT MADUZIA, AUGUSTINE TRAN
and JOSHUA ALLEN, Case No. 16-cv-10304-AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich.).

Ms. Kruse was employed by Regina Caeli as a lead tutor in its
local hybrid homeschooling program and is "paid" through a tuition
discount known as "Work Tuition."  She alleges that the "Work
Tuition" program violates the minimum wage provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to authorize her to issue a
notice of the lawsuit to all persons engaged by RCA in the "Work
Tuition" program during the period February 26, 2013, to Feb. 26,
2016, and to advise these persons of their right to join the
lawsuit to collect compensation for unpaid wages.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ObfMgbIx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen H. Klaus, Esq.
          MADDIN HAUSER ROTH & HELLER, P.C.
          28400 Northwestern Hwy., 2nd Floor
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Telephone: (248) 359-7520
          E-mail: kklaus@maddinhauser.com


REVEL SYSTEMS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Williams" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Williams, Geoffrey McBride, and Kevin Chatfield, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated v. Revel Systems, Inc.
and Does 1 TO 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC 16 551802 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay all wages for all hours worked, provide all rest breaks and
provide all meal periods required by California Labor Code.

Revel Systems, Inc. provides point-of-sale software for use on
Apple iPad tablets to business throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Allen, Esq.
      Daniel Velton, Esq.
      VELTON ZEGELMAN, PC
      525 W. Remington Drive, Suite 106
      Sunnyvale, CA 94087
      Telephone: (408) 505-7892
      Facsimile: (408) 228-1930
      E-mail: kallen@vzfirm.com
              dvelton@vzfirm.com

         - and -

      Rory C. Quintana, Esq.
      QUINTANA HANAFI, LLP
      351 California St., Ste 300
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 504-3121
      Facsimile: (415) 233-8770
      E-mail: rory@qhplaw.com


RIGHTSCORP INC: "Blaha" Parties in Talks Over Suggested Revisions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rightscorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case, John Blaha
v. Rightscorp, Inc., C.D. Cal. (Original Complaint Filed November
21, 2014; First Amended Complaint Filed March 9, 2015), the
parties are in the process of meeting and conferring to implement
the Court's suggested revisions and will notify the Court when the
materials are ready to be resubmitted.

Nature of Matter: This matter seeks relief for alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227). The
action is brought on behalf of the individual named plaintiff as
well as on behalf of a putative nationwide classes.

Progress of Matter to Date: This matter was previously captioned
with Karen J. Reif and Isaac Nesmith as lead plaintiffs. On March
9, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint replacing the
lead plaintiffs, dropping their second and third causes of action
for Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq.) and Violations of the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1788 et seq.)
(and dropping associated putative class claims), and naming BMG
Rights Management (US) LLC and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. as
additional defendants.

The First Amended Complaint also contained a cause of action for
Abuse of Process. In response to the Abuse of Process claim,
defendants brought a special motion to strike the claim under
California's anti-SLAPP statute. Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion was
granted on May 8, 2015. Pursuant to the Court's May 8, 2015 Order,
the Abuse of Process claim (and associated putative class claim)
was stricken from the case and plaintiff was ordered to pay
defendants' attorney's fees incurred in bringing the anti-SLAPP
motion.

Following the dismissal of Plaintiff's Abuse of Process claim, the
parties agreed to mediate the dispute and reached a settlement in
principal. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement was heard on February 8, 2016, before the Hon.
Dale S. Fischer. The Court reviewed the proposed settlement and
offered the parties its comments regarding the submitted
documents. The Parties are now in the process of meeting and
conferring to implement the Court's suggested revisions and will
notify the Court when the materials are ready to be resubmitted.
Once the motion is resubmitted, a new hearing date convenient for
the Court will be selected, at which time Rightscorp anticipates
the Court will rule on the motion.


RIGHTSCORP INC: Brown-Jenkins Suit in Georgia Now Closed
--------------------------------------------------------
Rightscorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case, Melissa
Brown and Ben Jenkins v. Rightscorp, Inc., Federal District Court,
M.D. Ga. (Complaint Filed February 17, 2015), a Stipulation of
Dismissal was filed with the court and the matter was closed.

In this case the plaintiffs asserted claims for (1) Violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et
seq.) and (2) Knowing and Willful Violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq.). Defendant
Rightscorp, Inc. disputed the plaintiffs' claims and denied any
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec.
227, et seq.) or any other right of plaintiffs.

After discovery, the parties agreed to settle the case in December
2015 and formally entered into a written settlement agreement on
January 28, 2016 that fully resolved all claims in the case, with
prejudice. Defendants paid the settlement amount and on February
29, 2016 a Stipulation of Dismissal was filed with the court and
the matter was closed.

The case has been settled.


ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Defending Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Root9B Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and two
senior executives of the Company are named as defendants in a
class action proceeding filed on June 23, 2015, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On September 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted a motion to transfer the lawsuit to
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

On October 14, 2015, the Court appointed David Hampton as Lead
Plaintiff and approved Hampton's selection of the law firm Levi &
Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel.  Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on January 4, 2016.

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities
laws on behalf of a class of persons who purchased shares of the
Company's common stock between October 17, 2014 and June 15, 2015.

In general, the Amended Complaint alleges that false or misleading
statements were made or that there was a failure to make
appropriate disclosures concerning the Company's cyber security
business and products.

On February 18, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.  Plaintiff's opposition to the
motion to dismiss was due on or before April 4, 2016, and
Defendants' reply was due on or before May 4, 2016.

"We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit; however, the
Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit vigorously," the Company said.

The Company is a provider of cybersecurity, business advisory
services principally in regulatory risk mitigation, and energy and
controls solutions.


SAMIA TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominique Roberts, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Samia Transportation, Inc. C/O Samia Hassan and Samia
Hassan, Case No. 5:16-cv-01078 (N.D. Ohio., May 4, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing student
transportation services to schools within Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris P. Wido, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Litigation in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the securities
litigation is in the early stages.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the
Company and certain current and former executive officers of the
Company.

On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially
similar putative class action complaint in the same court and
against the same defendants.

On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under
the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation"
(the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities
claims against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a
putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during
the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b)
purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or
traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12,
2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian
Trust II in or traceable to its initial public offering on or
about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are
responsible for making false and misleading statements, and
omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects,
including oil and natural gas reserves, the Company's capital
expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies
allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward.

On May 11, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs'
claims against the Mississippian Trust I and the Mississippian
Trust II (together, the "Mississippian Trusts") and the
underwriter defendants. On August 27, 2015, the court dismissed
without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against the Company and the
individual current and former officers and directors, and granted
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint.

On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint in which plaintiffs assert federal securities
claims against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of SandRidge common stock during the period between February 24,
2011, and November 8, 2012. The claims are based on allegations
that the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors are responsible for making false and misleading
statements, and omitting material information, concerning a
variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves, the Company's
capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by
companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom
Ward.

Because the Securities Litigation is in the early stages, an
estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if any,
cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories
relating to the plaintiffs' claims and defendants' defenses are
fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any
reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. Each of the
Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it
for any losses it may incur in connection with the Securities
Litigation.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an energy company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and NGLs.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Hart" Settlement Subject to Final Negotiations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the proposed settlement
agreement in the case by James Hart is subject to final
negotiations between the parties and court approval.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy,
Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge Exploration and
Production, LLC, SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services,
Inc. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the
defendants failed to properly calculate overtime pay for the
plaintiffs and for other similarly situated current and former
employees. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants
required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and
former employees to engage in work-related activities without pay.
The plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i)
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of the
Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud,
and seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties, economic damages, compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the
Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October
11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma.

On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014,
the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective
Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and
denied plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations.

On May 27, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this lawsuit. Pursuant to such agreement, the Company will
establish a settlement fund from which to pay participating
plaintiffs' claims as well as plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The
proposed settlement agreement is subject to final negotiations
between the parties and court approval. During the year ended
December 31, 2015, the Company established a $5.1 million reserve
for this lawsuit.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an energy company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and NGLs.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against Lanier Trust Action
-------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and other
defendants intend to defend against the lawsuit by the Duane &
Virginia Lanier Trust.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, among other defendants,
on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of
the Mississippian Trust I pursuant or traceable to its initial
public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and/or at other times
during the time period between April 7, 2011, and November 8, 2012
(the "Class Period"), and (b) purchasers of common units of the
Mississippian Trust II pursuant or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 17, 2012, and/or at other times during
the Class Period. The claims are based on allegations that the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are
responsible for making false and misleading statements, and
omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects,
including oil and natural gas reserves and the Company's capital
expenditures.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and
legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the
defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company
has not established any reserves relating to this action. Each of
the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify
it for any losses it may incur in connection with this lawsuit.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an energy company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and NGLs.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Consolidated Complaint Filed in "Gernandt"
------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs have
filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the Gernandt
action.

On July 30, 2015, Barton Gernandt, Jr., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a
putative class comprised of all persons, except the named
defendants and their immediate family members, who were
participants in, or beneficiaries of, the SandRidge Energy, Inc.
401(k) Plan (the "Plan") at any time between August 2, 2012, and
the present, and whose Plan accounts included investments in
SandRidge common stock. The plaintiff purports to bring the action
both derivatively on the Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections
409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based
on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the Plan and to the Plan participants by allowing the
investment of the Plan's assets in SandRidge common stock when it
was otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial
condition of the Company and the fact the Company's common stock
was artificially inflated because, among other things, the Company
materially overstated the amount of oil being produced and the
ratio of oil to natural gas in one of its core holdings.

On August 19, 2015, Christina A. Cummings, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers, among other defendants, on behalf of
a putative class comprised of all participants for whose
individual accounts the Plan held shares of SandRidge common stock
from November 8, 2012, to the present, inclusive. The plaintiff
purports to bring the action both derivatively on the Plan's
behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections 409 and 502, and as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based on allegations that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan
and to the Plan participants by allowing the investment of the
Plan's assets in SandRidge common stock when it was otherwise
allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial condition of
the Company. On September 10, 2015, the Court consolidated this
lawsuit with the Gernandt action.

On September 14, 2015, Richard A. McWilliams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, among other defendants,
on behalf of a putative class comprised of all persons, except the
named defendants and their immediate family members, who were
participants in, or beneficiaries of, the Plan at any time between
August 2, 2012, and the present, and whose Plan accounts included
investments in SandRidge common stock. The plaintiff purports to
bring the action both derivatively on the Plan's behalf pursuant
to ERISA Sections 409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's
claims are based on allegations that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and to the Plan participants by
allowing the investment of the Plan's assets in SandRidge common
stock when it was otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on
the financial condition of the Company and the fact the Company's
common stock was artificially inflated because, among other
things, the Company materially overstated the amount of oil being
produced and the ratio of oil to natural gas in one of its core
holdings. On September 24, 2015, the Court consolidated this
lawsuit with the Gernandt action.

On November 24, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in the consolidated Gernandt action. The Company
intends to defend this consolidated lawsuit vigorously. This
lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of
reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any,
cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories
relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants' defenses
are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established
any reserves relating to this action.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an energy company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and NGLs.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Dismissal of Amended Class Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss the
amended class action complaint.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit).

The Company said, "The Deka Lawsuit was filed against the Company,
certain of its current and former directors and executive officers
and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the
Company's IPO and a class consisting of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and
June 12, 2014."

"In February 2015, a separate purported class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

"In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred from
the Southern District of New York to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas. In September 2015, the court
granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and
the case is now captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander
Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-CV-2129-K.

"The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges
that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain
subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements
concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and our
compliance systems. The amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief.

"On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint."

SC is the holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an
Illinois corporation, and subsidiaries, a specialized consumer
finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-party
servicing. The Company's primary business is the indirect
origination of retail installment contracts, principally through
manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of
new and used vehicles to retail consumers.


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georg Kinzy, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-
01239 (S.D. Tex., May 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation provides products and services
for the oil and gas industry, including such operations as
directional drilling, measurement while drilling, and well
completions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John David Hart, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVID HART
      Wells Fargo Tower
      201 Main Street, Suite 1720
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 870-2102
      Facsimile: (817) 332-5858
      E-mail: johnhart@hartlaw.com


SCIVAC THERAPEUTICS: Pre-Trial Hearing Rescheduled to June 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scivac Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a pre-trial hearing in a
class action lawsuit has been rescheduled for June 28, 2016.

On August 2, 2015, the Company was served in Israel with a Motion
to Approve a Class Action, referred to as the Motion. The Motion
and underlying claim was filed in response to the recall discussed
above, alleging that through purported actions or omissions,
SciVac violated patients' autonomy, misled patients and violated
provisions of the Israeli Law of Patients' Rights. The claimant
seeks only monetary damages in the amount of NIS 150,000. The
Company has provided notice of the Motion to its insurance broker
and they have retained counsel on behalf of the Company.

A pre-trial hearing that had been scheduled for March 10, 2016 has
been rescheduled for June 28, 2016 in order to provide the parties
an opportunity to settle the matter. The Company believes that the
Motion and the underlying claim are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no assurance
that the Company will be successful in its defense.


SFR INVESTMENTS: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Lose Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the District of Nevada
ruled on the parties' claims in the case FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY, in its capacity as Conservator of The Federal National
Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation;
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; and FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
a Nevada domestic limited liability company; NEVADA NEW BUILDS,
LLC, a Nevada domestic limited liability company; and LAS VEGAS
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, a Nevada domestic limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01338-GMN-CWH (D. Nev.)

In September of 2008, the Federal Housing Agency (FHFA) placed
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) into conservatorships
for the purpose of reorganizing, rehabilitating, or winding up
their affairs. As conservator, FHFA immediately succeeded to all
rights, titles, powers, and privileges of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac.

The action involves the interplay between Nevada Revised Statutes
Section 116.3116 and 12 U.S.C. Section 4617 as it relates to the
parties' interests in real property located at 1633 Xanadu Drive,
Henderson, Nevada, 7671 Mocorito Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 5321
Clover Blossom Court, North Las Vegas, Nevada, 2612 Bahama Point
Avenue, North Las Vegas, Nevada, and 1577 Pasture Lane, Las Vegas,
Nevada.

SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (SFR) purchased the properties as the
highest bidder at an HOA foreclosure sale on different dates.
Pending before the court is the motion to certify class, motion
for summary judgment, and motion to seal by FHFA, Fannie Mae, and
Freddie Mac. Additionally, pending before the court is the motion
to dismiss and motion to Sever filed by SFR. Moreover, pending
before the court is the countermotion for 56(d) relief filed by
defendant Las Vegas Development Group, LLC.

Chief District Judge Navarro denied plaintiffs' motion to certify
class but granted plaintiffs' motion to seal. Plaintiffs shall
file a corrected, unsealed Exhibit A on the docket with the
confidential information redacted by May 26, 2016.

SFR's motion to sever is granted, and the claims asserted against
defendants Nevada New Builds, LLC and Las Vegas Development Group,
LLC are severed from the case. Plaintiffs shall have until May 26,
2016, to file separate cases against each of the severed
defendants.

SFR's motion to dismiss is denied.  Las Vegas Development's motion
for 56(d) relief is denied as moot. It is further ordered that
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiffs'
are granted summary judgment on all of their claims.

A copy of Judge Navarro's order dated May 2, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/e9Pt52from Leagle.com.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Asim Varma -- asim.varma@aporter.com -- Howard Cayne --
howard.cayne@aporter.com -- Michael A.F. Johnson --
michael.johnson@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP; John H.
Maddock, III -- jmaddock@mcguirewoods.com -- Michael W. Stark --
mstark@mcguirewoods.com -- Tennille Checkovich --
tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuireWoods LLP; John D.
Tennert -- jtennert@fclaw.com -- Leslie Bryan Hart --
lhart@fclaw.com -- at Fennemore Craig, P.C; Jory C. Garabedian --
ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP at

Federal Housing finance Agency, Plaintiff, represented by Dana
Jonathon Nitz -- dnitz@wrightlegal.net -- at Wright, Finlay & Zak,
LLP; David Bergman -- david.bergman@aporter.com -- Elliott C.
Mogul -- elliott.mogul@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP; John
D. Tennert -- jtennert@fclaw.com -- Leslie Bryan Hart --
lhart@fclaw.com -- at Fennemore Craig, P.C; Jory C. Garabedian --
ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP at

Federal National Mortgage Association, Plaintiff, represented by
Robin E Perkins -- rperkins@swlaw.com -- at Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Defendants, represented by Howard C. Kim -- howard@kgelegal.com
-- Jacqueline A. Gilbert -- jackie@kgelegal.com -- Jesse N Panoff
-- jesse@kgelegal.com -- Diana Cline Ebron -- diana@kgelegal.com -
-- at Kim Gilbert Ebron


SHAMROCK FOODS: "Zubia" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Francisco Zubia, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public v. Shamrock Foods Company and Does 1-100, Case No.
BC615331, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-03128-BRO-AGR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts job-related claims.

Shamrock Foods Company specializes in the manufacturing and
distribution of quality food and food-related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Thomas Mara, Esq.
      Jill Marie Vecchi, Esq.
      William Turley, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: dmara@turleylawfirm.com
              jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com
              bturley@turleylawfirm.com

           - and -

      Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq.
      Jeffrey Charles Bils, Esq.
      BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
      11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 820-8800
      Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
      E-mail: vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com
              jbils@bakerlaw.com


SHIVA AMBULETTE: "Muniz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Efrain Muniz, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated v. Shiva Ambulette Service, Inc., ("Shiva"),
and Bharat Patel, Case No. 1:16-cv-03321-PGG (S.D.N.Y., May 4,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and other appropriate legal and
equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an ambulance services company located at
5582 Broadway, Bronx, NY 10463.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Delmas A. Costin, Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DELMAS A. COSTIN JR.
      177 E. 161 Street
      Bronx, NY 10451
      Telephone: (718) 618-0589
      Facsimile: (347) 510-0099
      E-mail: dacostin@dacostinlaw.com


SOLO CONSTRUCTION: "Flanagin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Flanagin, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Solo Construction, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00557-MPK (W.D. Penn., May 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Solo Construction, LLC operates an oilfield service company
offering a wide range of services to the oil and gas industry in
states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SOUTHERN CONCRETE: "Morris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Morris, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. Southern Concrete and Construction, Inc.,
and Kelly Boulware, Case No. 8:16-cv-01440-TMC (D.S.C., May 5,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction business that
performs work across the Southeast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John G. Reckenbeil, Esq.
      Lawrence E. McNair, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOHN RECKENBEIL, LLC
      215 Magnolia Street (29306)
      Post Office Box 1633
      Spartanburg, SC 29304
      Telephone: (864) 582-5472
      Facsimile: (864) 582-7280
      E-mail: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com

           - and -

      J. Bradley Bennett, Esq.
      Jessica Salvini, Esq.
      SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC
      101 W. Park Avenue
      Greenville, SC 29601
      Telephone: (864) 232-5800
      E-mail: salvini_bennett@yahoo.com


STANDARD INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment; Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Otis D. Wright, II, entered an order in the lawsuit
styled ANGELA DE LEON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:15-
cv-07419-ODW(JC) (C.D. Cal.), granting the Defendant's motion for
partial summary judgment and denying as moot the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

The putative class action lawsuit was filed against Standard under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The
Plaintiff, who suffered an on-the-job injury, alleges that
Standard unlawfully offset her workers' compensation benefits
against disability benefits it awarded to her under an ERISA-
governed welfare plan.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cmAHagrc

Angela De Leon, Plaintiff, represented by Thornton Davidson, Esq.,
and Robert J Rosati, Esq., at ERISA Law Group LLP.

Standard Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by:

     Linda Marie Lawson, Esq.
     Jason A James, Esq.
     Meserve Mumper and Hughes LLP,
     800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-2611
     Tel: (213) 620-0300
     Fax: (213) 625-1930
     E-mail: llawson@mmhllp.com
             jjames@mmhllp.com

          - and -

     Keith R Verges, Esq.
     Ryan K McComber, Esq.
     Figari and Davenport LLP
     901 Main St #3400
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: 214-939-2017
     E-mail: kverges@figdav.com
             ryan.mccomber@figdav.com


STRATEGIC REALTY: Distribution of Settlement Proceeds Commenced
---------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the distribution of
the settlement proceeds in the securities litigation to the
members of the class has commenced.

On or about September 23, 2013, a civil action captioned Stephen
Drews v. TNP Strategic Retail Trust, Inc., et al., SA-CV-13-1488-
PA-DFMx, was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The named defendants were the
Company, various of its present or former officers and directors,
including Anthony W. Thompson, and several entities controlled by
Mr. Thompson. The plaintiff alleged that he invested in connection
with the Offering and purported to represent a class consisting of
all persons who invested in connection with the Offering between
September 23, 2010 and February 7, 2013. The plaintiff alleged
that the Company and all of the individual defendants violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act") because the offering materials used in
connection with the Offering allegedly failed to disclose
financial difficulties that Mr. Thompson and the entities
controlled by him were experiencing.

Additional claims under the Securities Act were asserted against
Mr. Thompson, the entities controlled by Mr. Thompson and the
other individual defendants who were employees of Mr. Thompson.
The complaint sought a class-wide award of damages in an
unspecified amount.

On October 22, 2013, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice. On October 23, 2013, a virtually
identical complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, asserting the same claims
against the same defendants. The only material difference was that
an additional plaintiff was added. Like the original plaintiff,
the additional plaintiff alleged that he invested in connection
with the Offering. The new action was captioned Lewis Booth, et
al. v. Strategic Realty Trust, Inc., et al., CV-13-4921-JST.

On January 27, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel. On March 13, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint
contained the same claims as the original complaint and added
additional common law claims, including claims that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties, and that the Company
and its directors had been unjustly enriched.

On April 28, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants other
than Mr. Thompson or employees of Mr. Thompson moved to dismiss
the amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Court granted the
motion in part and denied the motion in part. Specifically, the
Court dismissed the claim for breach of fiduciary duty with leave
to amend and dismissed the claim for unjust enrichment with
prejudice. On July 31, 2014, the plaintiffs advised the Court that
they did not intend to amend their pleading to re-assert the claim
for breach of fiduciary duty.

On January 16, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle
the case on a class-wide basis, subject to approval by the Court,
with the settlement to be funded entirely by the Company's
insurers. On October 15, 2015, the Court approved the settlement.
On February 12, 2016, the distribution of the settlement proceeds
to the members of the class commenced.

Strategic Realty Trust, Inc., is a Maryland corporation formed on
September 18, 2008 to invest in and manage a portfolio of income-
producing retail properties, located in the United States, real
estate-owning entities and real estate-related assets, including
the investment in or origination of mortgage, mezzanine, bridge
and other loans related to commercial real estate.


SUNRUN INC: "Greenberg" Sues Over Artificially Inflated IPOs
------------------------------------------------------------
Carole Lee Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sunrun Inc., Lynn Jurich,
Robert Komn, Edward Fenster, Jameson Mcjunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve
Vassallo, Richard Wong, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets, LLC,
Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., and Suntrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02480 (N.D. Cal. May00206,
2016), seeks compensatory damages, rescissory claims, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other
costs and disbursements and further relief for violations of Sec.
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.

Defendants are accused of making misstatements and omissions
during their initial public offering. Defendant claims that the
price of Sunrun common stock was artificially and materially
inflated at the time of the offering.

Sunrun engages in the design, development, installation sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. The Company markets and sells its products
through direct channels, partner channels, mass media, digital
media, canvassing, referral, retail, and field marketing. Lynn
Jurich, Robert Komn, Edward Fenster, Jameson Mcjunkin, Gerald
Risk, Steve Vassallo and Richard Wong are members of the Board of
Directors. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Keybanc Capital
Markets Inc., and Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. are
underwriters for the said offering.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (818) 532-6499
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

            - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman
     J. Alexander Hood II
     POMERANTZ, LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

            - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


SWEETGREEN INC: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Wilson" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Wilson and Diamond Pate, on behalf of themselves and al)
others similarly situated v. Sweetgreen, Inc., Sweetgreen LA, LLC,
Sweetgreen SF LLC, Jonathan Neman, Nathaniel Ru, Nicolas Jammet,
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC619305 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to timely compensate employees for all wages earned, and failure
to properly and accurately report wages earned, hours worked, and
wage rates.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Spivak, Esq.
      Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
      THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
      9454 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 303
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone (310) 499-4730
      Facsimile (310) 499-739
      E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
              caroline@spivaklaw.com


TILLY'S, INC: Deadline to File Opening Brief Not Yet Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the deadline for
plaintiffs to file their opening brief has not yet beet set in the
appeal in the case, Kirstin Christiansen, Shellie Smith and Paul
Haug, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
vs. World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of California, County of
Sacramento, Case No. 34-2013-139010.

On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this matter filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of
California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which prohibits requesting
or requiring personal identification information from a customer
paying for goods with a credit card and recording such
information, subject to exceptions. The complaint seeks
certification of a class, unspecified damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.

In June 2013, the Court granted our motion to strike portions of
the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
The parties completed class certification discovery and briefing,
and a hearing was held on August 13, 2015.

On September 17, 2015, the Court issued an order denying
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On or around November
30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order
denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The deadline
for plaintiffs to file their opening brief has not yet beet set.

"We intend to defend this case vigorously," the Company said.

Tillys is a destination specialty retailer of West Coast inspired
casual apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, young
women, boys and girls.


TILLY'S, INC: Parties Reached Resolution in "Rebolledo" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that in the case, Maria
Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public vs. Tilly's, Inc.;
World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-CXC, the parties
attended a mediation proceeding and reached a resolution that will
be presented to the Court for approval.

On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and
regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things. An
amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2013, to add a claim
for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act.
In March 2013, we filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
denied in June 2013 and later affirmed on appeal. In October 2014,
we filed an answer to the amended complaint. The parties attended
a mediation proceeding and reached a resolution that will be
presented to the Court for approval.

Tillys is a destination specialty retailer of West Coast inspired
casual apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, young
women, boys and girls.


TILLY'S, INC: "Whitten" Case in Pre-Certification Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the case, Karina Whitten,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's
Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case
No. BC 548252, is in pre-class certification motion discovery
state.

The Company said, "On June 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative
class action and representative Private Attorney General Act
lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's wage and
hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair
competition law, among other things. The complaint seeks class
certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint on December 3, 2014, removing the expense reimbursement
claim for attorneys' fees and costs. The matter is in pre-class
certification motion discovery state. We intent to defend this
case vigorously."

Tillys is a destination specialty retailer of West Coast inspired
casual apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, young
women, boys and girls.


TILLY'S, INC: To Defend Against "Ward" Case in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend against the case, Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405.

The Company said, "On September 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us, alleging violations of
California's wage and hour rules and regulations and unfair
competition law. The complaint seeks certification of a class,
unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and
attorneys' fees.  We intend to defend this case vigorously."

Tillys is a destination specialty retailer of West Coast inspired
casual apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, young
women, boys and girls.


TOWERSTREAM CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Schallow and Michelle Mohamed, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. TowerStream Corporation, Case No.
9:16-cv-80718-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

TowerStream Corporation owns and operates a nationwide business
providing fixed wireless services to businesses in urban markets
across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 299-3844
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: hsolis@workingforyou.com
              employlaw@keithstern.com


TRAVEL RESORTS: Faces "Lugo" Lawsuit for Illegal Debit Under EFTA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Lugo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Travel Resorts of America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case 5:16-cv-02190-JFL, (E.D. Pa., May 6, 2016), seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from Defendant's alleged illegal
debiting pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Travel Resorts of America, Inc. is a vacation service provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TDD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Phone: 888-595-9111 ext 618
     Fax: 866 633-0228
     E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumer.com


TRS STAFFING: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Williams and others similarly situated v. TRS Staffing
Solutions, Inc., and Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00119 (S.D. Tex., May 5, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

TRS Staffing Solutions, Inc. operates a company primarily engaged
in the recruitment of engineers.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc. operates a company that primarily delivers
integrated engineering, procurement, fabrication, construction
(EPFC), maintenance and project management solutions to
governments and private sector Clients in diverse industries
around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas H. Padgett Jr., Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      4809 Pine St.
      Bellaire, TX 77401
      Telephone: (800) 634-8042
      Facsimile: (512) 4745306
      E-mail: tpadgett@rosslawgroup.com


TURTLE BEACH: Briefing Completed in Class Action Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that briefing has been
completed in a class action appeal.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. ("VTBH"), and the Company
(f/k/a Parametric) announced that they had entered into the Merger
Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately
80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an
approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company.
Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class
action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the
Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders by agreeing to a Merger that allegedly
undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as
defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided
and abetted the Company's Board of Directors in allegedly
violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both cases
sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of the
Merger, which by agreement was heard by the Nevada court with the
California plaintiffs invited to participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and
sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger.
The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was
granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial
is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court, which held
a hearing on the Company's petition for review on September 1,
2015.

After the hearing, the Nevada Supreme Court requested a
supplemental briefing, which the parties completed on October 13,
2015. The Nevada Supreme Court also invited the Business Law
Section of the Nevada State Bar to submit an amicus brief by
December 3, 2015 and briefing was completed on February 23, 2016.
The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims against it are
without merit.

Turtle Beach Corporation, headquartered in San Diego, California
and incorporated in the state of Nevada in 2010, is a premier
audio technology company with expertise and experience in
developing, commercializing and marketing innovative products
across a range of large addressable markets under the Turtle
Beach(R) and HyperSound(R) brands.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Cal. Judge Asks Gov't to Weigh In on Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier in the case captioned NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF
CALIFORNIA v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 14-cv-04086-NC
(N.D. Cal.), the United States appeared as an amicus and commented
on the motion to dismiss. Now, the parties have filed a class
action settlement and seek preliminary approval of the settlement.
The Court requests that the United States comment on the proposed
settlement by June 8, 2016.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins' May 9, 2016 Order
is avavilable at https://is.gd/jCuUXg from Leagle.com.

National Federation of the Blind of California, Plaintiff,
represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis, Disability Rights
Advocates, Julia Zoog Marks, Disability Rights Advocates, Michael
William Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld
LLP, Michael S Nunez -- mnunez@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld & Timothy Ryan Elder, TRE Legal Practice.

Michael Hingson, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis,
Disability Rights Advocates, Aaron Bernell Zisser, Disability
Rights Advocates, Julia Zoog Marks, Disability Rights Advocates,
Michael William Bien, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Michael S
Nunez, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld & Timothy Ryan Elder, TRE
Legal Practice.

Michael Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Bernell Zisser,
Disability Rights Advocates, Julia Zoog Marks, Disability Rights
Advocates, Michael William Bien, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP
& Michael S Nunez, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld.

Michael Pedersen, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Bernell Zisser,
Disability Rights Advocates, Julia Zoog Marks, Disability Rights
Advocates, Michael William Bien, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP
& Michael S Nunez, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Emily Erin O'Connor, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Rasier, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise,
Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Rasier-CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Amicus, represented by Sara Winslow,
United States Attorney's Office.


ULTA SALON: Defending 4 Putative Employment Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
30, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the
Company is the defendant in four putative employment class action
lawsuits that allege that the Company violated various provisions
of California's labor laws. All four of these lawsuits seek to
recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged
practices.

The Company has agreed to settle one of the suits for $1,750,000
(a significant portion of which will be allocated to attorneys'
fees for plaintiff's counsel). The settlement, which is fully
reserved for, remains subject to final court approval; preliminary
approval was granted on March 11, 2016.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company admits no liability
and the parties fully and finally release all claims. The Company
denies the plaintiff's allegations in the other three suits and is
vigorously defending these matters.

Ulta Beauty is the largest beauty retailer in the United States
and the premier beauty destination for cosmetics, fragrance, skin
care products, hair care products and salon services.


UNIFUND CCR: Kelly Massey Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Massey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, moves the Court to certify a class in the matter
captioned Kelly Massey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Unifund CCR, LLC, an Ohio limited liability
company, and Distressed Asset Portfolio, IV, LLC, an Ohio limited
liability company, Case No. 1:16-cv-05131 (N.D. Ill.).

The complaint, filed on May 11, 2016, sets forth that the form
debt collection letters which the Defendants sent to the
Plaintiff, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because
the initial collection letters failed to state adequately the name
of the creditor to whom the debt was then owed.

Ms. Massey further asks that briefing on this Motion be stayed
pending discovery as to class issues, such as net worth and
numerosity.  The Plaintiff says she is filing the Motion now to
avoid an individual "buy-off" settlement payment to only her,
which could potentially wipe out the Class' claims.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BTh1FB8a

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Huffman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. J. Leon Holmes entered an Opinion and Order in the
lawsuit styled EDWARD L. AND JANICE R. HUFFMAN PLAINTIFFS LIVING
TRUST, for themselves and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated individuals; DOUGLAS MCDOWALL, for himself and
as a representative of a class of similarly situated individuals;
and JUDITH MCDOWALL, for herself and as a representative of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Case No. 4:15CV00484 JLH (E.D. Ark.), denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs propose this class definition:

     All persons

     (1) who on November 19, 2010, owned an interest in land
     constituting part of the easement on which a rail line was
     formerly operated by Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union
     Pacific") between milepost 345.64 and milepost 349.68, in
     the City of North Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, a
     distance of approximately 4.04 miles (the "Railroad Line");

     (2) who claim a taking of their rights to possession,
     control and enjoyment of such land due to the operation of
     the "rail banking" provisions of the National Trails System
     Act ("NTSA"), 16 U.S.C. Section 1247(d) in the amount no
     more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

     Excluded from this Class are persons who elect to pursue
     their claims in other venues.

The Plaintiffs bring the Action against the United States alleging
that the issuance of a Notice of Interim Trail Use by the Surface
Transportation Board pursuant to the National Trails System Act
constitutes a taking without just compensation in violation of the
Fifth Amendment.  The Union Pacific Railroad Company owned an
easement across the Plaintiffs' property.  Union Pacific stopped
using a stretch of its railroad -- which ran across the
Plaintiffs' property -- and entered into a Trail Use Agreement
with the City of North Little Rock to transfer the stretch to the
City for recreational use.

The plaintiffs allege that if it were not for the Trails Act,
Arkansas law would have operated to unburden their property of the
easement when Union Pacific abandoned its use and authorized the
City to use the stretch for recreational purposes.  The Plaintiffs
have moved for class certification on behalf of similarly situated
landowners pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The United States opposes class certification, arguing that
joinder is not impracticable as required by Rule 23(a).

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c2urhSUu


VALE S.A.: Judge Consolidated Securities Actions
------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the judge overseeing the securities
class action has issued an order consolidating these actions and
designating lead plaintiffs and counsel.

Vale S.A. and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in civil class action suits in federal court in New
York brought by holders of Vale's securities under U.S. federal
securities laws. The lawsuits allege that Vale made false and
misleading statements or omitted to make disclosures concerning
the risks and dangers of the operations of Samarco's Fundao dam
and the adequacy of the related programs and procedures. The
plaintiffs have not specified an amount of alleged damages in
these actions.

"We intend to vigorously defend these actions and mount a full
defense against the allegations. The litigation is at a very early
stage," the Company said.

"On March 7, 2016, the judge overseeing the securities class
action issued an order consolidating these actions and designating
lead plaintiffs and counsel. As a consequence of the preliminary
nature of these suits, it is not possible to determine a range of
outcomes or reliable estimates of the potential exposure at this
time, and no provision has been recognized."

Vale is one of the largest metals and mining companies in the
world, based on market capitalization.


VALE S.A.: Litigation Related to Dam Failure at Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the litigation related to the dam
failure at Samarco Minera‡ao S.A. ("Samarco") is at a very early
stage.

Vale S.A. and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in civil class action suits in federal court in New
York brought by holders of Vale's securities under U.S. federal
securities laws. The lawsuits allege that Vale made false and
misleading statements or omitted to make disclosures concerning
the risks and dangers of the operations of Samarco's Fundao dam
and assert other causes of action against the defendants for the
ownership in and supervision of the Fundao dam. The plaintiffs
have not specified an amount of alleged damages in these actions.
Vale has notified its insurers of the dam failure event and
related civil complaints. Vale intends to defend these actions and
mount a full defense against the allegations. The litigation is at
a very early stage. Service has not been completed on all
defendants, no lead plaintiff or lead plaintiffs' attorney has
been named, and no schedule has been established for the filing of
any responses, motions or answers. As a consequence of the
preliminary nature of these suits, it is not possible to determine
a range of outcomes or reliable estimates of the potential
exposure at this time, and no provision has been recognized.

Vale is one of the largest metals and mining companies in the
world, based on market capitalization.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Motion to Certify Remains Under Consideration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs' motion to
certify their lawsuit as a class action remains under
consideration by the Tel Aviv District Court.

The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced
by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09)
(the "Deutsch District Action").

"In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to
approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purports to
represent a class of our employees and former employees who were
granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as
a result of the suspension of option exercises during the period
from March 2006 through March 2010, during which we did not make
periodic filings with the SEC as a result of certain internal and
external investigations and reviews of accounting matters
discussed in our prior public filings.

"In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages.

"On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for
lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.

"On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action").

"In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during an extended filing delay period affecting CTI's
periodic reporting discussed in CTI's historical SEC filings.

"In the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by
CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do
not specify an amount of damages.

"On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor Action was transferred to the
Tel Aviv District Court, based on an agreed motion filed by the
parties requesting such transfer.

"On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an
uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on
June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms.
Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an
amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse
Limited.

"Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the
Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set
aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future
judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this
motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion
was heard.

"Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal this ruling in
August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014.
Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties.

"On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share
distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a
result of the Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an
independent public company and ceased to be a wholly owned
subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets
other than its equity interest in us.

"On September 9, 2015, Comverse changed its name to Xura, Inc.
("Xura").

"On February 4, 2013, we completed the CTI Merger. As a result of
the CTI Merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch
District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under
the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse
relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to
CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse (now Xura) for
any losses we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to
CTI in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel
District Action.

"Following an unsuccessful mediation process, the proceeding
before the District Court resumed and the parties have filed
summations on the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a
class action, which remain under consideration by the District
Court."

Verint(R) Systems Inc. is a global leader in Actionable
Intelligence(R) solutions.


VERONA GARDENS: "Sutherland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Sutherland, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Verona Gardens LLC and Jose Pol, Case No. 0:16-cv-60981-JEM (S.D.
Fla., May 5, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      Ria N. Chattergoon, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
              ria@saenzanderson.com


VIMPELCOM LTD: Defending Against Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Vimpelcom Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending
a securities class action.

On November 4, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States against VimpelCom and certain of its current and
former officers by Charles Kux-Kardos, on behalf of himself and
other investors in the Company alleging certain violations of the
United States federal securities laws in connection with the
Company's public disclosures relating to its operations in
Uzbekistan. On December 4, 2015, a second complaint was filed by
Westway Alliance Corp. that asserts essentially the same claims in
connection with essentially the same disclosures.

The appointment of lead plaintiff has not been determined yet by
the Court and, consequently, the operative, consolidated amended
complaint is not yet on file.

The Company is currently reviewing the lawsuits and their
implications, which remain in their early stages, and intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.


WAL-MART STORES: ASA Appeals Employment Tribunal Decision
---------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2016, that in the case, Ms S
Brierley & Others v ASDA Stores Ltd (2406372/2008 & Others-
Manchester Employment Tribunal). ASDA has filed a notice of appeal
with the Court of Appeals seeking to appeal the Employment Appeal
Tribunal's decision to disallow an appeal of the stay issue.

ASDA Stores, Ltd. ("ASDA"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company, is a defendant in over 7,000 "equal value" claims that
are proceeding before an Employment Tribunal in Manchester (the
"Employment Tribunal") in the United Kingdom ("UK") on behalf of
current and former ASDA store employees, who allege that the work
performed by female employees in ASDA's retail stores is of equal
value in terms of, among other things, the demands of their jobs
to that of male employees working in ASDA's warehouse and
distribution facilities, and that the disparity in pay between
these different job positions is not objectively justified.
Claimants are requesting differential back pay based on higher
wage rates in the warehouse and distribution facilities and those
higher wage rates on a prospective basis as part of these equal
value proceedings. ASDA believes that further claims may be
asserted in the near future.

On March 23, 2015, ASDA asked the Employment Tribunal to stay all
proceedings, contending that the High Court, which is the superior
first instance civil court in the UK that is headquartered in the
Royal Courts of Justice in the City of London, is the more
convenient and appropriate forum to hear these claims.

On March 23, 2015, ASDA also asked the Employment Tribunal to
"strike out" substantially all of the claims for failing to comply
with Employment Tribunal rules.

On July 23, 2015, the Employment Tribunal denied ASDA's requests
to stay all proceedings and to "strike out" substantially all of
the claims.

On September 2, 2015, ASDA filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Employment Appeal Tribunal seeking to appeal both rulings.

On October 14, 2015, the Employment Appeal Tribunal denied ASDA's
requests for an appeal. Following additional argument and
proceedings, the issue of "strike out" and the scope of Employment
Tribunal Rules are subject of further appellate review by the
Employment Appeal Tribunal but the request to appeal the stay
issue was denied by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

On March 8, 2016, ASDA filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals seeking to appeal the Employment Appeal Tribunal's
decision to disallow an appeal of the stay issue.

At present, the Company cannot predict the number of such claims
that may be filed, and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or
range of loss that may arise from these proceedings. The Company
believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to these
claims, and intends to defend the claims vigorously.


WATTS REGULATOR: "Sharp" Suit Transferred to Nebraska Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Durwin Sharp, Joseph Ponzo,
Kathryn Meyers, and Joshua Whipp, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Watts Regulator Co., Case No. 1:14-
cv-14385, was transferred from the District of Massachusetts to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00200-JFB-TDT to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts product liability claims.

Watts Regulator Co. provides a wide range of solutions for
addressing plumbing, heating, and water quality requirements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW FIRM
      800 South Gay Street
      Suite 1100, First Tennessee Plaza
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      WEXLER, WALLACE LAW FIRM
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: aek@wexlerwallace.com
              eaw@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      CHIMICLES, TIKELLIS LAW FIRM
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633

         - and -

      Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
      CAFFERTY, CLOBES LAW FIRM
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 864-2800
      Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
      E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Daniel O. Herrera, Esq
      CAFFERTY, CLOBES LAW FIRM
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 782-4880
      Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
      E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      BERGER, MONTAGUE LAW FIRM
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: gabramson@bm.net
              scarson@bm.net

         - and -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      MCCUNE, WRIGHT LAW FIRM
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 727-3987
      E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE, DEPALMA LAW FIRM
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      Facsimile: (312) 212-5919

         - and -

      Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
      WHATLEY, DRAKE LAW FIRM
      28 State Street, 11th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 573-5118
      Facsimile: (617) 573-5090


WELTMAN WEINBERG: Class Certification Sought in "Vogelman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled WENDIE VOGELMAN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WELTMAN,
WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, and RCS RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-00552 (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court to certify the class
described in the complaint.  The Plaintiffs further asks that the
Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on the Plaintiff's Counsel.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp.,
662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index,
Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.

The Plaintiff contends that the Plaintiff is obligated to move for
class certification to protect the interests of the putative
class.  As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion
as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MqwBYi97

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


WINTERS LANDSCAPE: Faces "Magana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Magana, on behalf of himself, and all other similarly
situated plaintiffs known and unknown v. Winters Landscape, Inc.,
a/d/b/a Winters Nursery & Landscaping, and Michael L. Winters,
Individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-04983 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing landscaping
maintenance, nursery, landscape construction, and snowplowing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

         - and -

      Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 784-3541
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org


WOOD GROUP: Faces "McLemore" Lawsuit for FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MCLEMORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, V. WOOD GROUP PSN INC., HESS CORPORATION, AND PHOENIX
SAFETY & LOGISTICS PERSONNEL, INC. Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-01267
(S.D. Tex., May 6, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Wood Group PSN provides brownfield services to the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark J. Oberti, Esq.
     OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
     723 Main Street, Suite 340
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 401-3555
     Fax: (713) 401-3547
     E-mail: mark@osattorneys.com
             ed@osattorneys.com


XBIOTECH INC: To Make Procedural Motions in California Case
------------------------------------------------------------
XBiotech Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company expects to
make certain procedural motions in May 2016 in the California
class action case.

The Company said, "On December 1, 2015, a purported securities
class action complaint captioned Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc.,
John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC was filed
against us, certain of our officers and directors and the
underwriter for our initial public offering in the Superior Court
for the State of California, Los Angeles County."

"On December 2, 2015, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Linh Tran v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard and
Queena Han was filed against us and certain of our officers and
directors in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas. The lawsuits are based on substantially similar factual
allegations and purport to be class actions brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from
April 15, 2015 through November 23, 2015. The complaint filed in
California state court alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the
complaint filed in federal court alleges that the defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), in each case by making materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's Phase III clinical
trial conducted in Europe to assess Xilonix(TM) as a treatment for
colorectal cancer. The California complaint purports to assert
claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act, and the federal complaint purports to assert
claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Both complaints seek,
on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of
monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and
experts, and other relief.

Both the federal case and the California case are in the early
procedural stages. On February 24th, 2016, following a proceeding
to select a lead plaintiff in the federal case, the court issued
an order appointing Mr. Kresimir Corak as lead plaintiff.

"We expect that the plaintiff will file an amended complaint in
the federal case in April 2016. In the California case, we expect
to make certain procedural motions in May 2016. No trial or other
dates have been set," the Company said.


                            *********

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.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 2016. 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  * * *