CAR_Public/160606.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 6, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 112


                            Headlines


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Still Defends Georgia Suit Over Illegal Fees
ALL CREATURES: Bid to Certify "Jelus" Collective Action Denied
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs in "Williams" to Appeal
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Jimenez" Scheduled for Trial in September
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: No Opt Outs Received in Perez-Brown Suit

ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Defending Against "Rosenberg" Case
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Non-Jury ERISA Trial to Occur in December
ALLSTATE GROUP: "Perry" Sues over Breach of Contract
AMEC FOSTER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Abila" Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Dobbs Seeks Certification of 3 Class & Subclasses

AMERICAN HONDA: "Kogan" Warranty Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio
AMERICAN WATER: Court Extends Schedules in Chemical Spill Suit
AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: Bid to Certify Class in "Farrow" Suit Denied
BANK OF AMERICA: "Hopkins" Sues Over Breach of Contract
BIG LOTS: Pontiac Seeks Class Certification in "Willis" Suit

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 3,600 Surgical Mesh Cases Pending as of May 2
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Defending Against "Stevens" Vaginal Mesh Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Inks Confidential Settlement in "Fretter"
BP EXPLORATION: "Perrault" Sues Over Oil Spill
CALIFORNIA CASUALTY: "Oldenburg" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

CALIX INC: MOU Reached in Delaware Class Action
CASCADE MICROTECH: Class Action to Proceed in Multnomah Court
CASHCALL INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Inetianbor" Suit
CHEMOIL ENERGY: "Lee" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
COLLECTO INC: C. Dawes Amends Bid for Certification of Class

COMCAST CORPORATION: "Wingard" Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Ga.
CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS: "Ortega" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Appeal Briefing Complete
COOPER-STANDARD: Fixed Body Sealing Product Prices, Suit Says
CREDIT CONTROL: Wins Final OK of "Baker" Suit Class Settlement

CRESCENT DIRECTIONAL: "Long" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
DARBY DENTAL: "Lewis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
DECIBELS OF OREGON: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
DIRECT ENERGY: Certification of Class Sought in "Richards" Suit
DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Soto Seeks Certification of FLSA Class

DS WATERS: Eddings Seeks Approval of $1-Mil. Class Settlement
DST SYSTEMS: Defending "Cooper" ERISA Class Action
DYNAMIC DOWNHOLE: "Rutherford" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Cronin Appeals Ruling in "Keller" Class Suit
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Facing "Dougherty" Class Suit in E.D. Mich.

EVENTGRID INC: Faces "Windebank" Suit in C.D. Cal.
FANDUEL INC: "Daniels" Suit Removed to S.D. Ind.
FANNIE MAE: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Luna" Suit
FANTECH SOFTWARE: "Amini" Sues Over Spam Texts
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Deadline for Settlement Completion Extended

FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Appeal in "Ludwick" Case Remains Pending
FLORIDA GARDEN: "Johnson" Suit Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: "Le" Suit to Recover Last Pay, Missed Breaks
FRANCIS JOHN: "Kassab" Breach of Contract Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
GANNETT CO: Settlements Reached in "Casagrand" TCPA Action

GENESCO INC: "Murray" Sues over Share Price Drop
GOT CAPITAL: Korea Week Loses Class Certification Bid
GROWELL BRANDS: Has Until June 14 to Respond to "McMillan" Suit
HARRIS COUNTY: "O'Donnell" Seeks Temporary Restraining Order
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Statement

HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE: "Rosenberg" Sues for Sexual Discrimination
HORSEHEAD HOLDINGS: "Jani" Sues Over Share Price Drop
IMS HEALTH: "Chiu" Sues Over Shady Merge Deal
INNOVATIVE BUILDING: Failed to Issue Termination Written Notice
IRON MOUNTAIN: "Cardenas" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

J&J ALESSANDRA: "Alatorre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
JONROCMAN 930 LLC: "Rojas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
KAPLAN CORNELIA: "Galeana" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: "Pittman" Sues Over Faulty Optical Sights
LALA'S ON MELROSE: Altered/Destroyed Receipts, Brea Suit Claims

LANNETT COMPANY: "KPH" Sues Over Overpriced Drugs
LEGGETT & PLATT: Bid to Reconsider or Stay Bond Order Pending
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Faces "Scroggins" Suit in M.D. Ala.
LPL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: "Perkins" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay

MARS INC: "Vargas" Sues over Packaging Under Filling
MASIMO CORPORATION: Physicians Healthsource Suit Still Pending
MASIMO CORPORATION: Appeal in Surfactant Suit Pending
MDC PARTNERS: Still Defends Firefighter Pension Plan's Suit
MDC PARTNERS: Still Defends "Paniccia" Suit in Ontario

MEDICREDIT INC: Raffin Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses
MEL HARRIS: S.D.N.Y. Court Approves $60MM Settlement in "Sykes"
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Nahari" Suit in D.N.J.
MIX CONTRACTING: "Garcia" Suit Seek to Recover Overtime Pay
MORGAN STANLEY: Court Narrows Claims in "Genesee" Case

MULTI-SHOT LLC: "Ivie" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
NANTKWEST INC: "Forsythe" Sues Over Share Price Drop
NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: "Pfeuti" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
NATURE WORKS: "Maturin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
NAVY FEDERAL: Court Rejects "Munday" Class Suit Settlement

NCB MANAGEMENT: Status Hearing in "Kaleel" Set for July 11
NEW WAY MINI: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
NONGSHIM CO: Certification of Direct Purchasers Class Sought
NORI O INC: "Goh" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
NORTH DAKOTA: EEE Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to W.D. N. Dak.

NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Perez" Suit in D.N.J.
NYC TAXI & LIMOUSINE: Nnebe Asks 2nd Circuit to Review Ruling
ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION: Can Arbitrate Claims in "Stewart" Suit
ORLEANS SHORING: Certification of Class Sought in "Nunez" Suit
P.F. CHANG'S: Plaintiff's Counsel Got OK to Appear Via Telephone

PAC-12 CONFERENCE: "Cook" Sues Over Football Health Hazard
PASON SYSTEMS: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Ratliff" Suit
PASQUALE'S ENTERPRISE: "Jackson" Suit to Recover OT Pay, Damages
PEARL LOUNGE: "Griffith" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
PENNSYLVANIA: Class Certification Sought in "Stradford" Suit

PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Securities Fraud
PACIFIC COAST: Settlement in "Welch" & "Berliner" Suits Pending
PAPA MURPHY'S: Defending "Lennartson" Class Action in Wash.
PNC FINANCIAL: Seeks Decertification in CBNV Mortgage Litigation
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Aug. 11 Case Management Conference in "Johnson"

QUALITY ALUMINUM: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
QUARRY HILL: Faces "Baldwin" Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
RDB CONTRACTING: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
RIVER GREENE: "Anderson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
RYDAL SQUARE: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn.

SARAVIA TOWING: "Castillo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SARATOGA DATA: Aug. 11 Case Mgmt. Conference in Knight Foster Suit
SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER: English Learners Seek to Certify Class
SCOT MURPHY: "Dones" Labor Case Transferred to M.D. Fla.
SELECT EXPRESS: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

SOUTH UNIVERSITY: "Hendricks" Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
SOUTHERN CABLE: "Wallace" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
SOVRAN SELF: To Defend Against Class Action in Burlington, N.J.
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: July 14 Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions
SUNTRUST BANKS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed in "Brown"

SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces "Felix" Class Action Over FHA Loan Interest
TARGET CORP: Police Retirement System Sues Over Share Price Drop
TD BANK: Faces "Buff" Suit in E.D. Penn.
TD BANK: "Krulan" Sues Over Short-changing
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Actions Filed

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in "Hayman" Suit
TRINET GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of "Welgus" Class Action
TUBULAR SOLUTIONS: Class Certification Granted in "Ducote" Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Johnson" Sues Over Unsolicited Texts
UNITED RECOVERY: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Hurt" Suit

UNITED STATES: Asks 10th Cir. to Review Ruling in "Fletcher" Suit
US ASSOC OF CDC: "Brown" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
USF REDDAWAY: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
UTZ QUALITY FOODS: "Hashtpari" Sues Over False Labelling
VULCAN MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Texas Brine Case

VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Calif. for Unfair Competition
VINNY LOVATO'S: "Carmona" Sues Over Racial Discrimination
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gonzales" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Vondrak" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
WAKEFERN FOOD: "Hilger" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration of Debt Card Transaction Suits
WILMINGTON TRUST: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Halldorson" Suit
WORLDPAY US: "Mayumba" Suit Contests Non-Compliance Fees
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Hip Implant Case
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 82 Pending Lawsuits Related to Profemur

WRIGHT MEDICAL: Delaware Chancery Court Dismissed Merger Action
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Tennessee Consolidated Action Pending
ZILLOW GROUP: Delaware Consolidated Lawsuit Dismissed
ZILLOW GROUP: Washington Consolidated Lawsuit Dismissed
ZILLOW GROUP: August Trial Date Set in Class Action Appeal


                            *********


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Still Defends Georgia Suit Over Illegal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Georgia.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014
in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The 2013 Georgia complaint was
dismissed in March 2014.

In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class
action suit was filed. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel,
administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the
plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages
in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue.
Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the
early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential
class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of
these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any,
cannot currently be estimated.


ALL CREATURES: Bid to Certify "Jelus" Collective Action Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William O. Bertelsman entered a memorandum opinion and
order in the lawsuit styled KERI JELUS v. ALL CREATURES ANIMAL
HOSPITAL, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:15-cv-00184-WOB (S.D. Ohio),

   -- granting the Defendants' motion for partial summary
      judgment;

   -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
      judgment; and

   -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for collective-action
      certification.

The matter before the Court relates to issues regarding an
exemption to overtime-wage requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The parties agreed at oral argument that no issues
of fact warrant a trial on the exemption issue and the Court may
decide it on the existing record.  Having previously taken the
matter under submission, the Court now issues the Memorandum
Opinion and Order.

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


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs in "Williams" to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case,
Christopher Williams, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company,
Plaintiffs have announced their intention to file an appeal.

The Williams case is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court and was
filed in December 2007. The case involves two classes. The first
class includes auto field physical damage adjusters employed in
the state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final
judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-
clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior
to their first assignments. The other class includes all non-
exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until June
2011 who received pay statements from Allstate which allegedly did
not comply with California law.

On April 13, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
decertify both classes; both classes are thus dissolved unless and
until the appellate court orders the classes recertified.
Plaintiffs have announced their intention to file an appeal.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Jimenez" Scheduled for Trial in September
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the case, Jack
Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, is scheduled for
trial on September 27, 2016.

Jimenez was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in September 2010. The plaintiffs allege
that they worked off the clock; they also allege other California
Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid overtime. In
April 2012, the court certified a class that includes all
adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters,
from September 29, 2006 to final judgment.

In April 2012, the trial court certified the class, Allstate
appealed the court's decision to certify the class, first to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Allstate's
petition for a writ of certiorari. The case is scheduled for trial
on September 27, 2016, which may be vacated because the court has
not approved a trial plan.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: No Opt Outs Received in Perez-Brown Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no opt outs were
received in the case, Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al.
v. Allstate Insurance Company.

The case of Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v.
Allstate Insurance Company was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that no-
fault claim adjusters have been improperly classified as exempt
employees under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The case was filed in April 2011, and the plaintiffs are
seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault
adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair
Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters. Notice to the
class was issued in December 2015 and no opt outs were received.
In the Company's judgment, a loss is not probable in these three
cases.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Defending Against "Rosenberg" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
litigating one class action, Randy Rosenberg, et al. v. Allstate
Fire & Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

This case is brought on behalf of health care providers and
insureds who submitted claims for no-fault benefits under personal
injury protection policies which were in effect from 2008 through
2012, and were reimbursed based on the fee schedules. They seek a
declaratory judgment that Allstate could not properly apply the
fee schedules and seek damages for the difference between what
they allege are the reasonable medical expenses payable under the
personal injury protection coverage and the fee schedule amounts
Allstate actually paid. They also seek recovery of attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to Florida statutes. This case has been stayed
by the Illinois federal court pending the outcome of several
Florida state court appeals and a decision on this issue by the
Florida Supreme Court.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Non-Jury ERISA Trial to Occur in December
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the Romero I and II
consolidated proceedings, the court has entered an order
scheduling deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of
summary judgment motions on the merits of plaintiffs' ERISA and
ADEA claims, and setting a non-jury ERISA trial to occur in
December 2016.

The Company is defending certain matters in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the
Company's agency program reorganization announced in 1999. The
principal focus in these matters to date related to a release of
claims signed by the vast majority of the former agents whose
employment contracts were terminated in the reorganization
program. These matters include the following:

Romero I:

In 2001, approximately 32 former employee agents, on behalf of a
putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee agents,
filed a putative class action alleging claims for age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also assert a
claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of claims
constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside.
Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief,"
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status
with all attendant benefits.

Romero II:

A putative nationwide class action was also filed in 2001 by
former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA
("Romero II"). This action has been consolidated with Romero I.
The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in
Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension
Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent
contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents
Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole"
or other equitable relief, including loss of benefits as a result
of their conversion to exclusive agent independent contractor
status or retirement from the Company between November 1, 1999 and
December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the challenged
amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits
revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents,
and attorneys' fees and costs. The court granted the Company's
initial motion to dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

Romero I and II consolidated proceedings:

In 2004, the court ruled that the release was voidable and
certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents
who had signed the release, for purposes of effectuating the
court's declaratory judgment that the release was voidable. In
2007, the court vacated its ruling and granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed and
in July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the
Company's favor, remanded the case to the trial court for
additional discovery, and instructed the trial court to address
the validity of the release after additional discovery. Following
the completion of discovery limited to the validity of the
release, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with
respect to the validity of the release. On February 28, 2014, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' and the Company's motions for
summary judgment, concluding that the question of whether the
releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed under a totality of
circumstances test raised disputed issues of fact to be resolved
at trial. Among other things, the court also held that the
release, if valid, would bar all claims in Romero I and II. On May
23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class as to certain issues
relating to the validity of the release. The court denied
plaintiffs' class certification motion on October 6, 2014,
stating, among other things, that individual factors and
circumstances must be considered to determine whether each release
signer entered into the release knowingly and voluntarily. The
court entered an order on December 11, 2014, (a) stating that the
court's October 6, 2014 denial of class certification as to
release-related issues did not resolve whether issues relating to
the merits of plaintiffs' claims may be subject to class
certification at a later time, and (b) holding that the court's
October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of the statute of
limitation for any former employee agent who wished to challenge
the validity of the release. In an order entered January 7, 2015,
the court denied reconsideration of its December 11, 2014 order
and clarified that all statutes of limitations to challenge the
release would resume running on March 2, 2015. Since the Court's
January 7, 2015 order, a total of 459 additional individual
plaintiffs have filed separate lawsuits similar to Romero I or
sought to intervene in the Romero I action. Trial proceedings
commenced to determine the question of whether the releases of the
original named plaintiffs in Romero I and II were knowingly and
voluntarily signed. Additionally, plaintiffs asserted two
equitable defenses to the release which were to be determined by
the court and not the jury. As to the first trial proceeding
involving ten plaintiffs, the jury reached verdicts on June 17,
2015 finding that two plaintiffs signed their releases knowingly
and voluntarily and eight plaintiffs did not sign their releases
knowingly and voluntarily. On January 28, 2016, the court entered
its opinion and judgment finding in Allstate's favor as to all ten
plaintiffs on the two equitable defenses to the release. The trial
result is not yet final and may be subject to further proceedings.
The remaining two trials for the original Romero I and II
plaintiffs were scheduled to commence in the fourth quarter of
2015; however, the order setting these trials was subsequently
vacated.

On February 1, 2016, these cases were reassigned to a new judge
who initially entered orders addressing pending motions for
reconsideration of the dismissal of plaintiffs' state law claims,
but then vacated those orders.

On April 12, 2016, these cases were again reassigned to a new
judge. On May 2, 2016, the new judge entered an order vacating the
setting of additional release trials, consolidating all of the
original and intervening plaintiffs' claims, and granting leave to
file a Consolidated Amended Complaint by May 20, 2016.

The court entered a second order on May 2, 2016, scheduling
deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of summary
judgment motions on the merits of plaintiffs' ERISA and ADEA
claims, and setting a non-jury ERISA trial to occur in December
2016. The court's order also sets deadlines for completion of
discovery and summary judgment motions with regard to the
remaining claims and defenses by the first quarter of 2017, with a
jury trial on those claims and defenses to occur in May 2017.

Under its May 2, 2016 orders, the court's focus has turned to the
merits of plaintiffs' claims rather than to continuing the
proceedings begun in 2009 to determine the validity of plaintiffs'
releases.

Based on the trial court's February 28, 2014 order in Romero I and
II, if the validity of the release is decided in favor of the
Company for any plaintiff, that would preclude any damages or
other relief being awarded to that plaintiff. The final resolution
of these matters is subject to various uncertainties and
complexities including how trials, post trial motions, possible
appeals with respect to the validity of the release, and any
rulings on the merits will be resolved.

In the Company's judgment, a loss is not probable.


ALLSTATE GROUP: "Perry" Sues over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------
Andrea Perry, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio
residents similarly situated, v. Allstate Group and Encompass
Group, Defendants, Case No. CV16863318 (Ohio Com. Pleas, May 16,
2016), seeks actual damages, costs and attorneys' fees for breach
of contract.

Allstate is an insurance adjuster with Encompass Group as its
subsidiary. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant understates and
under-pays the actual cash value of property damage suffered by
the insured, thereby denying the full amount of indemnity to which
they are entitled. Perry's home suffered substantial water damage
on or about June 28, 2015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James A. DeRoche, Esq.
     Stuart I. Garson, Esq.
     GARSON JOHNSON LLC
     1600 Midland Building
     101 West Prospect Avenue
     Cleveland, Ohio 44115
     Phone: (216) 696-9330
     Fax: (216) 696-8558
     Email: ideroche@garson.com

          - and -

     R. Eric Kennedy, Esq.
     Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
     WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.
     1600 Midland Building
     101 Prospect Ave., W.
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: (216)781-1111
     Fax: (216)781-6747
     Email: ekennedy@weismanlaw.com
            dgoetz@weismanlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
     DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
     60 South Park Place
     Painesville, OH 44077
     Phone: (440) 352-3391
     Fax: (440) 352-3469
     Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com


AMEC FOSTER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Abila" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gray H. Miller denied the Plaintiff's opposed motion to
conditionally certify and send notice to a putative class in the
lawsuit titled ERNESTO ABILA, Individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. AMEC FOSTER WHEELER NORTH AMERICA
CORP., Case No. 4:15-cv-01238 (S.D. Tex.).

Judge Miller denied the Motion without prejudice to resubmission
if Mr. Abila is later able to submit more persuasive information
showing that other similarly situated employees want to join the
litigation.

The Case is a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit involving overtime
compensation.   Mr. Abila seeks conditional certification of a
collective action on behalf of the following class of potential
opt-in litigants:

     All individuals who are current and former employees of
     Defendant who performed work similar to Mr. Abila in the
     United States at any time between May 8, 2013 and the
     present, and who were not paid time and one half their
     regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty
     hours in a workweek (the "FLSA Class").

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=f16S5TPX


AMERICAN HONDA: Dobbs Seeks Certification of 3 Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying the action
titled DANIEL DOBBS, SEAN RICKARD, GREG DELANEY, AND WILLIAM
HENSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00456-R-JC
(C.D. Cal.), as a class action, and appointing each of them and
their counsel as class representatives or subclass representatives
of this class or subclasses:

     For Counts I and II of the First Amended Complaint, the
     Plaintiffs seek to certify this class:

        All owners or lessees in the United States of 2012-2015
        model year Honda vehicles.  Excluded from the class
        definition are all judicial officers assigned to this
        case, as well as their staff and immediate relatives, and
        all employees, agents, or officers of Defendant American
        Honda Motor Co., Inc.

     In the alternative, if the Court were to find that
     certification of such a nationwide class were unavailing,
     the Plaintiffs seek to certify four separate statewide
     subclasses:

        All owners or lessees in the States of Wyoming, Texas,
        Arizona, and Oklahoma of 2012-2015 model year Honda
        vehicles. Excluded from these alternative subclass
        definitions are all judicial officers assigned to this
        case, as well as their staff and immediate relatives, and
        all employees, agents, or officers of Defendant American
        Honda Motor Co., Inc.

     For Count III, Plaintiffs seek to certify three separate
     subclasses comprised of:

        All owners or lessees in the States of Texas, Arizona,
        and Oklahoma of 2012-2015 model year Honda vehicles.
        Excluded from these alternative subclass definitions are
        all judicial officers assigned to this case, as well as
        their staff and immediate relatives, and all employees,
        agents or officers of Defendant American Honda Motor Co.,
        Inc.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 5, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PrvPOh3U

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 242-5642
          Facsimile: (858) 430-3719
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: "Kogan" Warranty Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aleksandr Kogan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda
Motor Co., Ltd, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00429-MHW-EPD
(E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2016) was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May 16, 2016, Case No.
1:16-cv-01413.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc., is a California corporation
with its headquarters and principal place of business in Torrance,
California. Its parent company. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., is a
Japanese corporation.

Kogan complains of excessive vibration of the 2015 Honda CR-V.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
      DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC
      1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 732-6067
      Fax: (215) 732-8060
      Email: mdonovan@donovansearles.com

          - and -

      Krishnan Shanker Chittur, Esq.
      CHITTUR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      500 Executive Boulevard, Suite 305
      Central Westchester Business Park
      Ossining, NY 10562
      Tel: (914) 944-4400
      Fax: (914) 840-8537
      Email: kchittur@chittur.com


AMERICAN WATER: Court Extends Schedules in Chemical Spill Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case
related to the West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries chemical
spill, a federal court has entered an order extending the schedule
for events through briefing related to dispositive motions and
expert challenges.

On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom
Industries, Inc. leaked two substances, 4-methylcyclohexane
methanol, or MCHM, and PPH/DiPPH, a mix of polyglycol ethers, into
the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company
("WVAWC") treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia.
After having been alerted to the leak of MCHM by the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), WVAWC took
immediate steps to gather more information about MCHM, augment its
treatment process as a precaution, and begin consultations with
federal, state and local public health officials. As soon as
possible after it was determined that the augmented treatment
process would not fully remove the MCHM, a joint decision was
reached in consultation with the West Virginia Bureau for Public
Health to issue a "Do Not Use" order for all of its approximately
93,000 customer accounts in parts of nine West Virginia counties
served by the Charleston treatment plant. The order addressed the
use of water for drinking, cooking, washing and bathing, but did
not affect continued use of water for sanitation and fire
protection.

Over the next several days, WVAWC and an interagency team of state
and federal officials engaged in extensive sampling and testing to
determine if levels of MCHM were below one part per million (1
ppm), a level that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention ("CDC") and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
indicated would be protective of public health. Beginning on
January 13, 2014, based on the results of the continued testing,
the Do Not Use order was lifted in stages to help ensure the water
system was not overwhelmed by excessive demand, which could have
caused additional water quality and service issues.

By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC's customers were subject to the
Do Not Use order, although CDC guidance suggesting that pregnant
women avoid consuming the water until the chemicals were at non-
detectable levels remained in place. In addition, based on saved
samples taken on or before January 18, 2014, PPH/DiPPH was no
longer detected in the water supply as of January 18, 2014.

On February 21, 2014, WVAWC announced that all points of testing
throughout its water distribution system indicated that levels of
MCHM were below 10 parts per billion (10 ppb). The interagency
team established 10 ppb as the "non-detect" level of MCHM in the
water distribution system based on the measurement capabilities of
the multiple laboratories used. WVAWC continued to work with
laboratories to test down to below 2 ppb of MCHM and announced on
March 3, 2014, that it had cleared the system to below this level.

To date, there are 69 pending cases against WVAWC with respect to
this matter in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia or West Virginia Circuit Courts in
Kanawha, Boone and Putnam counties. Fifty-three of the state court
cases naming WVAWC, and one case naming both WVAWC and American
Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC," and together with
WVAWC and the Company, the "American Water Defendants") were
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.

On December 17, 2015, the federal district court entered orders
remanding 52 of the previously removed cases back to the West
Virginia Circuit Courts for further proceedings (two of the
previously removed cases had been dismissed in the interim).
Following that order, seven additional cases were filed against
WVAWC in West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha and Putnam
counties with respect to this matter.

On January 28, 2016, all of the state court cases were referred to
West Virginia's Mass Litigation Panel for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint, and
the defendants had until June 1, 2016 to file an answer in
response to their claims.

Four of the cases pending before the federal district court were
consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended
consolidated class action complaint for those cases (the "Federal
action") was filed on December 9, 2014 by several plaintiffs who
allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of property and
tap water or other specified adverse consequences as a result of
the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of
all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or exposed to
water contaminated with Crude MCHM and provided by WVAWC in Logan,
Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam, and Kanawha Counties
and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West Virginia as of
January 9, 2014. The amended consolidated complaint names several
individuals and corporate entities as defendants, including the
American Water Defendants. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
for alleged business or economic losses; unspecified damages or a
mechanism for recovery to address a variety of alleged costs, loss
of use of property, personal injury and other consequences
allegedly suffered by purported class members; punitive damages
and certain additional relief, including the establishment of a
medical monitoring program to protect the purported class members
from an alleged increased risk of contracting serious latent
disease.

On April 9, 2015, the court in the Federal action denied a motion
to dismiss all claims against the Company for lack of personal
jurisdiction. A separate motion to dismiss filed by AWWSC and
WVAWC (and joined by the Company) asserting various legal defenses
in the Federal action was resolved by the court on June 3, 2015.
The court dismissed three causes of action but denied the motion
to dismiss with respect to the remaining causes of actions and
allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the various claims
for damages alleged in their amended consolidated complaint.

On July 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of a class defined to include persons who resided in
dwellings served by WVAWC's Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant
("KVTP") on January 9, 2014, persons who owned businesses served
by the KVTP on January 9, 2014, and hourly employees who worked
for such businesses. The plaintiffs sought a class-wide
determination of liability against the American Water Defendants,
among others, and of damages to the three groups of plaintiffs as
a result of the "Do Not Use" order issued after the Freedom
Industries spill.

A court-directed mediation was held at the end of September 2015
with the assistance of private mediators. Representatives of the
American Water Defendants, Eastman Chemical, the Federal action
plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs in the 53 state court cases as to
which removal to Federal court had been sought, as well as
insurance carriers for certain of the defendants, participated in
the mediation. No resolution was reached and no further mediation
discussions have been scheduled to date.

On October 8, 2015, the court in the Federal action granted in
part and denied in part the plaintiffs' class certification
motion. The court certified a class addressing the alleged fault
of Eastman Chemical for tort claims and the alleged fault of the
American Water Defendants for tort and breach of contract claims,
as well as the comparative fault of Freedom Industries. However,
the court granted the joint motion by defendants to exclude
certain expert testimony, disallowing the testimony of plaintiffs'
economic damages experts, and denied class certification as to any
damages, including punitive damages. Thus, determination or
quantification of damages, if any, would be made in subsequent
proceedings on an individual basis.

On December 17, 2015, the court in the Federal action entered a
scheduling order that provides for the trial on class issues
to begin in July 2016. During the first week of January 2016,
three additional cases were filed against one or more of the
American Water Defendants, as well as others, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia with respect to
this matter.

On March 25, 2016, the court in the Federal action entered an
order extending the schedule for events through briefing related
to dispositive motions and expert challenges and noting that
further events in the case would be set by additional orders to be
issued by the court in due course.


AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: Bid to Certify Class in "Farrow" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify a collective
action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and to approve a proposed Notice to all putative collective action
members in the lawsuit styled RIENEKE E. FARROW v. AMMARI OF
LOUISIANA, LTD., Case No. 2:15-cv-07148-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La.).

The Case arises out of Ms. Farrow's employment as a waiter at
various restaurants owned and operated by Ammari.  She filed the
lawsuit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
under the Fair Labor Standards Act other state laws for, among
other things, unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and tips.

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


BANK OF AMERICA: "Hopkins" Sues Over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------
Louis Hopkins, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s) v. U.S. Bancorp, a Delaware Corporation and U.S. Bank
National Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-00552-SJD (S.D. Ohio, May
16, 2016), seeks damages, attorney's fees, costs and expenses,
equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution and
such other or further relief for breach of contract.

Hopkins was employed by U.S. Bank as a debt collector in
Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. Bank paid its employees a fixed number of
hours at a fixed rate. Plaintiff alleges that the actual work
rendered in excess of that stipulated in the contract.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Barry D. Levy, Esq.
     O'CONNOR, ACCIANI & LEVY LPA
     1014 Vine Street, Suite 2200
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Tel: 513-241-7111
     Fax: 513-241-7197
     Email: bdl@oal-law.com

          - and -

     Wesley M. Nakajima
     O'CONNOR, ACCIANI & LEVY LPA
     1014 Vine Street, Suite 2200
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Telephone: 513-241-7111
     Facsimile: 513-241-7197
     Email: mn@oal-law.com

          - and -

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 3033-1007
     Telephone: (404) 965-8811
     Tel: (404) 496-7295
     Fax: (404) 496-7405
     Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com

          - and -

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.*
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1400
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Telephone: (407) 420-1414
                (407) 418-2069
     Fax: (407) 245-3401
     Email: Rmorgan@forthepeople.com


BIG LOTS: Pontiac Seeks Class Certification in "Willis" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System moves the Court for an order certifying a class in the
lawsuit entitled ALAN WILLIS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. BIG LOTS, INC., et al., Case No.
2:12-cv-00604-MHW-NMK (S.D. Ohio).  The proposed class consists
of:

     All persons who purchased the common stock of Big Lots, Inc.
     between March 2, 2012 and August 23, 2012, and who were
     damaged thereby.  Excluded from the Class are defendants,
     the officers and directors of the Company, members of their
     immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
     successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants
     have or had a controlling interest.

The Plaintiff also seeks an order appointing itself and Teamsters
Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund as Class
Representatives and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class
Counsel for the Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=22czzdc9

Lead Plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System is represented by:

          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murray@mmmb.com
                  murphy@mmmb.com

               - and -

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Lucas F. Olts, Esq.
          Austin P. Brane, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  lolts@rgrdlaw.com
                  abrane@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Cynthia J. Billings, Esq.
          SULLIVAN, WARD, ASHER & PATTON, P.C.
          1000 Maccabees Center
          25800 Northwestern Highway
          Southfield, MI 48075-1000
          Telephone: (248) 746-0700
          Facsimile: (248) 746-2760
          E-mail: cbillings@swappc.com

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 3,600 Surgical Mesh Cases Pending as of May 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of May 2, 2016,
over 36,000 product liability cases or claims related to
transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress
urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted
against the Comany. The pending cases are in various federal and
state courts in the United States and include eight putative class
actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive
of four putative class actions, and fewer than 15 claims in the
United Kingdom.

The Company said, "Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal
injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh
products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100
of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state
court in Massachusetts."

"On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the
federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of
2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state
attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh
products. We have responded to those requests.

"As of May 2, 2016, we have entered into master settlement
agreements with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an
aggregate of approximately 11,000 cases and claims of which
approximately 6,000 have been settled. Each master settlement
agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and without
any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing
and provides that the settlement and the distribution of
settlement funds to participating claimants are conditioned upon,
among other things, achieving minimum required claimant
participation thresholds. If the participation thresholds under a
master settlement agreement are not satisfied, we may terminate
that agreement. In addition, we continue to engage in discussions
with various plaintiffs' counsel regarding potential resolution of
pending cases and claims."


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Defending Against "Stevens" Vaginal Mesh Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Teresa L. Stevens
filed on or about January 12, 2016, a claim against the Company
and three other defendants asserting for herself, and on behalf of
a putative class of similarly-situated women, that she was harmed
by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit
or adulterated resin product that the Company imported from China.

The Company said, "The complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, before
the same Court that is hearing the mesh MDL. The complaint, which
alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
violations, fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices
and unjust enrichment, seeks both equitable relief and damages
under state and federal law.

"On January 26, 2016, the Court issued an order staying the case
and directing the plaintiff to submit information to allow the FDA
to issue a determination with respect to her allegations. In
addition, we are in contact with the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of West Virginia, and are responding
voluntarily to their requests in connection with that office's
review of the allegations concerning the use of mesh resin in the
complaint.

"We deny the plaintiff's allegations and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously."


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Inks Confidential Settlement in "Fretter"
------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Denise Fretter and
Maria Korsgaard, claiming to represent a class of current and
former female field sales employees at Boston Scientific
Neuromodulation Corporation (BSNC), filed on March 18, 2015, a
lawsuit against BSNC in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The plaintiffs allege gender
discrimination in pay, promotions and differential treatment
against them and the putative class. On February 6, 2016, the
parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, and the
case has been dismissed.


BP EXPLORATION: "Perrault" Sues Over Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------
Brent Perrault, Individually and doing business as Real Estate
Central, Plaintiff, v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP
America Production Company, BP P.L.C., Transocean, Ltd.,
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., Transocean
Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Triton Asset Leasing
GmbH, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. and Sperry Drilling
Services, a division of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06350 (E.D. La., May 16, 2016) seeks
damages caused by the rig explosion and water pollution, including
but not limited to remediation, environmental assessments, loss of
use and stigma damages due to contamination of land, diminution of
property values, costs for environmental assessments and all other
recoverable compensatory damages resulting from oil and petroleum
residue from the BP oil spill at Harrison County, Mississippi.

BP Exploration, BP America and BP P.L.C. are the lease operators
of the Macondo prospect site, responsible for assessing the
geology of the prospect site, engineering the well design,
obtaining regulatory approvals for well operations.

Transocean Ltd., Transocean Deepwater, Transocean Offshore,
Transocean Holdings and Triton was responsible for maintaining
well control equipment, provided operational support for drilling-
related activities as well as onshore supervision and support for
those drilling activities.

Halliburton provided engineering services, materials, testing,
mixing, and pumping for cementing operations as well as onshore
engineering support.

Plaintiff operated a real estate business in and around the
navigable waters of Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth A. Citrin, Esq.
      ELIZABETH A. CITRIN, P.C.
      28311 N. Main Street, Suite B-103
      Daphne, AL 36526
      Phone: 251-626-8808
      Fax: 251-626-8868
      Mobile: 251-591-6330
      Email: elizabeth@elizabethcitrin.com


CALIFORNIA CASUALTY: "Oldenburg" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Oldenburg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. California Casualty Management Company, a
California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01152 (D.
Colo., May 17, 2016) seeks overtime compensation due, liquidated
and/or punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
and reasonable attorney's and expert fees for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order.

Defendant is an insurance company that sells automobile and
homeowners insurance to customers across the United States where
Plaintiff has been employed in its Colorado Springs, Colorado
office as a Sale Representative. Oldenburg claims to have been
denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
     Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
     Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
     620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
     Colorado Springs, CO 80903
     Telephone: (719) 694-3000
     Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
     Email: plewis@lewiskuhnswan.com
            mkuhn@lewiskuhnswan.com
            aswan@lewiskuhnswan.com


CALIX INC: MOU Reached in Delaware Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Calix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 26, 2016, that a memorandum of understanding of a
settlement in principle has been reached in a class action lawsuit
before the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). In
response to the announcement of the Merger Agreement on October 6,
2010, a purported class action complaint was filed by stockholders
of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled as Steinhardt v.
Howard-Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010,
these stockholders filed an amended complaint (the "amended
Steinhardt complaint"). The amended Steinhardt complaint named
Occam (which has since been merged into Calix) and the members of
the Occam board of directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt
complaint did not name Calix as a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief
rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees,
and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011 (the
"Effective Date"). On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on
a motion for sanctions brought by the defendants against certain
of the lead plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead
plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management,
L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt
Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and
dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice.
The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i)
barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii)
required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose
their improper trading in any future application to serve as lead
plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5
million, to be distributed to the remaining members of the class
of former Occam stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the
motion of the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek
Sheeler, for class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and
Sheeler as class representatives. The certified class is a non-
opt-out class consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose
shares were converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger
transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware
action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the
class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continued
to seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

Fact discovery in the case initially closed on April 30, 2013. On
June 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended
Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO
as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best
purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly
material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary
proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.

On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants
named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening
Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing
that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts
of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' answering brief to
the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 3, 2013,
and defendants' reply brief was filed on October 4, 2013. A
hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on December 6,
2013.

On April 8, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an Opinion
granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. The ruling granted summary judgment on all
claims as to Occam, the corporate entity, and accordingly, Occam
was dismissed as a defendant in the action. The court also granted
summary judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as
directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper
actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The court left
in place the process-based claims against Occam's former CEO and
CFO, and declined to grant summary judgment on separate claims
that the director and officer defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by issuing a proxy statement for Occam's stockholder vote
that allegedly contained misleading disclosures and had material
omissions.

On June 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company,
Inc. ("Jefferies") and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This
motion sought additional documents from defendants and from
Jefferies, Occam's former financial advisor, and requested that
the court impose severe sanctions, up to and including a finding
of liability against defendants. Defendants have rejected the
suggestion that any additional documents should be produced and
vigorously opposed the imposition of any sanctions.

On September 3, 2014, the court denied the motion without
prejudice as to defendants, directed counsel for the defendants to
provide an affidavit clarifying the prior conduct of discovery,
and ordered discovery into defendants' document collection and
review methodologies. The court also ordered Jefferies to produce
additional documents. Plaintiffs then filed a motion requesting
leave to amend their complaint to add Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. ("Wilson Sonsini"), Occam's counsel and
former defense counsel in this lawsuit, as defendants.

That motion was heard by the Court on March 23, 2015. At the
hearing the Court vacated the existing April 20, 2015 trial date
and indicated it would set a new trial date after ruling on the
motion requesting leave to add additional parties.

On July 16, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend their complaint to add Jefferies as a defendant, but granted
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add
Wilson Sonsini as a defendant. On July 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed
their Third Amended Complaint adding Wilson Sonsini as a defendant
in the lawsuit. Defendants filed their answers to the Third
Amended Complaint on September 8, 2015. Trial on the matter
commenced on April 11, 2016 before the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On April 14, 2016, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding of a settlement in principle ("Settlement") to
resolve all of the claims pending before the Delaware Court of
Chancery and related claims. The Settlement terms provide that
neither the Company nor any of its officers or directors would be
required to make any contribution to the settlement consideration
of $35 million to be paid for the benefit of the plaintiff class.

The Company did not previously accrue any estimated loss in
connection with this action and, as a result of the Settlement,
will not recognize any loss related to this action. Further, the
Company has incurred certain defense costs for which its insurance
carriers denied coverage or that are otherwise in excess of
coverage.

In connection with the Settlement (and separate from the
settlement consideration), the Company would also receive a cash
payment of approximately $4.5 million in partial recovery of such
costs. The Settlement is subject to the approval of the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

As of March 26, 2016, the Company had not recorded any amounts
related to this Settlement. Upon approval of the settlement, the
Company expects to recognize the $4.5 million in partial recovery
of out-of-pocket costs.

The Company and the defendants have denied and continue to deny
each and all of the claims alleged in the litigation, and the
Settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of fault,
wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant.

Since the closing of the merger, the Company has advanced defense
costs related to this lawsuit. The Company has obligations, under
certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify each of the
former Occam directors and officers named as defendants in this
action against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related
to claims against such directors and officers to the fullest
extent permitted under Delaware law and Occam's bylaws and
certificate of incorporation. In addition, under the engagement
letter between Occam and Jefferies, the Company has obligations,
under certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify
Jefferies against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses
related to Jefferies' engagement by Occam. The Company has paid
fees and expenses incurred by Jefferies in connection with this
matter pursuant to Jefferies indemnity demand under this
agreement.

The Company has incurred significant legal fees and costs
defending this lawsuit and during the fiscal quarter ended March
26, 2016, the Company's defense costs exhausted its available
Directors & Officers liability insurance coverage.  The legal
proceedings have been protracted as plaintiffs continue to seek
additional discovery following the court's order re-opening
discovery and, most recently, with the addition of Wilson Sonsini
as a defendant in the action. The Company has also continued to
incur certain expenses that were not covered by insurance,
including the Company's costs associated with the Jefferies
indemnification obligations. For the fiscal quarter ended March
26, 2016, the Company recorded litigation defense costs and
expenses in excess of its insurance coverage of $3.6 million as
operating expense.

Calix, Inc. is a global provider of broadband communications
access systems and software for fiber- and copper-based network
architectures that enable communications service providers
("CSPs") to transform their networks and connect to their
residential and business subscribers.


CASCADE MICROTECH: Class Action to Proceed in Multnomah Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cascade Microtech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action
litigation will proceed in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

The Company said, "On February 3, 2016, we entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
FormFactor, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("FormFactor"), and
Cardinal Merger Subsidiary, Inc., an Oregon corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of FormFactor ("Merger Sub"). The Merger
Agreement provides for, among other things, the merger of Merger
Sub with and into Cascade Microtech, Inc., with Cascade Microtech,
Inc. continuing as the surviving corporation (the "Merger").
Subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, each
outstanding share of our common stock will be converted into the
right to receive (a) $16.00 in cash, without interest, and (b)
0.6534 shares of FormFactor common stock, subject to adjustment.
Our board of directors, by unanimous vote, approved the Merger
Agreement, the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement. In addition, the waiting period under the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended
(the "HSR Act") for the Merger Agreement expired on March 21,
2016."

"Since the public announcement of the proposed Merger between us
and FormFactor on February 4, 2016, plaintiffs have filed two
putative shareholder class action lawsuits against us, our
directors, FormFactor and Merger Sub in connection with our entry
into the Merger Agreement with FormFactor. The first lawsuit was
filed in Washington County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon on
March 8, 2016. The second lawsuit was filed in Multnomah County
Circuit Court in the State of Oregon on April 8, 2016.

"The plaintiffs in both lawsuits allege that the individual
members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to our shareholders by approving the proposed Merger for
inadequate consideration; approving the Merger to obtain unique
benefits not shared equally with our other shareholders; failing
to take steps to maximize the value paid to our shareholders;
failing to take steps to ensure a fair process leading up to the
proposed Merger; and agreeing to preclusive deal protection
devices in the Merger Agreement. The lawsuits also allege claims
against FormFactor and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting our
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The second
lawsuit also includes allegations that our directors breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information
about the Merger in the Form S-4/proxy statement/prospectus filed
by FormFactor with the SEC on April 1, 2016. The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of
the Merger, rescission of the Merger if it is completed, and an
accounting by defendants, plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs,
and other relief.

"At the request of the plaintiff in the first lawsuit, the court
dismissed the first lawsuit without prejudice on April 22, 2016.
The litigation will proceed in Multnomah County Circuit Court with
the complaint in the second lawsuit as the operative complaint.

"Based on the early stage of the second lawsuit, the amount or
range of reasonably possible losses to which we may be exposed
cannot be estimated and the ultimate resolution of this matter and
the associated financial impact to us, if any, remains uncertain
at this time. We maintain a directors and officers insurance
policy that provides coverage for claims such as those alleged in
the complaint, subject to coverage defenses, policy limits and a
deductible. Regardless of the outcome of the claims, the defense
of the claims may cause us to incur costs and divert resources and
the attention of management from our business.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the claims in the
litigation."

Cascade Microtech designs, develops, manufactures and markets
advanced wafer probing, thermal and reliability solutions for the
electrical measurement and testing of high performance
semiconductor devices.


CASHCALL INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Inetianbor" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Inetianbor files his renewed motion asking the Court to
certify the lawsuit titled ABRAHAM INETIANBOR v. CASHCALL, INC.
and JOHN PAUL REDDAM, Case No. 0:13-cv-60066-JIC (S.D. Fla.), as a
class action.

The Plaintiff asserts that he has diligently sought to correct
each deficiency and concern the Court previously raised.  The
Plaintiff said he has cooperated with the Defendants to secure a
fact stipulation, which obviated the need for some discovery and
which helps to clarify some of the certification issues.

Mr. Inetianbor also moves to join five new plaintiffs each of whom
can be an additional class representative.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cvlsb2m9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL AND WARWICK, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Mona L. Wallace, Esq.
          John S. Hughes, Esq.
          WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A.
          525 N. Main St.
          Salisbury, NC 28144
          Telephone: (704) 633-5244
          E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
                  jhughes@wallacegraham.com


CHEMOIL ENERGY: "Lee" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Samuel Lee, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Chemoil Energy, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
7:16-cv-00121 (W.D. Tex., May 17, 2016) seeks damages, back wages,
liquidated damages, legal fees, costs and post-judgment interest
under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-
Portal Pay Act.

Chemoil is into oilfield fueling operations with main office at
825 N. Broadway, Suite 420, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. Lee was
employed by Defendant as a fueling operations employee at their
Midland County, Texas location. He claims to have been denied
overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
     Baron & Budd, P.C.
     3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Tel: (214) 521-3605
     Fax: (214) 520-1181
     Email: avaught@baronbudd.com


COLLECTO INC: C. Dawes Amends Bid for Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CHRISTOPHER DAWES, and
ZACHARIAH PINKNEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA and US ASSET
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 16-cv-149 (E.D. Wisc.), move the Court
to certify the classes described in their Second Amended
Complaint, and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant them (and the Defendants) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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.  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).

As this 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, the Plaintiffs contend.

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

The Plaintiffs are 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


COMCAST CORPORATION: "Wingard" Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Wingard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Comcast Corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2016cv2733833, was transferred from Superior Court of
Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Northern District Court
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01539-CAP to the proceeding. The
assigned Judge is Hon. Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

Comcast is a global media and technology company with two primary
businesses, Comcast Cable and NBCUniversal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifton Dorsen, Esq.
          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR AND FEAGLE
          Suite B, 2374 Main Street
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373 1978
          E-mail: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER LAW FIRM
          Suite B, 8712 Jefferson Highway
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925 5297

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael W. McTigue Jr., Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
          One Logan Square
          18th and Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996
          Telephone: (215) 988 2742

               - and -

          Samuel S. Woodhouse III, Esq.
          THE WOODHOUSE LAW FIRM, LLC
          Suite 1402, 260 Peachtree Street, N.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 214 7200
          Facsimile: (404) 214 7202
          E-mail: swoodhouse@woodhouselawfirm.com


CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS: "Ortega" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Ortega and Carlos Posada, Individually and On Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, v. CC&D, LLC, Construction
Concepts and Joshua Weisman, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01440,
(S.D. Tex. May 23, 2016), seek unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages and attorney's fees pursuant to the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Construction Concepts is a Texas corporation owned by Wesman
engaged in general construction. Ortega was employed by the
Defendants as a general construction worker. Posada was employed
as a helper. They claim to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: 713-868-3388
      Fax: 713-683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Appeal Briefing Complete
-----------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that appellate briefing
is complete and ready for determination by the appeals court.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and
Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on
behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company.
The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post-
production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the proposed class.

On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did
not add any substantive claims, but sought a "hybrid class action"
in which they sought certification of certain claims for
injunctive relief, reserving the right to seek a further class
certification on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that
modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma
production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to
the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate "issues"
for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right
to seek a further class certification of money damages in the
future.

The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the
motions for class certification denying the allegations and
raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to
each of the claims and filings. Certain discovery was undertaken
and the "hybrid" motion was briefed by plaintiffs and the Company.
A hearing on the "hybrid" class certification was held on June 1st
and 2nd, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a
"hybrid" class as requested by plaintiffs.

The Company has appealed the trial court's class certification
order, which will be reviewed de novo by the appellate court. The
appeal briefing is complete and ready for determination by the
court. An unsuccessful mediation was conducted on December 7,
2015.

The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action
will have on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, 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, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter.

Although not currently at issue in the "hybrid" certification,
plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million
that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the
passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of
interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that
the case meets the requirements for a class action and is
vigorously defending the case. The Company will continue to assert
its defenses to the case as certified as well as any future
attempt to certify a money damages class.


COOPER-STANDARD: Fixed Body Sealing Product Prices, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action complaint alleging conspiracy to fix the price of body
sealing products used in automobiles and other light-duty vehicles
was filed on March 30, 2016, in Ontario against numerous
automotive suppliers, including Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc., CSA
U.S. and Cooper-Standard Automotive Canada Limited ("CS
Defendants") and Nishikawa Cooper LLC, a joint venture in which
the Company holds a 40% interest. Plaintiffs purport to be
indirect purchasers of body sealing products supplied by the CS
Defendants and/or the other defendants during the relevant period.
The plaintiffs seek recovery of damages against all defendants in
an amount to be determined, punitive damages, as well as pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and related costs and expenses
of the litigation.

The Company believes the claims asserted against the CS Defendants
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these
claims. Further, the Company does not believe that there is a
material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to
these claims.

Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc., through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Cooper-Standard Automotive Inc. ("CSA U.S."), is a
manufacturer of sealing, fuel and brake delivery, fluid transfer,
and anti-vibration systems. The Company's products are primarily
for use in passenger vehicles and light trucks that are
manufactured by global automotive original equipment manufacturers
("OEMs") and replacement markets. The Company conducts
substantially all of its activities through its subsidiaries.


CREDIT CONTROL: Wins Final OK of "Baker" Suit Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin gave his final order approving the
class action settlement in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM BAKER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00303-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

The settlement provides for, among other things:

   -- Class Representative William Baker will receive $3,000 in
      settlement of his individual claims and for his service as
      Class Representative;

   -- Based on their petition, Class Counsel will receive $31,500
      as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of the
      lawsuit;

   -- After the payments to the Class Representative and Class
      Counsel, including the costs of Class Notice and
      administration, $20,000 will be distributed pro rata by
      checks among those members of the Class, who return a duly
      executed claim form as described in the Settlement
      Agreement, that is timely or that is otherwise approved by
      the Court;

   -- The total amount of any funds remaining that result from
      uncashed checks sent to class members will be contributed
      to Make A Difference - Wisconsin as a cy pres award; and

   -- The parties do not object to treating late claimants as if
      their claim was timely and including them in the
      distribution of class funds.  Based upon the absence of
      dispute, and because the difference per class member
      between allowing or rejecting the late claims is minimal,
      the Court finds that the claimants whose claim forms were
      received by class counsel on or before May 19, 2016, will
      be included in the distribution of class funds.

The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the class
certified for purposes of the settlement.  The Court is informed
that actual notice was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid,
forwarding service requested, to 896 class members.  A total of
118 envelopes were returned by the United States Postal Service.
No class member requested exclusion and no objections were filed
or received.  A total of 101 class members timely returned the
proof of claim form and are therefore entitled to a pro rata share
of the monetary benefits of the settlement.  As of May 18, 2016,
two late claim forms were returned by class members.

The Court further ordered that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is denied as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0o0peRt2


CRESCENT DIRECTIONAL: "Long" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Long, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Crescent Directional Drilling, L.P., Case
No. 4:16-cv-01398 (S.D. Tex., May 18, 2016) seeks unpaid back
wages due, liquidated damages, attorney fees, unpaid benefits and
compensation, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an oil field services company providing directional
drilling services throughout the United States. Long worked for
the Defendant as a Directional Driller. He claims to have been
denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galvin B. Kennedy
     KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
     711 W. Alabama Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Telephone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     Email: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


DARBY DENTAL: "Lewis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Keith Lewis, Salvatore Russo, Nicholas Jaworski and Alexander
Navarro, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, Darby Dental Supply, LLC Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
02538 (E.D. N.Y., May 18, 2016) seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other appropriate legal and
equitable relief pursuant to under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York State Labor Law.

Defendant is a nationwide distributor of dental supplies with a
main office at 300 Jericho Quadrangle, Jericho, New York 11753,
where Plaintiffs worked as account managers. They claim to be
denied overtime pay for their work rendered off-the-clock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     Harold W. LeMar, Esq.
     HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
     110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Tel: (718) 799-9111
     Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com
            haroldwlemar@gmail.com


DECIBELS OF OREGON: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Wilson, Plaintiffs, v. Decibels of Oregon, Inc. and Dennis
Snyder, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00855-CL (D. Or., May 16,
2016), seeks overtime compensation and permanent injunctive relief
enjoining defendants from further violations of federal labor
laws; liquidated damages and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Decibels specializes in the installation of communication lines
where Plaintiff worked as a Senior Technician, installing cable
and internet services. He claims to have been paid below minimum
wage rates and denied overtime premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Quinn E. Kuranz, Esq
      THE OFFICE OF Q.E. KURANZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
      65 SW Yamhill St., Suite 300
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: 503-757-4749
      Fax: 503-200-1289
      Email: quinn@kuranziaw.com


DIRECT ENERGY: Certification of Class Sought in "Richards" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying the action
entitled GARY W. RICHARDS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v.DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:14-
cv-01724-VAB (D. Conn.), as a class action and certifying this
class:

     All individual residential and small business consumers
     enrolled (either initially or through "rolling over" from a
     fixed rate plan) in a Direct Energy Services, LLC variable
     rate electricity plan in connection with a property located
     within Connecticut at any time from November 19, 2008
     through and including the date of class certification.

     Specifically excluded from the Class are: the Defendant, the
     officers, directors and employees of Defendant; any entity
     in which Defendant has a controlling interest; any
     affiliate, legal representative of Defendant; the judge to
     whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge's
     immediate family; and any heirs, assigns and successors of
     any of the above persons or organizations in their capacity
     as such.

Mr. Richards also moves that the Court appoint him as Class
Representative.  He further moves the Court to appoint Izard Nobel
LLP as Counsel for the Class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Seth R. Klein, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com
                  sklein@izardnobel.com


DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Soto Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CARLOS SOTO and ARELY LODGE
v. DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00445-
SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, ask
the Court for an order:

   (a) conditionally certifying a class of current and former
       employee relations consultant/employee relations
       specialists, who worked for the Defendant in the last
       three years and who were not paid overtime compensation
       for their hours worked over 40 each week;

   (b) directing the Defendant to produce, in an electronic
       readable format, to the Plaintiffs' counsel a list
       containing the full names, last known addresses, telephone
       numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members,
       who worked for the Defendant within the last three years;

   (c) authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to send initial
       notice, in both English and Spanish, to all individuals
       whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's
       counsel;

   (d) directing the Defendant to post at all of its business
       locations within the United States a copy of the initial
       notice, in both English and Spanish;

   (e) authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a follow-up
       notice, in both English and Spanish, to all individuals
       whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's
       counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the close of the
       Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt in to the
       instant action; and

   (f) providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
       produced by the Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days
       from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a
       Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=plWfw09t

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005


DS WATERS: Eddings Seeks Approval of $1-Mil. Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CHRIS EDDINGS, KENDALL
HEATH, and LINO GONZALEZ, as individuals, on behalf of themselves,
all others similarly situated, and the general public v. DS WATERS
OF AMERICA, INC., a corporation; DS SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., a
corporation; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES
1-100, Case No. 3:15-cv-02576-VC (N.D. Cal.), bring a renewed
motion to move the Court for an order:

   (1) preliminarily and conditionally certifying this Class for
       purposes of settlement:

       All individuals who worked as Costco Sales Representatives
       for DS Services of America, Inc. at any Costco location in
       California from February 19, 2011, through preliminary
       approval of the Settlement;

   (2) preliminarily appointing Plaintiffs Christopher Eddings,
       Kendall Heath, and Lino Gonzalez as the Class
       Representatives for purposes of settlement;

   (3) preliminary appointing as Class Counsel for purposes of
       settlement: (1) Michael Morrison from the law firm of
       ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP, (2) Kyle Todd from the Law
       Offices of Kyle Todd, and (3) Daniel O'Neill-Ortiz;

   (4) preliminarily and conditionally approving the class action
       settlement for $1 million ("Maximum Payment");

   (5) preliminarily approving the application for payment to
       Class Counsel of reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount
       of $250,000 (25% of the Maximum Payment) and litigation
       costs not to exceed $10,000 (currently at $8,352.25);

   (6) preliminarily approving the payment of incentive/service
       awards in the amount of $10,000 to Plaintiffs, each
       ($30,000);

   (7) preliminarily approving payment of PAGA penalties in the
       amount of $10,000 with payment therefrom to the California
       Labor Workforce and Development Agency in the amount of
       $7,500;

   (8) preliminarily approving settlement administration services
       to be provided by Simpluris for fees and costs not to
       exceed $20,000 (current estimate is $6,999);

   (9) approving as to form and content the proposed Notice of
       Class Action Settlement;

  (10) directing that the Notice providing an opportunity to opt
       out or object to the settlement be mailed by first class
       mail to the Settlement Class Members; and

  (11) scheduling a fairness hearing on the question of whether
       the proposed settlement should be finally approved as
       fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the members of the
       Settlement Class.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OD0QwFwh

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          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

               - and -

          Kyle J. Todd, Esq.
          Daniel O'Neill-Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
          611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1112
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (323) 208-9171
          E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Catherine M. Dacre, Esq.
          Justin T. Curley, Esq.
          Emily E. Barker, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2930
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com
                  jcurley@seyfarth.com
                  ebarker@seyfarth.com


DST SYSTEMS: Defending "Cooper" ERISA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
DST Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action suit was filed against Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., the
Company, the Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors, the Advisory Committee of the Company's 401(k) Profit
Sharing Plan and certain of the Company's present and/or former
officers and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and
other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The suit, Cooper v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., et. al., was
filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York on
March 14, 2016.

"We intend to defend this case vigorously, and, because the suit
is still in its preliminary stages, have not yet determined what
effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on our financial position
or results of operations," the Company said.


DYNAMIC DOWNHOLE: "Rutherford" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dean Rutherford, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Downhole Services, LLC
and John K. Pease, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00452 (W.D.
Tex., May 16, 2016), seeks to recover all unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant
to the provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

Dynamic Downhole Services, LLC operates as Grizzly Completion
Services. It provides well completion services, flowback and well
testing using tubing downhole tools, completion fluids and crane
services. John K. Pease, Jr. is the President.

Rutherford worked for Defendants out of their Pleasanton, Texas
location. He claims to have been denied overtime pay.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Telephone: (361) 452-1279
     Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
     Email: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Cronin Appeals Ruling in "Keller" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Kevin B. Cronin filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Samuel Keller, et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc.,
et al.  The original cases were assigned Case Nos. 4:09-cv-01967-
CW and 4:09-cv-03329-CW, in the U.S. District Court for Northern
California, Oakland.

Mr. Keller filed a putative class-action complaint asserting that
Electronic Arts violated his right of publicity under Section 3344
of the California Civil Code and California common law by using
his likeness as part of the NCAA Football video series.

The appellate case is captioned as Samuel Keller, et al. v.
Electronic Arts, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-15922, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Samuel Michael Keller is represented by:

          Leonard Wayne Aragon, Esq.
          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          E-mail: leonard@hbsslaw.com
                  rob@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave.
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
          Sathya Gosselin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: sbojedla@hausfeld.com
          sgosselin@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq.
          Stuart McKinley Paynter, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1200 G St. NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-4486
          E-mail: cboyd@paynterlawfirm.com
                  stuart@paynterlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Robert Wozniak, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Edward C. O'Bannon, Jr., is represented by:

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
          Sathya Gosselin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
                  sbojedla@hausfeld.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bruce Joshua Wecker, Esq.
          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
                  bwecker@hausfeldllp.com
                  bsweeney@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-5607
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Jonathan S. Massey, Esq.
          MASSEY & GAIL LLP
          1325 G Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 652-4511
          E-mail: jmassey@masseygail.com

               - and -

          Seth Rosenthal, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 7th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 344-4741
          Facsimile: (202) 344-8300
          E-mail: sarosenthal@Venable.com

               - and -

          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403-3415
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Robert Wozniak, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Electronic Arts, Inc., is represented by:

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Robert J. Wierenga, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 S. Main Street
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  rwierenga@schiffhardin.com

Defendant-Appellee National Collegiate Athletic Association, also
known as The NCAA, is represented by:

          Steven A. Hirsch, Esq.
          Robert Adam Lauridsen, Esq.
          Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: shirsch@kvn.com
                  alauridsen@kvn.com
                  rvannest@kvn.com

Defendant-Appellee Collegiate Licensing Company, aka CLC, is
represented by:

          Peter Michael Boyle, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
          607 14th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 508-5834
          E-mail: Pboyle@kilpatricktownsend.com

               - and -

          Cindy D. Hanson, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-6534
          E-mail: Chanson@kilpatricktownsend.com


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Facing "Dougherty" Class Suit in E.D. Mich.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported
stockholder of the Company filed on January 12, 2016, a putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim
Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that the
Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly
failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public statement that
the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before
approving the Company's lead product candidate. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an
allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015, and
September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.

Esperion Therapeutics is a pharmaceutical company focused on
developing and commercializing first-in-class, oral, low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol, or LDL-C, lowering therapies for the
treatment of patients with elevated LDL-C.


EVENTGRID INC: Faces "Windebank" Suit in C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Eventgrid, Inc. The case is
captioned Jason Windebank, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Eventgrid, Inc., and Does 1-
20, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
03282 (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2016).

EventGrid owns and operates Eventgrid.com website. It provides
event management software "EventGrid" which is a next generation
event registration and ticketing platform.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENEN WEISBERG LLP
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 507 7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507 7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


FANDUEL INC: "Daniels" Suit Removed to S.D. Ind.
------------------------------------------------
Akeem Daniels, Cameron Stingily, and Nicholas Stoner, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Fanduel, Inc. and Draftkings, Inc., Defendants., Case No. 49D11
1605PL 015671 (Ind. Super, May 4, 2016), has been removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
on May 18, 2016, Case No. 1:16-cv-01230-TWP-DKL.

The class action complaint arises out of an alleged internal
rigging of online gaming website, Daily Fantasy Sports, an online
game that allows paying participants to engage in virtual athletic
drafting with data tied to actual player statistics that allows
game simulations. Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel, Inc. entice
participants to play by offering cash winnings.

Fanduel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th Floor, New York,
New York.

DraftKings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts. FanDuel is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th
Floor, New York, New York.

Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq.
     Craig Eldon Pinkus, Esq.
     BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP
     111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Tel: (317) 684-5116
     Fax: (317) 223-0116
     Email: pzimmerly@boselaw.com


FANNIE MAE: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Luna" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 26, 2016, in the case entitled
Clarence Luna v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No.
1:16-cv-04617 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Joan B. Gottschall.

The minute entry states that the motion for class certification is
denied without prejudice, with the understanding that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification remains pending as a
placeholder and no rights are waived.

The Court reminds the parties that the Case is related to Long v.
Federal Home Mortgage, 16 C 3072.  The Court directs the counsel
to ensure that both case numbers are on all pleadings.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6glDCfYh


FANTECH SOFTWARE: "Amini" Sues Over Spam Texts
----------------------------------------------
Kevin Amini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fantech Software, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 8:16-cv-00915-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2016), seeks
statutory damages and injunctive relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant provides fantasy sports gameplay to consumers
nationwide. It sent Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or
promotional offers via text message to his cellular phone via an
automatic telephone dialing system. Plaintiff did not provide
Defendant or its agents with prior express consent to receive
unsolicited text messages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     324 S. Beverly Dr.
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Deadline for Settlement Completion Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, Eddie L.
Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al.,
the parties filed a Joint Motion to amend the January 2, 2015
Final Order and Judgment, to extend the deadline for settlement
completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016.

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class
Complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et. al. in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), Case No. BC-514340. The
Complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an
action in federal court. The Complaint asserts, inter alia, that
the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on
Defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity-
indexed insurance policies.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered Final Judgment in Cressy,
certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the
class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, the
Company tendered $1 million to the Settlement Administrator for a
claim review fund. The Company implemented an interest enhancement
feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement,
which enhancement began on October 12, 2015.

On December 11, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to amend
the January 2, 2015 Final Order and Judgment, to extend the
deadline for settlement completion from January 28, 2016 to
October 24, 2016.

At March 31, 2016, the Company estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be
$9 million, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the
estimate of $1 million. The Company has incurred and paid $5
million related to legal fees and other costs and $3 million
related to settlement costs as of March 31, 2016. Based on the
information currently available the Company does not expect the
actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to
differ materially from the amount accrued.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Appeal in "Ludwick" Case Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the appeal in the
case, Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty
Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front
Street Re (Cayman) Ltd., remains pending.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
(the "District Court"), captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc.,
Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance
Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd.

The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), requests injunctive and
declaratory relief seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the
putative class in an amount not presently determinable, treble
damages, and other relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick plaintiff
overpaid at least $0 for her annuity.

On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a Joint
Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the
District Court granted the defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss.
Judgment was entered on February 12, 2016.

On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the
"Court of Appeals") from the District Court's Order and Judgment.
On April 13, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed her Appellant Brief
with the Court of Appeals.

As of March 31, 2016, the Company did not have sufficient
information to determine whether the Company is exposed to any
losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable
beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1 million, which was
accrued during the six months ended March 31, 2016.


FLORIDA GARDEN: "Johnson" Suit Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Leroy T. Johnson, Marqui Passmore and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, v. Florida Garden
Center Corp. and Estrella Sampedro, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-
21813 (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2016), seeks unpaid hours, punitive
damages entered against Defendants along with court costs,
interest and any other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Florida Garden Center Corp. is a Florida-based general landscaping
contractor owned by Estrella Sampedro where Plaintiffs worked as
general laborer and landscapers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alberto Naranjo, Esq.
      AN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1900 N. Bayshore Dr.
      3606 Miami, FL 33132
      Phone: 305-942-8070
      Email: AN@ANLawFirm.com


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: "Le" Suit to Recover Last Pay, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minh Le, Plaintiff, v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. and Does 1-
50, Defendants, Case No. BC620375 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2016),
seeks damages and/or restitution resulting from non-payment of
wages due, non-payment of missed meal and rest periods including
premium wages, failure to issue accurate and itemized wage
statements in conformity with California Labor Laws, final pay
upon termination in conformity with California Labor Law and
California Public Policy, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to
the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.

Plaintiff was hired as a Senior ISeries Systems Administrator,
providing consultation services, client support, migrations, and
upgrades to various companies and lines of business.

Fox Entertainment Group is an entertainment company that operates
through filmed entertainment, television stations, television
broadcast networks and cable network programming.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     324 S. Beverly Drive, #725
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com


FRANCIS JOHN: "Kassab" Breach of Contract Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam C. Kassab, A. Stephen John, Yehiel Peter Schwartz, Allan
Schwartz, Thomas Wheeler and Shripal Daphtary, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Francis D. John, Theodore B. Baum, Peter Hopper, Melvin Heller,
Steve Hooper, Salvatore Tirabassi, Munish Sood, John Ward and
Nicholas Massard, Defendants, Case No. GD 16-3635, March 11, 2016,
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania to the United States District Court of Western
Pennsylvania on May 16, 2016, Case No. 2:16-cv-00613-AJS.

The complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment over shares of UNSi whose ownership interest was
cancelled without consideration through a 1:4,000,000 reverse
stock split and the subsequent issue of new shares.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Robert M. Barnes, Esq.
     Scott D. Livingston, Esq.
     Daniel J. Stuart, Esq.
     MARCUS & SHAPIRA LLP
     One Oxford Centre, 35th Floor
     301 Grant Street
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Tel: (412) 471-3490
     Fax: (412) 391-2315
     Email: livingston@marcus-shapira.com
            rbarnes@marcus-shapira.com
            stuart@marcus-shapira.com


GANNETT CO: Settlements Reached in "Casagrand" TCPA Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Company has agreed
to settlements in principle with each of the named plaintiffs in
"Casagrand" Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") litigation.

The Company said, "On January 2, 2014, a class action lawsuit was
filed against Gannett in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Casagrand et al v. Gannett Co., Inc., et al). The
suit claims various violations of the TCPA arising from allegedly
improper telemarketing calls made to consumers by one of our
vendors. The plaintiffs seek to certify a class that would include
all telemarketing calls made by the vendor or us. The TCPA
provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation ($1,500 for
willful violations).  In April 2016, we agreed to settlements in
principle with each of the named plaintiffs."


GENESCO INC: "Murray" Sues over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Nicole Murray, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Genesco Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
02815-RBK-JS (D.N.J., May 19, 2016), seeks penalties, termination
of the terms of the "Disclaimer" and "Indemnification" provisions
of the Defendants' "Privacy Policy" set forth on Defendant's
website and reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs for
violation of the New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty
and Notice Act.

Defendant Genesco Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State
of Tennessee, with its headquarters located at 1415 Murfreesboro
Pike, Suite 190, Nashville, Tennessee 37217-2835. It operates as
Johnston & Murphy, and operates a e-commerce website
www.johnstonmurphy.com

Plaintiff purchased a scarf through Defendant's website, and
alleges unfair, one-sided provisions contained in its "Privacy
Policy" consumer contracts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lazaro Berenguer, Esq.
      Gerald H. Clark, Esq.
      Mark W. Morris. Esq.
      Clark Law Firm Pc
      811 16th Avenue
      Belmar, NJ 07719
      Tel: (732) 443-0333

           - and -

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Victoria Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Phone: (949) 706-6464


GOT CAPITAL: Korea Week Loses Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, KOREA WEEK, INC. v. GOT CAPITAL, LLC, et al., Civil
Action No. 15-6351 (E.D. Pa.), District Judge Mark A. Kearney
denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as the merchant
Plaintiffs offer no class representative adequate to represent the
merchant class as each named class representative waived its right
to participate in a class action in exchange for business
financing.

Plaintiffs Korea Week, Inc., R2L, Inc. d/b/a Koba Restaurant, In
Ja Hwang, J & S Cleaners, Kim's Farms, and Master Yu's Power Kick,
LLC seek to certify a class of persons or businesses who signed
merchant cash advance financing arrangements ("MCA") with
Defendants from January 2007 to the present which allegedly
violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RIC0").

Plaintiffs allege Defendants target the Korean-American and Asian-
American business communities through marketing, advertising, and
soliciting of MCA financing in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey,
Texas, California and England. Plaintiffs, all small business
merchants, allege Defendants advertise MCA arrangements purporting
to be legitimate purchases of Plaintiffs' receivables but which
are really high interest short-term loans with rates in excess of
150-200% constituting loan sharking, predatory lending, and money
laundering schemes. Plaintiffs allege Defendants forced repayment
of these loans with a penalty in cash when Plaintiffs were late in
making payments causing Plaintiffs "fear, intimidation, pressure,
anxiety, and emotional stress."

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should certify their proposed
class because their claims satisfy the numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and because common issues regarding
the RICO claims predominate and a class action is a superior
method of adjudication required by Rule 23(b)(3).

Defendants oppose class certification, arguing all the contracts
between the parties contain a class action waiver barring any such
action. Defendants alternatively argue Plaintiffs' RICO claims
fail to satisfy the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3).
Plaintiffs argue the class action waivers are procedurally and
substantively unconscionable, cannot be enforced, and their claims
must proceed under Rule 23.

The Court ruled that, "Each named Plaintiff seeks to be appointed
as a class representative even though each agreed to waive "any
right to assert any claims against any other party as a
representative or member in any class or representative action."
Plaintiffs do not claim lack of consideration or performance voids
their promise. Rather, they ask us to void their class action
waiver as unconscionable principally because they speak Korean as
a principal language and while they are experienced merchants they
should be treated as consumers. They can text and understand
English as merchants in the United States. They are not consumers
or employees in the sense of disproportionate economic leverage.
Unconscionability is a factual determination based on a sliding
scale analysis of each Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiffs elected to
present only the testimony of Ms. Hwang and Mr. Won. As set forth
above, neither demonstrated procedural or substantive
unconscionability. The Plaintiffs agreed to pursue claims on their
own behalf and cannot now change their minds and transform into
fiduciaries for others."

A copy of the Court's May 27 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0sYMGG from Leagle.com.

A copy of the Court's May 27 Memorandum is available at
https://is.gd/d4VDrG from Leagle.com.


GROWELL BRANDS: Has Until June 14 to Respond to "McMillan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLENN McMILLAN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
a North Carolina limited liability company, and GROWELL BRANDS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00695-
DAD-SMS (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder granted
defendant Gro-Well Brands, Inc.'s ex parte application for
additional time to respond to the amended complaint.

Specifically, Gro-Well Brands has to file an answer to the amended
complaint by June 14, 2016.  A copy of the Court's May 27 order is
available at https://is.gd/JQ1Pma from Leagle.com.

Glenn McMillan, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. De Re,
Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., pro hac vice, Thomas A. Zimmerman,
Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., pro hac vice, Todd M. Friedman, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Meghan George, Law Offices Of
Todd M. Friedman.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Neil K. Gilman
-- ngilman@Hunton.com -- and Phillip J. Eskenazi --
peskenazi@Hunton.com -- at Hunton & Williams LLP.

Gro-Well Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric Michael
Roberts -- eric.roberts@dlapiper.com -- and Todd Michael Noonan --
todd.noonan@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP.


HARRIS COUNTY: "O'Donnell" Seeks Temporary Restraining Order
------------------------------------------------------------
Maranda Lynn O'Donnell, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Harris County, Texas, Sheriff
Ron Hickman, Eric Stewart Hagstette, Joseph Licata Iii, Ronald
Nicholas, Blanca Estela Villagomez, Jill Wallace, Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-01414 (S.D. Tex., May 19, 2016), seeks a temporary
restraining order, equitable relief, and preliminary injunctive
relief enjoining Harris County from using post-arrest procedures.

Plaintiff was arrested for driving with an invalid license and is
currently detained. Defendants are officials of the Harris County
Police Force.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal S. Manne, Esq.
      Lexie G. White, Esq.
      1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Phone: (713) 651-9366
      Email: nmanne@susmangodfrey.com
             lwhite@susmangodfrey.com

           - and -

      Michael Gervais
      560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Phone: (212) 336-8330
      Email: mgervais@susmangodfrey.com

           - and -

      Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
      Elizabeth Rossi, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
      601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
      South Building, 9th Floor
      Washington, DC 20004
      Tel: (202) 670-1004
      Email: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
             erossi@equaljusticeunderlawl.org


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric Company,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed an ex parte motion for
second extension of time to file the pretrial statement in a state
consolidated action from February 15, 2016 to August 15, 2016.

Since the December 3, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement,
eight purported class action complaints were filed in the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii by alleged
stockholders of HEI against HEI, Hawaiian Electric (in one
complaint), the individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's
acquisition subsidiaries.

The lawsuits are captioned as follows: Miller v. Hawaiian Electric
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2531-12 KTN (December 15,
2014) (the Miller Action); Walsh v. Hawaiian Electric Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2541-12 JHC (December 15, 2014) (the
Walsh Action); Stein v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 14-1-2555-12 KTN (December 17, 2014) (the Stein
Action); Brown v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case
No. 14-1-2643-12 RAN (December 30, 2014) (the Brown Action); Cohn
v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2642-
12 KTN (December 30, 2014) (the Cohn State Action); Guenther v.
Watanabe, et al., Case No. 15-1-003-01 ECN (January 2, 2015) (the
Guenther Action); Hudson v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 15-1-0013-01 JHC (January 5, 2015) (the Hudson
Action); Grieco v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 15-1-0094-01 KKS (January 21, 2015) (the Grieco Action).

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the Miller Action, the Walsh
Action, the Stein Action, the Brown Action, the Guenther Action,
and the Hudson Action filed a motion to consolidate their actions
and to appoint co-lead counsel.

On January 23, 2015, the Cohn State Action was voluntarily
dismissed. On January 27, 2015, Cohn filed a purported class
action captioned Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et
al., Civil No. 15-00029-JMS-RLP in the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii against HEI, the individual
directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries (the Cohn
Federal Action).

On February 13, 2015, the state court orally granted the
plaintiffs' motions to consolidate the seven state court actions
and appoint co-lead counsel and entered a written order granting
the motions on March 6, 2015.

On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first consolidated complaint
in state court that added as a defendant J.P. Morgan Securities,
LLC (JP Morgan), the financial advisor to HEI for the Merger, and
deleted Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. as a defendant and
concurrently served a first request for production of documents on
HEI and the individual directors.

On March 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for limited expedited
discovery in the consolidated state action and thereafter on March
25, 2015 withdrew their request for limited discovery and first
request for production of documents as a result of the parties'
agreement to conduct certain specified limited discovery which
included a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective
order protecting the confidentiality of certain information
exchanged between the parties in connection with discovery in the
consolidated action that was filed on April 6, 2015.

On April 15 and 17, 2015, a deposition of a representative of HEI
and a representative of JP Morgan were taken, respectively. On
April 21, 2015, plaintiffs confirmed the cancellation of the
preliminary injunction hearing that had been scheduled for May 5,
2015 in the consolidated  b vaction and on April 23, 2015, the
state court entered a stipulation and order to extend indefinitely
the time to answer or otherwise respond to the first amended
consolidated complaint.

On April 30, 2015, the state court entered a consolidated case
management order confirming the consolidated treatment of the
state actions for purposes of case management, pretrial discovery,
procedural and other matters.

On May 27, 2015, the federal court entered a stipulation and order
approving the stipulation of the parties to stay the Cohn Federal
Action pending the resolution of the state court consolidated
action and administratively closing the Cohn Federal Action
without prejudice to any party.

On May 29, 2015, the state court entered a stipulated order
amending the consolidated caption to read IN RE Consolidated HEI
Shareholder Cases, Master File No. Civil No. 1CC15-1-HEI, to add
JP Morgan as a named defendant in each individual action, add the
caption for the Grieco Action, and remove Hawaiian Electric
Company, Inc. from the caption in the Brown Action.

In October 2015, several depositions of HEI representatives were
taken in the state consolidated action. On February 9, 2016,
plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for second extension of time
to file the pretrial statement in the state consolidated action
from February 15, 2016 to August 15, 2016.

The actions allege, among other things, that members of HEI's
Board of Directors (Board) breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed transaction, and that the Merger
Agreement involves an unfair price, was the product of an
inadequate sales process, and contains unreasonable deal
protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The
complaints further allege that HEI, NEE and/or its acquisition
subsidiaries aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duty. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other things,
(i) a declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into in
breach of HEI's directors' fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction
enjoining the HEI Board from consummating the Merger, (iii) an
order directing the HEI Board to exercise their duties to obtain a
transaction which is in the best interests of HEI's stockholders,
(iv) a rescission of the Merger to the extent that it is
consummated, and/or (v) damages suffered as a result of the
defendants' alleged actions. Plaintiffs in the consolidated state
action also allege that JP Morgan had a conflict of interest in
advising HEI because JP Morgan and its affiliates had business
ties to and investments in NEE. The consolidated state action also
alleges that the HEI Board violated its fiduciary duties by
omitting material facts from the Registration Statement on Form
S-4. In addition, the Cohn Federal Action alleges that the HEI
Board violated its fiduciary duties and federal securities laws by
omitting material facts from the Registration Statement on Form
S-4.

HEI and Hawaiian Electric believe the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.


HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE: "Rosenberg" Sues for Sexual Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Rosenberg, On behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. d/b/a
Hennepin County Medical Center, Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-16-7444
(Minn. Dist., May 16, 2016), seeks damages, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements incurred, treble damages,
liquidated and punitive damages, equitable relief and such further
and other relief for violation of the Equal Pay Act, Minnesota's
Equal Pay for Equal Work Law, Minnesota Human Rights Act (Sexual
discrimination), and violation of the False Claims Act and
Minnesota Whistleblower Act.

Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. operates under Hennepin County
Medical Center, a Minnesota healthcare organization with principal
place of business at 701 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55415 where Rosenberg worked as a a licensed independent clinical
social worker. She accuses Defendant of denying her promotion over
her male counterparts despite her qualifications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Schlesinger, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Fax: (612) 338-4878
     Phone: (612) 256-3200
     Email: schlesinger@nka.com


HORSEHEAD HOLDINGS: "Jani" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
Umesh Jani, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. James M. Hensler, Robert D. Scherich and
Gregory M. Belland, Defendants., Case No. 1:16-cv-00369-UNA (D.
Del., May 18, 2016), seeks damages and interest, attorney fees and
such equitable/injunctive or other relief pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Horsehead, together with its subsidiaries, was a leading U.S.
producer of zinc metal and a leading recycler of electric arc
furnace dust. Plaintiff alleges that Horsehead common stock was
traded at artificially inflated prices due to false statements.
Horsehead filed for bankruptcy on February 2, 2016.

Plaintiff purchased shares of Horsehead Holding and lost
substantially.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Marc Gorrie, Esq.
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            mgorrie@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Tel: (212) 697-6484
     Fax: (212) 697-7296
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com

            - and -

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     David M. Sborz, Esq.
     ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
     3801 Kennett Pike
     Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Tel: (302) 504-4957
     Fax: (302) 397-2681
     Email: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
            cspringer@andrewssrpringer.com
            dsborz@andrewsspringer.com


IMS HEALTH: "Chiu" Sues Over Shady Merge Deal
---------------------------------------------
Daniel Chiu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ari Bousbib, John G. Danhaki, James
Fasano, Karen L. Katen, Sharad S. Mansukani, Ronald A.
Rittenmeyer, Todd B. Sisitsky, and Bryan M. Taylor, Defendants,
Case No. 12340 (Del. Ch., May 16, 2016) seeks enjoinment from
consummating acquisition; damages resulting from breach of
fiduciary duties; costs and disbursements of this action;
reasonable attorney and expert fees; and such other and further
equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duties.

Quintiles Transnational Holdings Inc. is to acquire the
outstanding shares of IMS Health for a fixed exchange ratio of
0.384 shares of Quintiles common stock for each share of IMS
Health common stock. Plaintiff alleges that this transaction was
under valued. Chiu has been a stockholder of IMS Health.

Ari Bousbib, John G. Danhaki, James Fasano, Karen L. Katen, Sharad
S. Mansukani, Ronald A. Rittenmeyer, Todd B. Sisitsky and Bryan M.
Taylor are members of the board of directors of IMS Health.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Banko, Esq.
     Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Tel: (302) 482-3182
     Fax: (302) 482-3612
     Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
            dfarrell@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel.: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


INNOVATIVE BUILDING: Failed to Issue Termination Written Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Mickens on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Innovative Building Solutions, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00867-YK (M.D. Penn., May 13,
2016), seeks to collect unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar
days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act of 1988 (WARN Act).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was an employee of the
Defendant until he was terminated as part of, or as a result of a
plant closing ordered by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is
liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiff
and the other similarly situated former employees at least 60
days' advance written notice of termination, as required by the
WARN Act.

Innovative Building provides access controls and enterprise-level
solutions for building automation, cctv, integration of systems,
and mechanical systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rolf Kroll, Esq.
          James E. Huggett, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          3510 Trindle Road
          Camp Hill, PA 17011
          Telephone: (717) 975 8114
          Facsimile: (717) 975 8124

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888 1112
          Facsimile: (302) 888 1119

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          David C. Tufts, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          210 S. Washington Ave.
          Post Office Drawer 3103
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 433 8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433 8181


IRON MOUNTAIN: "Cardenas" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Cardenas, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Iron Mountain Information
Management Services, Inc., an active Delaware Corporation, Iron
Mountain Incorporated, an active Delaware Corporation and Does 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. BC620476 (Cal. Super., May 16,
2016), seeks damages for unpaid compensation owed for missed meal
and rest periods, unpaid wages, civil penalties under Labor Code,
prejudgment interest and costs under the California Labor Code and
the California Business and Professions Code.

Defendants are in the business of records management, information
destruction, data backup and recovery services with facility
located at 8700 Mercury Lane in Pico Rivera, California 90660
where Plaintiff worked as a warehouse employee. Cardenas was not
paid all his wages at the time of his termination and was also
deprived of lawful meal and rest periods and failed to receive
itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
     Haik Hacopian, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ZORIK MOORADIAN
     5023 N. Parkway Calabasas
     Calabasas, CA 91302
     Telephone: (818) 876-9627
     Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
     Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
            haikhacopian@gmail.com


J&J ALESSANDRA: "Alatorre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Alatorre individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J&J Alessandra, Inc. and Carmelo
A. Scalzo, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05404 (N.D.
Ill., May 19, 2016), seeks all unpaid wages, statutory damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this action and such other
and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

J&J Alessandra, Inc. operates The Warehouse Bar & Pizzeria located
at 1419 W. Fullerton Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60614, owned by
Carmelo A. Scalzo. Plaintiff worked as a busser, food runner and
dishwasher.

Alatorre alleges that he was not paid for the last two weeks that
he worked, worked through meal breaks and was denied overtime pay.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Tel: 312-878-1302
     Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


JONROCMAN 930 LLC: "Rojas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Aguilar Rojas, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JONROCMAN 930, LLC,
Samuel Gavish and Lloyd B. Sugarman, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03683 (S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2016),
seeks unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and attorney's fees and costs and for such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minimum Wage Act, New
York Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendant is a full-service restaurant doing business as Johnny
Rockets and located at 930 Third Avenue, New York, New York, where
Plaintiff worked as a cook, dishwasher, and deliveryman. Rojas
claims to have been denied overtime and reimbursement for his
uniform that he paid for.

The Defendants are represented by:

     John M. Gurrieri
     Brandon D. Sherr
     Justin A. Zeller
     LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
     277 Broadway, Suite 408
     New York, NY 10007-2036
     Telephone: (212) 229-2249
     Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
     Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
            bsherr@zellerlegal.com
            jazeller@zellerlegal.com


KAPLAN CORNELIA: "Galeana" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonifacio Vasquez Galeana, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kaplan Cornelia Inc., (d/b/a
Papaya Dog), First Avenue Papaya, Inc., (d/b/a Papaya Dog), Papaya
Dog Enterprises 42 NY LLC (d/b/a Papaya Dog), PDF Foods,
Inc.(d/b/a Little Italy Pizza III), Scott A. Herron, Steven
Kaplan, and Tiran Tsadok, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03594
(S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked. Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours
worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked over 40, either at the straight rate of pay, or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
he had to work over 10 hours a day.

The Defendants own a chain of fast food/fruit juice take outs and
a pizzeria located at New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: "Pittman" Sues Over Faulty Optical Sights
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Pittman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. L-3 Communications EOtech, Inc. and L-3
Communications Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00438-DGK
(W.D. Mo., May 16, 2016), seeks to recover actual, consequential,
punitive and/or exemplary damages, declaratory relief, costs,
equitable remedies (including disgorgement) and reasonable
attorney's fees resulting from fraud/intentional
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/nondisclosure, and
unjust enrichment, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, State Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts and/or
Consumer Protection Acts, Texas Consumer Protection Act, Texas
Revised Statutes (Implied Warranty of Merchantability).

Plaintiff claims to have purchased a holographic weapon sighting
device from the Defendant that allegedly fails in cold
temperatures and in humid environments.

L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
designs, manufactures, and markets holographic weapon sights with
principal place of business at 1201 E. Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 48108.

L-3 Communications Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 600 Third Avenue, New York, New
York, 10016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
      DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C.
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Tel: (816) 876-2600
      Fax: (816) 221-8763
      Email: timd@dollar-law.com

          - and -

      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      Andrew M. Gonyea, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 West University Drive, Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48703
      Tel: (248) 841-2200
      Fax: (248) 652-2852
      Email: ssa@millerlawpc.com
             amg@millerlawpc.com

          - and -

      Keith Altman, Esq.
      EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
      26700 Lahser Road, Suite 400
      Southfield, MI 48033
      Tel: (516) 456-5885
      Fax: (516) 795-7599
      Email: kaltman@lawampmmt.com

          - and -

      Ari Kresch, Esq.
      EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
      26700 Lahser Road, Suite 400
      Southfield, MI 48033
      Tel: (248) 565-2099
      Fax: (248) 436-6858


LALA'S ON MELROSE: Altered/Destroyed Receipts, Brea Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Brea, an individual, and similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff, v. Lala's On Melrose, Inc., a California Corporation;
Lala's Studio City, Inc., a California Corporation; Mario Balul,
an individual; Horacio Weschler Ferrari, an individual; and Does
1-50; inclusive; the Defendants, Case No. BC620478 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover costs, penalties, and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in an unlawful
pattern and practice by retaliating against Plaintiff for
complaining about Defendants' practice of altering and destroying
receipts and underreporting daily cash income received to state
and/or federal tax authorities, and/or for refusing to participate
in these illegal activities. As a proximate result of Defendants'
wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to sustain
substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits in an
amount according to proof at the time of trial.

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Milon, Esq.
          Angel D. Pluas, Esq.
          MILON PLUAS LLP
          909 East Green Street
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (626) 229 0844
          Facsimile: (626) 389 5451
          E-mail: joshua@milonpluasllp.com
                  angel@milonpluasllp.com

               - and -

          Brian G. Hannemann, Esq.
          HANNEMANN LAW FIRM
          1042 N. Mountain Ave., Suite B-222
          Upland, CA 91786
          Telephone: (909) 980 7878
          Facsimile: (909) 912 8999
          E-mail: bghesq@gmail.com


LANNETT COMPANY: "KPH" Sues Over Overpriced Drugs
-------------------------------------------------
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc.,
IMPAX Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
Allergan PLC and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02432-CMR (E.D. Pa., May 18, 2016), seeks
damages, injunctive and equitable relief, costs of suit,
reasonable attorney's fees for violation of Sections 1 and 3 of
the Sherman Act.

Defendants are accused of engaging in a conspiracy to fix,
maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or
doxycycline.

KPH operates retail pharmacies in the Northeast under the name
Kinney Drugs. It claims it purchased generic digoxin and
doxycycline manufactured by one or more Defendants at supra-
competitive prices.

Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor
of generic digoxin and generic doxycycline.

Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is
called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and
distributor of generic digoxin.

Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes a generic
version of Lanoxin (R) (digoxin) tablets made by Covis Pharma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: 215-923-9300
      Fax: 215-923-9302
      Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
             ebums@nastlaw.com

          - and -

      Michael L. Robe1is, Esq.
      Debra G. Josephson, Esq.
      Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
      ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20 Rahling Circle
      P.O. Box 241790
      Little Rock, AR 72223
      Tel: 501-821-5575
      Fax: 501-821-4474
      Email: mikerobertsW{ro be1islawfirm.us
             debrajosephsonW1robertslawfirm.us
             stephaniesmithfa{robertslawtinn.us

             - and -

      Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
      Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 0214 2
      Tel: 617-482-3700
      Fax: 617-482-3003
      Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
             lauren@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: 612-333-8844
      Fax: 612-339-6622
      Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
             jbourne@gustafsongluek.com

             - and -

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Bethany R. Turke, Esq.
     Justin N. Boley, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL60603
     Tel: 312-346-2222
     Fax: 312-346-0022
     Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
            brtr@,wexlerwallace.com
            jnb@wexlerwallace.com

             - and -

     Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
     David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
     Wm Dane DeKrey, Esq.
     ZIMME1MAN REED, LLP
     1100 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: 612-341-0400
     Fax: 612-341-0844
     Email: charles.zimmeiman@zimmreed.com
            david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
            dane.dekrey@zimmreed.com

             - and -

     Simon B. Paris, Esq.
     Patrick Howard, Esq.
     Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
     SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY P.C.
     One Libetiy Place, 52nd Floor
     1650 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: 215-496-8282
     Fax: 215-496-0999
     Email: sparis@smbb.com
            phoward@smbb.com
            ckocher@smbb.com


LEGGETT & PLATT: Bid to Reconsider or Stay Bond Order Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
awaiting the Court's ruling on a motion to reconsider or stay the
bond order.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in an indirect
purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21,
2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class
action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane
Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers,
bring damages claims under various states' antitrust and consumer
protection statutes, and are seeking three times an amount of
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against
future violations.

"We filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action
for failure to state a legally valid claim. The Ohio Court denied
the motions to dismiss. A motion for class certification was filed
on behalf of the indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was
held and the Court certified the indirect purchaser class. We
filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification
Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
which was denied. On November 18, 2014, we filed a Petition for a
Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on
March 2, 2015. The Ohio Court ordered all parties to attend non-
binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing."

"We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. Indirect Class
Action cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay an amount not
materially different from the amount previously accrued for this
claim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but
settled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,
uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The Court
preliminarily approved the class settlement on July 31, 2015. The
full settlement amount was paid into escrow in the third quarter
of 2015. The final settlement approval hearing was held on
December 15, 2015 and the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

"Several objectors filed notices of appeal of the order of
approving the class settlement to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On April 14, 2016, the Court ordered the objectors to
post an appeal bond by May 13, 2016. Certain of the objectors have
filed a motion to reconsider or stay the bond order. We are
awaiting the Court's ruling."


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Faces "Scroggins" Suit in M.D. Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------
Marilyn R. Scroggins, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LifePoint Health, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00338-WHA-CSC (M.D. Ala., May 12,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Judge W. Harold Albritton, III.

LifePoint is a leading hospital company dedicated to providing
patient-centered care in rural and non-urban communities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Metzger, Esq.
          Richard Taylor, Esq.
          Steven Anthony Martino, Esq.
          William Lloyd Copeland, Esq.
          TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C.
          51 Saint Joseph Street
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433 3131
          Facsimile: (251) 405 5080
          E-mail: kenny@taylormartino.com
                  richard@taylormartino.com
                  stevemartino@taylormartino.com
                  lloyd@taylormartino.com


LPL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------
LPL Financial Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action lawsuit has been filed against the Company and certain of
its executive officers in federal district court alleging certain
misstatements and omissions related to the Company's share
repurchases and financial performance in late 2015. The Company
intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuit.

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. ("LPLFH"), a Delaware holding
corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Company") provides an integrated platform of
brokerage and investment advisory services to independent
financial advisors and financial advisors at financial
institutions (collectively "advisors") in the United States of
America. Through its custody and clearing platform, using both
proprietary and third-party technology, the Company provides
access to diversified financial products and services enabling its
advisors to offer independent financial advice and brokerage
services to retail investors (their "clients").


LUXOTTICA RETAIL: "Perkins" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Perkins and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc., individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21764-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2016),
seeks unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs, interests, reasonable attorney's fees and costs,
injunctive relief, and such other, further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Luxottica Retail operates as Sunglass Hut, a retail chain located
all over the U.S. Plaintiff worked as a Store Manager in the
Defendant's Miami, Florida location. Perkins claims to have been
denied overtime pay.

The Defendants are represented by:

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


MARS INC: "Vargas" Sues over Packaging Under Filling
----------------------------------------------------
Eric Lankenau-Ray and Carmen Vargas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mars, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-2660 (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2016), seeks
injunctive relief, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees
resulting from Negligent Misrepresentation and violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code,
False Advertising Law, New York General Business Law.

Plaintiffs purchased Uncle Ben's Rice Products from the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that product packaging was 50%
empty.

Mars, Inc. is a corporation incorporated in the state of Delaware
and with its headquarters in McLean, Virginia in the business of
confectionery products. It sells its Rice Products through various
local grocery stores, markets and online retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Andrei Armas, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com
            andrei@kazlg.com

            - and -

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


MASIMO CORPORATION: Physicians Healthsource Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend the case by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the
District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a
ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC
granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested
in the Company's petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's
decision on the petition.

On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties'
joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on
the appeal. The Company believes it has good and substantial
defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company
will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss
will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss;
therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company as of
the date of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.


MASIMO CORPORATION: Appeal in Surfactant Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the appeal in a class
action related to the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and
Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama, is
pending.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial.

On August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of the
Company on all claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's decision.

The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will
ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore,
no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company as of the date
of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.


MDC PARTNERS: Still Defends Firefighter Pension Plan's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
vigorously defending a class action lawsuit by North Collier Fire
Control and Rescue District Firefighter Pension Plan.

On July 31, 2015, North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District
Firefighter Pension Plan filed a putative class action suit in the
Southern District of New York, naming as defendants the Company,
CFO David Doft, former CEO Miles Nadal, and former CAO Michael
Sabatino. The plaintiff alleges violations of Sec. 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Sec. 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based
on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements regarding
executive compensation, goodwill accounting, and the Company's
internal controls. The Company is vigorously defending this suit.

MDC Partners is one of the fastest-growing and most influential
marketing and communications networks in the world. Its 50+
advertising, public relations, branding, digital, social and event
marketing agencies are responsible for some of the most memorable
and engaging campaigns for the world's most respected brands. As
"The Place Where Great Talent Lives," MDC Partners is known for
its unique partnership model, empowering the most entrepreneurial
and innovative talent to drive competitive advantage and business
growth for clients. By leveraging technology, data analytics,
insights, and strategic consulting solutions, MDC Partners drives
measurable results and optimizes return on marketing investment
for over 1,700 clients worldwide.


MDC PARTNERS: Still Defends "Paniccia" Suit in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
vigorously defending a class action lawsuit by Roberto Paniccia.

On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of Brantford,
Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming as
Defendants the Company, former CEO Miles S. Nadal, former CAO
Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO USA LLP. The Plaintiff
alleges violations of section 138.1 of the Ontario Securities Act
(and equivalent legislation in other Canadian provinces and
territories) as well as common law misrepresentation based on
allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the
company's public statements, as well as omitting to disclose
material facts with respect to an SEC investigation. The Company
is also vigorously defending this suit.

MDC Partners is one of the fastest-growing and most influential
marketing and communications networks in the world. Its 50+
advertising, public relations, branding, digital, social and event
marketing agencies are responsible for some of the most memorable
and engaging campaigns for the world's most respected brands. As
"The Place Where Great Talent Lives," MDC Partners is known for
its unique partnership model, empowering the most entrepreneurial
and innovative talent to drive competitive advantage and business
growth for clients. By leveraging technology, data analytics,
insights, and strategic consulting solutions, MDC Partners drives
measurable results and optimizes return on marketing investment
for over 1,700 clients worldwide.


MEDICREDIT INC: Raffin Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHEENA RAFFIN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MEDICREDIT,
INC., THE OUTSOURCE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:15-CV-04912-GHK-PJW
(C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a California Penal Code
Section 632.7 Class consisting of these Class and Subclasses:

     IPA 632.7 Subclass:
     All persons in California whose inbound and outbound
     telephone conversations were recorded without their consent
     by Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and
     wherein a cellular or cordless device was used by at least
     one party to the conversation, within the one year prior to
     the filing of the original Complaint.


     IPA 632.7 Cell Phone Subclass:
     All persons in California whose inbound and outbound
     telephone conversations were recorded without their consent
     by Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and
     wherein a cellular device was used by the Subclass Member,
     within the one year prior to the filing of the original
     Complaint.

     IPA 632.7 Late Advisory Cell Phone Class:
     All persons in California whose inbound and outbound
     telephone conversations were recorded without their consent
     by Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and
     wherein a cellular device was used by the Subclass Member,
     but where Defendants or its agent/s did not advise the
     Subclass Member within 30 seconds of the onset of the call,
     that their call was being recorded, within the one year
     prior to the filing of the original Complaint.

The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of the
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of the
Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

A hearing will be held on July 18, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. to consider
the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6IpvJsjv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEL HARRIS: S.D.N.Y. Court Approves $60MM Settlement in "Sykes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
May 24, 2016, approved the settlements reached by the plaintiffs
with certain of the defendants in the case, Sykes v. Mel Harris &
Associates, LLC.

Under the deal, the Defendants will pay roughly $60 million into a
settlement fund.  According to an Allocation Plan, the Settlement
Agreements provide for:

     (a) a settlement fund of $46 million paid by the Leucadia
Defendants plus L-Credit LLC's share of additional moneys LR
Credit and its subsidiaries received from debt portfolio assets on
or after January 1, 2015;

     (b) a settlement fund of $7,975,000 paid for by the Mel
Harris Defendants plus Rushmore Recovery Management LLC's share of
additional moneys LR Credit and its subsidiaries receive from debt
portfolio assets on or after November 12, 2015; and

     (c) a settlement fund of $517,500 paid for by the Samserv
Defendants.

Some 8,300 class members (those with the strongest legal claims)
will receive between 96% to 98% of their money back.  Another
7,400 class members (those with somewhat weaker claims) will
receive 81% to 83% of their money back.  An additional 1,700 class
members (those with relatively weaker claims) will receive 66% to
68% of their money back.

A copy of the Approval Order is available at:

                       https://is.gd/YmMVZF

More information on the case is available at:

                 https://www.sykesclassaction.com/

Leucadia National Corporation, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, said, "We and certain of
our subsidiaries and officers are named as defendants in a
consumer class action captioned Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates,
LLC, et al., 9 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The named defendants also
include the Mel Harris law firm, certain individuals and members
associated with the law firm, and a process server, Samserv, Inc.
and certain of its employees.  The complaint alleges that default
judgments obtained by the law firm against approximately 124,000
individuals in New York courts with respect to consumer debt
purchased by our subsidiaries violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the New York General Business Law and the New York Judiciary
Law (alleged only as to the law firm).  The complaint seeks
injunctive relief, declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the
named plaintiffs and others similarly situated.  We asserted that
we were an investor with respect to the subject purchased consumer
debt and were regularly informed of the amounts received from debt
collections, but otherwise had no involvement in any alleged
illegal debt collection activities."

"On December 29, 2010, the District Court denied defendants'
motions to dismiss in part (including as to the claims made
against us and our subsidiaries) and granted them in part
(including as to certain of the claims made against our officers).
On March 28, 2013, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a
Rule 23(b)(3) class.  On February 10, 2015, the Second Circuit
affirmed the certification of these classes.  None of these
decisions addresses the ultimate merits of the case.

"On March 18, 2015, we and plaintiffs executed a settlement
agreement that provided additional detail regarding the terms of a
settlement set out in a December 14, 2014 binding term sheet
pursuant to which we have previously accrued approximately $50
million.  On November 12, 2015, plaintiffs executed a settlement
agreement with the other defendants in the case, and we and
plaintiffs executed a first amendment to our settlement agreement
to modify the agreement to reflect that settlement of all claims
as to all parties had been reached. Both our settlement agreement
and that of the other defendants were submitted to the Court on
November 12, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the Court entered an
order that, among other things, preliminarily approved the
settlement agreements, authorized the parties to send notice to
the settlement class members and set a fairness hearing for May
11, 2016."


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Nahari" Suit in D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc.
The case is captioned Tiran Nahari, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-02700-KM-MAH (D.N.J., May 12, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Kevin McNulty.

Midland Credit Management provides debt collections and
information management services. It collects on credit cards,
automobiles, unsecured consumer debts, and telecom accounts.

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


MIX CONTRACTING: "Garcia" Suit Seek to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Damian Garcia on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. Mix Contracting Corp. and Miroslaw Poplawski, Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02517 (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Laws.

Mix is a construction company located at 20 Beach Street Apt. 6D,
Rockaway Beach, NY. Garcia worked for the Defendants as a
construction worker.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Darren Rumack, Esq.
     KLEIN LAW GROUP
     11 Broadway, Suite 960
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 344-9022
     Fax: (212) 344-0301
     Email: darren@thekleinlawgroup.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Court Narrows Claims in "Genesee" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court on March 28,
2016, granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the case by Genesee
County Employees' Retirement System.

On October 20, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and other defendants styled Genesee County
Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation et al.
in the SDNY. The action was later consolidated with four similar
actions in SDNY under the lead case styled Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corporation et al. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on February 2, 2015 asserting claims
for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contract. The
consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things, that
the defendants engaged in antitrust violations with regards to the
process of setting ISDAfix, a financial benchmark and seeks treble
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and other relief.


MULTI-SHOT LLC: "Ivie" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Buck Allen Ivie, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Multi-Shot, LLC d/b/a MS Energy
Services and d/b/a MS Directional, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00166 (S.D. Tex., May 18, 2016), seeks unpaid and/or underpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and
costs, post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MS Energy is an oilfield service company that provides directional
drilling, downhole performance motors, directional surveying,
steering tools and downhole electric wires.

Ivie worked as an operator/driller. He claims to have been denied
overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael K. Burke, Esq.
      Michael M. Guerra, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
      3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
      McAllen, TX 78501
      Tel: (956) 682-5999
      Fax: (888) 317-8802
      Email: mburke@mmguerra.com

          - and -

      Timothy D. Raub, Esq.
      RAUB LAW FIRM PC
      814 Leopard Street
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 880-8181
      Fax: (361) 887-6521
      Email: timraub@raublawfirm.com


NANTKWEST INC: "Forsythe" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
John Steven Forsythe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nantkwest, Inc., Patrick Soon-
Shiong, Richard J. Tajak, Angela Wilson and Richard Gomberg,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03438 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2016),
seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred
in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

NantKwest is a clinical-stage immunotherapy company focused on
using cells to treat cancer, and infectious and inflammatory
diseases. It is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 3530 John Hopkins Court, San Diego,
California. Patrick Soon-Shiong was Chairman of the Board of
Directors and Chief Executive Officer of NantKwest. Richard J.
Tajak, Angela Wilson and Richard Gomberg served as CFOs at
different times.

Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company business, operations and prospects. Specifically, it
failed to disclose that it was improperly accounting for stock-
based awards in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles. NantKwest issued financial statements that lacked
adequate internal controls over accounting and financial
reporting. NantKwest securities fell drastically as a result of
corrective disclosures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com

          - and -

      Brandon Walker, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
      Email: walker@bespc.com


NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: "Pfeuti" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Hermann Pfeuti and Alfred Erzak, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Naples Transportation
& Tours, LLC, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Randall R. Smith and
Tamir Rankow, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00364-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorney fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours within a work week. From at least December
2014 continuing through February 2016, the Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiffs a rate of one-half times regular rate for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single wok week.

Naples Transportation is a chauffeur car service in Naples,
Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
          4432 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549 6689
          E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


NATURE WORKS: "Maturin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Seth Maturin, Benjamin Bernheisel, Dustin Boutte, Gaige Touchet,
and Tommy Walker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nature Works, a Louisiana corporation,
and ERIC L. LANDRY, an individual Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-
00715, (W.D. La. May 23, 2016), seek unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages and attorney fees pursuant to the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Nature Works provides landscaping services to business,
residential, and government clients in and around New Iberia,
Louisiana. It is owned by Landry. Plaintiffs were employed to
perform lawn care, landscaping and maintenance and were denied
overtime premium for all time worked in excess of forty hours each
week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (201) 630-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      Email: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com
             jtb@jtblawgroup.com

           - and -

      Timothy W. Basden, Esq.
      BREAUD & MEYERS, APLC
      600 Jefferson Street, Suite 1101
      Lafayette, LA 70501
      Tel: (337) 266-2212
      Email: tim@breaudlaw.com


NAVY FEDERAL: Court Rejects "Munday" Class Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Josephine L. Staton denied the joint motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit
styled RONALD MUNDAY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 8:15-cv-
01629-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Staton, however, grants leave to move again for preliminary
approval should the parties reach a settlement agreement that
cures the deficiencies identified in the Order.  Judge Staton also
ordered that by June 24, 2016, (a) the parties must file a renewed
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement that
cures the deficiencies or, if no motion will be filed, (b) the
Defendant must file an answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint.

On October 9, 2015, Ronald Munday filed a class action complaint
against Navy Federal Credit Union seeking damages, injunctive
relief, and declaratory relief for allegedly knowing and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully
placed multiple prerecorded or artificial calls to the Plaintiff
and other members of the class without their prior express
consent.  The parties agreed to participate in mediation to
resolve the action.  The proposed settlement provides for a non-
reversionary gross settlement fund of $2,750,000.

The proposed settlement class is defined as:

     "all persons whom Navy Federal called on their cellular
      telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing
      system ("ATDS") between October 9, 2011 through the date
      of Preliminary Approval where the result of the call was
      that Navy Federal coded the number as a 'wrong number' in
      its records based on information provided by the call
      recipient."

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


NCB MANAGEMENT: Status Hearing in "Kaleel" Set for July 11
----------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 26, 2016, in the case styled
Elizabeth J. Kaleel v. NCB Management Services, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-05566 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Ronald A. Guzman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the Plaintiff's Motion to Enter and Continue Plaintiff's
      Motion for Class Certification is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is taken under
      advisement;

   -- the Motion hearings set for June 9, 2016, are stricken and
      no appearance is required;

   -- the Court orders the parties to appear for an initial
      status hearing;

   -- the Court directs all parties to refer to and comply with
      Judge Guzman's requirements for the initial appearance as
      outlined in his case management procedures, which can be
      found at: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/

   -- status hearing is set for July 11, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2W0IOtdW


NEW WAY MINI: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Mendoza, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. New Way Mini Market Inc., (d/b/a New
Way Mini Market), Delio Suriel Fernandez, Rafael Suriel Fernandez,
Frank Suriel Fernandez, and Shari Doe, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02471 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked for the
Defendants as a sandwich maker/breakfast cook. The Plaintiff
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation.

New Way is a market located at Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


NONGSHIM CO: Certification of Direct Purchasers Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
The direct purchaser plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
titled In re: Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, Case No. Case No.
13-cv-04115-WHO (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify this class:

     All persons and entities in the United States and its
     territories who purchased Korean Noodles directly from
     Defendants Nong Shim Co., Ltd., Nongshim America, Inc.,
     Ottogi Co., Ltd., or Ottogi America, Inc. at any time from
     April 1, 2003 through January 31, 2010. The Class excludes
     the Defendants Samyang Foods Co., Ltd., Samyang (USA), Inc.,
     Korea Yakult, Co., Ltd., Paldo Co., Ltd. and any of their
     current or former parents, subsidiaries or affiliates.  The
     Class also excludes all judicial officers presiding over
     this action and their immediate family members and staff,
     and any juror assigned to this action.

The DPPs contend that the evidence developed in the Case supports
class certification because it demonstrates that there was a long-
running conspiracy by Defendants Nongshim Co., Ltd., Nongshim
America, Inc., Ottogi Co., Ltd., or Ottogi America, Inc. and their
co-conspirators to fix prices for Korean Ramen Noodle Products
commencing in late 2000 or early 2001 and lasting through at least
June 3, 2008.

A hearing will be held on November 16, 2016, at 2 p.m., to
consider the Motion.  A copy of the Motion is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UPBuq0RX

Information on the case is available at
http://www.ramenclassaction.com/

Gilardi & Co. serves as claims administrator.

The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          Stephanie Cho, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
                  clebsock@hausfeld.com
                  scho@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Michael Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
          Washington D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mgoldberg@glancylaw.com


NORI O INC: "Goh" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
Jit Shi Goh, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. NORI O INC. d/b/a Sushi O, Otaya Sushi II INC. d/b/a
Sushi O, Peng L. Tam a/k/a Alan Tam, Yuk Yen Chai a/k/a Ivy Chai
and Yuk Wing Chai Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02811-KSH-CLW
(D.N.J., May 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Goh was employed by Defendants to work as a chef at Sushi O
located at 691 US Highway 1, Unit 4, Edison, NJ 08817.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lina Franco
     LINA FRANCO LAW, P.C.
     42 Broadway, Suite 12-126
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: 1800-933-5620

          - and -

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Tel: 718) 762-1324
     Fax: (718) 762-1342


NORTH DAKOTA: EEE Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to W.D. N. Dak.
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against the state of North Dakota. The
case is captioned EEE Minerals, LLC, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Suzanne Vohs individually and as Trustee for
The Vohs Family Revocable Living Trust, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Zoe Koller and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; and James Messler as Trustee of the James and
Carolyn Messler Living Trust, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. State of North Dakota; The
Board of University and School Lands of the State of North Dakota;
Continental Resources, Inc.; Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC;
Statoil Oil & Gas LP; W.D. Anderson & Sons; and Basin Petroleum
Services, Inc., et. al., the Defendants, Case No. 27-02014-CV-
00282.

The case was removed from McKenzie County Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Dakota. The
Western District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00115-DLH-CSM to
the proceeding. The Assigned Judge is Hon. Daniel L. Hovland.

North Dakota is a Midwestern U.S. state dominated by the Great
Plains. Its eastern city of Fargo showcases Native American and
modern art at the Plains Art Museum.

The Plaintiffs appear pros se.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Perez" Suit in D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC.
The case is captioned Margaret Perez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Northstar
Location Services, LLC, and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-02743-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., May 13, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. Michael A. Shipp.

Northstar is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


NYC TAXI & LIMOUSINE: Nnebe Asks 2nd Circuit to Review Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jonathan Nnebe filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Nnebe v. Daus, et al., Case No. 06-cv-4991, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

The lawsuit alleges that the New York City Taxi and Limousine
Commission's policy of suspending taxi drivers upon notification
of their arrest violates the United States Constitution, New York
state law, and New York City municipal law.

The appellate case is captioned as Nnebe v. Daus, et al., Case No.
16-1673, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Daniel L. Ackman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL L. ACKMAN
          12 Desbrosses Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (917) 282-8178
          Facsimile: (888) 290-3481
          E-mail: dan@danackmanlaw.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007


ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION: Can Arbitrate Claims in "Stewart" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vanessa D. Gilmore granted in part only as to opt-in
plaintiffs James Earl Stewart, Jose I. Hernandez, and Mark Andre
Mendoza, the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of certain
Plaintiffs' claims on an individual basis and dismiss or stay the
action, in part, pending arbitration, and stay discovery, in part,
until their motion is ruled on in the lawsuit captioned  ROBERT
WHITE, JR., WILLIAM "BILLY" STUCKEY, and DEMETRICE JONES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ZACHARY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
Case No. 4:15-cv-02947 (S.D. Tex.).

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
required them to manually record their daily work hours, and would
pay them a "fixed salary" for the first 40 hours of work per week.
The Plaintiffs allege that they receive no additional pay for any
hours worked in excess of 40 per week unless they worked in excess
of 50 hours per week -- in Defendants' attempt to incentivize
employees to work longer hours.

The Court ordered that Plaintiffs James Earl Stewart, Jose I.
Hernandez, and Mark Andre Mendoza's claims are dismissed and those
Plaintiffs are compelled to attend arbitration.  The Court further
ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
is granted in part for "all individuals, excluding James Earl
Stewart, Jose I. Hernandez, and Mark Andre Mendoza, who, at any
point during the past three (3) years prior to the filing of this
lawsuit, worked for Defendants as "working Foremen" on the
construction of the freeway project known as 'SH99 Grand Parkway'
segments F-l, F-2, G-A, and G-B."

According to the Order, the Plaintiffs' proposed notice will be
modified according to the Court's instructions.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8yvu66eH


ORLEANS SHORING: Certification of Class Sought in "Nunez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned WILSON NUNEZ and LUIS
MEJIA, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly
situated v. ORLEANS SHORING, LLC, SANTICIMA TRINIDAD, LLC, LA
DIVINA MISERICORDIA, LLC and ANTONIO NUNEZ and ANTONIO NUNEZ
REYES, Case No. 2:16-cv-03005-CJB-KWR (E.D. La.), move for
conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for
disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in"
plaintiffs.

The Action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AqSR5ppM

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          THE COSTALES LAW OFFICE
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          WILLIAM BEAUMONT LAW
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 483-8008
          E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com
                  emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


P.F. CHANG'S: Plaintiff's Counsel Got OK to Appear Via Telephone
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNA MARIE PHILLIPS, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO,
INC., an Arizona corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-00344 (RMW), District Judge Ronald M.
Whyte permitted counsel for the Plaintiff to appear via telephone
for the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal,
which was scheduled for June 3, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel for
Plaintiff is located in Los Angeles.  Counsel is instructed to
contact CourtCall at (866) 582-6878 to arrange telephonic
appearance.

A copy of the ruling is available at https://is.gd/QTCEYG from
Leagle.com.


PAC-12 CONFERENCE: "Cook" Sues Over Football Health Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Lee Cook, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PAC-12 Conference, and The
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-02630-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2016) seeks economic,
monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive
damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of
pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings,
litigation and attorney's fees, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of
third-party express contract and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to warn collegiate
players of the health hazards of playing football.

Pac-12 Conference, Athletic Association of Western Universities,
is a collegiate athletic conference with its principal office
located at 360 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, California
94107. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal
office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Logan, Esq.
      Rafey S. Balabanian*
      EDELSON PC
      329 Bryant Street
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Tel: 415.212.9300
      Fax: 415.373.9435
      Email: tlogan@edelson.com
             rbalabanian@edelson.com

              - and -

      Jeff Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: 844.456.4823
      Fax: 713.554.9098
      Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

              - and -

      John Driscoll, Esq.
      THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
      211 North Broadway, 40th Floor
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Tel: 314.932.3232
      Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com


PASON SYSTEMS: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Ratliff" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Donny Ratliff and four opt-in Plaintiffs Jared Hauff,
Chris Nash, Travis McLemore, and Tommy Fleming, file a motion for
conditional certification asking the Court to authorize notice of
the lawsuit titled DONNY RATLIFF, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PASON SYSTEMS USA CORP., Case No.
4:15-cv-02376 (S.D. Tex.), to the all Field Service and Sales
Technicians employed by the Defendant within the past three years,
and conditionally certify the case for purposes of discovery and
trial.

The Plaintiff alleges that Pason:

   * paid each Putative Class Member a salary and job bonus --
     without overtime compensation;

   * worked the Putative Class Members in excess of 40 hours a
     week; and

   * required all Putative Class Members to perform similar job
     duties.

The Plaintiff contends that Pason's uniform treatment of all
Putative Class Members as exempt from the overtime requirements of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the fact that numerous
individuals have joined this Case provide the Court ample support
to conditionally certify this case under Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UHo1rS1V

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 St.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  jbresler@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

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


PASQUALE'S ENTERPRISE: "Jackson" Suit to Recover OT Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyisha Jackson, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Pasquale's Enterprise Inc., Michael Marrone, Defendants, Case No.
9:16-cv-80778-RLR (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2016), seeks injunctive
relief, back wages, damages sustained from emotional distress,
humiliation and pain and suffering, attorney's fees, costs and
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jackson worked for the Defendants as a cook. She claims to have
been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff was allegedly terminated for
asserting claims for overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      777 Brickell Avenue Suite 500
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 458-1282
      Fax: (800)-407-1718
      Email: David.Markel@markel-law.com


PEARL LOUNGE: "Griffith" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jade Griffith, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Pearl Lounge Inc. d/b/a
Foxy Club; Nadejda Fedorova; and/or any other related corporate
entities, the Defendants, Case No. 508037/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May
13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, illegally
retained tips, and improperly withheld wages, under the New York
Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants
as dancers and/or entertainers and did not receive their
statutorily mandated wages, were not compensated with all tips,
and were subject to illegal deductions from their wages.

Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment under the
name "Foxy Club".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550


PENNSYLVANIA: Class Certification Sought in "Stradford" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LACEY STRADFORD, WILLIAM
NETTLES, JESSE STROUD and WILLIAM SCOTT on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. JOHN WETZEL, Secretary
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Case No. 2:16-cv-02064-JS
(E.D. Pa.), ask the Court to certify this class on claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief:

     All persons who are now and in the future incarcerated in a
     Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") facility with
     a sex offense classification who have been approved for
     parole but who cannot obtain their release from this
     incarceration due to the restriction on their placement into
     a DOC operated or contracted halfway house until two years
     prior to reaching their maximum term.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch Street, Suite 304S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-2966
          E-mail: smyeh@pailp.org

               - and -

          Donald Driscoll, Esq.
          COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
          100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900
          Pittsburgh PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 434-6002
          E-mail: ddriscoll@cjplaw.org

               - and -

          Alexandra Morgan-Kurtz, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900
          Pittsburgh PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 434-6175
          E-mail: amorgan-kurtz@pailp.org


PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Francisco Gonzalez Nieves, as Trustee of the Gonzalez
Coronado Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Performance Sports Group Ltd. (PSG),
Kevin Davis, Mark Vendetti, and Amir Rosenthal, the Defendants
Case No. 1:16-cv-03591 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a plan,
scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which they
knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions,
practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and
deceit upon Plaintiff and the other members of the Class; made
various untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading; and employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud
in connection with the purchase and sale of securities.

PSG designs, manufactures, and markets performance sports
equipment and related apparel for hockey, baseball, softball, and
lacrosse. The Company owns the brands Bauer, Mission, Cascade,
Inaria, Combat, and Easton.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLP
          60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697 6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697 7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com


PACIFIC COAST: Settlement in "Welch" & "Berliner" Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Trust expects the
settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit to be finalized
during the second quarter of 2016.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, Pacific Coast Energy Company LP, a privately
held Delaware partnership ("PCEC"), PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
consolidated action. The Trust expects the settlement agreement to
be finalized during the second quarter of 2016. The Trust believes
that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any liability or
expense it might incur in connection with the consolidated action.


PAPA MURPHY'S: Defending "Lennartson" Class Action in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 28, 2016, that the Company is
currently named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit
filed by plaintiff John Lennartson on May 8, 2015, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The
lawsuit alleges the Company failed to comply with the requirements
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when it sent SMS
text messages to consumers. The plaintiff in the lawsuit asks that
the court certify the putative class and that statutory damages
under the TCPA be awarded to plaintiff and each class member. The
Company believes the plaintiff's interpretation of the law is
incorrect and it will continue to vigorously defend itself in the
lawsuit, but provide no assurance that it will be successful. An
adverse judgment or settlement related to this lawsuit could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.


PNC FINANCIAL: Seeks Decertification in CBNV Mortgage Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
Company has filed a motion for decertification in the CBNV
Mortgage Litigation.

The Company said, "Our petition for a writ of certiorari filed
with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the matter
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Community Bank
of Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425
(W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674) was denied in February 2016. We filed
motions for decertification and summary judgment with the district
court in April 2016."


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Aug. 11 Case Management Conference in "Johnson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ruled that a Case Management
Conference will be held on August 11, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., in
Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, California, in the case, GREGORY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v.
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-02302-PJH
(N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the court's Order dated May 27 is available at
https://is.gd/uaiccY from Leagle.com.

Gregory Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan S Elias, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & Linh G. Vuong,
Girard Gibbs LLP.

The Procter & Gamble Co., Defendant, represented by Eric J. Knapp
-- eric.knapp@squirepb.com -- at Squire Patton Boggs LLP.


QUALITY ALUMINUM: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marilu Gonzales, an individual, and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quality Aluminum
Forge, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; SIFCO Industries,
Inc., an Ohio corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC620489 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016),
seeks to recover all wages earned and due, interest, penalties,
expenses, and costs of suit, under the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide meal
period, additional hour of compensation at each employee's regular
rate of pay for each workday that a meal period was not provided,
and failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked during
their meal periods.

Quality Aluminum engages in the design, tooling, and production of
precision aluminum forging products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
          Amanda S. Naoufal, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com


QUARRY HILL: Faces "Baldwin" Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Quarry Hill Associates Inc. The
case is captioned Patricia Baldwin, on behalf of herself and all
others in similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quarry Hill
Associates Inc., doing Business as Tavern at Quarry Hills &
Granite Links Golf Club, the Defendant, Case No. 1682CV00625
(Mass. Super. Ct., May 12, 2016).

Granite Links is an award-winning private membership club that
also allows some non-member access, welcoming visitors to play the
course, use the range, dine in its public restaurants and host
events in its assorted function venues. The club provides other
areas that are exclusively for Members only, including a separate
private Grille Room, Card Room, Fitness Room, Locker Rooms, Grass
Driving Range and Short Game Practice Complex.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: info@llrlaw.com


RDB CONTRACTING: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Medina, individually and on behalf and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RDB Contracting Inc., RLB Construction,
Inc., Jerry Burke, Ricky D. Burke and Connie Burke, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00472 (W.D. Tex., May 23, 2016) seeks
unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, costs of this action,
attorney's fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such
other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants provide construction services, where Plaintiff was
employed as a general laborer. Medina was mislabelled as an
independent contractor thus denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.Derek Braziel
      Jay Forester
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010


RIVER GREENE: "Anderson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Luis Anderson and Luis Alvarez, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. River Greene Construction Group,
LLC d/b/a River Greene Construction Group and John Does 1-25, said
names being fictitious, being the persons or entities in control
of Defendant River Greene Construction Group, LLC Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-03684 (S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid earned wages, liquidated
damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Anderson and Alvarez worked at River Greene Construction as a
construction worker and painter, respectively.

River Greene Construction Group, LLC is a construction company
based in New York, New York, specializing in interior
construction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
     225 Broadway, Suite 307
     New York, NY 10007
     Tel: (212) 323-6980
     Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


RYDAL SQUARE: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn.
-----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Rydal Square, LP. The case is
captioned Jessica Slivak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rydal Square, LP, and Rydal
Square, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. #: 2:16-cv-02335-NIQA (E.D.
Penn., May 13, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Nitza I Quinones
Alejandro.

RYDAL is in the Investors, N.E.C. industry in Jenkintown,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


SARAVIA TOWING: "Castillo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Ramiro Castillo, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Saravia Towing, Inc. and Manuel Saravia Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-21768-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid
wages owed, an equal amount in liquidated damages and reasonable
attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Castillo worked for the Defendants as a tow truck driver. He
claims to have been denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      777 Brickell Avenue Suite 500
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 458-1282
      Fax: (800)-407-1718
      Email: David.Markel@markel-law.com


SARATOGA DATA: Aug. 11 Case Mgmt. Conference in Knight Foster Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ruled that a Case Management
Conference will be held on August 11, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., in
Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, California, in the case, W. KNIGHT FOSTER PARTNERSHIP,
Plaintiff, v. SARATOGA DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-
cv-02406-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the court's Order dated May 27 is available at
https://is.gd/imBzE5 from Leagle.com.

W. Knight Foster Partnership, Plaintiff, represented by Kristin L.
Cleveland -- kristin.cleveland@klarquist.com -- Klarquist Sparkman
LLP, Virginia Turner Hess -- vhess@ahklaw.com -- Brooks & Hess, a
P.C., J. Christopher Carraway -- chris.carraway@klarquist.com --
Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Randy M. Hess -- rhess@ahklaw.com --
Adleson, Hess & Kelly, APC & Jeffrey Stewart Love --
jeffrey.love@klarquist.com -- Klarquist Sparkman, LLP.


SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER: English Learners Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to permit the matter captioned LESLY
METHELUS, on behalf of Y.M., a minor; ROSALBA ORTIZ, on behalf of
G.O., a minor; ZOILA LORENZO, on behalf of M.D., a minor; on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE
SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA and KAMELA PATTON,
Superintendent of Collier County Public Schools, in her official
capacity, Case No. 2:16-cv-00379-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), to proceed
as a class action under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Should the Court determine that the record has not yet been
sufficiently developed to support the Motion, the Plaintiffs ask
that the Court defer resolution of the Motion pending class
discovery in accordance with Local Rule 4.04(c) and set a hearing
on the matter.

The Plaintiffs move for certification of a class of similarly
situated students unlawfully denied enrollment in public high
school to obtain class-wide remedies for all those affected.

The Action is brought on behalf of three English Language Learner
children, who were allegedly unlawfully denied equal access to
educational opportunities as a result of the Defendants' policy
and practice to exclude them from enrollment in public high school
at or around the age of 16.  The Defendants allegedly instead
funneled the children to an adult, non-credit, English language-
only program that charges a fee.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=acN0YNiZ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tania Galloni, Esq.
          Jessica Zagier Wallace, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          4770 Biscayne Blvd.
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (786) 347-2056
          Facsimile: (786) 237-2949
          E-mail: Tania.Galloni@splcenter.org
                  Jessica.Wallace@splcenter.org


SCOT MURPHY: "Dones" Labor Case Transferred to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Dones and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff
(s), v. Scot Murphy Plastering Inc. and Bobby S. Murphy,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00340-JSM-PRL (S.D.
Fla., December 30, 2015), was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 17, 2016,
Case No. 0:15-cv-62723.

Dones seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Scot Murphy Plastering is a general commercial contracting company
that specialized in drywall installation and drywall repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma
      The Law Offices of Zandro E. Palma, PA, Suite 1500
      9100 South Dadeland Blvd
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
      Jordan Lee Richards, Esq.
      Law Offices of Nolan Klein, PA
      Ste 1500-Wells Fargo Tower
      One E. Broward Blvd.
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1934
      Tel: (305) 351-0625
      Fax: (877) 253-1691
      Email: klein@nklegal.com
             richards@nklegal.com


SELECT EXPRESS: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Martin, Lazaro Gonzalez, and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Select Express & Logistics, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-21800-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2016), seeks overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and
costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a courier service and is in the business commercial
product delivery in the State of Florida and throughout the United
States where Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers. Martin and
Gonzalez claim to have been denied overtime pay for off-the-clock
work.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
     JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
     1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
     Miami, FL 33135
     Phone: (786) 441-8909
     Facsimile: (786) 523-0610
     E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


SOUTH UNIVERSITY: "Hendricks" Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twonesha Johnson-Hendricks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. South University, Does 1-
10, inclusive Defendant, Case No. 1:16-at-00367 (E.D. Cal., May
19, 2016) seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

South University is an educational institution who attempted to
contact Plaintiff on her cellular telephone using an automatic
telephone dialing system in an attempt to solicit its services
without prior express consent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Phone: 877-206-4741
      Fax: 866-633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


SOUTHERN CABLE: "Wallace" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy A. Wallace, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Southern Cable Systems,
L.L.C.; and Jerry Russell Tyler, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00209-RV-CJK (N.D. Fla., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants were aware that the
Plaintiff, and those others similarly situated, worked in excess
of 40 hours in a work week without overtime compensation. However,
the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff, and those others
similarly situated, for all overtime hours actually worked at a
rate of one and one half times the employee's regular hourly rate.

Southern Cable is a Cable T.V. subcontracting company based in
Birmingham, Alabama, specializing in installations and direct
sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
          Tyler L. Gray, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
          900 East Moreno Street
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 437 9600
          Facsimile: (850) 437 0906
          E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com
                  civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com


SOVRAN SELF: To Defend Against Class Action in Burlington, N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sovran Self Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend against a class action lawsuit filed in Burlington County,
New Jersey.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New
Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance
Producer Licensing Act.

On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Company brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's
motion was granted in part and denied in part. The Company intends
to vigorously defend the action, and the possibility of any
adverse outcome cannot be determined at this time.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: July 14 Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the deadline for filing
and scheduling dispositive motions is July 14, 2016, in the
December 2012 Securities Litigation.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants
between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,
which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning
its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported
class period. On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in
Minnesota against the Company and certain officers for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company
between October 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012. The second
complaint alleged similar claims and sought similar relief.

In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed
a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended
complaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or
misleading representations made during the class period extending
from February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012.

In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled
on the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting
the motion in part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint.

Like the original consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs
did not assert any specific amount of compensation in the second
amended complaint. The Court granted class certification on
December 22, 2015. Fact discovery closed December 18, 2015, and
the deadline for filing and scheduling dispositive motions is July
14, 2016. The case is expected to be ready for trial in February
2017. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against
the claims asserted in this matter.

The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential
damages in connection with the December 2012 Securities Litigation
because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably
estimable. Because, based on the Company's historical experience,
the amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any
relationship to the amount claimed, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from
these matters.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed in "Brown"
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a consolidated amended
complaint has been filed in the case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc., et al.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on
June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent
motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining
claims.

On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this
action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.

On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014,
the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with
the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the
original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals
requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the
appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9,
2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December
16, 2014.

On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former
officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order
transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion to stay this case until the U.S. Supreme Court
issues a decision in Tibble v. Eidson International. On May 18,
2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held that plan
fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from investment
selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments.
After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the
District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions
into one case.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces "Felix" Class Action Over FHA Loan Interest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the putative class
action, Felix v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., was filed against STM on
April 4, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that STM breaches its contract
with borrowers when it collects interest on FHA loans at repayment
because STM fails to use an approved FHA notice form. Plaintiff
also alleges that STM violates the Georgia usury statute by
collecting such interest. Plaintiff attempts to bring the breach
of contract claim on behalf of all borrowers and the usury claim
on behalf of Georgia borrowers. STM has not yet responded to the
allegations but will defend itself against these allegations.


TARGET CORP: Police Retirement System Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Retirement System of St. Louis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Target
Corporation, Gregg W. Steinhafel and John J. Mulligan, Defendants,
Case No. 0:16-cv-01315 (D. Minn., May 17, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages, declaratory, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief for violation of the federal securities laws.

Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation currently operating
general merchandise discount stores throughout the U.S.
Steinhafel and Mulligan served as CEO and CFO of Target
respectively.

Plaintiffs allege that Target failed to disclose details regarding
its entry into the Canadian market when Target agreed to purchase
leasehold interests in as many as 220 retail sites from Zellers,
Inc.  Canadian operations encountered problems and began to
underperform investor expectations. Target revealed the Company
would discontinue its Canadian operations and that Target Canada
Co. had filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada. In response to
this news, Target stock declined $1.63 per share, or 2.1 percent.

St. Louis Police Retirement System purchased the publicly-traded
common stock of Target at artificially inflated prices and lost
substantially.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      June P. Hoidal, Esq.
      Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq.
      June P. Hoidal, Esq.
      Kirsten D. Hedberg, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      1100 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 341-0400
      Fax: (612) 341-0844
      Email: Carolyn.Anderson@zimmreed.com
             June.Hoidal@zimmreed.com
             Kirsten.Hedberg@zimmreed.com

            - and -

      Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
      Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
      Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: ckeller@labaton.com
             ebelfi@labaton.com
             mstocker@labaton.com

            - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
      Andrew L. Schwartz, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com
             aschwartz@rgrdlaw.com


TD BANK: Faces "Buff" Suit in E.D. Penn.
----------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against TD Bank, N.A. The case is
captioned Giovanni Buff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TD Bank, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02357-JD (E.D. Penn., May 13, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. Jan E. Dubois.

TD Bank is a United States national bank chartered and supervised
by the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PC
          525 Route 73 N Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053-3422
          E-mail: sdenittis@shabeldenittis.com


TD BANK: "Krulan" Sues Over Short-changing
------------------------------------------
Christine Krulan, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02919-JBS-JS (D.N.J., May 23, 2016), seeks actual
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, common law damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, equitable relief, including restitution,
injunctive relief, conversion and disgorgement of profits, and all
other relief available resulting from fraudulent
concealment/nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, breach of unilateral contract and violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Truth in Consumer Contract,
Warranty and Notice Act.

Krulan deposited loose change in the Penny Arcade coin counting
machine operated by TD Bank and was short-changed.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national banking association chartered by the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency with principal place of
business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
     NAGEL RICE, LLP
     103 Eisenhower Parkway
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Tel: 973-618-0400
     Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com

          - and -

     Joseph Santoli, Esq.
     340 Devon Court
     Ridgewood, NJ 07450-1810
     Tel: 201-926-9200
     Email: josephsantoli@aol.com


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Actions Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in January and
March 2016, securities class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company, its chief executive officer, its former chief
operating officer and its former chief financial officer, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

"Each complaint was brought on behalf of an alleged class of those
who purchased our common stock between March 5, 2015 and September
8, 2015, and alleges claims arising under Sections 10 and 20 of
the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended," the Company said.  "Each
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE2. Each complaint
seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees, and costs. We believe we have valid defenses
against these claims, and will engage in a vigorous defense of
such litigation."

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company that was incorporated in Delaware on
July 7, 2006 and has a principal place of business in Watertown,
Massachusetts. The Company is using its proprietary chemistry
technology to create novel antibiotics for serious and life-
threatening multidrug-resistant infections.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in "Hayman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Hayman moves to certify the action styled LORI HAYMAN, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TRANSWORLD
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01152-HB (E.D. Pa.), as a class
action and appoint her as class representative.

For her claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Plaintiff seeks certification of this Class:

     All persons with addresses within the Commonwealth of
     Pennsylvania who, beginning one year prior to the filing of
     this action through and including the final resolution of
     this case, were sent one or more letter(s) from Defendant
     attempting to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to
     DIRECTV which disclosed a bar code visible through the
     window of the envelope that when read or scanned, revealed
     the account number, reference number, registration code or
     other unique identification number associated by Defendant
     with the person's account.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Muu4PY0W

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, Suite 1902
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com


TRINET GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of "Welgus" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to
move to dismiss the amended complaint in the Welgus class action
no later than June 20, 2016.

On or about August 7, 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder
of the Company, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit
arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The
case has not been certified as a class action, although it
purports to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive.
The name of the case is Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-03625. No stockholder other than Mr. Welgus submitted
a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff to represent the
putative class, and, on December 3, 2015, the Court appointed Mr.
Welgus as lead plaintiff.

On February 1, 2016, Mr. Welgus filed an amended complaint.  The
defendants named in the case are the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, as well as General Atlantic, LLC, a
significant shareholder, and formerly majority shareholder, of the
Company.  Shortly before the scheduled date for the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, Mr. Welgus sought
leave to further amend the consolidated complaint. The amended
complaint was deemed filed by Mr. Welgus on April 1, 2016. The
amended complaint expanded the class period to March 27, 2014
through February 29, 2016, and added as defendants the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and
additional directors of the Company. The amended complaint
generally alleges that the Company and other defendants caused
damage to purchasers of the Company's stock by misrepresenting
and/or failing to disclose facts generally pertaining to alleged
trends affecting health insurance and workers compensation claims.

Under a stipulated revised briefing schedule approved by the
Court, the Company intends to move to dismiss the amended
complaint no later than June 20, 2016. The Company believes that
it has meritorious defenses against this action and intends to
continue to defend itself vigorously against the allegations of
Mr. Welgus.

TriNet Group, Inc. (the Company or TriNet), a Delaware corporation
incorporated in January 2000, provides comprehensive human
resources, or HR, solutions for small to midsize businesses, or
SMBs, across a number of industries under a co-employment model.


TUBULAR SOLUTIONS: Class Certification Granted in "Ducote" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kenneth M. Hoyt granted a joint motion for conditional
certification filed in the lawsuit titled RICKY DUCOTE,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. TUBULAR
SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:15-cv-2557 (S.D. Tex.).  Judge Hoyt
also approves the class notice and consent form and the e-mail
language to accompany the notice packet, which were attached to
the Agreed Motion.

The Court also set certain schedules, including directing the
Defendant to provide to the Plaintiff's counsel, within 10 days,
information regarding all field service employees, who performed
services for TSI during the last three years to present.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=32nKtgzT


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Johnson" Sues Over Unsolicited Texts
--------------------------------------------------------
Charles Christopher Johnson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant., Case No. 1:16-
cv-05468 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 2016), seeks statutory and treble
damages, injunction, attorney's fees and costs and all other
relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Johnson accuses Uber Technologies, Inc. of sending unsolicited
text messages to his wireless/cellular telephones without prior
express written consent.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
     James M. Smith, Esq.
     BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
     134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: 312-658-5500
     Fax: 312-658-5555


UNITED RECOVERY: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Hurt" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Hurt asks the Court to enter an order determining that
this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action, captioned
GERALDINE HURT, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. UNITED
RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LP, and URS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
05641 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the
Defendants.

Ms. Geraldine Hurt seeks the certification of a class defined as:

     (a) all individuals with addresses in Illinois (b) to whom
     defendant sent a letter stating that URS' client will
     "report forgiveness of debt as required by IRS regulations"
     (c) which letter was sent at any time during a period
     beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and
     ending 21 days after the filing of this action.

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=qUz4LVxO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Asks 10th Cir. to Review Ruling in "Fletcher" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Government, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Fletcher, et al. v. United States, et
al., Case No. 4:02-CV-00427-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla.).

The lawsuit arose from claims of civil rights violations.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are Charles A. Pratt, individually, and
as member of the Osage Development Council, Juanita W. West, Cora
Jean Jech and Betty Woody.

The Defendants-Appellants are Bureau of Indian Affairs; United
States of America; Department of Interior; Sally Jewell, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; and Larry Roberts,
in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary Indian
Affairs, United States Department of the Interior.

The appellate case is captioned as Fletcher, et al. v. United
States, et al., Case No. 16-5058, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Esq.
          Dallas Lynn Dale Strimple, Esq.
          INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PLLC
          1723 South Boston Avenue
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 347-6169
          E-mail: jason-aamodt@utulsa.edu

               - and -

          Krystina E. Phillips, Esq.
          INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PLLC
          218 East 12th Street
          Ada, OK 74820
          Telephone: (580) 453-7051

               - and -

          James David Jorgenson, Esq.
          Mark Alston Waller, Esq.
          WALLER JORGENSON WARZYNSKI PLLC
          401 South Boston Avenue, Suite 500
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 933-4288

               - and -

          Evan M. McLemore, Esq.
          G. Steven Stidham, Esq.
          LEVINSON, SMITH & HUFFMAN, P.C.
          1743 East 71st Street
          Tulsa, OK 74136
          Telephone: (918) 492-4433
          E-mail: evan.mclemore@lsh-law-firm.com

               - and -

          Amanda Sue Proctor, Esq.
          SHIELD LAW GROUP PLC
          1723 South Boston Avenue
          Tulsa, OK 741119
          Telephone: (800) 655-4820
          Facsimile: (800) 619-2107
          E-mail: aproctor@shield-law.com

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Andrew Gallant, Esq.
          Cathryn Dawn McClanahan, Esq.
          Thomas Scott Woodward, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          110 West 7th Street, Suite 300
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 382-2700
          E-mail: jeff.gallant@usdoj.gov
                  cathy.mcclanahan@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Joseph H. Kim, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 7611
          Washington, DC 20044-7611
          Telephone: (202) 514-2748
          E-mail: joseph.kim@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          John H. Martin, III, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          999 18th Street
          South Terrace, Suite 370
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 844-1383
          Facsimile: (303) 844-1350
          E-mail: john.h.martin@usdoj.gov


US ASSOC OF CDC: "Brown" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
George P. Brown and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
United States Association of CDC, Inc., WC WH LLC, OSER Venture
Inc., George Howard and Peter Burgess, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-21807-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2016) seeks punitive damages with
court costs, interest and any other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a security guard and general
laborer, claiming to have not been paid overtime and minimum wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alberto Naranjo, Esq.
      AN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1900 N. Bayshore Dr. #3606
      Miami, FL 33132
      Phone: 305-942-8070
      Email: AN@ANLawFirm.com


USF REDDAWAY: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo I. Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. USF ReddaWay, Inc., a Oregon
Corporation, and Does 1- 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC620439 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime, unpaid rest and meal period
compensation, unreimbursed expenses, penalties, injunctive and
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
Costs, under the Labor Code.

According to complaint, the Defendants consistently maintained and
enforced against USF Non-Exempt Drivers, among others, the
following unlawful practices and policies, in violation of
California state wage and hour laws: A) failing to pay wages
including accurate overtime rates; B) failing to provide meal and
rest periods; C) failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; D) failing to keep and maintain accurate time records;
E) failing to timely pay wages; F) failing to reimburse expenses;
and G) failing to maintain accurate itemized wage statements.

The USF ReddaWay is engaged in the ownership and operation of a
trucking and logistics company in Los Angeles County and
throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  GREG@MAUROLAWFIRM.NET


UTZ QUALITY FOODS: "Hashtpari" Sues Over False Labelling
--------------------------------------------------------
Cyrus Hashtpari, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-03453 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2016) seeks
damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and all
other remedies resulting from common law fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment/restitution and
violation of California Civil Code and California Business and
Professions Code.

Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of claiming that their product,
Dirty Potato Chips, as all natural despite the presence of
synthetic ingredients and preservatives.

Utz Quality Foods, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business in Hanover, Pennsylvania. Defendant
manufactures, labels, distributes, sells, and advertises Dirty
Potato Chips products nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
      Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com
              bheikali@faruqilaw.com


VULCAN MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Texas Brine Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery is ongoing
in the litigation related to the Texas brine matter.

During the operation of its former Chemicals Division, Vulcan was
the lessee to a salt lease from 1976 - 2005 in an underground salt
dome formation in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. The Texas Brine
Company (Texas Brine) operated this salt mine for the account of
Vulcan.

Vulcan sold its Chemicals Division in 2005 and assigned the lease
to the purchaser, and Vulcan has had no association with the
leased premises or Texas Brine since that time.

In August 2012, a sinkhole developed near the salt dome and
numerous lawsuits were filed in state court in Assumption Parish,
Louisiana. Other lawsuits, including class action litigation, were
also filed in August 2012 in federal court in the Eastern District
of Louisiana in New Orleans.

There are numerous defendants to the litigation in state and
federal court.  Vulcan was first brought into the litigation as a
third-party defendant in August 2013 by Texas Brine.  Vulcan has
since been added as a direct and third-party defendant by other
parties, including a direct claim by the state of Louisiana.

The damages alleged in the litigation range from individual
plaintiffs' claims for property damage, to the state of
Louisiana's claim for response costs, to claims for physical
damages to oil pipelines, to business interruption claims. In
addition to the plaintiffs' claims, Vulcan has also been sued for
contractual indemnity and comparative fault by both Texas Brine
and Occidental Chemical Co. (Occidental).  The total amount of
damages claimed is in excess of $500 million.

It is alleged that the sinkhole was caused, in whole or in part,
by Vulcan's negligent actions or failure to act. It is also
alleged that Vulcan breached the salt lease, as well as an
operating  agreement and a drilling agreement with Texas Brine;
that Vulcan is strictly liable for certain property damages in its
capacity as a former assignee of the salt lease; and that Vulcan
violated certain covenants and conditions in the agreement under
which it sold its Chemicals Division in 2005.

Vulcan has made claims for contractual indemnity, comparative
fault, and breach of contract against Texas Brine, as well as
claims for contractual indemnity and comparative fault against
Occidental. Discovery is ongoing and the first trial date in any
of these cases has been set for March 2017.


VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Calif. for Unfair Competition
----------------------------------------------------------
TONI-ANN Quagllariello, an individual, on behalf of herself, on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Victory Entertainment, Inc., a California Corporation; and Does 1-
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC620273 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 13, 2016), seeks declaratory relief holding that Defendant's
policies and practices constitute unfair competition, along with
incidental equitable relief as may be necessary to remedy the
conduct declared to constitute unfair competition.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to take proper
steps to determine whether the Plaintiff was properly classified
as independent contractors, and thus denied wages and payments for
business expenses and employer's share of payroll taxes and
mandatory insurance as required by law.

The Defendant maintains ownership, recruitment, management and/or
operational interests in at least one nightclub featuring exotic
dancing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nonnan B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK FILED
          2255 Calle Clara IA
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858)551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          Website: www.bamlawca.com


VINNY LOVATO'S: "Carmona" Sues Over Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Carmona, Plaintiff, v. Vinny Lovato's Landscaping,
Angel's Landscaping, Vinny Lovato's Landscaping t/a and/or d/b/a
Angel's Landscaping, Angel's Landscaping t/a and/or d/b/a Vinny
Lovato's Landscaping, Vinny Lovato, Julio "Doe" and John Does 1-5
and 6-10, Defendants, Case No. L-001785-16 (N.J. Super., May 16,
2016) seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, cost of
suit, attorney fees, equitable back pay, equitable front pay,
equitable reinstatement and any other relief pursuant to the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Carmona was allegedly subjected to racial discrimination in the
workplace.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Tel: (856) 727-9700


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gonzales" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
----------------------------------------------------------
Sofia Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and
Volkswagen A.G., Case No. 1:16-cv-04268, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
02599-CRB to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The "Gonsalez" case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Allen Smith, Esq.
          Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq.
          POWER ROGERS AND SMITH, PC
          70 W. Madison Street, 55th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 9381
          Facsimile: (312) 236 0920
          E-mail: tsmith@prslaw.com
                  cdaley@prslaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Vondrak" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
---------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Vondrak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America
Inc., and Volkswagen A.G., the Defendants, Case no. 1:16-cv-04369,
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned
Case No. 3:16-cv-02600-CRB to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The "Vondrak" case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq.
          POWER ROGERS & SMITH, PC
          70 W. Madison St., 55th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 9381
          E-mail: cdaley@prslaw.com


WAKEFERN FOOD: "Hilger" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Julia Hilger, Plaintiff, v. Wakefern Food Corp., d/b/a Shoprite of
Pennington, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02841-AET-TJB (D.N.J., May
18, 2016) seeks compensation for all hours due, overtime,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit and
all other appropriate relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Defendant owns and/or maintains a retail cooperative in the United
States, with more than 250 stores in the State of New Jersey.
Wakefern is headquartered in Keasbey, Middlesex County, New
Jersey. Hilger was employed by Defendants full time as a worker in
the Fish Department and did not receive overtime pay for hours
rendered in excess of 40 per work week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esquire
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration of Debt Card Transaction Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a series of putative
class actions have been filed against Wachovia Bank, N.A. and
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many other banks, challenging
the "high to low" order in which the banks post debit card
transactions to consumer deposit accounts. There are currently
several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank (including the
Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo succeeded), most of which
have been consolidated in multi-district litigation proceedings
(the "MDL proceedings") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The court in the MDL proceedings has
certified a class of putative plaintiffs and Wells Fargo has moved
to compel arbitration of the claims of unnamed class members.


WILMINGTON TRUST: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Halldorson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Andrew Halldorson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit entitled Andrew Halldorson v. Wilmington Trust
Retirement and Institutional Services Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01494-LMB-IDD, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Alexandria.

Mr. Halldorson, on behalf of the Constellis Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a lawsuit alleging that the Defendant
had engaged in a prohibited transaction under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by permitting the
Employee Stock Ownership Plan to purchase Constellis Group, Inc.'s
stock.

The appellate case is captioned as Andrew Halldorson v. Wilmington
Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company, Case No. 16-
1587, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Athanasios Basdekis, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: tbasdekis@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com

Defendant-Appellee Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional
Services Company is represented by:

          Sarah Aiman Belger, Esq.
          John Edward Thomas, Jr., Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          1750 Tysons Boulevard
          Tysons Corner, VA 22102-3915
          Telephone: (703) 712-5350
          Facsimile: (703) 712-5299
          E-mail: sbelger@mcguirewoods.com
                  jethomas@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          James Patrick McElligott, Jr., Esq.
          Summer Speight, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          Gateway Plaza
          800 East Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-3916
          Telephone: (804) 775-4329
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2111
          E-mail: jmcelligott@mcguirewoods.com
                  sspeight@mcguirewoods.com


WORLDPAY US: "Mayumba" Suit Contests Non-Compliance Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Mayumba, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Worldpay US, Inc., RBS Citizens, N.A. and
Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC620608 (Cal.
Super., May 16, 2016), seeks damages, restitution, enjoinment,
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief resulting from unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business
practices under the California Business and Professions Code.

Mayumba, Inc. operates Mayumba Cuban Restaurant. Plaintiff
contests the charging of non-compliance fees by the Defendants
under their contract or applicable law.

WorldPay is a Georgia corporation with offices located at 600
Morgan Falls Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30350. RBS is a federally
chartered financial institution with its principal place of
business located at One Citizens Plaza, Providence, Rhode Island
02903. Both are in the business of processing credit card
transactions for merchants who accept credit card payments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michele L. Jackson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MICHELE L. JACKSON
     19200 Von Karman Ave., Suite 400
     Irvine, California 92612
     Tel: (949) 622-5595
     Fax: (949) 622-5598
     Email: mjackson@michelejacksonlaw.com

          - and -

     Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
     CARPENTER LAW
     1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 300
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Tel: (424) 456-3183
     Email: gretchen@gcarpenterlaw.com


WRIGHT MEDICAL: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Hip Implant Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Company has filed
a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant, in some
cases with multiple other defendants, in lawsuits in which it is
alleged that as yet unspecified defects in the design,
manufacture, or labeling of certain metal-on-metal hip replacement
products rendered the products defective. The lawsuits generally
employ similar allegations that use of the products resulted in
excessive metal ions and particulate in the patients into whom the
devices were implanted, in most cases resulting in revision
surgery (collectively, the CONSERVE(R) Claims). We anticipate that
additional lawsuits relating to metal-on-metal hip replacement
products may be brought."

"Because of the similar nature of the allegations made by several
plaintiffs whose cases were pending in federal courts, upon motion
of one plaintiff, Danny L. James, Sr., the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2012 transferred
certain actions pending in the federal court system related to
metal-on-metal hip replacement products to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for
consolidated pre-trial management of the cases before a single
United States District Court Judge (the MDL). The consolidated
matter is known as In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Conserve
Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation.

"Certain plaintiffs have elected to file their lawsuits in state
courts in California. In doing so, most of those plaintiffs have
named a surgeon involved in the design of the allegedly defective
products as a defendant in the actions, along with his personal
corporation. Pursuant to contractual obligations, we have agreed
to indemnify and defend the surgeon in those actions. Similar to
the MDL proceeding in federal court, because the lawsuits
generally employ similar allegations, certain of those pending
lawsuits in California were consolidated for pre-trial handling on
May 14, 2012 pursuant to procedures of California State Judicial
Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (the JCCP). The consolidated
matter is known as In re: Wright Hip Systems Cases, Judicial
Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4710.

"There are other individual lawsuits related to metal-on-metal hip
products pending in various state courts. As of May 2, 2016, there
were 1,156 such lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an
additional 22 cases pending in various state courts. We have also
entered into 889 so-called "tolling agreements" with potential
claimants who have not yet filed suit. There are also 32 non-U.S.
lawsuits presently pending. We believe we have data that supports
the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip products. While
continuing to dispute liability, we have participated in court
supervised non-binding mediation in the multi-district federal
court litigation and expect to begin similar mediation in the
JCCP.

"The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9,
2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1
million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive
damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities
and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015,
we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or,
in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages
awarded.

"On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order reducing the
punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1 million, but
otherwise denied our motion.  On May 4, 2016, we filed a notice of
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.

"In light of the trial judge's April 5th order, we recorded an
accrual for this verdict in the amount of $2 million within
"Accrued expenses and other current liabilities," and a $2 million
receivable associated with the probable recovery from product
liability insurance is reflected within "Other current assets."

"The supervising judge in the JCCP had set a trial date of March
14, 2016 for the first bellwether trial in California. Prior to
commencement of the trial, we entered into a confidential
settlement with the plaintiff which was paid by our insurance
carrier. We do not consider the settlement amount to be material."


WRIGHT MEDICAL: 82 Pending Lawsuits Related to Profemur
-------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Company has
received claims for personal injury against the Company associated
with fractures of its PROFEMUR(R) long titanium modular neck
product (Titanium Modular Neck Claims). As of May 2, 2016, there
were 38 pending U.S. lawsuits and 44 pending non-U.S. lawsuits
alleging such claims.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Delaware Chancery Court Dismissed Merger Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Delaware Chancery
Court has entered a Stipulated Order dismissing the Consolidated
Delaware Action as moot related to the Wright/Tornier Merger
Related Litigation.

The Company said, "Beginning on November 25, 2014, purported
shareholders of WMG filed a number of class action complaints
(Delaware Actions) in the Court of Chancery of the state of
Delaware (Delaware Chancery Court), many of which were later
amended. The complaints and amended complaints in the Delaware
Actions named as defendants WMG, Tornier, Trooper Holdings Inc.
(Holdco), Trooper Merger Sub Inc. (Merger Sub) and the members of
the WMG board of directors. The Delaware Actions generally
asserted various causes of action, including, among other things,
that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with
entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and
causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly failed
to disclose material information about the merger. The Delaware
Actions further alleged that WMG, Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
WMG board of directors."

"On March 2, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Actions, specifically Paul Parshall v. Wright Medical
Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10400-CB, and Anthony Marks as
Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 10706-CB, under the caption In re Wright Medical
Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10400-CB
(Consolidated Delaware Action). A later-filed case, Michael Prince
v. Robert J. Palmisano, et al., C.A. No. 10829-CB, was also made
part of the Consolidated Delaware Action by order dated May 22,
2015.

"On April 8, 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court entered a
Stipulated Order dismissing the Consolidated Delaware Action as
moot, with prejudice as to Plaintiffs' claims, and without
prejudice as to other members of the putative class. The court
retained jurisdiction to hear any mootness fee application that
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action may choose to file,
and Defendants have reserved the right to challenge any such fee
application."


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Tennessee Consolidated Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the stay of the
Consolidated Tennessee Action has expired upon completion of the
Wright/Tornier merger.

On November 26, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District,
at Memphis (Tennessee Circuit Court), by a purported shareholder
of WMG under the caption City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary
D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. An amended complaint in the
action was filed on January 5, 2015. The amended complaint names
as defendants WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, and the members of
the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint asserts various
causes of action, including, among other things, that the members
of the WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed
to the WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the
merger agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the merger. The amended complaint further
alleges that Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 2, 2014, a separate class action complaint was filed
in the Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of WMG
under the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filed
on January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants
WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC and the
members of the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint
asserts various causes of action, including, among other things,
that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with
entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and
causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails
to disclose material information about the merger. The amended
complaint further alleges that WMG, Tornier, Warburg Pincus LLC,
Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is
seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or
rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Court
transferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford
et al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court for
consolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1 (Consolidated Tennessee Action). In an order
dated April 9, 2015, the Tennessee Chancery Court stayed the
Consolidated Tennessee Action; that stay expired upon completion
of the Wright/Tornier merger.

Completion of the merger between Wright Medical Group, Inc.
(legacy Wright or WMG) and Tornier N.V. (legacy Tornier) (the
Wright/Tornier merger or merger) was effective October 1, 2015.


ZILLOW GROUP: Delaware Consolidated Lawsuit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Delaware court has
dismissed the claims brought in a consolidated lawsuit with
prejudice.

In August 2014, four purported class action lawsuits were filed by
plaintiffs against Trulia and its directors, Zillow, and Zebra
Holdco, Inc. in connection with Zillow's proposed acquisition of
Trulia. One of those purported class actions, captioned Collier et
al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., was brought in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Francisco, however
on October 7, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging substantially
the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the
original complaint filed in California.

On October 8, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a
request for dismissal of the California case without prejudice.
The other three of the purported class action lawsuits, captioned
Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Sciabacucci et al. v. Trulia,
Inc., et al., and Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., were
brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

All four lawsuits allege that Trulia's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other
defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell
Trulia through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price
and on unfair terms. All lawsuits sought, among other things,
equitable relief that would have enjoined the consummation of
Zillow's proposed acquisition of Trulia and attorneys' fees and
costs. The Delaware actions also sought rescission of the Merger
Agreement or rescissory damages and orders directing the
defendants to account for alleged damages suffered by the
plaintiffs and the purported class as a result of the defendants'
alleged wrongdoing.

On September 24, 2014, plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action filed
(1) a motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a
preliminary injunction, (3) a request for production of documents
from defendants, and (4) notice of depositions. On October 13,
2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating
all of the Delaware actions into one matter captioned In re
Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. On October 13 and 14, 2014,
the above-referenced motions were refiled under the consolidated
case number.

On November 14, 2014, plaintiffs again refiled their motion for a
preliminary injunction challenging the proposed acquisition. On
November 19, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, documenting an agreement-in-principle for the
settlement of the consolidated litigation, pursuant to which
Trulia agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures in a Form
8-K. The Memorandum of Understanding was filed with the Court of
Chancery that same day. Thereafter, the parties negotiated and
agreed to a stipulation of settlement, and after notice to the
class, the Court of Chancery held a settlement hearing on
September 16, 2015 where the Court requested the parties to make
further submission in connection with the settlement.

By an opinion dated January 22, 2016, the Court denied approval of
the settlement, and on April 6, 2016, the Court dismissed the
claims brought in the consolidated lawsuit with prejudice.


ZILLOW GROUP: Washington Consolidated Lawsuit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has dismissed
a consolidated lawsuit in Washington.

The Company said, "In July 2015, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed against us and each of our directors in the
Superior Court of the State of Washington in King County,
alleging, among other things, that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the issuance
of non-voting Class C capital stock as a dividend. The complaints
seek, among other things, injunctive relief and unspecified
monetary damages. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion seeking a
preliminary injunction to enjoin the August 2015 distribution of
shares of our Class C capital stock as a dividend to our Class A
and Class B common shareholders was held on August 5, 2015, and
the court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction."

"Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 18, 2015 naming and seeking relief from only our co-
founders as defendants. On December 4, 2015, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint, and on
March 28, 2016, the consolidated class action complaint was
dismissed with prejudice."


ZILLOW GROUP: August Trial Date Set in Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that trial date is
scheduled for August 2016 in a class action appeal.

The Company said, "In November 2014, a former employee filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, with the caption
Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc. The complaint alleges, among other
things, claims that we failed to provide meal and rest breaks,
failed to pay overtime, and failed to keep accurate records of
employees' hours worked. After the court granted our two motions
to dismiss certain claims, plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint that includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
We filed our answer to the second amended complaint on June 16,
2015.

"On November 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. A hearing was held on February 5, 2016 regarding
the motion. On February 26, 2016, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On March 11, 2016, we
filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for
permission to appeal the order granting class certification. The
trial date is scheduled for August 2016.

"We have recorded an accrual for an immaterial amount as of March
31, 2016 related to liabilities that may result from this class
action lawsuit. There is a reasonable possibility that a loss in
excess of amounts accrued may be incurred; however, any additional
possible loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable at this
time."


                            *********

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  * * *