CAR_Public/160620.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 20, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 122




                            Headlines


321 CAPITAL: ABC Business Seeks Certification of Three Classes
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Class Certification Sought in "Wilson" Suit
ALSCO INC: English et al. Ask Court to Approve Class Notice
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Flight Attendants Seek Certification of Class
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Arguments Heard in 9th Cir. Appeal

AS SEEN ON TV: Former Unit Faces Class Action & Lowe's Claim
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger-Related Litigation
AT&T SERVICES: Class Cert. Sought for Training Specialists
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit by Atlanta Firefighters Pension Fund
BANKRATE INC: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Underway

BBX CAPITAL: Court Reserves Decision to Approve $9.5MM Settlement
BLOOMINGDALE'S: "Hall" Suit Seeks Recovery of Illegal Deductions
BLUE STAR: "Martinez" Suit to Recover Minimum Wage
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kang" Suit Claims
CARTER'S RETAIL: Final Approval of "Dudum" Suit Settlement Sought

CELLCEUTIX CORPORATION: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Pending
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Bonnano"
CENTURY ALUMINUM: 4th Circuit Appeal by USW Remains Pending
CHASE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bender" Suit Claims
CHATOUS INC: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in "Morgan" Suit

CLECO CORPORATE: Amended Complaint Filed in Merger Suit
CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT: Default Judgment in "Hogan" Vacated
CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: July 8 Hearing on Class Notice Set
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Defendants, Arkin et al. Agree on Consolidation
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Court Remands Electrical Workers Suit

CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: "Sanchez" Action in Colorado Terminated
CLUB MADONNA: "Leon" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
COLLECTO INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Layton" Action Claims
COMMUNITY HEATH: Faces "Ryerson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COSMIC CORP: "McKinney" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
DOLLAR GENERAL: "Meyer" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: $4.5MM Accord Awaits Final Documentation
EHEALTH INC: Plaintiff Filed Notice of Submission
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Machado May File 2nd Amended Complaint

ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Lawsuit in Very Early Stages
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Chawdry and Myers Complaints
F&H FOODMART: "Khalid" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
FANDUEL INC: "Delgado" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass.
FANDUEL INC: "Fischler" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass.

FANDUEL INC: "Leung" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass.
FIESTA RESTAURANT: Pollo Paid All Settlement Claims in Daisy Suit
FORD MOTOR: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Suit Over Rear Axle Defect
FORT WAYNE, IN: See Seeks Class Certification of Homeless Locals
FOUR CORNERS: Faces "Riskin" Sued Over Spring Rewards Program

FUEL SYSTEMS: 4 Class Actions Filed Related to Westport Merger
GENERAL CHEMICAL: "Jefferson County" Sues Over Overpriced Alum
GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Sobczak" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
H&O INVESTMENTS: Certification of Class Sought in "Molina" Suit
HALLIBURTON ENERGY: New Plaintiffs Must File Own Suit

HCA HOLDINGS: $215-Mil. Settlement in Schuh Action Has Final OK
HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Concession Fee Recoveries Pending
HERTZ GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Challenged
HOBBY LOBBY STORES: "Kicic" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
HOIST LIFTRUCK: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Vacation Pay

HRG GROUP: Appeal Filed in Ludwick Class Action
ICARE CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Huckabee" Suit Claims
ICONIX BRAND: 3 Class Suits Remain Pending in New York Court
IMPERVA INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Remains Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Sheib" Class Suit in New York Court

KANSAS, USA: Bid to Certify "Fish" Class Taken Under Advisement
KANSAS, USA: Bid to Certify "Keener" Class Taken Under Advisement
KEARNES PAINTING: "Miller" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation
MAXLINEAR INC: Merger Litigation Dismissed

MAYFIELD GARDENS: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MDL 2159: Hearing on Bid to Decertify "Ellison" Moved to Aug. 5
MEDICINES COMPANY: Court Reserves Decision on Settlement
MICHAEL MUSA-OBREGON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MP CALIFORNIA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay

NANOSPHERE INC: Faces "Al-Mullah" Suit Over Sale to Luminex
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Wishnev" Suit
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Woo" Class Action Remains Pending
PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Class Action Trial to Begin October 3
PACIFIC PREMIER: Dismissal of "Parshall" Suit Under Review

PERMIAN SAND: "Johnston" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
PERSONAL PHYSICIANS: "Philip" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
PETCO ANIMAL: "Feist" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
PINNACLE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morgan" Suit Claims
PIZZERIAS LLC: "Jimenez" Suit to Recover Unreimbursed Expenses

POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Suit
POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Case Pending
RUCKUS WIRELESS: "Hussey" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maleh" Suit Claims
SIERRA TRANSPORT: Faces "Castillo" Class Suit in California

SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
SUTTER WEST: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TAYLOR SAFETY: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
THREE SONS: "Serrano-Mendiola" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
TIMCO SERVICES: "Marshall" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

TIME WARNER CABLE: Settlement in "Gillings" Has Final Approval
TOYODA GOSEI: Landers Sues Over Brake Hoses Price-Fixing
TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Sued Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
UGI CORPORATION: Appeal by Direct Customers Ongoing
UNITED STATES: USDA Must Deposit $95,000 to Black Farmers Fund

UNO RESTAURANTS: "Osman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
VALERO REFINING: Wulfe Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: "Curtis" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
WILMINGTON, DE: Appeal Filed in "Wright" Civil Rights Suit
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Luca" Suit Over Undisclosed Fees

ZILLOW INC: Appeals Cal. State Court Ruling in "Freeman" Suit


                            *********


321 CAPITAL: ABC Business Seeks Certification of Three Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Business Forms, Inc., asks the Court to enter an order
determining that the action titled ABC BUSINESS FORMS, INC., on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. 321
CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-06256
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action.  The Plaintiff defines
the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b)
     who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of
     this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC,
     promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did
     not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C.
     Section 227.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons in Illinois
     (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing
     of this action (815 ILCS 505/10a), (c) were sent faxes by or
     on behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC, promoting
     its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain
     an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV,
     alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to
     chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
     (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date five years prior
     to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on
     behalf of defendant 321 Capital Partners, LLC, promoting its
     goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an
     opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

ABC further asks that it be appointed class representative and
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=Vc6PFH71

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Class Certification Sought in "Wilson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CALVIN WILSON and DAVID
BLUME, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, ALLEN COUNTY, ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL, ALLEN COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), ask
the Court to certify the proposed Class:

"All individuals who have or will have misdemeanor criminal cases
pending in the courts of Allen County, Indiana, who have or will
have an attorney assigned to them due to indigency and have not
been convicted or entered into a plea agreement."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PrV1N4IN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          David W. Frank, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          Skyler Spurling-Newsome, No. 33833-02
          809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307
          Telephone: (260) 424 0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424 0712
          E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com


ALSCO INC: English et al. Ask Court to Approve Class Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit titled ROBERT ENGLISH, ALEX RIVERA,
and DANIEL JOYCE, Each Individually and on Behalf of Other
Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. ALSCO, INC., d/b/a AMERICAN
LINEN SUPPLY COMPANY, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:16-cv-4910-MFK
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

     (1) order Defendant to produce the information of the
putative collective members no later than two weeks after the date
of the entry of the Order granting the current motion;

     (2) approve the form and circulation of the notice and
consent form as set forth herein;

     (3) approve the sending of the reminder postcard as set forth
herein; and

     (4) grant counsel a period of 90 days from the date Defendant
fully and completely produces the potential collective members'
contact information during which to distribute the notice and file
consent forms.

Plaintiffs formerly worked for Defendant in a job position that
ALSCO referred to interchangeably as "District Manager" and
"Service Center Manager."  Plaintiffs allege that ALSCO
misclassified the SCM/DM position as salary exempt, and as a
result deprived them of overtime pay for hours worked in excess of
40 each workweek, in violation of Section 207(a)(1) the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=o4FISR2u

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          Maryna Jackson, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  maryna@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott M. Petersen, Esq.
          Greg Saylin, Esq.
          FABIAN VANCOTT
          215 S. State Street Suite 1200
          Salt Lake City UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 531 8900
          E-mail: spetersen@fabianvancott.com
                  gsaylin@fabianvancott.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Spang, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 750 3532
          E-mail: bspang@mcguirewoods.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Flight Attendants Seek Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying that the
action captioned CHER THOMPSON, Individually; SHIRLEY TRENT; LINDA
IGOE; THERESA MARTIN; CHERYL ADAMS; DONNA HOLZBERGER; PAMELIA
MITCHNER; SIMON PARSONS; MARGARET LORRAINE WOLFORD; FAITH MANNO
BALSIER; CAROLYN SCHWARTZ; RODNEY JORDAN; SARAH WOODRUFF WATKINS;
CAROL SHIELDS; PAMELA KISELA; CAROL REICHERT; SANDRA WOOD; NATASHA
ALEXANDERIA POPOVICH; YVETTE MARIE REIDY; JOSE LUIS CALDAS;
PATRICIA BIAS; NANCY JOHNSON BLASINGAME; MARY SEARS; KATHLEEN
FREDERICK WOOD; JOANN MONDRUS; SCOTT WESSEL; SANDRA KAY BERRY; and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES
GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a AMR Corporation, and
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07980 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the
Defendants.

The named Plaintiffs are former American flight attendants, who
retired prior to January 1, 2014.  As alleged in the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint, the proposed class is defined as:

     a. Individuals who retired at the age of 55 years or older
        and had 10 or more years of company seniority;

     b. Individuals who severed employment with a minimum of five
        (5) years of occupational seniority whose age plus years
        of occupational seniority equals forty;

     c. Individuals who accepted travel separation packages for
        unlimited D2 travel for a certain block of time;

     d. Individuals who left employment under the Special
        Voluntary Early Out Retirement Packages from 1994-1995;
        and

     e. Other retired and/or separated employees who were given,
        in accord with American's corporate policy, the same
        travel classification that they had immediately prior to
        leaving their positions.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their attorneys as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2zXDkOit

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nancy Richter, Esq.
          SLAVIN & SLAVIN LLC
          100 N. LaSalle St., 25th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-7848
          Facsimile: (312) 782-8272
          E-mail: nrichter@slavinlegal.com


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Arguments Heard in 9th Cir. Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a panel of the US
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the
appeal on May 4, 2016.

The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of
complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern
District of California against us and certain of our current and
former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of
our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported
stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations
that we and certain of our current and former employees and
directors violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program,
thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff
filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5,
2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E.
Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. On
November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20,
2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice."

"On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,
and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate
brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October
24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the lead
plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed
his reply brief. A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on May 4, 2016. Due to
the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict or
reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims."


AS SEEN ON TV: Former Unit Faces Class Action & Lowe's Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
As Seen On TV, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company received
on April 29, 2016, a notice (but not official service) that
Infusion Brands, Inc., its discontinued subsidiary,  may be named
as a defendant in Flint v. Infusion Brands, Inc., et al, a
purported class action case filed but not yet served in federal
court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The suit alleges that
the plaintiff and other similarly situated plaintiffs were damaged
when Infusion Brands, Inc. ceased to sell replacement parts and
accessories for a former product, the DualTools PS7000, a
polisher/sander.  Lowe's, Inc. has also sought indemnification
from Infusion Brands, Inc. for its costs related to the action.
Infusion Brands, Inc., as a discontinued subsidiary, has no assets
and no ability to pay any judgment that may be rendered.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger-Related Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Astoria Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a memorandum of
understanding has been reached in a Merger-related litigation.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, six lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger were filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau.
These actions are captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v. Chrin, et
al., Index No. 607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2) Raul v.
Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November 6, 2015);
(3) Lowinger v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015 (filed
November 9, 2015); (4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et al., Index
No. 607358/2015 (filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12-09 Trust v.
Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed November 13,
2015); and (6) The Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis v.
Keegan, et al., Index No. 607612/2015 (filed November 23, 2015).
On January 15, 2016, the court consolidated the New York lawsuits
under the caption In re Astoria Financial Corporation Shareholders
Litigation, Index No. 607132/2015, and on January 29, 2016 the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.  In
addition, a seventh lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed
transaction in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned O'Connell
v. Astoria Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 11928 (filed January
22, 2016). The plaintiff in this case filed an amended complaint
on February 17, 2016. Each of the lawsuits is a putative class
action filed on behalf of the stockholders of Astoria and names as
defendants Astoria, its directors and NYCB, or collectively, the
defendants.

The various complaints generally allege that the directors of
Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
approval of the Merger Agreement because they failed to properly
value Astoria and to take steps to maximize value to Astoria's
public stockholders, resulting in inadequate merger consideration.
The complaints further allege that the directors of Astoria
approved the Merger through a flawed and unfair sales process,
alleging the absence of a competitive sales process and that the
process was tainted by certain alleged conflicts of interest on
the part of the Astoria directors regarding certain personal and
financial benefits they will receive upon consummation of the
proposed transaction that public stockholders of Astoria will not
receive. The complaints also variously allege that the Astoria
directors breached their fiduciary duties because they improperly
agreed to deal protection devices that allegedly preclude other
bidders from making a successful competing offer for Astoria,
including a no solicitation provision that allegedly prevents
other buyers from participating in discussions which may lead to a
superior proposal, a matching rights provision that allows NYCB to
match any competing proposal in the event one is made and a
provision that requires Astoria to pay NYCB a termination fee of
$69.5 million under certain circumstances. In addition, the
lawsuit filed in Delaware also alleges that Astoria's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by causing a false and materially
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement to be filed with the
SEC. Each of the complaints further alleges that NYCB aided and
abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches by the Astoria directors.

Each of the actions seek, among other things, an order enjoining
completion of the proposed Merger and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. Certain of the actions also seek compensatory
damages arising from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The
defendants believe these actions are without merit. Accordingly,
no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated
statement of financial condition at March 31, 2016 with respect to
these matters.

On April 6, 2016, the defendants and lead plaintiffs for the
consolidated New York lawsuits entered into a memorandum of
understanding, or the MOU, which provides for the settlement of
the New York lawsuits. The MOU contemplates, among other things,
that Astoria will make certain supplemental disclosures relating
to the Merger. Although the defendants deny the allegations made
in the New York lawsuits (including the amended consolidated
complaint) and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required
under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of
further litigation, Astoria agreed to make such supplemental
disclosures pursuant to the terms of the MOU. The supplemental
disclosures were made available to Astoria's shareholders on April
8, 2016 through a filing with the SEC by Astoria on a Current
Report on Form 8-K.

The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory
discovery and customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Astoria's stockholders. A hearing will be
scheduled at which the Supreme Court of the State of New York will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it
will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Astoria
challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and
any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of
the settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will
approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If the court does
not approve the settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise
disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may
be terminated. If the MOU is terminated, no assurance can be given
at this time that the litigation against us will be resolved in
our favor, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that
this litigation will not have an impact on our financial condition
or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will
not be material.


AT&T SERVICES: Class Cert. Sought for Training Specialists
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned WENDELL WALTON and MICHAEL
MANTONYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 15-cv-03653-VC (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs ask the Court for
conditional FLSA collective action certification of a small group
of AT&T employees asserting overtime misclassification claims.
According to the lawsuit, AT&T's records indicate there are only
approximately 301 of them nationwide.  The employees at issue work
in two job titles: "Senior Training Manager Design" and "Senior
Training Manager Delivery".  Their role at AT&T is to assemble,
compile, and communicate the internal training materials to AT&T
employees. They do this work with minimal authority and little
discretion to change the content of the materials or alter the
manner in which courses are taught. Rather, they follow set
procedures, use proprietary software programs, and follow AT&T's
teaching guidelines and materials.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court:

     (1) conditionally certify the proposed FLSA Collective,

     (2) order AT&T to produce an updated class list to
Plaintiffs' counsel,

     (3) direct the dissemination of notice of the pendency of the
action by mail and e-mail using the proposed Notice,

     (4) permit potential Collective Members to file Consent to
Join Forms, by mail, fax, e-mail, or website submission, until 90
days after the date of an order granting this motion, and

     (5) permit the dissemination of a reminder postcard by
mail and e-mail.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Relic Sun, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638 8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638 8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509 2060
          E-mail: mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Jason C. Marsili, Esq.
          Brianna M. Primozic, Esq.
          POSNER & ROSEN LLP
          3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 389 6050
          Facsimile: (213) 389 0663
          E-mail: jmarsili@posner-rosen.com
                  bprimozic@posner-rosen.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit by Atlanta Firefighters Pension Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Atlanta Firefighters Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Bank of America,
N.A., Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited, Credit
Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche
Bank AG, Nomura International PLC, Hiren Gudka, Amandeep Singh
Manku, Shailen Pau and Bhardeep Singh Heer, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-04151 (S.D. N.Y, June 3, 2016), seeks damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses and such further relief for
violations of federal antitrust laws and of the Sherman Act and
Clayton Act.

Defendants are traders of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency
bonds denominated in various currencies and allegedly colluded
with each other to fix the prices of these bonds sold to and
purchased from investors in the secondary market.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking and financial services firm
with its principal place of business located at 100 North Tryon
Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited is a
subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A., with its principal place of
business located at 2 King Edward Street, London EC1A 1 HQ,
England.

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank is a banking entity
headquartered at 9, quai du President Paul Doumer, La Defense
Cedex, 92920 Paris, France.

Credit Suisse is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch
office located at 11 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, New
York.

Deutsche Bank is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch
office located at 60 Wall Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York.

Nomura is a financial services company with its principal place of
business at 1 Angel Lane, London EC4R 3AB, England

Hiren Gudka, Singh Manku and Shailen Pau were bond traders
employed by Bank of America and Deutsche Bank.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
     Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
     David Kaplan, Esq.
     Lucas Gilmore, Esq.
     Brandon Marsh, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Tel: (858) 720-3183
     Fax: (858) 793-0323
     Email: blairn@blbglaw.com
            benjaming@blbglaw.com
            davidk@blbglaw.com
            lucasg@blbglaw.com
            brandonm@blbglaw.com

          - and -

     Scott Martin, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     33 Whitehall Street
     14th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (646) 357-1100
     Fax: (212) 202-4322
     Email: smartin@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
     William P. Butterfield, Esq.
     Timothy S. Kearns, Esq.
     Sarah R. LaFreniere, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
            wbutterfield@hausfeld.com
            tkearns@hausfeld.com
            slafreniere@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
     Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
     Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 633-1908
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
            bsweeney@hausfeld.com
            clebsock@hausfeld.com


BANKRATE INC: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in a securities litigation remains
pending.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in
federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and other defendants, which is
captioned The City of Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No.
14-CV-81323-DMM. On November 23, 2015, the District Court
dismissed an amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice
for failing to adequately plead material misrepresentations or
omissions, scienter, or loss causation and damages. On December 8,
2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging
that the Company's 2012, 2013, and first half of 2014 financial
statements improperly recognized revenues and expenses and
therefore were materially false and misleading and caused damages.
Plaintiffs sought relief (including damages and rescission or
rescissionary damages) under the Securities Act of 1933 based on a
March 2014 secondary offering and under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all
persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's
securities between August 1, 2012 and October 9, 2014, inclusive.

On January 8, 2016 the Company and the remaining defendants moved
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. That motion is pending.

The action is in its preliminary stages and we are not able to
predict its outcome. The Company cannot presently estimate the
amount of loss, if any, that would result from an adverse
resolution of this matter.

Two earlier lawsuits making similar allegations, captioned Tong v.
Evans, et al., No. 14-cv-81183-KLR (S.D. Fla), and Atiyeh v.
Evans, et al., No. 14 Civ. 8443 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y), were voluntarily
dismissed by their respective plaintiffs.


BBX CAPITAL: Court Reserves Decision to Approve $9.5MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Court has reserved
decision on final approval of the settlement in the case, In Re
New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
3:12-CV-01893-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.).

Twenty proposed settlements totaling $9,585,000 have been
preliminarily approved in the putative class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of New Jersey real property owners who had a tax
sale certificate issued with respect to their real property that
was also purchased by a Defendant at a public auction in New
Jersey at an interest rate above 0% from January 1, 1998 through
February 28, 2009.  TSCs are certificates acquired by a purchaser
at a public auction and represent that purchaser's right to
collect a delinquent property tax or other municipal charge,
including water or sewer charges, from an owner of property in New
Jersey, along with associated interest and fees.

The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. to
consider whether to grant final approval of the Proposed
Settlements.

Information on the case is available at:

               http://www.njtaxliensettlements.com/

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an
existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in
New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants.  The class
action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all
persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who
had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that
was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."
Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in January 1998 and at least
through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide
conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax
certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998,
through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a
subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM
in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T
Transaction. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to
Dismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted
the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with
prejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as to
plaintiffs' main antitrust claim.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint on January 6, 2014.  While BBX Capital believed
the claims to be without merit, BBX Capital reached an agreement
to settle the action, subject to court approval. The settlement
has been preliminarily approved by the court and the fairness
hearing was held on April 25, 2016, during which the Court
reserved decision on final approval.


BLOOMINGDALE'S: "Hall" Suit Seeks Recovery of Illegal Deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-04137 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages and costs, attorneys' fees resulting
from unlawful deductions from wages in violation of New York Labor
Law, Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Wage and Hour Laws.

Bloomingdale's is a corporation created and existing under the
laws of the State of Ohio and maintains its headquarters at 1000
Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022. Plaintiff worked at their
flagship store in 1000 Third Avenue, New York, NY as a commission
salesperson.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
     Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
     BLAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
     23 Green Street, Suite 303
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Tel: (631) 458-1010
     Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com


BLUE STAR: "Martinez" Suit to Recover Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Martinez and Yolanda Garrido, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, and Julia Rodriguez, individually
Plaintiffs, v. Blue Star Farms, Inc., and Anthony Harry Marr,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00681 (W.D. Mich., June 3, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory
damages, pre-judgment interest, injunctive and other make-whole
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Michigan
Minimum Wage Law and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act.

Blue Star Farms, Inc. is a Michigan corporation that employed
Plaintiffs as farmworkers to hand harvest blueberries. Defendants
allegedly failed to record employee hours worked and pieces
harvested, resulting in a failure to pay them all promised wages
and federal and state minimum wages for each compensable hour
worked.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Teresa Hendricks (P46500)
     Mariza Gamez-Garcia (P64271)
     Benjamin O'Hearn (P79252)
     MIGRANT LEGAL AID
     1104 Fuller Ave., NE
     Grand Rapids, MI 49503
     Tel: (616) 454-5055
     Email: thendricks@migrantlegalaid.com
            mgamezgarcia@migrantlegalaid.com
            bohearn@migrantlegalaid.com

          - and -

     Marni Willenson, Esq.
     WILLENSON LAW, LLC
     542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 610
     Chicago, IL 60605
     Tel: (312) 546-4910
     Email: marni@willensonlaw.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kang" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daewoo Kang, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Capital Management Services, LP, Case No. 2:16-cv-03267-MCA-MAH
(D.N.J., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Capital Management Services L.P. is a nationally licensed and
recognized collections agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


CARTER'S RETAIL: Final Approval of "Dudum" Suit Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order finally approving the
proposed class action settlement in the case styled JULIE DUDUM,
ESTELLA GARCIA, LUNINGNING LUDOVICO, LAKISHA POWELL, and COLUMBA
GUTIERREZ, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency v. CARTER'S RETAIL, INC.; and DOES 1
to 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-CV-00988 HSG (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs also seek an order:

   -- finally certifying a settlement class;

   -- finally approving the appointment of Plaintiffs JULIE
      DUDUM, ESTELLA GARCIA, LUNINGNING LUDOVICO, LAKISHA POWELL,
      and COLUMBA GUTIERREZ as Class Representatives;

   -- finally approving the appointment of Shea & McIntyre,
      A.P.C., and Kletter + Nguyen Law, LLP, as Class Counsel;

   -- finally approving the payment of reasonable costs of
      administration to Simpluris, Inc. from the Maximum
      Settlement Amount, which is estimated at $13,599 and will
      be determined after the completion of the administration;

   -- finally approving the Incentive Awards of $5,000 to each of
      the five named Plaintiffs;

   -- finally approving payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and
      costs at an amount not to exceed one-third of the Maximum
      Settlement Amount, or $157,500;

   -- finally approving a payment of $4,000 to cover penalties
      under the Private Attorney General Act;

   -- entering a Final Judgment consistent with the terms of the
      Settlement Agreement; and

   -- retaining jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the
      terms of the judgment.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 28, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=en5OPQD5

Plaintiffs Julie Dudum and Estella Garcia are represented by:

          Cary Kletter, Esq.
          Sally Trung Nguyen, Esq.
          KLETTER + NGUYEN LAW LLP
          1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Telephone: (415) 434-3400
          E-mail: ckletter@kletterlaw.com
                  snguyen@kletterlaw.com

Plaintiffs Luningning Ludovico, Lakisha Powell, and Columba
Gutierrez are represented by:

          John F. McIntyre, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin R. Elliott, Esq.
          SHEA & McINTYRE, A P.C.
          2166 The Alameda
          San Jose, CA 95126-1144
          Telephone: (408) 298-6611
          Facsimile: (408) 275-0814
          E-mail: jmcintyre@sheamcintyre.com
                  kelliott@sheamcintyre.com


CELLCEUTIX CORPORATION: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellceutix Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a complaint entitled
O'Connell v. Cellceutix Corp. et al. (No. 1:15-cv-07194) was filed
in September 2015 by a law firm in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and its officers alleging that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse
facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects.The
Company believes that the claims are without merit and has filed a
motion to dismiss this lawsuit. The Court's ruling on this motion
is now pending. Cellceutix intends to vigorously defend itself.

The Company is in the business of developing innovative small
molecule therapies to treat diseases with significant medical
need, particularly in the areas of cancer, antibiotics and
inflammatory disease.


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Bonnano"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the decision
on the motion to dismiss the "Bonnano" class action lawsuit
remains pending.

On April 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California captioned Bonnano v. Cellular Biomedicine
Group, Inc., 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Ca.). The complaint also
named Wei Cao, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Tony
Liu, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. The
complaint alleged that during the class period, June 18, 2014,
through April 7, 2015, the Company made material
misrepresentations in its periodic reports filed with the SEC. The
complaint alleged a cause of action under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") against all
defendants and under Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the
individual defendants. The complaint did not state the amount of
the damages sought.

On June 3, 2015, defendants were served.  On June 29, 2015, the
Court ordered, as stipulated by the parties, that defendants are
not required to respond to the initial complaint in this action
until such time as a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been
appointed and a consolidated complaint has been filed.  The
deadline for filing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and selection of lead counsel was June 22, 2015.  On that date,
one motion was filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of putative
plaintiff Michelle Jackson.  On August 3, 2015, having received no
opposition, the Court appointed Jackson as lead plaintiff and the
Rosen Law Firm as class counsel.  As stipulated among the parties,
Jackson filed an amended class action complaint on September 17,
2015.  On January 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff submitted a response on March 1, 2016 and oral argument
on the motion to dismiss  took place on April 20, 2016.   The
decision on the motion to dismiss is pending as of the filing date
of this Form 10-Q.  Discovery will be stayed pending the decision
on the motion to dismiss.

The amended complaint names ten additional individuals and
entities as defendants ("additional defendants"), none of whom are
affiliated with the Company, and asserts an additional claim under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder that the
Company purportedly engaged in a scheme with the additional
defendants to promote its securities. The amended complaint does
not assert any claims against Mr. Liu.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and filled with
patently false information, and will vigorously defend the Company
in the matter. At this early stage of the proceedings, it is not
possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or
to estimate the range of potential loss.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: 4th Circuit Appeal by USW Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal by the USW
to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remains pending.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed
a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"),
the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as
class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to
modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.  Later in November
2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class filed a
separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century
Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with
respect to the foregoing.  These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et
al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West
Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have been consolidated
and venue has been set in the District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.

In September 2015, the trial court granted CAWV's motion for
summary judgment of these actions. The trial court decision is
currently being appealed by the USW to the Court of Appeals for
the 4th Circuit.

Century Aluminum is a global producer of primary aluminum with
aluminum reduction facilities, or "smelters," in the United States
and Iceland.


CHASE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bender" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dovid Bender, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Chase Receivables and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-
cv-03240-MLC-DEA (D.N.J., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Chase Receivables operates a debt collection company headquartered
at 1247 Broadway, Sonoma, CA 95476.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Gideon Kelsen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN G. KELSEN ESQ., LLC
      1415 Queen Anne Road, Suite 206
      Teaneck, NJ 07666
      Telephone: (201) 692-0073
      Facsimile: (201) 692-0151
      E-mail: bgkelsen@kelsenlaw.com


CHATOUS INC: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in "Morgan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit titled BRITTANY MORGAN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CHATOUS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00143-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla.), asks the
Court to certify two classes:

     a) All insureds that purchased optional insurance coverages
in connection with car rentals from Appointed Agents of ACE
American Insurance Company in the State of Florida, within the
applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this
action to the date of class certification, and who incurred
additional charges in excess of the advertised premium and/or
premiums specified in the policy and as fixed by the insurer, for
optional insurance coverages (the "Florida Excess Fee Car Rental
Class").

     b) All insureds that purchased optional insurance coverages
in connection with car rentals from Appointed Agents of ACE
American Insurance Company Customers in Florida, within the
applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this
action to the date of class certification, and who incurred
additional sales tax on fees in excess of the advertised premium
and/or premiums specified in the policy and as fixed by the
insurer, for optional insurance coverages (the "Florida Sales Tax
Car Rental Class").

Mr. Morgan also asks the Court to:

     (1) enter and continue Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and defer its ruling on Plaintiff's Motion pursuant
to Local Rule 4.04(c);

     (2) allow for the Parties to engage in discovery on class-
wide issues;

     (3) grant Plaintiff leave to file a full memorandum in
support of his Motion for Class Certification upon the conclusion
of class-wide discovery;

     (4) grant Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification or,
alternatively, grant the motion in its entirety after the close of
class-wide discovery and full briefing of the issues presented
herein; and

     (5) provide all other and further relief that the Court deems
equitable and just.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND LAW, PLLC
          62 W. Colonial St. Ste 209
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 603 6031
          E-mail: firm@ednormand.com
                  ed@ednormand.com


CLECO CORPORATE: Amended Complaint Filed in Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC (f/k/a Cleco Corporation) on April
13, 2016, completed the merger contemplated by the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of October 17, 2014, by and among Cleco
Corporation, Cleco Partners L.P., and Cleco MergerSub Inc. As a
result of the merger transaction, Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC
became a privately held company and its equity shares are no
longer publicly traded. At April 13, 2016, the outstanding
membership interest of Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was held by
Cleco Group LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cleco Partners L.P.

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC and Cleco Power LLC said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that
plaintiffs in the merger class action have indicated that they
will file yet another amended Petition within 30 days after
closing of the Merger, which occurred on April 13, 2016.

In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and
three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged,
among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing
to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and
failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The
petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation,
Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil
conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The
petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which
includes attorneys' fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

* Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27,
2014),

* Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C
(filed October 30, 2014),

* Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and

* L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved
for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion
was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court
consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-
lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified
Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The
consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco
Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended
Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco Corporation's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders
and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement
because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to
structure a process through which shareholder value would be
maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of
interest, and failing to disclose material information about the
Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all
defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.
Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended
Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended
Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

* Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),

* Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-
11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

* Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21,
2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure
and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment
Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants.
The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie
Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11,
2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class
Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged, among other
things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by
approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value
Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which
shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing
by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life
Services petitions also alleged that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about
the Merger. Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco
Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary
duty.

On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each
action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions
pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the
plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of
their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to
the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February
25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish
held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by
plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders held on
February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following
the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On June 19,
2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will
be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions
seeking dismissal of the amended petition on
July 24, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of the
petitions in each action are without merit and that it has
substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each
of the petitions.

On March 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction. By their agreement to an Order that was
entered on March 31, 2016, the plaintiffs indicated that they will
file yet another amended Petition within 30 days after closing of
the Merger, which occurred on April 13, 2016. This Order also
established a schedule for the defendants to file exceptions to
such amended Petition and for briefing of same.


CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT: Default Judgment in "Hogan" Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled JESSICA HOGAN, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLEVELAND
AVE RESTAURANT, INC. (d/b/a SIRENS), FRANCIS SHARRAK, MICHAEL
SHARRAK, CHAD SULLIVAN, & DOMINICK ALKAMMO, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), Hon. Algenon L. Marbley
granted Defendants' Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, and
denied without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Plaintiff was a bartender and exotic dancer at Sirens, a Columbus-
area strip club.  She filed a class and collective action
complaint in the Court on October 6, 2015.  Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices,
including charging Plaintiff fees for exotic dances for customers,
charging Plaintiff 10% on customer tips left on credit cards, and
requiring Plaintiff to pay tips to non-tipped employees.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' behavior violates portions of
29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Article II Sec. 34(a) of the Ohio Constitution, and Sec. 4113.15
of the Ohio Revised Code.

Defendants advanced six defenses are:

     (1) that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted;

     (2) that Plaintiff's case is not appropriate for class
action;

     (3) that the attorney fees and costs sought by Plaintiff are
not recoverable;

     (4) that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable
statute(s) of limitations;

     (5) that the liquidated and treble damages sought by
Plaintiff are barred in whole or part due to Defendants'
subjective, good-faith beliefs; and

     (6) that the liquidated and treble damages sought by
Plaintiff are barred in whole or part due to Defendants'
reasonable belief that their behavior comported with the relevant
employment laws.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XSq57NES


CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: July 8 Hearing on Class Notice Set
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled Michelle Labriola, et al., the
Plaintiff, v. Clinton Entertainment Management LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-04123 (N.D. Ill.), Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer stayed
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a Rule 23 Class Action under the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law pending completion of class-based
discovery.

A hearing is set for July 8, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., regarding notices
to the putative class. The court agrees that first-class mail
notice should be supplemented with e-mail and text messages.
Motion for protective order is stricken without prejudice.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IhI48Tap


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Defendants, Arkin et al. Agree on Consolidation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Arkin Plaintiffs
and the defendants have filed a stipulated motion to consolidate
the Moran action, now pending in the District of Colorado, with
the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions.

On November 19, 2015, Steve Kimbro, a purported shareholder of
Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kimbro
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
Kimbro Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and
November 15, 2015. The Kimbro Complaint generally alleges that
Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities
laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market
success of rociletinib. The Kimbro Complaint seeks unspecified
damages.

Also on November 19, 2015, a second purported shareholder class
action complaint was filed by Sonny P. Medina, another purported
Clovis shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set
forth in the Kimbro Complaint, also in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina Complaint"). The
Medina Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and
November 13, 2015. On November 20, 2015, a third complaint was
filed by John Moran in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Moran Complaint"). The Moran
Complaint contains similar allegations to those asserted in the
Kimbro and Medina Complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf
of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October
31, 2013 and November 13, 2015.

On December 14, 2015, Ralph P. Rocco, a fourth purported
shareholder of Clovis, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Rocco
Complaint"). The Rocco Complaint contains similar allegations to
those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock
between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015.

On January 19, 2016, a number of motions were filed in both the
District of Colorado and the Northern District of California
seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one
matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff. All lead plaintiff
movants other than M. Arkin (1999) LTD and Arkin Communications
LTD (the "Arkin Plaintiffs") subsequently filed notices of non-
opposition to the Arkin Plaintiffs' application.

On February 2, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a motion to
transfer the Moran Complaint to the District of Colorado (the
"Motion to Transfer"). Also on February 2, 2016, the defendants
filed a statement in the Northern District of California
supporting the consolidation of all actions in a single court, the
District of Colorado. On February 3, 2016, the Northern District
of California court denied without prejudice the lead plaintiff
motions filed in that court pending a decision on the Motion to
Transfer.

On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a memorandum in support
of the Motion to Transfer, and plaintiff Moran filed a notice of
non-opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On February 17, 2016,
the Northern District of California court granted the Motion to
Transfer.

On February 18, 2016, the Medina court issued an opinion and order
addressing the various motions for consolidation and appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the District of Colorado
actions. By this ruling, the court consolidated the Medina, Kimbro
and Rocco actions into a single proceeding. The court also
appointed the Arkin Plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman as lead counsel for the
putative class.

On April 1, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants filed a
stipulated motion to set the schedule for the filing of a
consolidated complaint in the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions
(the "Consolidated Complaint") and the responses thereto,
including the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"), and to stay
discovery and related proceedings until the District of Colorado
issues a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. The stipulated motion
was entered by the District of Colorado on April 4, 2016. Subject
to a further agreed-upon extension by the parties, the
Consolidated Complaint was filed on May 6, 2016, while the Motion
to Dismiss is due on July 11, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiff's
opposition on August 19, 2016 and the defendants' reply on
September 7, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the
defendants filed a stipulated motion to consolidate the Moran
action, now pending in the District of Colorado, with the Medina,
Kimbro and Rocco actions.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
contained in the Kimbro, Medina, Moran and Rocco Complaints, but
there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Court Remands Electrical Workers Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the
case captioned ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL #357 PENSION AND HEALTH &
WELFARE TRUSTS, Plaintiff, v. CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00933-EMC (N.D. Cal.), remanding the
case to the San Mateo Superior Court.  A full-text copy of Judge
Chen's May 5, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/iYrUH2 from
Leagle.com.

Clovis Oncology, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, said it expected that the
court will deny a Motion to Transfer as moot.

On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and
Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed
a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors,
investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical Workers Complaint
purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased stock in Clovis' July 8, 2015 follow-on offering. The
Electrical Workers Complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated the Securities Act because the offering documents for the
July 8, 2015 follow-on offering contained allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval
and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The
Electrical Workers Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On February 25, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and thereafter moved to transfer the case to the
District of Colorado ("Motion to Transfer"). On March 2, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to San Mateo County
Superior Court ("Motion to Remand"). Following briefing on the
Motion to Transfer and the Motion to Remand, the Northern District
of California held a hearing on April 18, 2016 concerning the
Motion to Remand, at the conclusion of which the court granted to
the Motion to Remand.

"We expect that the court will deny the Motion to Transfer as
moot. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations contained in the Electrical Workers Complaint, but
there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful,"
the Company said.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: "Sanchez" Action in Colorado Terminated
--------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the class action
lawsuit by Maris Sanchez was terminated on March 14, 2016, by the
District of Colorado.

On February 19, 2016, Maris Sanchez, a purported shareholder of
Clovis, filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the "Sanchez
Complaint") against certain officers and directors of Clovis in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
Sanchez Complaint generally alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties owed to Clovis by participating in
misrepresentation of the Company's business operations and
prospects. The Sanchez Complaint also alleged claims for abuse of
control and gross mismanagement. The Sanchez Complaint sought,
among other things, an award of money damages. On March 11, 2016,
the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Sanchez
Complaint without prejudice.


CLUB MADONNA: "Leon" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Martin Leon, Plaintiff, v. Club Madonna Inc., a Florida
Corporation and Leroy Griffith, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-22032-KMM (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Club Madonna is a Florida corporation operating an adult
entertainment club within Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Leon claims to have been denied overtime pay.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Tel: (786) 923-5899
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

          - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Telephone (305) 773-6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


COLLECTO INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Layton" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dorissa Layton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No. 3:16-cv-03269-
PGS-LHG (D.N.J., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Collecto, Inc. is a debt management and recovery resource company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Alan Auslaender, Esq.
      THE AUSLAENDER FIRM, P.C.
      90-35 148th Street
      Jamaica, NY 11435
      Telephone: (917) 793-9022
      E-mail: justin@theauslaenderfirm.com


COMMUNITY HEATH: Faces "Ryerson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Ryerson, on behalf of herself and similarly-situated v.
Community Heath Care, Inc. d/b/a Community Substance Abuse
Centers, and Steven Kassels, (Mass. Cmmw., June 6, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Massachusetts General Laws.

The Defendants operate a private corporation that provides
outpatient services specializing in the treatment of narcotic
addiction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Davis, Esq.
      DAVIS & DAVIS P.C.
      Park Place South
      350 Park Street, Suite 105
      North Reading, MA 01864
      Telephone: (978) 276-0777
      E-mail: jdavis@davisanddavispc.com


COSMIC CORP: "McKinney" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Felicia McKinney, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cosmic Corp. d/b/a COCO'S, a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22045-UU (S.D. Fla., June
6, 2016), seeks compensation for unpaid minimum wage and overtime
owed, recovery of misappropriated tips and misappropriated funds,
liquidated damages and interest, reasonable attorney fees, costs
and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff is a former exotic dancer at Coco's adult entertainment
club. She claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chad E. Levy, Esq.
     LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
     915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
     Telephone: 954-763-5722
     Facsimile: 954-763-5723
     Email: chad@levylevylaw.com


DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Flaum, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. d/b/a Subway, Case No. 0:16-
cv-61198-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Doctor's Associates, Inc. owns and operates a chain of sandwich
restaurants in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bret Leon Lusskin Jr., Esq.
      BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
      20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (954) 454-5841
      Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
      E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

         - and -

      Scott David Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: "Meyer" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Nicholas Meyer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Dollar General
Corporation and DG Retail LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02091, was
transferred from the District of Kansas to the U.S. District Court
Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00522-GAF to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a chain of variety stores headquartered in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
      Cynthia Green St. Amant, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 524-5777
      Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
      E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
              c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
              c.stamant@kanner-law.com

         - and -

      Colin W. McClain, Esq.
      J'Nan C. Kimak, Esq.
      Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
      HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & MCCLAIN, PC
      221 West Lexington, Suite 400
      P.O. Box 900
      Independence, MO 64051
      Telephone: (816) 836-5050
      Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
      E-mail: cwm@hfmlegal.com
              jck@hfmlegal.com
              kds@hfmlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ashley G. Habiger, Esq.
      1511 S 50th Street
      Kansas City, KS 66106
      Telephone: (651) 216-7881
      E-mail: aghabiger@gmail.com

         - and -

      Bradley J. Yeretsky, Esq.
      Brett A. Shanks, Esq.
      STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
      1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 842-8600
      Facsimile: (816) 691-3495
      E-mail: brad.yeretsky@stinsonleonard.com
              brett.shanks@stinson.com


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: $4.5MM Accord Awaits Final Documentation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
has reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities
class action for $4.5 million and the settlement is subject to
final documentation as well as court approval.

On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all
related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred
to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case
entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On
September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his consolidated class
action complaint (the "consolidated complaint"), which named a
former director of the Company as a defendant in addition to the
Company and the former executive officers identified in the two
prior complaints (collectively, the "defendants"). The
consolidated complaint alleged that between April 26, 2012 and
June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its executive officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with
statements related to the Company's product, HEPLISAV-B, an
investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The consolidated
complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs. On January 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On March 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. The opposition introduced a
new theory of the case, so defendants permitted plaintiffs to
amend their complaint. On April 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint ("ACC"). The ACC added a new
plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleged that, between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain
of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection
with statements related to our product candidate, HEPLISAV-B.
Specifically, the ACC alleged that the Company made fraudulent
misrepresentations or omissions regarding the manufacture of
HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders unlawfully profited from such
misrepresentations or omissions. The ACC sought unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On June 6,
2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ACC. On August 8,
2014, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that motion.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed the second amended
complaint ("SAC") to remove or correct erroneous statements
attributed to confidential witnesses. The SAC retains all
allegations asserted in the ACC. On October 10, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On November 10, 2014,
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
the SAC. The Company filed its reply in support of the motion on
December 1, 2014.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss the SAC occurred on February
20, 2015. The Court granted the motion with respect to some of the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company or
certain named defendants as well as some of the insider trading
claims against certain insiders and denied the motion to dismiss
with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and omissions and
insider trading claims. The Company filed an answer to the SAC on
April 6, 2015.

Dynavax has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
securities class action. The settlement, which is subject to final
documentation as well as court approval, provides for a payment of
$4.5 million and will result in a dismissal and release of all
claims against the defendants in connection with the securities
class action. The settlement payment will be paid for by
defendants' insurance carriers.

Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company that uses toll-like receptor ("TLR")
biology to discover and develop novel vaccines and therapeutics.


EHEALTH INC: Plaintiff Filed Notice of Submission
-------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiff has filed a
notice of submission to the court's order dismissing the
consolidated complaint.

On January 26 and March 10, 2015, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed against us, our chairman and chief executive
officer, Gary L. Lauer ("Mr. Lauer"), and our senior vice
president and chief financial officer, Stuart M. Huizinga ("Mr.
Huizinga"), in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. On May 6, 2015, the court consolidated the
two cases. On June 10, 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
performance, guidance and operations during an alleged class
period of May 1, 2014 to January 14, 2015. The consolidated
complaint alleges that we and Messrs. Lauer and Huizinga violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The consolidated complaint
seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission
or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable/injunctive relief
and such other relief as the court deems proper. On July 15, 2015,
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On March 14, 2016, the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint with
leave to file an amended consolidated complaint within 30 days,
which was later extended to April 27, 2016. On April 27, 2016,
plaintiff did not file an amended complaint but filed a notice of
submission to the court's order dismissing the consolidated
complaint.

"We believe the lawsuit to be without merit and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against it," the Company said.

eHealth, Inc. is a private online source of health insurance for
individuals, families and small businesses in the United States.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Machado May File 2nd Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
plaintiff in the "Machado" class action lawsuit has been given
leave to file a second amended complaint.

The Company said, "On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a
purported holder of our common stock, filed a civil action in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against us and our chief executive officer and our former chief
financial officer, Machado v. Endurance International Group
Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO. In a
second amended complaint, file on March 18, 2016, the plaintiff
alleged claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our
securities between February 25, 2014 and February 29, 2016. Those
claims challenged as false or misleading certain of our
disclosures about our total number of subscribers, average revenue
per subscriber, the number of customers paying over $500 per year
for our products and services, the average number of products sold
per subscriber, and our customer churn. The plaintiff seeks, on
behalf of himself and the purported class, compensatory damages
and his costs and expenses of litigation. The plaintiff has
recently been given leave to file a second amended complaint,
which will supersede the current complaint."

"We and the individual defendants intend to deny any liability or
wrongdoing and to vigorously defend all claims asserted. We
cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of this
proceeding," the Company said.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Lawsuit in Very Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
class action lawsuit by William McGee is in its very early stages.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers. The lawsuit asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is
premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-
disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's
business, operations, prospects and performance during the
proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. This
litigation is in its very early stages.

"We and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend all
claims asserted. We cannot, however, make any assurances as to the
outcome of this proceeding," the Company said.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Chawdry and Myers Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to either
of the complaints by Irfan Chawdry and David V. Myers.

On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, or the Chawdry Complaint, and
on December 21, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the acquisition captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al.
Case No. 11828, or the Myers Complaint (together with the Chawdry
Complaint, the Complaints) filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware naming Constant Contact, each of Constant
Contact's directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition
Corporation as defendants. The Complaints generally allege, among
other things, that in connection with the acquisition the
directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed
to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell
Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration,
engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information
necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing
to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The
Complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the acquisition,
as well as award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the
action. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise
responded to either of these Complaints. The defendants believe
the claims asserted in the Complaints are without merit and intend
to defend against these lawsuits vigorously.


F&H FOODMART: "Khalid" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Umair Khalid individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. F&H Food mart, Inc., Super Stop, Sabahat
N. Saba and Muneer Khan, Defendants, Case 0:16-cv-61176-JAL (S.D.
Fla, June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

F&H Food mart, Inc. operates as Super Stop with Sabahat N. Saba
and Muneer Khan as owners. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a
cashier and claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: 305-416-5000
      Facsimile: 305-416-5005
      Email: agp@agppattorneys.com
             apetisco@agppattorneys.com
             rregueiro@agppattorneys.com
             pn@agppattorneys.com


FANDUEL INC: "Delgado" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Fernando Delgado and Ronald S.
Randle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FanDuel, Inc., FanDuel Ltd, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-09907 was transferred from Central
District of California to the U.S. District Court District of
Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-11047-GAO to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Leimbach, Esq.
      Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      29229 Canwood Street Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
              mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jui-Ting Anna Hsia
      ZWILLGEN LAW LLP
      235 Montgomery Street, Suite 425
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 590-2341
      Facsimile: (415) 636-5965
      E-mail: anna@zwillgen.com


FANDUEL INC: "Fischler" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Brian Fischler, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FanDuel Inc., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00989, was transferred from Southern District of New
York to the U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts
(Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
11034-GAO to the proceeding.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin W. Barrett, Esq
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: kbarrett@baileyglasser.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jamie Levitt, Esq.
      MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
      1290 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY
      Telephone: (212) 468-8000
      E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com


FANDUEL INC: "Leung" Suit Transferred to Dist. of Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Wesley Leung, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FanDuel, Inc. and
FanDuel Ltd., Case No. 5:15-cv-00835, was transferred from the
District of California Central to the U.S. District Court District
of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-11048-GAO to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Alan Milstein, Esq.
      MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
      2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 396-9600
      Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
      E-mail: aventanilla@milsteinadelman.com

         - and -

      Sarah L. Hennessy, Esq.
      FLAHERTY HENNESSY LLP
      8055 West Manchester Street Suite 420
      Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
      Telephone: (310) 305-1280
      Facsimile: (310) 305-1210
      E-mail: sarah@fhattorneys.com

         - and -

      Edward Zebersky, Esq.
      ZEBERSKY PAYNE LLP
      110 Southeast 6th Street Suite 2150
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 989-6333
      Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
      E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jui-Ting Anna Hsia, Esq.
      Jacob A. Sommer, Esq.
      ZWILLGEN LAW LLP
      235 Montgomery Street, Suite 425
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 590-2341
      Facsimile: (415) 636-5965
      E-mail: anna@zwillgen.com
              jake@zwillgen.com

         - and -

      Katherine M. Robison, Esq.
      ZWILLGEN LAW LLP
      915 Battery Street 2nd Floor Suite 3
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 590-2340
      Facsimile: (415) 445-0908
      E-mail: kat@zwillgen.com


FIESTA RESTAURANT: Pollo Paid All Settlement Claims in Daisy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Daisy, Inc., an
automotive repair shop in Cape Coral, Florida, filed on September
29, 2014, a putative class action suit against Fiesta's
subsidiary, Pollo Operations, Inc. ("Pollo Operations") in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The suit alleged that Pollo Operations engaged in unlawful
activity in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
Sec. 227 et seq. occurring in December 2010 and January 2011. As
of April 3, 2016, Pollo Operations reached a settlement with the
plaintiff which resulted in dismissal of the case and has paid all
settlement claims.

Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. owns, operates and franchises two
fast-casual restaurant brands through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries Pollo Operations, Inc., and its subsidiaries, and
Pollo Franchise, Inc., and Taco Cabana, Inc. and its subsidiaries.


FORD MOTOR: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Suit Over Rear Axle Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, affirmed an order granting summary judgment against the
Plaintiffs in the case JENELLE; BARRY FORD, h/w, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee,
No. 14-56280 (9th Cir.).

Jenelle and Barry Ford appeal a summary judgment entered in favor
of Ford Motor.  Plaintiffs raised six California-law claims and
one federal claim concerning the rear axle in their 1999 Ford
Windstar minivan, which developed cracks after 12 years and
221,000 miles of use.   Plaintiffs asserted two theories of injury
before the district court: (1) that the axle failed prematurely,
resulting in unwarranted replacement costs and (2) that Plaintiffs
"would not have purchased their Windstar if FMC had disclosed that
its rear axle was susceptible to metal fatigue".

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Memorandum dated June 8 is available
at https://is.gd/FSkxd7 from Leagle.com.


FORT WAYNE, IN: See Seeks Class Certification of Homeless Locals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith See, the Plaintiff of the lawsuit entitled KEITH SEE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CITY OF FORT WAYNE, in its official capacity, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00105-JVB-SLC (N.D. Ind.), asks the Court certify a class defined
as:

     All individuals residing in Fort Wayne, Indiana who are
     homeless or without a fixed address possessing personal
     property that may be left temporarily unattended and subject
     to the seizure and destruction policy of Defendant.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to extend any injunctive relief
granted to the Plaintiff at the time the Court decides the Motion
to the Certified Class as a whole.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9XewJW2I

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          Lori W. Jansen, Esq.
          David W. Frank, Esq.
          Skyler Spurling-Newsome, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307
          Telephone: (260) 424-0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424-0712
          E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com


FOUR CORNERS: Faces "Riskin" Sued Over Spring Rewards Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Micah Riskin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Four Corners Tavern Group, Inc., Case No. 2016CH07630
(Ill. Ch. Ct., June 6, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons
who signed up for Spring Rewards at any of the Defendants bars who
had accumulated points in the Spring Rewards Program and had those
points lost due to the cancellation of the Program without notice
and without the ability to use points which had been accumulated
to date.

Four Corners Tavern Group, Inc. owns a chain of restaurant-bars
located in the city of Chicago, Cook County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aron D. Robinson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ARON D. ROBINSON
      180 W. Washington St. Suite 700
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 857-9050
      E-mail: Adroblaw@aol.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey A. Arman, Esq.
      ATTORNEY AT LAW
      182 W. Lake St. Unit 1409
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (224) 522-8689
      E-mail: jeffarman@gmail.com


FUEL SYSTEMS: 4 Class Actions Filed Related to Westport Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
aware of four putative stockholder class actions that have been
filed since the announcement of the merger with Westport
Innovations Inc., which challenge the proposed merger.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
the actions vigorously," the Company said.

On September 1, 2015, Fuel Systems, Westport Innovations Inc., an
Alberta, Canada corporation ("Westport"), and Whitehorse Merger
Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of Westport ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the terms of
the Merger Agreement, the Company will be merged with and into
Merger Sub, with the Company surviving the Merger and becoming a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Westport. Pursuant to the
original terms of the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of
the merger, each outstanding share of common stock of the Company,
will be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 2.129
shares of common shares of Westport, subject to certain
adjustments.

On March 6, 2016 the Company entered into an Amendment to the
Merger Agreement.  This Amendment changed the exchange ratio from
2.129 shares to a range of 3.0793 to 2.129 shares depending on the
weighted average price of Westport shares as defined by the
Amendment.  Consummation of the merger is subject to various
closing conditions.

The Company designs, manufactures and supplies alternative fuel
components and systems for use in the transportation, industrial
and power generation industries on a global basis. The Company's
components and systems control the pressure and flow of gaseous
alternative fuels, such as propane and natural gas used in
internal combustion engines.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: "Jefferson County" Sues Over Overpriced Alum
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Alabama, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank Reichl, General Chemical
Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Chemtrade
Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics Inc., Chemtrade
Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC., Geo Specialty
Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc. and John Does 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03228 (N.D. Ala., May 11, 2016),
seeks permanent enjoinment, damages, monetary relief, treble
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and reasonable
attorney fees for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 15
U.S.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C.

Plaintiff purchased liquid alum for purposes of wastewater
treatment.

Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum
sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum
sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive
prices.

Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General
Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of
Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road,
Parsippany, New Jersey.

General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300,
155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario.

General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place
of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey.

Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under
the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals
and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United
States and Europe.

Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade
Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province
of Ontario.

GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Ohio corporation
with its principal place of business at 340 Mathers Road, Ambler,
Pennsylvania. GEO Specialty manufactures, markets, and supplies
specialty chemicals, including water treatment chemicals.

Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a
subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

C&S Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business at 4180 Providence Road,
Marietta, Georgia. C&S Chemicals specializes in the production of
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Sodium Aluminate and currently
operates six manufacturing facilities located in Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, Illinois, and Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig L. Lowell, Esq.
      Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500


GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Sobczak" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael N. Sobczak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gyro Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Vaughn Energy
Services, Case No. 2:16-cv-00204 (S.D. Tex., June 6, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gyro Technologies, Inc. is a wellbore surveyor company servicing
the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


H&O INVESTMENTS: Certification of Class Sought in "Molina" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order conditionally
certifying the action captioned JUAN MOLINA, MAURICIO HERNANDEZ,
CONSTANTINO AVILA, GABRIEL GUTIERREZ and WILSON HERNANDEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. H &
O INVESTMENTS LLC, H & O EQUIPMENT LLC, d/b/a H & O Lawn 360,
DAVID MAHLER JR., KAREN STIRLING, RANDALL GOMEZ, RICK SUMMERS and
ROY H. MAUGHAN JR., Jointly and Severally, Case No. 2:16-cv-00377-
LMA-JCW (E.D. La.), pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs also seek an order authorizing notice to be issued
to members of a class of all landscape workers, laborers and other
non-management employees who worked for the Defendants at any time
from January 12, 2013, to the entry of judgment in the Case so
that they may be informed of the action and given a meaningful
opportunity to "opt-in" to the action as the Plaintiffs by also
asserting FLSA claims.  The Plaintiffs further ask the Court for
an order:

   -- directing the Defendants to furnish the Plaintiffs with the
      names, last known addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail
      addresses of all potential collective action members;

   -- requiring the Defendants to post the Notice of Lawsuit with
      Opportunity to Join and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff
      form at the Defendants' shops and job sites in a location
      visible to all of the Defendants' employees; and

   -- permitting the Plaintiffs to mail the Deadline Reminder
      Letter to all potential plaintiffs prior to the termination
      of the opt-in period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vzb1WkSJ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
                  graham@peltonlaw.com

               - and -

          Marco Balducci, Esq.
          PELTON + BALDUCCI
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2725
          New Orleans, LA 70123
          Telephone: (504) 708-5400
          Facsimile: (504) 708-5404
          E-mail: marco@pbimmigration.com


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: New Plaintiffs Must File Own Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to Amend Their Complaint, filed April 12, 2016, in the case,
MITCHELL L. McCORMICK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. CIV-11-1272-M (W.D. Okla.).  A
copy of the Court's decision dated June 8, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/LRF4Hp from Leagle.com.

From the mid-1960s until 1991, defendant cleaned missile motor
casings for the United States Department of Defense and its
contractors on a portion of its Osage Road facility near Duncan,
Oklahoma ("Site"). Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of those
operations, the groundwater at the Site became contaminated with
perchlorate, which has since migrated offsite and into the private
water wells of numerous area residents. On October 31, 2011,
plaintiffs filed the action as a purported class action. On March
3, 2015, the Court denied class certification in this case.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), plaintiffs
move for leave to amend their complaint to add 82 additional
plaintiffs (unnamed putative class members) who own property that
is over the perchlorate contamination plume or its buffer area.
Plaintiffs assert that the proposed amendment will not prejudice
defendant in any way as defendant is aware of these individuals'
property claims and has addressed these claims for other
plaintiffs, and the parties have already submitted expert reports
concerning these properties. Additionally, plaintiffs assert there
will be no undue delay because the parties have conducted and
concluded much of the core discovery central to all of the new
plaintiffs' property claims and only discovery specific to the
plaintiffs' property interest and supplements to expert reports
will be needed over the next ten months.  Plaintiffs further
assert that amending the existing complaint presents the most
convenient means to address all property claims as it places all
of the claims in a single action.

Defendant contends that by seeking to add these new plaintiffs
into this case, plaintiffs are in fact asking the Court to
consolidate or join these claims with the remaining claims in this
case and are asking the Court to do so now rather than after a
factual record is developed.  Defendant asserts that because the
Court has discretion to order consolidation later, there is no
prejudice to plaintiffs in waiting.  Defendant further contends
that the claims of the new plaintiffs differ in several
potentially important respects from those of the remaining
plaintiffs: (1) the only three remaining property damage
plaintiffs in this case are owners of three large commercial
properties; whereas, the new plaintiffs are all owners of
residential properties, except for one property on which a
veterinarian has his office; (2) several of the new plaintiffs
purchased their properties after the contamination issue was
publicly announced; (3) most of the new plaintiffs did not drink
well water but were on public water; whereas, most of the previous
residential plaintiffs in this case were on well water; and (4)
the new plaintiffs may be pursuing some additional legal theories
in their case.  Additionally, defendant contends that forcing it
to begin to conduct discovery of the new plaintiffs immediately
while at the same time preparing for the upcoming trial, instead
of proceeding with discovery of the new plaintiffs in the context
of a new case, prejudices defendant. Defendant, thus, contends
that the new plaintiffs should be required to file their claims as
a separate action.

Halliburton Energy Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Carmen
R Toledo -- ctoledo@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, Elizabeth R
Taber -- etaber@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding-HOUSTON, F Michael
Stenglein -- mstenglein@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, Gerald P
Green -- jgreen@piercecouch.com -- Pierce Couch Hendrickson
Baysinger & Green, J Kevin Buster -- kbuster@kslaw.com -- King &
Spalding, John C Lennon -- jlennon@piercecouch.com -- Pierce Couch
Hendrickson Baysinger & Green-OKC, Kim A Tran --
ktran@piercecouch.com -- Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger &
Green-OKC, Peter L Wheeler -- pwheeler@piercecouch.com -- Pierce
Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, Robert L Betts --
rbetts@piercecouch.com -- Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger &
Green & Robert B Hurley, Jr. -- rhurley@kslaw.com -- King &
Spalding.


HCA HOLDINGS: $215-Mil. Settlement in Schuh Action Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
HCA Holdings, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has given
final approval to the settlement in the Schuh securities class
action litigation.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case
sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors. The action alleged various deficiencies
in the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement.

Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et
al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively.
All three of the cases were consolidated.

On May 3, 2012, the court appointed New England Teamsters &
Trucking Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the
consolidated action. On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members
of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the
offering. It further asserted a claim under Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of
directors and Hercules Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder of
the Company at the time of the initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleged deficiencies in the Company's
disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating
to: (1) the accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and
2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain
effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates.

The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 11, 2012. The court granted the motion in
part on May 28, 2013. The action proceeded to discovery on the
remaining claims. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was granted on September 22, 2014. The court certified a class
consisting of all persons that acquired HCA stock on or before
October 28, 2011 (the date of the lawsuit) pursuant to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering. A request to the court of appeals to hear
an immediate appeal of this ruling was denied. Following the close
of discovery, plaintiffs and defendants each filed motions for
summary judgment and to strike certain of the expert witnesses.

In addition to the consolidated shareholder class action, on
December 8, 2011, a federal shareholder derivative action, Sutton
v. Bracken, et al., putatively initiated in the name of the
Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against certain officers and present
and former directors of the Company seeking monetary relief. The
action alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the named officers
and directors in connection with the accounting and earnings
claims set forth in the shareholder class actions described above.
Setting forth substantially similar claims against substantially
the same defendants, an additional federal derivative action,
Schroeder v. Bracken, et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on December
16, 2011, and a state derivative action, Bagot v. Bracken, et al.,
was filed in Tennessee state court in the Davidson County Circuit
Court on December 20, 2011. The federal derivative actions were
consolidated in the Middle District of Tennessee and stayed
pending developments in the shareholder class actions. The state
derivative action had also been stayed pending developments in the
shareholder class actions, but that stay has expired. The
plaintiff in the state derivative action subsequently filed an
amended complaint on September 9, 2013 that added additional
allegations made in the shareholder class actions. On September
24, 2013, an additional state derivative action, Steinberg v.
Bracken, et al., was filed in Tennessee state court in the
Davidson County Circuit Court. This action against our board of
directors was consolidated with the earlier filed state derivative
action. The plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
consolidated complaint on December 4, 2013. The Company filed a
motion to again stay the state derivative action pending
developments in the class action, but the court did not act on the
motion.

On November 3, 2015, the Company reached a preliminary agreement
in principle to settle the Schuh shareholder class action and the
Sutton, Schroeder and Bagot derivative actions. The preliminary
settlement agreement provided for a resolution of all of the
pending claims in the shareholder class action and the derivative
suits, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing by the
Company or the other defendants, and was contingent upon, among
other things, execution of final settlement documents, successful
negotiation of certain non-monetary terms, approval by the
Company's Board of Directors, notification to the Schuh
shareholder class, and preliminary and final approval of the
settlements by the state and federal courts in Tennessee. The
federal court gave preliminary approval to the shareholder class
action settlement on January 13, 2016, provided for class
notification, set a hearing for final approval of the settlement
for April 11, 2016, and gave final approval of the settlement on
that date. The state court in Bagot gave preliminary approval to
the settlement of the derivative claims on January 28, 2016, set a
hearing for final approval on April 12, 2016, and gave final
approval of the settlement on that date. The federal derivative
action will be dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

The monetary terms of the settlement in the Schuh case include a
payment by HCA of $215 million in return for a full release of all
claims against all defendants, including the Company, its officers
and directors, the underwriters and Hercules Holding II, LLC, a
majority shareholder of the Company at the time of the initial
public offering. The terms of the settlement of the derivative
cases include receipt by the Company of $19 million from insurance
policies covering the claims asserted in the derivative cases,
certain corporate governance reforms and agreement by the Company
to pay attorneys' fees in the aggregate amount of $5.5 million in
return for releases of all claims against all defendants. In the
fourth quarter of 2015, HCA recorded legal claim costs, net of
expected insurance recoveries, of $120 million for the expected
settlements of the shareholder action, the derivative cases and
related costs.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Concession Fee Recoveries Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no oral argument
date has been set in the appeal in the class action lawsuit
related to Concession Fee Recoveries.

In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company ("Enterprise")
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
(Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they
have now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer class action on
behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in
Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery
fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges during the class
period.

In October 2014, the court entered final judgment against the
Company and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42
million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest,
and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1
million to be paid from the restitution fund.

In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final
judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to
challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or
mislead the class members. The matter has now been fully briefed
by the parties. No oral argument date has been set.

The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not
be material to its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiff has
filed its opposition to Hertz's motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint in its entirety in the case, In re Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleged that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the
court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The
dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to
file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In
November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged
to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that
were not substantively very different than the allegations in the
prior complaint.

In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in
the District of New Jersey, and Hertz Holdings responded to the
second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On
July 22, 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss
without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third
amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. On August 21,
2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The third amended
complaint included additional allegations and expanded the
putative class period such that it was alleged to span from
February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, 2015, Hertz
Holdings filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was
made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff, because of challenges to
the standing of the first plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs
leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add the new plaintiff,
and the new complaint was filed on March 1, 2016.

Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in
its entirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016 and on May 6, 2016,
plaintiff filed its opposition to same. Hertz Holdings believes
that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends to
vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation is subject
to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not
predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could
be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings. However, Hertz Holdings
is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible
losses, but they could be material to the Company's consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any
particular reporting period.


HOBBY LOBBY STORES: "Kicic" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Kicic, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00197-WTL-DKL (S.D. Ind., June 3, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendant operates more than 600 retail stores nationwide selling
arts, crafts, hobbies, home decor, Holiday, and seasonal products.
Plaintiff was employed as a Co-Manager from approximately
September 2014 to October 2014 at their store in Aurora, Illinois
and from November 2014 to December 2015 at their store in Terre
Haute, Indiana.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vess A. Miller, Esq.
     Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
     Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
     COHEN & MALAD, LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Tel. (317) 636-6481
     Fax (317) 636-2593
     Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
            rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
            vmiller@cohenandmalad.com

          - and -

     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     Michael H. Reed, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite
     350 Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Telephone: (914) 934-9200
     Facsimile: (914) 934-9220

          - and -

     Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
     David A. Roth, Esq.
     Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
     Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
     HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
     192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 545-1199
     Facsimile: (212) 532-3801


HOIST LIFTRUCK: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Vacation Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Moreno, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals v. Hoist Liftruck Mfg., Inc., Case No. 2016-CH-07601
(Ill. Cir. Ct., June 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees for all accrued vacation pay upon separation of their
employment.

Hoist Liftruck Mfg., Inc. is in the business of manufacturing high
capacity lift trucks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE PC
      53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121


HRG GROUP: Appeal Filed in Ludwick Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Dale R. Ludwick has
filed an appeal an appeal from the dismissal of his class action
lawsuit.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri,
captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated ("Plaintiff Ludwick") v. Harbinger Group Inc.
(HRG's former corporate name), FGL Insurance, Raven Re, and Front
Street Cayman (the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), requested injunctive and declaratory relief, sought
unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an
amount not specified, treble damages, and other relief, and claims
Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity. On April 13, 2015, the
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. On
February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants'
joint motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed
a notice of appeal.

HRG Group, Inc. is a diversified holding company focused on owning
businesses that the Company believes can, in the long term,
generate sustainable free cash flow or attractive returns on
investment. HRG's shares of common stock trade on the New York
Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "HRG."


ICARE CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Huckabee" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Michael Huckabee D.D.S., P.A.; a Texas professional
association, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. iCare Credit Solutions, LLC d/b/a
iCare Financial, Case No. #: 1:16-cv-01837-SCJ (N.D. Ga., June 6,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an
artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without
prior express consent of the called party.

iCare Credit Solutions, LLC operates a full-service consumer
financial organization in dental, medical, automotive and consumer
service verticals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
      SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD, LLC
      Suite 660, 1718 Peachtree Street
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 893-9400
      Facsimile: (404) 872-3745
      E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      Suite 300, 3900 East Mexico Avenue
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0678
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
              swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


ICONIX BRAND: 3 Class Suits Remain Pending in New York Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that three securities class
actions, respectively captioned Lazaro v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc.
et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04981-PGG,  Niksich v. Iconix Brand
Group, Inc. et al. , Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860-PGG and Haverhill
Retirement System v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al  Docket No.
1:15 - cv 06658, are pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and
certain former officers and one current officer (each, a "Class
Action" and, together, the "Class Actions"). The plaintiffs in the
Class Actions purport to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's securities from February 20, 2013 to August 7, 2015,
inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, by making allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding certain aspects of the Company's business
operations and prospects. The Company and the individual
defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims.  At
this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome
of this legal matter.


IMPERVA INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint is pending.

The Company said, "On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against us and certain of
our current and former officers. On August 7, 2014, the Court
entered an order appointing lead plaintiff and counsel for the
purported class. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
October 10, 2014. The lawsuit named us and certain of our current
and former officers and purported to bring suit on behalf of those
investors who purchased our publicly traded securities between May
2, 2013 and April 9, 2014. The plaintiff alleged that defendants
made false and misleading statements about our operations and
business and financial results and purported to assert claims for
violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint
sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs
incurred in the action and equitable/injunctive or other relief.
On January 6, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On September 17, 2015, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2016, again
naming the same current and former officers, alleging false and
misleading statements about our operations and business and
financial results, and seeking the same relief.  On February 10,
2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
That motion is pending."


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Sheib" Class Suit in New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Sheib, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Case No. 1:16-cv-02880
(E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2016), arises from the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable practices of automatically creating debit cards for
inmates released from Federal prisons, placing all Releasee funds
on the debit cards, then making it impossible for Releasees to
fully consume all of the funds placed on those debit cards, all
without an iota of consent.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a national banking association with
headquarters in New York, New York, and assets of $2.6 trillion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Reese
      George V. Granade, Esq.
      REESE LLP
      100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 643-0500
      Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
      E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
              ggranade@reesellp.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, Northwest, Suite 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com

         - and -

      Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
      1 West Las Olas Boulevard, 5th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com


KANSAS, USA: Bid to Certify "Fish" Class Taken Under Advisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
entered a miscellaneous minute sheet of the issues heard before
the Hon. Julie A. Robinson in the lawsuit titled STEVEN WAYNE
FISH, et al. v. KRIS W. KOBACH, et al. Case No. 2:16-cv-02105-JAR-
JPO (D. Kan.).

Kris William Kobach is the Secretary of state of Kansas.

After hearing argument of counsel, and for reasons set forth in
full on the record, the Court ruled that the motion to certify
class filed by Plaintiffs Steven Fish, Thomas Boynton, Donna
Bucci, Douglas Hutchinson, Ralph Ortiz, and Charles Stricker is
taken under advisement.  The amended motion to certify class by
Plaintiffs Steven Fish, Thomas Boynton, Donna Bucci, Douglas
Hutchinson, Ralph Ortiz, Charles Stricker and The League of Women
Voters of Kansas is also taken under advisement.

The Court requests copies of depositions not previously provided.
Counsel for Defendant Nick Jordan has seven calendar days
(June 21, 2016) to submit additional briefing regarding the
Revenue's authority to require further documentation on a renewal
as a matter of law.  The Plaintiffs have eight calendar days (June
29, 2016) to respond.

The Court suspends the deadlines under the scheduling order.  New
deadlines will be set following the Court's ruling on the
dispositive motions.

A copy of the Miscellaneous Minute Sheet is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yex3tNHn


KANSAS, USA: Bid to Certify "Keener" Class Taken Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
entered a miscellaneous minute sheet of the issues heard before
the Hon. Julie A. Robinson in the lawsuit styled CODY KEENER, et
al. v. KRIS W. KOBACH, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-09300-JAR-JPO (D.
Kan.).

Kris William Kobach is the Secretary of state of Kansas.

After hearing argument of counsel, and for reasons set forth in
full on the record, the Court ruled that the motion to certify
class action filed by Plaintiffs Cody Keener, Alder Cromwell and
Parker Bednasek is taken under advisement.

The Court requests copies of depositions not previously provided.

The Court suspends the deadlines under the scheduling order.  New
deadlines will be set following the Court's ruling on the
dispositive motions.

A copy of the Miscellaneous Minute Sheet is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gKiRuTbL


KEARNES PAINTING: "Miller" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Fredrick Miller, On behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kearnes Painting Corp. d/b/a AK Painting
and Arthur Kearnes, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00505-MHW-TPK (S.D.
Ohio, June 6, 2016), seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory and
equitable relief for failure to pay overtime compensation and
maintain wage and hour records under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Kearnes is a painting company with offices in Columbus, Ohio, from
which it services clients throughout the greater Columbus area.
Plaintiff worked as a painter for the Defendants.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Kmetz, Esq.
      Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      119 East Court Street, Suite 530
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 651-3700
      Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
      Email: ekmetz@msdlegal.com
             abiller@msdlegal.com


MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
Mattson Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that a settlement has been
reached in the Merger-related class action lawsuit.

On December 14, 2015, a putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors, Beijing E-
town Dragon Semiconductor Industry Investment Center ("Parent"),
and Dragon Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), captioned Sally
Mogle v. Mattson Technology, Case No. 11807 (Del. Ch.). On
December 22, 2015, a second putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against Mattson's Board of Directors, Parent, and Merger
Sub, captioned Philip Durgin v. Kannappan, Case No. 11837 (Del.
Ch.). The complaints allege, among other things, that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the Definitive Merger Agreement, dated December 1, 2015, by and
among Mattson, Parent, and Merger Sub ("Merger Agreement"), and
that Parent, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, either
to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be
consummated, as well as unspecified damages, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

On January 12, 2016, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Alameda County against Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors,
Parent, and Merger Sub, captioned Mary Salinas v. Mattson
Technology, Case No. RG16799807. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the Definitive Merger Agreement, and
that Mattson, Parent, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other
things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction
and unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees.
On February 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint alleging, among other things, that Mattson's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement
and issuing an incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy
Statement, and that Mattson, Parent and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed
transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as
unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On
February 22, 2016, a second putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Alameda County against Mattson, Mattson's Board of
Directors, Parent, and Merger Sub, captioned Darrell Brown v.
Mattson Technology, Case No. RG16804802.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that Mattson's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement and issuing an
incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement, and that
Mattson, Parent, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other
things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it
should it be consummated, as well as unspecified damages,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 18, 2016, a putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Board, captioned
Talbert v. Mattson Technology, No. 8:16-cv-00811-LHK. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that Mattson and Mattson's
Board of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially incomplete
and misleading statements and/or omitting material information
from the Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on February 17, 2016.
The complaint seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed
transaction, unspecified damages, certain other equitable relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 14, 2016, Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors and
Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU")
with the plaintiffs in the actions, which sets forth the parties'
agreement in principle to a settlement of these actions. As
explained in the MOU, the Company, the members of the Company's
Board of Directors and Merger Sub have agreed to the settlement
solely to avoid the expense, disruption, and distraction of
further litigation and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing. The MOU contemplates that the parties will seek to
enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the
certification of a mandatory non-opt-out class, for settlement
purposes only, that includes any and all record and beneficial
owners of the Company's common stock (excluding defendants, their
subsidiary companies, affiliates, assigns, and members of their
immediate families) during the period beginning on September 15,
2015, through the effective date of the consummation of the
merger, including any and all of their respective successors in
interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors,
administrators, heirs, assigns or transferees, immediate and
remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or
claiming under, any of them, and each of them and a release of
certain claims relating to the merger as set forth in the MOU. The
claims will not be released until such stipulation of settlement
is approved by the California Superior Court in the County of
Alameda. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.


MAXLINEAR INC: Merger Litigation Dismissed
------------------------------------------
Maxlinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has entered
an order vacating the briefing schedule for plaintiffs' counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and
providing that dismissal of the consolidated action related to the
Entropic Communications Merger was final.

Between February 9, 2015 and February 18, 2015, eleven stockholder
class action complaints (captioned Langholz v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10631-VCP (filed Feb. 9,
2015); Tomblin v. Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10632-
VCP (filed Feb. 9, 2015); Crill v. Entropic Communications, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 10640-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Wohl v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10644-VCP (filed Feb. 11,
2015); Parshall v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10652-VCP (filed Feb. 12, 2015); Saggar v. Padval, et al., C.A .
No. 10661-VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Iyer v. Tewksbury, et al.,
C.A. No. 10665-VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Respler v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10669-VCP (filed Feb. 17,
2015); Gal v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10671-VCP (filed Feb. 17, 2015); Werbowsky v. Padval, et al., C.A.
No. 10673-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015); and Agosti v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10676-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015))
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or
the Court, on behalf of a putative class of Entropic stockholders
alleging that the board of directors of Entropic breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with the then-proposed acquisition
of Entropic by the Company and that the Company aided and abetted
such breaches. Plaintiffs in the complaints sought, among other
things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed
transaction.

On April 16, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Delaware actions, captioned In re Entropic Communications, Inc.
Consolidated Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10631-VCP , or the
Consolidated Action.

On April 24, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered
into a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement
of the Delaware actions. As part of the proposed settlement, on
April 27, 2015, Entropic filed a Form 8-K containing supplemental
disclosures in connection with the acquisition. On April 30, 2015,
Entropic's stockholders voted to approve the acquisition, which
closed later that same day.

The parties to the Consolidation Action subsequently agreed not to
proceed with the settlement and, instead, on February 23, 2016,
entered into a stipulation and proposed order dismissing the
Consolidated Action as moot and setting a briefing schedule for
plaintiffs' counsel to make an application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses from the Court, which the Court
entered on February 25, 2016. After negotiations, the Company
agreed to pay fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in the
amount of $150,000.

On March 18, 2016, the Court entered an order vacating the
briefing schedule for plaintiffs' counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses and providing that dismissal
of the Consolidated Action was final.


MAYFIELD GARDENS: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Espinoza Perez, Jose Espinoza Perez, and Fortino Cruz Landa
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated v. Mayfield
Gardens, Inc. and Harry J. Hoplamazian and Veronica Hoplamazian,
Case No. 160600247 (Penn. Cmmw., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and damages pursuant to the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

The Defendants operate a design company located in 960 S Hunt Rd,
Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Liz MariaChacko, Esq.
      Stephanie Dorenbosch, Esq.
      FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS
      699 Ranstead Street, 4th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 733-0878
      E-mail: lchacko@friendsfw.org
              sdorenbosch@friendsfw.org


MDL 2159: Hearing on Bid to Decertify "Ellison" Moved to Aug. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:10-md-02159-CRB (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Charles R. Breyer granted Plaintiffs' Ex Parte
Application to Extend Deadline to File Opposition and Hearing on
Defendant's Motion to Decertify:

     -- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Decertify,
that was due to be filed June 10, 2016, should instead be filed
two weeks after the deposition of Defendant's designated corporate
representative as ordered by Magistrate Judge Corley;

     -- Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition, due to be
filed on June 20, 2016, should instead be filed 10 days after
Plaintiffs' Opposition is filed; and

     -- The hearing date for Defendant's Motion, currently set for
July 8, at 10:00 a.m., should be continued to August 5, 2016, at
10:00 a.m.

A copy of the Court's June 8, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8m27lL from Leagle.com.


MEDICINES COMPANY: Court Reserves Decision on Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The Medicines Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court held a final
hearing to consider approval of the settlement in the case, SERR
v. THE MEDICINES COMPANY et al., 2:14-cv-01149 (D.N.J.).
Following the hearing, Judge Claire C. Cecchi reserved her
decision on the matter.

The Company said, "On February 21, 2014, a class action lawsuit
was filed against us and certain of our current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey by David Serr on behalf of stockholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired our common stock between February 20, 2013
through February 12, 2014, which we refer to as the class period.
On July 22, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing one of our
stockholders, Warren H. Schuler, the lead plaintiff and Pomerantz
LLP the lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 17, 2014, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated
during the class period because we and certain current and former
officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper
disclosures regarding the results of clinical trials, which tested
the efficacy and safety of cangrelor. Specifically, the amended
complaint alleges that statements made throughout the class period
about the trials were misleading because they failed to disclose
that cangrelor did not show superiority to the drug clopidogrel,
that the clinical trials were unethically and inappropriately
administered, that clopidogrel was not administered optimally, and
that cangrelor patients exhibited higher bleeding rates. The
amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification
of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs."

"On November 17, 2014, we and certain of our current and former
officers moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2014 and we
filed a reply brief in further support of the motion on January
16, 2015. Briefing is now complete.

"On July 16, 2015, the court heard oral argument on the motion,
which remains under consideration by the court. On February 12,
2016, the parties executed a stipulation for a proposed class
settlement, subject to court approval. On February 25, 2016, the
court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a final
approval hearing for June 7, 2016."


MICHAEL MUSA-OBREGON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Valera, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Law Office of S. Michael Musa-Obregon, P.C. d/b/a Musa-Obregon
& Associates and Shauky Michael Musa-Obregon, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02907 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a law firm located at 55-21 69th St 2nd Flr
Maspeth, NY 11378.

Andrea Valera is a pro se plaintiff.


MP CALIFORNIA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Hernandez, as an individual, Giovanni Hernandez, as an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. MP California, a California Corporation, MP
Nexlevel, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, MP Nexlevel
of California, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03015 (N.D. Cal., June 3,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, minimum wages, straight
time wages, meal and rest period premiums, reimbursement expenses,
restitution and statutory penalties for violations of the
California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and Wage
Orders and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MP Nexlevel LLC is a Minnesota Limited Liability Corporation where
Jose Hernandez worked for Defendants as a Foreman while Giovanni
Hernandez worked as a groundsman.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
     Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
     SHIMODA LAW CORP.
     9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
     Elk Grove, CA 95624
     Telephone: (916) 525-0716
     Facsimile: (916) 760-3733


NANOSPHERE INC: Faces "Al-Mullah" Suit Over Sale to Luminex
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fahd Al-Mullah, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nanosphere, Inc., Erik Holmlin, Gene Cartwright, Jeff
Randall, Kristopher Wood, Michael McGarrity, Michael J. Ward,
Luminex Corporation, and Commodore Acquisition, Inc., Case No.
2016CH07607 (Ill. Ch. Ct., June 6, 2016), is brought on behalf of
all holders of common stock of Nanosphere, Inc., against the
Company's Board of Directors, Luminex Corporation, and Commodore
Acquisition, Inc., alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the proposed acquisition of all outstanding
Company shares by Luminex for $1.70 per share in cash for an
aggregate value of approximately $77 million.

Nanosphere, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets molecular
diagnostic tests for infectious diseases and associated drug
resistance markers for earlier disease detection, optimal patient
treatment and improved healthcare economics.

Luminex Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells proprietary
biological testing technologies and products for the diagnostics,
pharmaceutical, and life sciences industries worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 667-6200
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
              mackerman@brodsky-smith.com


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Wishnev" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Sanford Wishnev v. The
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-
03797-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 9, 2016,
Plaintiff Sanford Wishnev is a California resident, who purchased
four life insurance policies from the Defendant.  He filed the
lawsuit asserting that the Defendant violated California's usury
law by charging him compound interest on life insurance policy
loans, without the Plaintiff's written agreement that interest
would be compounded.  The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in state
courts as a putative class action on behalf of "all California
persons as to whom Northwestern Mutual's records show that they
have been charged compound interest by Northwestern Mutual on a
life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last
four years."

The appellate case is captioned as Sanford Wishnev v. The
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, Case No. 16-16037, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Robert M. Bramson, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Rosenberg, Esq.
          BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHLER &BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          E-mail: rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com
                  jrosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Matthew J. Adler, Esq.
          Marshall Baker, Esq.
          Alan Jay Lazarus, Esq.
          Michael J. Stortz, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          50 Fremont Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
          Telephone: (415) 591-7500
          E-mail: Matthew.Adler@dbr.com
                  Marshall.Baker@dbr.com
                  Alan.Lazarus@dbr.com
                  Michael.Stortz@dbr.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Baker, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
          1 Logan Square
          18th & Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996
          Telephone: (215) 988-2769
          E-mail: Stephen.Baker@dbr.com


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Woo" Class Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
On Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend the "Woo" class action lawsuit.

On December 14, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in state court in Delaware
against the Company, Falcon Operations Sub, Inc., an ON
Semiconductor subsidiary ("Merger Sub"), Fairchild and certain
directors of Fairchild with respect to the merger agreement
entered into between our Merger Sub and Fairchild in November
2015, by which the Company commenced a tender offer to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of Fairchild. The lawsuit alleges breach
of duty by the individual defendants and aiding and abetting by
the Company and the Merger Sub and has been docketed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("District Court") as Woo v.
Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al, Case #
11798VCL.

In March 2016, the plaintiff amended the complaint to allege that
Fairchild's failure to accept the proposal from a third party
constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and that certain
disclosures filed on Form 14D-9 were misleading or inaccurate. As
relief, the amended complaint continues to seek, among other
things, an injunction against the tender offer and the merger that
are part of the Fairchild Transaction, an accounting for damages,
and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that the claim against it is without merit
and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. The litigation
process is inherently uncertain, however, and the Company cannot
guarantee that the outcome of this matter will be favorable for
it.


PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Class Action Trial to Begin October 3
----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Continental Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit is currently set for trial beginning October 3, 2016.

On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit ("Class
Action") was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for
the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money
with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland (collectively,
"Berjac"). The Berjac entities merged and the surviving company,
Berjac of Oregon, is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Class
Action complaint, which has been amended several times, currently
asserts three claims against Pacific Continental Bank, Fred "Jack"
W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Limited Partnership, Jones & Roth,
P.C., and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. The lawsuit asserts that
Pacific Continental Bank is jointly and severally liable for
materially aiding or participating in Berjac's sales of securities
in violation of the Oregon Securities Law. Claimants seek the
return of the money placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of
Portland, plus interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. The
current version of the complaint seeks $100 million in damages
from all defendants. The matter is currently set for trial
beginning October 3, 2016.


PACIFIC PREMIER: Dismissal of "Parshall" Suit Under Review
----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court is still
in the process of considering and addressing Paul Parshall's
request for dismissal of his lawsuit.

The Company said, "On January 31, 2016, the Company completed its
acquisition of Security California Bancorp ("SCAF") whereby we
acquired $714 million in total assets, $456 million in loans and
$637 million in total deposits. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, each share of Security common stock was converted into
the right to receive 0.9629 shares of the Corporation's common
stock. The value of the total deal consideration was $120 million,
which includes $788,000 of aggregate cash consideration to the
holders of SCAF stock options and the issuance of 5,815,051 shares
of the Corporation's common stock, valued at $119.4 million based
on a closing stock price of $20.53 per share on January 29, 2016."

"The Corporation was named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought in
California state court (Riverside County) entitled, Parshall v.
Security California Bancorp, et al. This lawsuit was brought by
Paul Parshall, a shareholder of SCAF, parent corporation of
Security Bank of California. The lawsuit challenged the share
price and other financial benefits to shareholders in the
Company's acquisition of SCAF, and was purportedly brought on
behalf of a class of similarly-situated SCAF shareholders.  No
motion to certify a class action was filed. On March 1, 2016, Mr.
Parshall filed paperwork with the court seeking to dismiss the
litigation without prejudice. As of the date of this filing, the
court is still in the process of considering and addressing Mr.
Parshall's request for dismissal."


PERMIAN SAND: "Johnston" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Jason Johnston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Permian Sand Operations, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00187-PRM (W.D. Tex., June 3, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Permian Sand provides oilfield services to land drilling
operations throughout the United States, including Texas and New
Mexico where Johnston worked as a Sand Coordinator.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: 713-877-8788
     Fax: 713-877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


PERSONAL PHYSICIANS: "Philip" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Philip, Plaintiff, v. Personal Physicians Care, P.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80920-RLR (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2016),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
the costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Defendant owns and/or operates a medical practice and maintains a
corporate office in Delray Beach, Florida where the Plaintiff was
employed. Philip claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
     721 US Highway 1
     North Palm Beach , FL 33408
     Telephone: (954) 921-9994
     Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
     Email: dcard@consumerlaworg.com

          - and -

     Chad T. Van Horn, Esq.
     VAN HORN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     330 N. Andrews Ave. Suite 450
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Main: (954) 765-3166
     Fax: (954) 756-7103
     Email: Chad@cvhlawgroup.com


PETCO ANIMAL: "Feist" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jacklyn Feist, Angelica Zimmer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2016-00015093-CU-NP-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court, San Diego County, Central Division to the U.S. District
Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01369-H-DHB to the
proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. is a pet retailer in the United
States, with corporate offices in San Diego and San Antonio, that
sells pets as well as pet products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Marissa L. Lyftogt, Esq.
      WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1050
      San Diego, CA 92101-3532
      Telephone: (619) 236-9600
      Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
      E-mail: mlyftogt@wilsonturnerkosmo.com


PINNACLE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morgan" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01363-
JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC operates a credit reporting agency
located at 7900 MN-7, Minneapolis, MN 55426.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Michael Loker
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ml@kazlg.com

PIZZERIAS LLC: "Jimenez" Suit to Recover Unreimbursed Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Jimenez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PIZZERIAS, LLC, Defendant., Case No. 1:16-
cv-22035-KMM (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover
unreimbursed expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Florida Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant operates 31 Papa John's franchise pizzerias in Florida
where Jimenez was employed as a delivery driver at its Miami,
Florida store. He uses his own vehicle to deliver for the
Plaintiff and gets paid per delivery. He claims that because of
the business-related expenses, his take home pay falls below
mandatory minimum wage rate.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
     PAUL MCINNES LLP
     601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Telephone: (816) 984-8100
     Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
     Email: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Alan D. Danz, Esq.
     DANZ & KRONENGOLD, P.L.
     10620 Griffin Road, Suite 201
     Cooper City, FL 33328
     Telephone: (954) 530-9245
     Facsimile: (954) 616-5738
     Email: danz@danzlaw.net


POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PowerSecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 17, 2016,
a putative class action lawsuit challenging the Merger was filed
by a purported PowerSecure stockholder on behalf of all
PowerSecure stockholders in the General Court of Justice of the
Superior Court Division of Wake County, North Carolina. The
lawsuit names as defendants PowerSecure, its directors, Southern
Company and Merger Sub. The lawsuit alleges that the PowerSecure
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PowerSecure
stockholders by engaging in a flawed process to sell PowerSecure,
by agreeing to sell PowerSecure for inadequate consideration and
by agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the Merger
Agreement. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the entity
defendants aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction barring the
Merger, an accounting for damages and attorneys' fees.

The defendants believe that the lawsuit is without merit.

"The ultimate outcome of this lawsuit cannot be predicted due to
the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the litigation is at a
very early stage. Other than an immaterial amount for litigation
costs, we have not recognized any expense for this matter as we do
not believe, based upon current information, that a loss relating
to this matter is probable, or that an estimate of a range of
potential loss relating to this matter, can reasonably be made,"
the Company said.


POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PowerSecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in a securities calss
action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014,
two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the
other in the Western District of North Carolina. On October 10,
2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and a
lead plaintiff was appointed. As consolidated, the lawsuit was
filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased our
common stock during a purported class period from August 8, 2013
through May 7, 2014, which is the longer of the two different
purported class periods used in the pre-consolidation lawsuits. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 29, 2014. The
action alleges that certain statements made by the defendants
during the class period violated federal securities laws and seeks
damages in an unspecified amount."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
26, 2015, which the court granted on September 15, 2015, with
leave for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On October
16, 2015, the plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated class
action complaint, with similar allegations over the same class
period. On November 23, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, and the briefing on that motion
concluded on February 5, 2016. We cannot provide any assurance as
to when the court will rule on our motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint or whether our motion will be granted, and even
if granted whether the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice
or appealed."


RUCKUS WIRELESS: "Hussey" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Miguel Hussey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc., Stallion Merger Sub Inc., Selina Y.
Lo, Seamus Hennessy, Gaurav Garg, Mohan Gyani, Georges Antoun,
Richard Lynch, Stewart Grierson and Barton Burstein, Defendants.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02991 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorney, expert and witness fees and other costs,
equitable and/or injunctive and such other and further relief for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Ruckus is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California. It delivers wireless services for indoor and outdoor
environments for government and small business customers
worldwide. Brocade provides networking hardware, software and
services, including Storage Area Networking solutions and Internet
Protocol Networking solutions for businesses and organizations of
various types and sizes.

Ruckus and Brocade announced a merger under which Ruckus would be
acquired by Brocade. Ruckus's officers and directors will
allegedly receive cash payments for currently vested and unvested
stock options, performance shares and restricted stock, while
shareholders will be forced to take un-collared parent stock for
about half the per share consideration they will receive for their
Ruckus shares.

Selina Y. Lo, Seamus Hennessy, Gaurav Garg, Mohan Gyani, Georges
Antoun, Richard Lynch, Stewart Grierson and Barton Burstein are
members of the board of directors of Ruckus.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David T. Wissbroecker (243867)
     Edward M. Gergosian (105679)
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619/231-1058
     619/231-7423 (fax)
     Email: dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
            egergosian@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     Shawn E. Fields, Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
     600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619/230-0063
     Fax: 619/255-1856

          - and -

     W. SCOTT HOLLEMAN
     JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
     99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: 212/802-1486
     Fax: 212/602-1592


SELIP & STYLIANOU: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maleh" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barouk Maleh a/k/a Benny Maleh, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Case No.:
1:16-cv-02883 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Selip & Stylianou, LLP operates a law firm located at 199
Crossways Park Dr, Woodbury, NY 11797.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


SIERRA TRANSPORT: Faces "Castillo" Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Sierra
Transport, Inc.

The case is captioned Ernesto Castillo, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sierra Transport, Inc., Case
No. BCV-16-101267 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2016).

Sierra Transport, Inc. operates a petroleum transport business in
Kansas City Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
      ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 277-0614
      Facsimile: (310) 277-0635


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court was
slated to hold a hearing for June 13, 2016, to consider final
approval of the settlement in the case, John Perry v. Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 14, 2013 in United
States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-
00433-LDG-CWH).

This putative consolidated class action raises substantially
identical claims and allegations against defendants Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott,
and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged class period is August 8,
2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits allege a violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all
defendants and control person liability, as a violation of Section
20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the
individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem from the
Company's March 12, 2013 press release, in which it announced that
it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The
complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press
release, the Company's stock price declined. The complaints
further allege that during the putative class period certain
defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements about FUSILEV
sales, which inflated the trading price of Company stock. The
lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages, costs and
fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that the court
deems appropriate.

On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014,
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.

The Company said, "On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended class action complaint. On March 26,
2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On June 15, 2015,
the Court ordered a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of
mediation between the parties. On October 27, 2015, we reached a
$7 million settlement in principle with the lead plaintiff (which
involved our insurance carrier, as the reimbursing party in full),
subject to preliminary and final court approval. We have included
this settlement amount, along with $0.2 million of reimbursable
legal expenses for this matter, on our accompanying Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2016 within "other
receivables" and "accounts payable and other accrued liabilities."
On January 26, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement. The Court has scheduled a hearing on final approval of
the settlement for June 13, 2016."


SUTTER WEST: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernadette Padilla, an individual, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Sutter West Bay
Hospitals, and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CV538977
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Sutter West Bay Hospitals is a health care complex that offers
acute and specialty care, including obstetrics and gynecology,
cardiovascular services, pediatrics, neurosciences, orthopedics,
and organ transplantation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551- 1232
      E-mail: deblouw@bamlawca.com


TAYLOR SAFETY: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Taylor Safety Consulting, LLC Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00198 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages, attorney fees and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Taylor Safety is in the business of providing safety personnel
offering safety services to operators and other oil field services
companies where Plaintiff worked as a safety consultant. He
typically worked twelve hour shifts, seven days a week, for weeks
at a time without overtime.

The Defendants are represented by:

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

          - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: 713-877-8788
     Fax: 713-877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


THREE SONS: "Serrano-Mendiola" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Serrano-Mendiola, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Three Sons Restaurant,
Inc. and Saban Dzabiri, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-05908 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover all minimum
wages due, statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs
and such other and further relief under the Municipal Code of
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Three Sons Restaurant is located at 6200 South Archer Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois where Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a
cook. Mendiola claims to be denied overtime pay and to have worked
through meal breaks.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raisa Alicea, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Tel: 312-800-1017
     Email: ralicea@yourclg.com


TIMCO SERVICES: "Marshall" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Milton Marshall, Allen Goforth and Michael Baugher, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Timco
Services, Llc, Frank's International, NV and Frank's
International, LLC Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00587-JRG-RSP
(E.D. Tex., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover their unpaid overtime
as well as other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Timco is an oilfield service company where Milton Marshal, Allen
Goforth, and Michael Baugher worked as dispatchers. They claim to
be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shane McGuire
     THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC
     102 N. College St., Suite 1030
     Tyler, TX 75702
     Phone: 903-630-7154
     Fax: 903-630-7173
     Email: shane@mcguirefirm.com

          - and -

     Darren Grant, Esq.
     GRANT & FLANERY, P.C.
     216 W. Erwin Suite 200
     Tyler, TX 75702
     Phone: 903-596-8080
     Fax: 903-596-8086
     Email: Darren@GFTexas.com


TIME WARNER CABLE: Settlement in "Gillings" Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVE NERCIA GILLINGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TIME
WARNER CABLE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 10-5565-AG
(RNBx)(C.D. Cal.), District Judge Andrew J. Guilford granted final
approval of the parties' Class Action Settlement and the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

Class Counsel are awarded $375,000 for attorneys' fees, and
$13,895.73 for reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses.
The enhancement awards for the Class Representatives in the amount
of $5,000 each is approved.

Payment for class administration services to Settlement Services,
Inc. in the amount of their charges for administering this matter
are approved up to the maximum amount of $40,000.

A copy of the Court's Judgment dated June 8, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/0V7OOk from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Eve Nercia Gillings et al. are represented by Howard
Scott Leviant, BERNS WEISS LLP, Dennis Frank Moss, Dennis Moss Law
Offices & Ira Spiro, Spiro Law Corp..

Defendants Time Warner Cable LLC et al. are represented by:

     Joseph Scott Carr, Esq.
     Joseph W Ozmer, II, Esq.
     Michael D Kabat, Esq.
     Nathan D Chapman, Esq.
     Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP
     171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
     Atlanta, GA 30363
     Tel: (470) 447-0604
     E-mail: scarr@kcozlaw.com
             jozmer@kcozlaw.com
             mkabat@kcozlaw.com
             nchapman@kcozlaw.com

          - and -

     Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP
     10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1650
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Tel: (310) 613-7050

          - and -

     Joseph D Wargo, Esq.
     Wargo & French LLP
     999 Peachtree Street NE, 26th Floor
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Tel: jwargo@wargofrench.com


TOYODA GOSEI: Landers Sues Over Brake Hoses Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------
Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., dba Landers Toyota, Empire Nissan
Of Santa Rosa, LLC, V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd., Lee Pontiac-
Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., Panama City Automotive Group, Inc. dba
John Lee Nissan, Mcgrath Automotive Group, Inc., Green Team Of
Clay Center Inc., Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. dba Lee Toyota Of
Topsham, Lee Oldsmobilecadillac, Inc. dba Lee Honda, ,
Commonwealth Volkswagen, Inc., dba Commonwealth Volkswagen, Hodges
Imported Cars, Inc. dba Hodges Subaru, Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc.,
Superstore Automotive, Inc., Cannon Nissan Of Jackson, LLC,
Hammett Motor Company, Inc., John O'Neil Johnson Toyota, LLC,
Ancona Enterprise, Inc. dba Frank Ancona Honda, Landers McLarty
Lee's Summit MO, LLC dba Lee's Summit Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram And
dba Lee's Summit Nissan, Archer-Perdue, Inc., dba Archerperdue
Suzuki, Table Rock Automotive, Inc., dba Todd Archer Hyundai, Bill
Pearce Honda, Reno Dodge Sales, Inc. dba Don Weir's Reno Dodge,
Pitre, Inc., dba Pitre Buick GMC, Hartley Buick Gmc Truck, Inc.,
Westfield Dodge City, Inc., John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC,
Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc., Capitol Dealerships, Inc., dba
Capitol Toyota, Landers Mclarty Fayetteville Tn, LLC, Central Salt
Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, dba Salt Lake Valley Buick Gmc,
Stranger Investments dba Stephen Wade Toyota, Apex Motor
Corporation, Shearer Automotive Enterprises III, Inc. Ramey
Motors, Inc. Thornhill Superstore, Inc., dba Thornhill GM
Superstore and Dave Heather Corporation, dba Lakeland Toyota Honda
Mazda Subaru, on Behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., Toyoda Gosei North
America Corporation, TG Kentucky, LLC and TG Fluid Systems USA
Corporation, Defendants, 2:16-cv-12046-DPH-APP (E.D. Mich., June
6, 2016), asserts unfair competition, consumer protection and
unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, injunctive relief and other
relief pursuant to the Clayton Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Defendants are accused of engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and
allocate the market and customers in the United States for
automotive brake hoses.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
     MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
     1361 E. Big Beaver Road
     Troy, MI 48083
     Telephone: (248) 457-9200
     Email: gmantese@manteselaw.com
            ablum@manteselaw.com

          - and -

     Don Barrett, Esq.
     David McMullan, Esq.
     BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     P.O. Box 927
     404 Court Square
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Telephone: (662) 834-2488
     Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
            dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

          - and -

     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Joel Davidow, Esq.
     Daniel Cohen, Esq.
     Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
     Yifei Li, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street, N.E.
     Washington, DC 20002
     Telephone: (202) 789-3960
     Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
            joel@cuneolaw.com
            danielc@cuneolaw.com
            vicky@cuneolaw.com
            evelyn@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

     Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
     LARSON KING, LLP
     2800 Wells Fargo Place
     30 East Seventh Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Telephone: (651) 312-6500
     Email: sraiter@larsonking.com

          - and -

     Phillip Duncan, Esq.
     Richard Quintus, Esq.
     DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
     900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Telephone: (501) 228-7600
     Email: phillip@duncanfirm.com
            richard@duncanfirm.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     300 North Tucker, Suite 801
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Telephone: (314) 226-1015
     Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
     Marcus Bozeman, Esq.
     THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
     1101 Garland Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Telephone: (501) 374-1058
     Email: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
            bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net

          - and -

     Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
     Valerie Nettles, Esq.
     LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Suite 200
     12870 US Hwy 98 West
     Miramar Beach, FL 32550
     Telephone: (850) 837-6020
     Email: dml@lovelacelaw.com
            alex@lovelacelaw.com

          - and -

     Charles Barrett, Esq.
     CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
     6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
     Nashville, Tennessee 37205
     Telephone: (615) 515-3393
     Email: charles@cfbfirm.com

          - and -

     Gregory Johnson, Esq.
     G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
     6688 145th Street West,
     Apple Valley, MN 55124
     Telephone: (952) 930-2485
     Email: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Sued Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Monroe County Employees Retirement System v. Michael W. Ferro,
Jr., Eddy Hartenstein, Justin Dearborn, David Dibble, Ellen Taus,
Renetta Mccann, Philip Franklin, Richard Reck, Carol Crenshaw,
Donald Tang, Patrick Soonshiong, and Nant Capital, LLC, and
Tribune Publishing Company, Case No. 12416 (Del. Ch. Ct., June 6,
2016), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of Tribune
Publishing Company, for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection
with Tribune's irresponsible defensive and dilutive tactics in
response to overtures from Gannett Company.

Tribune Publishing Company is a print media conglomerate in the
United States, and is the publisher of, among others, the
Baltimore Sun, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Sun
Sentinel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UGI CORPORATION: Appeal by Direct Customers Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal by direct
customers filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit is still pending.

Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class
action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their
direct and indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor
colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable
propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to
persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept
that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to
retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the
putative classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.  In July 2015, the
Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all
claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect
customers.

The direct customers filed an appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which is still pending.

The indirect customers filed an amended complaint claiming
injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and
Vermont law. In January 2016, the District Court dismissed the
remaining injunctive relief claims for the indirect purchasers. As
a result, the only claims remaining with respect to indirect
purchasers involve alleged violations of Wisconsin, Maine and
Vermont state antitrust laws.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.


UNITED STATES: USDA Must Deposit $95,000 to Black Farmers Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMS on May 23, 2016, submitted to the United States District
Court, District of Columbia, a letter containing its "final
invoice and the corresponding back up for the Track A and Track B
Neutral services provided in implementing the Settlement
Agreement." Letter from Stacey Harrison, General Manager of JAMS,
to the Honorable Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Court (May 23,
2016) (on file with the Court). The invoice documents expenses in
the amount of $95,215.00.

This letter follows the Court's Order of August 27, 2013, which
amended Section V.E.13 of the Settlement Agreement in the case, In
re BLACK FARMERS DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION, Misc. No. 08-0511
(PLF), to include the following language:

     "[USDA] shall set aside . . . the estimated $200,000 in
funding authorized for the payment of the Track A and B Neutrals
for the completion of their final duties under the Settlement
agreement . . . . [USDA] shall have no obligation to transfer this
estimated $200,000 until the Track A and Track B Neutrals submit
to the Court a final invoice setting forth their final
Implementation Costs, which costs shall not exceed $200,000. Any
such invoices(s) by the Track A and Track B Neutrals shall be
submitted to the Court, and copies provided to the Secretary and
Class Counsel, within 12 months of the date of the Court's Order
pursuant to Section IV.H of the Settlement Agreement approving the
distribution of funds pursuant to the Preliminary Final Accounting
submitted by the Claims Administrator. Within twenty (20) days of
the Court's Order approving the final invoice(s) for the Track A
and Track B Neutrals, [USDA] shall deposit the payment amounts(s)
set forth in the Track and Track B Neutrals' final invoices(s)
into the Designated Account. The Parties agree that the Secretary
shall pay the amounts set forth in the Track A and Track B
Neutral's invoices up to a total of $200,000 See Order at 2 [Dkt.
381] (emphasis added). On March 31, 2016, the Court issued a
second Order, Dkt. 457, which approved of class counsel's
unopposed motion to replace the words "within 12 months" in
Section V.E.13 with the words "within 36 months." See Order at 3-4
[Dkt. 457]."

In a June 8 Order, District Judge Paul L. Friedman gave the
Defendant 20 days from the date of this Order to deposit
$95,215.00 into the In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation
QSF Account at SunTrust Bank. These funds shall be distributed by
the Claims Administrator in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

The named defendants in the case are THOMAS J. VILSACK, Defendant,
Megan Anne Crowley, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; LILLIE M. WINGARD,
Defendant, Pro Se; and ROBERT E. WALKER, Defendant, Pro Se.

Information on the case is available at
https://www.blackfarmercase.com/


UNO RESTAURANTS: "Osman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Niaz Osman, Ieba Romeo, and Casey La Vres, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Uno Restaurants, LLC, Case
No. 509456/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime wages, and other damages pursuant to the
New York Labor Law.

Uno Restaurants, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Jeffrey H. Dorfman, Esq.
      FIT APELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


VALERO REFINING: Wulfe Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Wulfe filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled David Wulfe v. Valero Refining Company - CA, et al., Case
No. 2:12-cv-05971-MWF-E, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as David Wulfe v. Valero Refining
Company - CA, et al., Case No. 16-5582, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-0109
          E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com

               - and -

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie Emi Yasuda, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
          One Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3383
          Telephone: (213) 612-0988
          E-mail: syasuda@yoonlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Valero Services, Inc., is represented by:

          Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
          Thomas Roy Kaufman, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          E-mail: pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com
                  tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com


VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: "Curtis" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Jamal Curtis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, V. Vitel Communications LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01815 (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Vitel is into cable installation in DeKalb County where Plaintiff
worked as a cable installer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Telephone: (407) 420-1414
     Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
     Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


WILMINGTON, DE: Appeal Filed in "Wright" Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit entitled Jayvon Wright, et al. v. City of Wilmington, Case
No. 1-13-cv-01966, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 2,
2013, the federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed against the
city of Wilmington over what court papers describe as a years-long
unconstitutional police department policy of stop, frisk and
imprison.

The appellate case is captioned as Jayvon Wright, et al. v. City
of Wilmington, Case No. 16-2722, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Stephen P. Norman, Esq.
          THE NORMAN LAW FIRM
          30838 Vines Creek Road
          Dagsboro, DE 19939
          Telephone: (302) 537-3788

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          C. Malcolm Cochran, IV
          Christine Dealy Haynes, Esq.
          Travis S. Hunter, Esq.
          RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER
          920 North King Street
          One Rodney Square
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-7700
          Facsimile: (302) 498-7506
          E-mail: cochran@rlf.com
                  haynes@rlf.com
                  hunter@rlf.com


WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Luca" Suit Over Undisclosed Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Thomas Luca Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation,
Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC and
Wyndham Hotel Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00746-MRH (W.D. Pa., June 6, 2016), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, actual damages and/or treble damages, attorney
fees, filling fees and costs of suit and such other relief.

Defendants charge consumers a daily mandatory resort fee which was
not included in the terms and conditions set forth by their
website when booking a room.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary F. Lynch
     R. Bruce Carlson
     Jamisen A. Etzel
     Kevin Abramowicz
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Telephone: (412) 322-9243
     Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
     Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
            glynch@carlsonlynch.com
            jetzel@carlonlynch.com
            kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com

          - and -

    Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
    LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
    570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
    Newark, NJ 07102
    Telephone: (973) 623-3000
    Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
    Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

          - and -

    Katrina Carroll, Esq.
    Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
    LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
    211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
    Chicago, IL 60606
    Telephone: (312) 750-1265
    Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
    Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
           kshamberg@litedepalma.com

          - and -

    Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
    Erin Green Comite
    SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
    The Chrysler Building
    405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
    New York, NY 10174
    Telephone: (212) 223-6444
    Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
    Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
           ecomite@scott-scott.com


ZILLOW INC: Appeals Cal. State Court Ruling in "Freeman" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01843-JLS-
DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Santa Ana.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 6, 2016, Zillow
Group 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."

The appellate case is captioned as Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc.,
Case No. 16-55817, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
          Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          E-mail: mark@geragos.com
                  meiselas@geragos.com

               - and -

          Nicole Corey Prado, Esq.
          SAMINI SCHEINBERG PC
          949 South Coast Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 724-0900
          E-mail: nprado@saminilaw.com

               - and -

          Bobby Samini, Esq.
          SAMINI SCHEINBERG, PC
          840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 724-0900
          E-mail: bsamini@saminilaw.com

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Amanda Kate Bonn, Esq.
          Davida Brook, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6039
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          E-mail: abonn@SusmanGodfrey.com
                  dbrook@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Brooke Ashley May Taylor, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 373-7383
          E-mail: btaylor@susmangodfrey.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  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  * * *