CAR_Public/160801.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 1, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 152




                            Headlines


1ST AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE: Falsely Guarantees Job, Suit Alleges
AKAL SECURITY: Accused of Not Paying OT to Air Security Officer
ALAVI FOUNDATION: 2nd Cir. Reverses Ruling in Terrorism Suit
ALL ABOUT LUV-N-CARE: "Moody" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
ALL IN ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Suit over "All Natural" Label

ALLERGAN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Asacol Antitrust Suit
ALLIED INSURANCE: "Laningham" Sues Over Illegal Personal Data Use
AMERICAN FAMILY: "Riggins" Suit Transferred from W.D. Mo to Utah
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Doesn't Cover Name-Brand Medication, Suit Says
ARCHER DANIELS: Class Suit Filed Over Horse Poisoning

AURELIO RODRIGUEZ: Sued by Ex-Housekeeper Over Unpaid Overtime
AVID LIFE: "Scharf" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark.
BEEFALO BOB'S: "Parks" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
BIMBO BAKERIES: "Oddo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Court Narrows Claims in "Tapia-Matos" Suit

CANADIAN PACIFIC: Says No Timetable Governing Lac-Megantic Suit
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Class Action and Mass Action Pending Texas
CAPITAL ALLIANCE: "Bee" Settlement Deal Has Preliminary Okay
CARELINK INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, "Downie" Suit Says
CAREY WATERMARK: To Defend Against Multiple Wage & Hour Actions

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
CERES INC: "Roberts" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
CERES INC: 3 Class Suits Filed Over Land O'Lakes Merger Deal
CHC GROUP: 2 N.Y. Securities Class Action Consolidated
CHECKR INC: Faces "Scott" Suit in E.D. Penn.

CHICAGO: Court Trims Claims in Suit Over Streaming Services Tax
CIOX HEALTH: Faces "Finfrock" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CITIBANK NA: Nichols Seeks Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
CLEAN HARBORS: "Gibson" Suit Remanded to Circuit Court
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Penn.

CRESUD SOCIEDAD: "Tomka" Suit Seeks Damages Under Exchange Act
CSX CORP: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 2016
CYTRX CORPORATION: Class-Action Settlement Completed
DEL TACO: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held July 26
DEL TACO: Discovery Completed in Calif. Wage and Hour Action

DEL TACO: Defending Suit by California Hourly Employees
DELTA AIR: Bag Fee Suit in Georgia Wins Class Certification
DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Revives Portion of Subprime Securities Suit
DIRECTV: Illegaly Debited Customer's Bank Account, Suit Says
DOLPHIN TOWING: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA

DOORDASH INC: "Bassknight" Class Suit Dismissed
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Sued in Md. Over False False Statements
ENDO HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Mahoney" Suit
EVERBANK FIN'L: Court Approves Allocation Plan in "Vathana" Suit
FABI INC: "Garcia" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Ill. Wage Law

FEDERAL HOME LOAN: Dismissal of OPERS Suit Reversed
FEDEX CORP: Fairness Hearing Set for Jan. 2017 in MDL
FEDEX CORP: Arkansas and Florida Cases Settled
FEDEX CORP: Approval of Calif. Case Settlement under Appeal
FEDEX CORP: Oct. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing in Oregon Case

FEDEX CORP: Contractor-Model Cases Pending
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued for Fixing Propane Exchange Tanks Price
FIRST AMERICAN: Carrera Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid
GODADDY.COM: "Dickson" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Diamond Suit Over Real Property Assessment

HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Stonecrossing Suit Over Property Assessment
HOMELAND SECURITY: Judge Certifies Age Discrimination Class
HOMEWOOD SUITES: Patrons Sue Over E. coli in Hotel Pool
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholder Action
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 77 Product Liability Lawsuits

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Wash. Supreme Court Heard Oral Arguments
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Reached Confidential Settlement in "Zarick"
IRSA INVERSIONES: Sachsenberg Seeks Damages Under Exchange Act
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: "Wan" Sues Over Share Price Drop
JVS RESTAURANTS: "Valasquez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages

K&Y PEACE: "Mendez" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay
K12 INC: "Tarapara" Suit Alleges Violation of Securities Act
KAKECH LLC: Faces "Cook" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
KRISPY KREME: MOU Reached to Settle Merger Case
LANCASTER, PA: Refugee Children Denied Educational Opportunities

LAUREN A. ADESSA: Faces "Giammona" Suit in D.N.J.
LENDER PROCESSING: Faces "Lemieux" Suit in S.D. Cal.
LIFE TIME: "Roth" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages, OT Pay Under FLSA
LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Gutman" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: $23.5MM Settlement Has Initial Approval

MARICOPA, AZ: Phoenix Judge Trimmed Sheriff Arpaio's Authority
MARICOPA, AZ: Defying Court Orders Not "Criminal," Arpaio Argues
MARY JANE ELLIOTT: Settlement Deal in "Knuckles" Has Final Okay
MARY KAY: D.N.J. Ruling in "Collins" Class Suit under Appeal
MCCLINTON ENERGY: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA

MCDONALD CORP: Not Liable for Wage Theft Claims, Judge Says
MCDONALD'S CORP: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Ochoa" Class Suit
MDL 1720: 2nd Cir. Vacated Certification of Settlement Class
MDL 2002: Summary Judgment BidS Pending in Egg Antitrust Suit
MDL 2562: Nadola Appeals Approval of $32-Mil. Settlement

MDL 2562: Sweeney Appeals Approval of $32-Mil. Settlement
MDL 2562: Sibley Appeals Order Approving $32MM Settlement
MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Proposed Range Merger
MERCHANT ENTERPRISES: Col. Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
MILDRED DELI: NY Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law

MISTRAS GROUP: Settled Viceral and Kruger Action
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Bankr. Court Can't Rule on Equitable Mootness
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Dismiss "Song" Denied
NEW MEXICO: Human Services Dept. Faces Contempt Suit
NUTIVA: Faces "Elnathan" Suit Seeking to Enforce Cal. Wage Laws

O'CHARLEY'S LLC: "Otis" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
OCEAN POWER: Nov. 14 Hearing for Final Settlement Approval
OIL STATES: Faces "McDonald" Suit Seeking Payment of OT Wages
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Case
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending "Michaeli" Case

PNC CAPITAL: Faces "Martin" Suit in N.D. Ohio
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Beyer" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: Dismissal of 3226701 Canada Case Sought
R.A. ROGERS: Faces "Hargrave" Suit in E.D. Virginia
ROYAL THAI: Faces "Lopez" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

SAMPSON TREE: Faces "Edenfield" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
SAN LEANDRO: Faces "Cooper" Suit in Calif. Over Sale Contract
SCHLUMBERGER N.V.: Court Dismissed Merger Lawsuit
SCHNIPPER RESTAURANTS: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Law
SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS: Sued Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits

SLOAN VALVE: Flushing System Makes Toilets Explode, Suit Alleges
SMARTHEAT INC: Settled All Claims in US Securities Class Action
SNAP-ON CREDIT: Face "Smith" Suit in N.D. Ill.
SOCA FUNDING: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
SONY: To Pay $125MM to Settle Indirect Buyers' Claims

SOUTHERN LANDWORX: Faces "Ayala" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Markow Seeks Review From "Levitt" Suit Ruling
ST. LOUIS RAMS: Suit Stays in Federal Court, 8th Cir. Ruled
STELLAR ACQUISITIONS: Sued Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
TBK 82 CORP: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay

TEXAS FINANCIAL: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
TROY CAPITAL: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Curiel May Allow "Cohen" Suit to Proceed
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cordas" Suit for Deceptive Practices
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Cancellation Fees

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Blasts Background Check on Plaintiff
UNIFUND CCR: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
VION HOLDINGS: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
VXI GLOBAL: Phone Operator Alleges Violations FLSA, OMFWSA & OPPA
WAVEGUIDE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ferrareze" Lawsuit Under FLSA

WILLIAMS ZINHAM: Must Comply With FDCPA Disclosure Requirements
WORLDWIDE ASSET: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Ex-Wrestlers' Suit Over Brain Injuries
YOLO, CA: Faces "Alder" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA


                            *********


1ST AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE: Falsely Guarantees Job, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
accuses Los Angeles-based 1st American Automotive Sales Training
of charging $695 for a class they claim, falsely, will guarantee
them a job.


AKAL SECURITY: Accused of Not Paying OT to Air Security Officer
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELLIOTT GELBER, & all others similarly situated v. AKAL SECURITY,
INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-23170-FAM (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2016),
accuses the Defendant of violating the minimum wage provisions and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Gelber is employed by the Defendant as an air security
officer.  He is responsible for the supervision of deportees
during flights back to their home country.

Akal Security Inc. is a New Mexico corporation with its principal
place of business in New Mexico.  The Company maintains an
operations facility in Miami, Florida, where the Plaintiff works.
The Defendant is a government contractor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Sarelson, Esq.
          KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRON
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305) 330-6090
          E-mail: msarelson@kymplaw.com


ALAVI FOUNDATION: 2nd Cir. Reverses Ruling in Terrorism Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the U.S. government and victims of terrorist attacks cannot
acquire a 36-story tower in Manhattan and other Iran-linked assets
without a trial, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
found in twin rulings on July 20.

Plaintiffs-Appellees ("Plaintiffs") are direct or indirect victims
of terrorist acts linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran ("Iran"),
against which they hold unsatisfied money judgments. Plaintiffs
contend that they are entitled to enforce these judgments against
Defendants-Appellants Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue
Company (together, "Defendants"),1 pursuant to the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") and the Terrorism Risk Insurance
Act ("TRIA").

In one of the rulings, the Second Circuit said, "This appeal
requires us to determine whether Defendants qualify, as a matter
of law, as the "foreign state" of Iran or an "agency or
instrumentality" thereof, such that Defendants' properties may be
turned over to help satisfy Plaintiffs' judgments against Iran
under the FSIA. We are also called upon to determine whether,
under the TRIA, (1) Defendants qualify, as a matter of law, as
Iran or an "agency or instrumentality" thereof insofar as Iran is
a "foreign state designated as a state sponsor of terrorism," and
(2) Defendants' properties are "blocked assets" that may be turned
over to help satisfy Plaintiffs' judgments against Iran."

"We conclude that Defendants in this case do not equate to the
"foreign state" of Iran for purposes of the FSIA or the TRIA. We
further conclude that Defendants cannot be deemed "agencies or
instrumentalities" of Iran under the FSIA, but that Defendants'
status as "agencies or instrumentalities" of Iran under the TRIA
and their properties' status as "blocked assets" under that
statute is not foreclosed as a matter of law. Nevertheless, we
identify questions of fact that prevent either of these TRIA
questions from being decided on summary judgment. Accordingly, we
vacate the summary judgment award in favor of Plaintiffs and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

In 2009, federal authorities seized a Midtown skyscraper located
at 650 Fifth Ave. and other properties in Maryland, Texas,
California, Virginia and New York allegedly tied to the Iranian
government.  Prosecutors also sought the forfeiture of several
bank accounts said to be linked to Iran.

In 2013, the government won a federal judge's ruling for the
forfeiture of the properties, and dozens of families filed class-
action lawsuits a year later demanding that the sale of these
assets compensate the victims of Iran-sponsored attacks.

Lead plaintiff Jason Kirschenbaum was maimed in a suicide bombing
in Jerusalem that his parents and siblings believed had the
Islamic Republic's fingerprints on it.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who presided over both
cases, found in favor of the government and the families without a
trial.

On July 20, the Second Circuit unanimously overturned these
decisions because it is unclear that the majority owner of the
buildings knew of any sanctions violation.

There is "ample evidence," on the other hand, of the New York City
skyscraper's historic ties to Iran, the appeals court found.

In 1973, then-Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi created a
foundation in his name to acquire the coveted address. The state-
owned Bank Melli loaned the foundation $42 million two years later
for the construction of what became known as the Piaget Building.

Shortly after the shah's overthrow in 1979, Iran's post-
revolutionary regime scrubbed away the former leader's name from
the organization behind the address, rebranding it the Mostazafan
Foundation.

The entity is currently known as the Alavi Foundation, which also
owns several other properties across the United States.

The 650 Fifth Ave. Co., a partnership between Alavi and the Jersey
Island-based Assa Company, was created a decade after the
revolution to help the owners lighten their U.S. tax load.

After former President Bill Clinton imposed broad sanctions on
Iran in 1995, Bank Melli formally divested its ownership of Assa,
but prosecutors say the Iranian bank hid a 40 percent interest in
the property through a chain of straw entities.

Judge Richard Wesley questioned whether Alavi knew of these
transactions, in an 88-page opinion.

"While the record admits no factual dispute as to Bank Melli's
ownership and control of Assa after 1995, there is a genuine
dispute of fact as to whether claimant Alavi knew of that
ownership," he wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

Alavi's former president Farshid Jahedi received a three-month
sentence for obstruction of justice, after prosecutors charged him
with destroying documents about Bank Melli's relationship with the
foundation.

On remand, federal prosecutors may lose access to a larger trove
of evidence -- including Alavi's computers, electronic storage
devices, servers and more than 200 boxes of documents -- that
authorities found during a December 2008 search.

Finding that the warrant justifying this search may have been
unconstitutionally broad, the Second Circuit sent the question
back to Judge Forrest to determine whether authorities acted in
good faith.

In a separate ruling, Judge Wesley found that the families had not
yet proven that Alavi, Assa and 650 Fifth Ave. Co. are
"instrumentalities" of a declared terrorist entity and whether
their properties are "blocked assets" under Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

Attorney James Bernard, a partner for Strook & Strook & Lavan who
represents the families, predicted that his clients would
ultimately succeed.

"The Second Circuit has now sent the case to trial on several
issues," he wrote in a statement. "We look forward to a quick
recovery for our client at trial."

Attorneys for Alavi and 650 Fifth Ave. Co. did not immediately
respond to emailed requests for comment July 20.

The Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office declined to comment.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://is.gd/9SOSA0 from Leagle.com.

The case is, Kirschenbaum v. Alavi Foundation, Docket Nos. 14-
1963(L), 14-1967, 14-1971, 14-1974, 14-1978, 14-1982, 14-1986, 14-
1988, 14-1996, 14-2098 (2nd Cir.).


ALL ABOUT LUV-N-CARE: "Moody" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
James Moody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. All About Luv-N-Care Inc., Donna G. Miller
individually and Jerry T. Miller individually, Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00519 (E.D. Tex., July 13, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate approximately 14 residences for persons
with mental or developmental disabilities in and around the
Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex where Plaintiff worked as a House
Supervisor.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer J. Spencer, Esq.
     Mary L. Scott, Esq.
     James E. Hunnicutt
     SPENCER SCOTT PLLC
     Two Lincoln Centre
     5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300
     Dallas, TX 75240-6271
     Tel: (972) 458-5319
     Fax: (972) 770-2156
     Email: jspencer@spencerscottlaw.com
            mscott@spencerscottlaw.com
            jhunnicutt@spencerscottlaw.com


ALL IN ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Suit over "All Natural" Label
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
reports that a chemical insecticide was found in legal,
organically grown marijuana in Oregon have led to a class action
lawsuit in Portland, Ore. -- not against growers, but against the
insecticide maker.

Guardian mite spray, advertised as an "all natural" product,
contains ivermectin -- a conventional pesticide in the avermectin
family, Benjamin Efran claims in a July 14 lawsuit in Multnomah
County Court.  He sued All In Enterprises, and its officers
Michael Delamater, both of Illinois, and Thomas McCathron, of
Michigan.

According to the lawsuit, the company listed the ingredients as
"cinnamon oil, lemon grass oil, citric acid, yeast extract,
sunflower lecithin, and water." Guardian was primarily used to
kill mites.

But the Oregonian newspaper reported on Jan. 15 that "a chemist
with OG Analytical discovered the presence of abamectin (a type of
avermectin) in cannabis samples submitted by growers who claimed
they used organic growing methods. When one grower stated that he
used only Guardian, the chemist tested Guardian and detected
abamectin," according to the complaint. (Parentheses in
complaint.)

The Oregon Department of Agriculture then removed Guardian from
its list of chemicals that marijuana growers can use, The
Oregonian reported.

Avermectins can irritate the skin and eyes, interfere with the
central nervous system and cause vomiting, tremors and other
problems at high doses, according to a pesticide database at
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/

According to the Oregonian article, "A man identifying himself as
an owner of the Illinois-based company that makes the product said
it contains ivermectin, a chemical similar to abamectin.
Ivermectin is not listed on the product label as required."

The man, whom the newspaper did not identify, "said he did not
realize the product label had to include all active ingredients,"
The Oregonian reported.

"We weren't trying to pull anything," he told the newspaper. "We
put it in there, and it wasn't on the label and that's our fault."

Efran seeks class certification and damages for fraud, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and
unfair business practices.

A phone number could not be found for Thomas McCathron.

Efran is represented by Andrew DeWeese, who did not respond to a
voicemail message requesting comment.


ALLERGAN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Asacol Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise J. Casper granted the dismissal of certain claims in
the case captioned IN RE ASACOL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action
No. 15-cv-12730-DJC (D. Mass.).

Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan, NECA-IBEW
Welfare Trust Fund, United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and
Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, Wisconsin Masons' Health
Care Fund, Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund
(collectively, "Health Fund Plaintiffs"), and Mark Adorney brought
the antitrust class action on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated against Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and
Cadila Healthcare Limited (collectively, "Zydus"), Allergan plc,
Allergan, Inc., Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, and
Warner Chilcott Limited (collectively, "Warner Chilcott").  The
plaintiffs alleged that Warner Chilcott's product hopping scheme
and a reverse payment settlement agreement between Warner Chilcott
and Zydus constitute monopolization (Count I) and combination and
conspiracy in restraint of trade (Count II), respectively, under
various state laws.  Zydus moved to dismiss Count II, and Warner
Chilcott moved to dismiss the entire complaint.  The plaintiffs
moved to strike materials attached in support of Warner Chilcott's
motion to dismiss.

Judge Casper ruled as follows:

          -- Zydus's motion to dismiss Count II was allowed, and
             Warner Chilcott's motion was allowed in part and
             denied in part in that:

          -- All Count II claims were dismissed;

          -- Monopolization claims (Count I) under Arizona,
             Nevada and Utah law were dismissed without prejudice
             in case the plaintiffs can comply or specifically
             plead how they complied with each state's notice
             requirements;

          -- Claims under Missouri, Massachusetts and Vermont law
             asserted by the Health Fund Plaintiffs were
             dismissed;

          -- Claims under Hawaii law asserted by the Health Fund
             Plaintiffs were dismissed, but the Hawaii
             monopolization claim (Count I) brought by Mark
             Adorney was dismissed without prejudice in case he
             can comply or specifically plead how he complied
             with the notice requirements; and

          -- The motions to dismiss were denied in all other
             respects.

          -- The plaintiffs' motion to strike was denied; and

          -- The plaintiffs' motions to seal their opposition to
             Zydus's motion to dismiss, and for leave to file a
             reply memorandum in support of their motion to
             strike, were allowed nunc pro tunc.

A full-text copy of Judge Casper's July 20, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/jDU7d7 from Leagle.com.

Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan, NECA-IBEW
Welfare Trust Fund, Plaintiffs, represented by David P. Barclay --
dbarclay@wcllp.com -- Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, pro hac vice, Diana
J. Zinser -- dzinser@srkw-law.com -- Spector Roseman Kodroff &
Willis, P.C., pro hac vice, Eric D. Barton -- ebarton@wcllp.com --
Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kodroff --
jkodroff@srkw-law.com -- Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, John A.
Macoretta -- jmacoretta@srkw-law.com -- Spector, Roseman &
Kodroff, P.C., pro hac vice, Peter J. Mougey --
pmougey@levinlaw.com -- Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell,
Rafferty & Proctor, pro hac vice, Tyler W. Hudson --
thudson@wcllp.com -- Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, pro hac vice, Glen
DeValerio -- gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio &
Nathaniel L. Orenstein -- norenstein@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

Wisonsin Masons' Health Care Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Glen DeValerio --
gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio & Nathaniel L.
Orenstein -- norenstein@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest
Health Benefits Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bethany R. Turke --
brt@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER WALLACE LLP, pro hac vice, Glen
DeValerio -- gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio,
Justin N. Boley -- jnb@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER WALLACE LLP,
pro hac vice, Kenneth A. Wexler -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler
Wallace LLP, pro hac vice & Nathaniel L. Orenstein --
norenstein@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco
Burt & Pucillo.

Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Devona L. Wells -- dlwells@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, Heidi M. Silton -- hmsilton@locklaw.com --
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, pro hac vice, Karen H. Riebel --
khriebel@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
& Pucillo & Glen DeValerio, Berman DeValerio.

AFSCME Health and Welfare Fund, Pennsylvania Employees Benefit
Trust Fund, Plaintiffs, represented by Nathaniel L. Orenstein,
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

Mark Adorney, Plaintiff, represented by Glen DeValerio, Berman
DeValerio.

Allergan Inc., Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC.,
Defendants, represented by Alison Hanstead, White & Case LLP, pro
hac vice, Eileen M. Cole, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, J. Mark
Gidley, White & Case, LLP, pro hac vice, Jack E. Pace, III, White
& Case LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas L. Wilkins, White & Case LLP,
Peter J. Carney, White & Case, LLP, pro hac vice & Kevin C. Adam,
White & Case, LLP.

Warner Chilcott Limited, Defendant, represented by Alison
Hanstead, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Eileen M. Cole, White &
Case LLP, pro hac vice, J. Mark Gidley, White & Case, LLP, pro hac
vice, Jack E. Pace, III, White & Case LLP, pro hac vice, Peter J.
Carney, White & Case, LLP, pro hac vice & Kevin C. Adam, White &
Case, LLP.

Cadila Healthcare Limited, Defendant, represented by Andy J.
Miller, Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Randall A. Hack, Locke Lord
LLP, pro hac vice,Stephen G. Huggard, Locke Lord LLP & Elizabeth
H. Kelly, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.

Allergan, PLC, Defendant, represented by Alison Hanstead, White &
Case LLP, pro hac vice, Eileen M. Cole, White & Case LLP, pro hac
vice, J. Mark Gidley, White & Case, LLP, Jack E. Pace, III, White
& Case LLP, pro hac vice &Nicholas L. Wilkins, White & Case LLP.

Allergan, PLC, Formerly known as Actavis, PLC, Defendant,
represented by Peter J. Carney, White & Case, LLP, pro hac vice.

Allergan, PLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin C. Adam, White &
Case, LLP.


ALLIED INSURANCE: "Laningham" Sues Over Illegal Personal Data Use
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R. Bradley Van Laningham d/b/a Bradley Law Group and Van Laningham
and Associates, PLLC d/b/a Bradley Law Group, Plaintiffs, v.
Allied Insurance, A Nationwide Insurance Company, AMCO Insurance
Company, Depositors Insurance Company and Travelers Casualty
Insurance Company of America, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00948
(M.D.N.C., July 13, 2016), seeks damages for breach of contract
and attorney fees incurred.

Plaintiff alleges that Bradley Van Laningham and the other
defendant parties used information from the North Carolina
Department of Motor Vehicles crash investigations to obtain names
and addresses of individuals involved for purposes of distributing
mail advertising legal services and were marked as "This is an
advertisement for legal services."

The plaintiffs claim that their names and addresses on their
driver's licenses, vehicle registration cards and records
constitute personal information protected, and that such
information was used without their consent.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard L. Pinto, Esq.
     Deborah J. Bowers, Esq.
     PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC
     3203 Brassfield Road
     Greensboro, NC 27410
     Telephone: (336) 282-8848
     Facsimile: (336) 282-8409
     Email: rpinto@pckb-law.com
            dbowers@pckb-law.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: "Riggins" Suit Transferred from W.D. Mo to Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darnita Riggins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and Xactware Solutions, the Plaintiff, v.
American Family Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:14-
cv-04171, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District for the
District of Utah (Central). The Utah District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:16-mc-00818-CW to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is
Hon. Clark Waddoups.

American Family is a private mutual company that focuses on
property, casualty and auto insurance, and also offers commercial
insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage, as well as
investment and retirement-planning products.

Darnita Riggins is represented by:

          Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          231 S Bemiston Ste 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863 5700

               - and -

          Joe D. Jacobson, Esq.
          JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS PC
          168 N Meramec Ave Ste 150
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 899 9790

Xactware Solutions is represented by:

          Bryon J. Benevento, Esq.
          Christopher J. Martinez, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY (UT)
          136 S Main St Ste 1000
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1685
          Telephone: (801) 933 8958
          E-mail: benevento.bryon@dorsey.com
                  martinez.chris@dorsey.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James D. Griffin, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Kennard, Esq.
          Lisa Bolliger, Esq.
          SCHARNHORST AST KENNARD
          GRIFFIN PC
          1100 Walnut St Ste 1950
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 268 9400
          E-mail: jak@sakfirm.com

               - and -

          Rhyddid Watkins, Esq.
          Margaret Young Cass, Esq.
          Michael S. McCarthy, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          1700 Lincoln St
          3200 Wells Fargo Ctr
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 607 3500
          E-mail michael.mccarthy@faegrebd.com


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Doesn't Cover Name-Brand Medication, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Dunn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Anthem Blue Cross refuses to cover name-brand medication, even
when there is no equivalent generic or the generic is ineffective,
a subscriber claims in San Francisco federal class action.

K. F. Petty says in her 16-page complaint against Anthem and Blue
Cross of California that in 2007, she was a graduate student and
enrolled in Anthem's student plan. She was treated for a medical
condition requiring medication -- listed in the complaint as "Drug
X" to protect her privacy -- which had no generic equivalent at
the time.

Petty says that a few months later and without notifying her,
Anthem changed her prescription to a substitute generic medication
which contained the same active ingredient as the brand name she
had been taking. Her pharmacy was notified of the change, and the
next time she filled her prescription she was given the substitute
medication instead.

The problem, Petty says, is that "none of these substitutes were
pharmaceutically the same or therapeutically as effective" for her
condition.

On subsequent prescriptions, Petty's doctor specified that she
should receive the name-brand Drug X rather than the equivalent
generic and wrote a letter to Anthem "outlining the medical
necessity of Drug X." Anthem continued to refuse to cover the cost
of the name-brand medication, Petty says in her complaint.

Throughout her coverage with Anthem, Petty says she had to choose
between paying full price for the brand medication or taking the
less effective generic substitute covered by Anthem.

Petty represents a class of Anthem clients who have had "to use
non-equivalent and/or generic drugs even when the original
prescribed drugs are different and medically necessary for proper
treatment," according to the complaint.  She says that "Anthem's
contracts contain language that it uses to exclude coverage,
(i.e., 'brand-name drugs unless a generic equivalent does not
exist or if your physician requests no substitutions'), members of
the class and California subclass are entitled to coverage for
'brand-name drugs' (such as Drug X) since no generic equivalent
exists for these medications and/or their physicians have
requested that there be no substitutions for the drugs
prescribed."

Anthem's practice of "using an undisclosed criteria at variance
with the Evidence of Coverage" violates California law and has
caused harm to Petty and thousands of other Californians,
according to the complaint.

Petty is suing for breach of implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of contract, and violation of California's unfair
business practices law.  She is represented by Michael McShane and
Ling Kuang of the San Francisco firm Audet & Partners.

Anthem spokesman Darrel Ng said in an email that he was not
familiar with the case.


ARCHER DANIELS: Class Suit Filed Over Horse Poisoning
-----------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that horse owners claim in court their horses died from Archer-
Daniels-Midland horse feed contaminated with monensin, a chemical
known to be poisonous to horses and a regular additive in cattle
feed.

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company allegedly cuts costs by
manufacturing its horse feed products in the same facilities where
it makes cattle feed.

Cattle feed contains monensin, a chemical additive used to
increase weight, but it is toxic to humans and poisonous to
horses, according to court papers.  Monensin poisoning gradually
weakens the horse's heart muscles, creating the potential for
sudden heart failure.

Lead plaintiffs Beth Berarov and Annelisa Bindra say several of
their horses died because they fed them ADM feed. Others allegedly
had to be euthanized, and the ones that survived cannot be safely
ridden because of their weakened hearts.

"ADM's choice to manufacture horse feed and supplements in the
same facility as monensin-laced cattle feed poses an
extraordinarily high, unacceptable, and undisclosed risk of cross-
contamination to purchasers of its horse feed products," according
to a class-action lawsuit filed July 19, in Northern Illinois
Federal Court.

The risk is exacerbated by the fact that modern medicine cannot
detect whether a living horse has been exposed to monensin.

ADM makes Grostrong vitamin products, Juniorglo, Primeglo, and
Seniorglo feeds, and Moorglo and Healthyglo fat supplements.

It does not disclose the possibility of monensin poisoning on its
feed bags, and markets the product using the tagline, "Doing
what's right for the horse," July 19 class action states.

Berarov and Bindra say the slogan is deceptive given that the
company is well aware its feed contains traces of a deadly
additive - but it doesn't tell consumers.

In a press release following the deaths of horses at Camelot
Farms, where Bindra stabled her horse, ADM acknowledged the
possibility of cross-contamination in its feeds, but said the
levels are far below what could harm a horse.

The plaintiff horse owners dispute this assertion, pointing out
alleged inconsistencies in ADM's calculations and claiming that
ADM does not mention what harm the horses may suffer short of
death.

"ADM knew all the facts demonstrating that the products were
falsely and misleadingly advertised, and that it had a duty to
disclose and warn purchasers about its high-risk manufacturing
methods and the products' potential or actual contamination with
monensin," the complaint states.

The horse owners seek damages for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, products liability and unjust enrichment. They
are represented by Patrick Muench with Bailey & Glasser in
Chicago.

ADM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on July
20.


AURELIO RODRIGUEZ: Sued by Ex-Housekeeper Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANA RAQUEL LOPEZ ALONSO, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. AURELIO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:16-cv-23163-CMA
(S.D. Fla., July 21, 2016), arises from alleged violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

From April 8, 2015, through June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff worked an
average of 60 hours a week for the Defendant but was never paid
the extra half time rate any hours worked over 40 hours in a week
as required by the FLSA, according to the complaint.  The
Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a domestic live-out
housekeeper during the class period.

Aurelio Rodriguez resides in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and was
the FLSA employer for the Plaintiff's period of employment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


AVID LIFE: "Scharf" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark.
---------------------------------------------------------
Thadeaus G Scharf III, on behalf of himself and all other Arkansas
residents similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Avid Life Media
Inc., an Ontario Corporation, Avid Dating Life Inc., doing
business as Ashley Madison, an Ontario corporation, and Noel
Biderman, the Defendants, Case No. 13CV-16-00013-6, was removed
from the Cleveland County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00225-DPM to the
proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. D. P. Marshall Jr.

Avid Life is a social entertainment company that operates online
social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles D. Davidson, Esq.
          DAVIDSON LAW FIRM, LTD.
          Post Office Box 1300
          Little Rock, AR 72203-1300
          Telephone: (501) 374 9977
          E-mail: skipd@dlf-ar.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON & VINES, PLLC
          2226 Cottondale, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 372 1300
          E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com

               - and -

          David Louis Gershner, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Linam, Esq.
          DAVIDSON LAW FIRM, LTD.
          Post Office Box 1300
          Little Rock, AR 72203-1300
          Telephone: (501) 374 9977
          E-mail: davidg@dlf-ar.com
                  stephaniealinam@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          E. B. Chiles IV, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379 1700
          E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com


BEEFALO BOB'S: "Parks" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandie Parks, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. Beefalo Bob's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02570 (D. Md., July 13, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Maryland's Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant owns and operates Beefalo Bob's restaurant in Baltimore,
Maryland where Plaintiff worked as a server and bartender.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
      600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 304
      Rockville, MD 20852
      Tel: (301) 251-3752
      Fax: (301) 251-3753


BIMBO BAKERIES: "Oddo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
Christopher Oddo, Philip Brucato and Michael Lennon, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bimbo
Bakeries U.S.A. Inc. and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-04267 (D.N.J. July 13, 2016), seeks overtime pay and
damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

Bimbo operates a bakery where Plaintiffs were employed as Route
Sales Representatives.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
     Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Court Narrows Claims in "Tapia-Matos" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case
captioned TAMMY TAPIA-MATOS, Plaintiff, v. CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM,
LTD., et al., Defendants, No. 15-CV-6726 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Judge Furman dismissed the plaintiffs' claims concerning the
defendants' statements regarding the quartz content of
Caesarstone's products for failure to plausibly allege a material
misstatement or omission.  By contrast, Judge Furman denied the
motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' claims concerning the
defendants' statements regarding the price increase for quartz and
gross margins.

A full-text copy of Judge Furman's July 20, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/T4Aywv from Leagle.com.

Caesarstone Ltd, formerly known as Caesarstone Sdot-Yam, Ltd., is
an Israeli company that makes kitchen countertops and other
surfaces out of quartz.  In the putative securities fraud class
action, investors alleged that Caesarstone, acting in part through
its Chief Executive Officer, Yosef Shiran, and its Chief Financial
Officer, Yair Averbuch, made false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding increases in the price of quartz and the
quartz content of the company's products.

Anthony Lanza, Ruth Lanza, Johnson Yang, Micro World Corp., Mark
Pawlitschek, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. & Michele S. Carino
-- mcarino@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Tammy Tapia-Matos, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Anthony Felzen, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Caesarstone Sdot-Yam, LTD., Yosef Shiran, Yair Averbuch,
Defendants, represented by George T. Conway, III --
gtconway@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz & Christopher
Raphael Deluzio -- crdeluzio@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &
Katz.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Says No Timetable Governing Lac-Megantic Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that no
timetable governing the conduct of the lawsuit related to the Lac-
Megantic rail accident has been ordered by the Superior Court of
Quebec.

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying crude oil operated by Montreal
Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMA") and/or its subsidiary, Montreal
Maine and Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC", and collectively with MMA,
the "MMA Group") derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec on
a section of railway line owned by the MMA Group. The previous day
CP had interchanged the train to the MMA Group, and after that
interchange MMA Group exercised exclusive control over the train.
Following this incident, the Minister of Sustainable Development,
Environment, Wildlife and Parks of Quebec issued an order
directing certain named parties to recover the contaminants and to
clean up and decontaminate the derailment site. CP was added as a
named party on August 14, 2013 (the "Amended Cleanup Order"). CP
has sought an administrative appeal of the Amended Cleanup Order
to the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. The proceedings before
the Administrative tribunal have been stayed until September 2016.

Directly related to this matter, the Province of Quebec filed a
lawsuit against CP before the Quebec Superior Court on July 6,
2015 in which it claims $409 million for the damages sustained by
the province as a result of the expenses incurred following the
derailment, including costs incurred for the work carried out
pursuant to the Amended Cleanup Order. The province alleges that
CP had custody or control of the contaminants that were discharged
in Lac-Megantic on July 6, 2013, and that CP was otherwise
negligent and therefore is solidarily (joint and severally) liable
with the other third parties responsible for the accident. The
province's lawsuit has been stayed until September 12, 2016. Also
directly related to the this matter, the Quebec Minister of
Sustainable Development and Environment has served a Notice of
Claim on July 5, 2016 claiming nearly $95 million in compensation
from CP for having to carry out the cleanup measures set out in
the Amended Cleanup Order, alleging that CP had refused or
neglected to carry out same. These proceedings are duplicative, in
whole or in part.

A class action lawsuit has also been filed in the Superior Court
of Quebec on behalf of a class of persons and entities residing
in, owning or leasing property in, operating a business in or
physically present in Lac-Megantic (the "Class Action"). The
lawsuit seeks damages caused by the derailment including for
wrongful deaths, personal injuries, and property damages. CP was
added as a defendant on August 16, 2013.

On May 8, 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec authorized the
institution of the Class Action as against CP and as against the
shipper, Western Petroleum, and the shipper's parent, World Fuel
Services (collectively, the "World Fuel Defendants"). The World
Fuel Defendants have since settled. No timetable governing the
conduct of this lawsuit has been ordered by the Superior Court of
Quebec.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Class Action and Mass Action Pending Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that there are
a class action and a mass action instituted Texas and wrongful
death and personal injury actions instituted in Illinois and
Maine. All the various lawsuits have been removed to federal court
and have since been consolidated in Maine. These actions generally
charge CP with negligence in the misclassification and mis-
packaging (that is the use of inappropriate DOT-111 tank cars).
Motions to dismiss have been filed and heard regarding
jurisdiction and venue. Decisions on CP's motions and other
parties' cross-motions are pending.


CAPITAL ALLIANCE: "Bee" Settlement Deal Has Preliminary Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BEE, DENNING, INC., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL
ALLIANCE GROUP, et al., Defendant. DANIELA TORMAN, Plaintiff, v.
CAPITAL ALLIANCE GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 13-cv-02654-
BAS(WVG), 14-cv-02915-BAS(WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant
granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of a settlement reached between the parties and for certification
of settlement classes.

The class action was commenced on November 5, 2013, by Bee,
Denning, Inc., d/b/a Practice Performance Group, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, against Capital Alliance
Group seeking relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).  Bee amended the complaint one month later
to add Narin Charanvattanakit as a defendant and Gregory Chick as
a plaintiff.

Because the defendants have insufficient resources to grant
monetary relief to the class members, the settlement agreement
provides only injunctive relief to the settlement classes against
further violations of the TCPA by the defendants.  The parties
have also agreed to an injunction oversight and reporting
procedure defined under the settlement agreement.

Judge Bashant appointed the plaintiffs as class representatives of
the settlement classes, and Beth E. Terrell and Terrell Marshall
Law Group PLLC, Candice E. Renka and Marquis Aurbach Coffing, and
Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, as class counsel to
represent the settlement class.

A fairness hearing will be held on November 14, 2016 at 10:30 A.M.

A full-text copy of Judge Bashant's July 20, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/D0xDBZ from Leagle.com.

Bee, Denning, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Beth Ellen Terrell -
- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
Mary B. Reiten -- mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall
Daudt and Willie PLLC & Whitney B. Stark --
whitney@mechaniclaw.com -- Mechanic Law Office.

Gregory Chick, Plaintiff, represented by Mary B. Reiten, Terrell
Marshall Daudt and Willie PLLC & Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC.

Daniela Torman, Plaintiff, represented by Candice E. Renka --
crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis Aurbach Coffing, Esfand Y. Nafisi,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Gary Edward Mason, Whitfield Bryson
& Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Rathod, Whitfield Bryson & Mason
LLP & Scott A. Marquis -- smarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis Aurbach
Coffing.

Capital Alliance Group, Defendant, represented by Gene S. Stone --
gstone@homan-stone.com -- Homan & Stone.


CARELINK INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, "Downie" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YVONNE DOWNIE v. CARELINK, INC. and VINSENT ROBINSON, And JOHN
DOES #1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05868-JPO (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2016),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
current and former employees of the Defendants, alleging that the
Plaintiff and the class are entitled to unpaid wages from the
Defendants for work for which they did not receive minimum wages
and for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime
premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Carelink, Inc., is a New York corporation, with its principal
place of business located in Floral Park, New York.  Vinsent
Robinson is the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of
Carelink.  The Defendants are an employment agency that sent the
Plaintiff to work as a home health aide/maid for numerous
customers located in New York City and Nassau County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Coudert Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


CAREY WATERMARK: To Defend Against Multiple Wage & Hour Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Watermark Investors 2 Incorporated said in an exhibit to its
Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 19, 2016, that multiple wage and hour class-action
lawsuits have been filed against various Marriott-branded hotels
in California, which purport to extend to all Marriott-branded
hotels in the state, which would include this property. None of
these lawsuits has been certified as a class, and the Company
intends to vigorously defend against such an expansion.

On July 13, 2016, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Carey Watermark
Investors 2 Incorporated ("CWI 2") completed the acquisition of
the San Jose Marriott from SP6 San Jose Hotel Lessee, LLC, an
unaffiliated third party. The 510-guestroom San Jose Marriott will
continue to be managed by Marriott International, Inc. CWI 2's
total investment in the property is approximately $167.5 million,
including a $154.0 million purchase price and approximately $7.7
million of acquisition-related costs and $5.8 million of planned
capital improvements.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICE LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08638 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks
equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments
rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and
$1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation"
in debt collection lawsuits.

The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings
that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed
fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo-
Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering
judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and fraud on the court.

Cavalry Portfolio is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in
the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the
Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original
consumer creditors and/or successors in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Teter, Esq.
          TETER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 815823
          Dallas, TX 75381-5823
          Telephone: (214) 850 8095
          Facsimile: (972) 243 2510
          E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail


CERES INC: "Roberts" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Roberts individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cheryl P. Morley, Pascal
Brandys, Richard Flavell, Robert Goldberg, Richard Hamilton and
Ceres, Inc., Defendants, Case No. BC626808 (Cal. Super., July 13,
2016), seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment of a merger,
damages, attorney fees and costs for breach of fiduciary duties.

Land O' Lakes, through its wholly owned subsidiary Roman Merger
Sub offered to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Ceres in
an all-cash transaction for $ 0.40 per share in cash. This
undervalues the company which Plaintiff claims to have $1.10 per
share.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam McCall, Esq.
     Joseph Levi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     445 South FIgueroa Street, 31st Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     Phone: (213) 985-7290
     Email: amccall@zlk.com


CERES INC: 3 Class Suits Filed Over Land O'Lakes Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Ceres, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended May 31, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend
against three class action lawsuits over a proposed merger deal.

On June 16, 2016, the Company, Land O'Lakes, Inc., a cooperative
corporation incorporated under the laws of Minnesota ("Land
O'Lakes"), and Roman Merger Sub, Inc., a corporation incorporated
under the laws of Delaware ("Merger Sub") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which Merger Sub commenced on July 1, 2016, a cash tender offer
(the "Offer") to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares
of the common stock at a price of $0.40 per share in cash (the
"Common Offer Price"), without interest and less any applicable
withholding taxes. Subject to the terms and conditions of the
Merger Agreement, following the consummation of the Offer, Merger
Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with
the Company as the surviving corporation as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Land O'Lakes.

Following the commencement of the Offer, three putative class
action lawsuits were filed challenging the proposed transaction.
Each of these actions was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles - Central District:

     -- Gary Stryder, Leo Nguyen and Rajesh Joshi, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ceres, Inc.,
Land O'Lakes, Inc., Roman Merger Sub, Inc., Cheryl P. Morley,
Pascal Brandys, Richard Flavell, Robert Goldberg, and Richard
Hamilton, Case No. BC626066 (filed July 5, 2016) (the "Stryder
Action");

     -- Knox Varela, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Ceres, Inc., Cheryl P. Morley, Pascal Brandys, Richard
Flavell, Robert Goldberg, Richard Hamilton, Land O'Lakes, Inc. and
Roman Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. BC626611 (filed July 11, 2016)
(the "Varela Action"); and

     -- Benjamin Roberts, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Cheryl P. Morley, Pascal Brandys, Richard
Flavell, Robert Goldberg, Richard Hamilton, and Ceres, Inc., Case
No. BC626808 (filed July 13, 2016).

The Stryder Action and the Varela Action name as defendants the
Company, the Board, Merger Sub and Land O'Lakes. The Roberts
Action names as defendants the Company and the Board.  The Actions
generally allege, among other things, that the members of the
Board breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to
maximize stockholder value and agreeing to preclusive deal-
protection devices.  The Stryder Action and the Varela Action
generally allege, among other things, that Land O'Lakes and Merger
Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
The Varela Action and the Roberts Action also allege that the
Company's the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule
14D-9 filed with the SEC on July 1, 2016, as amended, omits or
misstates certain material information.

The complaints generally seek, among other things: (i) declaration
as a class action; (ii) an order enjoining the proposed
transactions; (iii) rescission, to the extent implemented, of the
Merger Agreement or rescissory damages; and (iv) an award of fees
and costs of the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the Actions and
believes the lawsuits are without merit.

Ceres, Inc. (Company) is an agricultural biotechnology company
that develops and markets seeds and traits to produce crops for
feed, forages, sugar and other markets.


CHC GROUP: 2 N.Y. Securities Class Action Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
CHC Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that the two securities class
action lawsuits that were previously filed against the Company
have been consolidated into a single action, Rudman et al. v. CHC
Group et al., which is pending in federal district court for the
Southern District of New York.  A consolidated amended complaint
was filed on November 6, 2015.

The Company said, "The amended complaint alleges that we and
others failed to disclose in our IPO materials that one of our
major customers, Petrobras, had suspended payments on certain
contracts due to the global stand-down of Airbus H225 aircraft.
The amended complaint seeks class treatment and unspecified
damages. We have filed a motion to dismiss and are awaiting a
hearing date on that motion. We maintain adequate insurance to
respond to these complaints.  Moreover, we dispute the allegations
in the complaints and will vigorously defend against them. At
April 30, 2016, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
outcome of this matter, or the significance, if any, to our
business, financial condition and results of operations."


CHECKR INC: Faces "Scott" Suit in E.D. Penn.
--------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against CHECKR, INC. The case is
captioned DEATRI SCOTT ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff. v. CHECKR, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03918-GJP (E.D. Penn., July 20, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Gerald J. Pappert.

Checkr provides RESTful API, an automated background screenings
and driving records. Its color-coded dashboard browses and
evaluates background reports that include national and county
criminal records, driving history, SSN verification, and previous
addresses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
          LAND TITLE BLDG 19TH FL
          100 S. Broad St
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940 8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


CHICAGO: Court Trims Claims in Suit Over Streaming Services Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Chicago residents scored a victory in court July 21, when a judge
ruled that three counts of their class-action lawsuit against the
city's tax on streaming media services like Netflix can proceed.

The city started collecting its 9 percent amusement tax on
Internet services such as Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Amazon Prime and
Xbox Live last September, the same month the plaintiffs filed suit
in Cook County Circuit Court.  The tax is projected to bring in
$12 million a year.

Judge Carl Anthony Walker on July 21, granted the city's motion to
dismiss the first three counts of the lawsuit, which challenged
its comptroller's authority to impose a new tax.  Walker said in
his opinion that since the city amended the amusement tax in
November 2015, "whether the comptroller exceeded his authority by
adopting the ruling is moot."

However, Walker found that the residents' complaint "alleges
sufficient facts to state a cause of action" for the other three
counts -- violation of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, or ITFA, as
well as violations of the Illinois Constitution's Uniformity
Clause and the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.

The judge denied a motion to dismiss those claims.

The residents claim Chicago violated the ITFA, which says a
municipality cannot impose "multiple or discriminatory taxes on
electronic commerce."

They also say the city is attempting to tax services that may not
even be used inside its boundaries.

At a June hearing on the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the
plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center
said live concerts are not taxed at the same rate as streaming
services, a clear violation of the ITFA.

Schwab added that "if you have a mobile device, you can use
Internet services anywhere," despite the tax being based on
billing address -- meaning Chicago residents would be taxed for
things they didn't even do inside Chicago.

The city, he said, "cannot tax things outside its jurisdiction."

City attorney Weston Hanscom argued at the June hearing that
although 50 years ago "there was no question where the venue was"
where amusements took place, "technology has developed" and the
city is merely playing catch up.

The law "does not prohibit taxing products just because they use
the Internet," Hanscom added.

"It's excellent that the judge didn't dismiss the case on its
merits," Schwab told Courthouse News on July 21. "We're very happy
about that."

Chicago's legal department did not immediately respond to an
emailed request for comment July 21.

The case captioned, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION TAX
AND MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIES SECTION, MICHAEL LABELL, JARED LABELL,
SILAS PEPPLE, NATALIE BEZEK, EMILY ROSE, and BRYANT JACKSON-GREEN,
Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, and DAN WIDAWSKY, in his
official capacity as Comptroller of the City of Chicago, Case No.
2015 CH 13399, in the Circuit Court of Cook County.


CIOX HEALTH: Faces "Finfrock" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against CIOX Health, LLC. The case is
captioned Edwyn Finfrock, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CIOX Health, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-05777 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016).

CIOX Health, LLC provides healthcare information solutions.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CITIBANK NA: Nichols Seeks Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shirley Nichols filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Shirley Nichols v. Citibank, N.A., et al., Case
No. 2:16-cv-01215-DSF-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 4, 2016, the
complaint is brought by the Plaintiff, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Defendants
for alleged unpaid overtime wages and penalties under the
California Labor Code.

The appellate case is captioned as Shirley Nichols v. Citibank,
N.A., et al., Case No. 16-56042, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL APC
          550 S. Hope St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

               - and -

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 South Figueroa, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and
Citimortgage, Inc., are represented by:

          Daryl S. Landy, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 399-7122
          Facsimile: (949) 399-7000
          E-mail: daryl.landy@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Samuel S. Shaulson, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6718
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
          E-mail: sam.shaulson@morganlewis.com


CLEAN HARBORS: "Gibson" Suit Remanded to Circuit Court
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARLA GIBSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLEAN
HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, v. BIOLAB, INC.,
a/k/a BIO-LAB, INC., a/k/a BIO LAB, INC., Third-Party Defendant,
Case No. 16-CV-1035 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey has adopted
the Report and Recommendation filed on June 28, 2016 by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

Judge Bryant recommended that the plaintiffs' motion to remand be
granted and that the plaintiffs' case be remanded to the Circuit
Court of Union Country, because the defendants' May 9, 2016
removal was untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b).  More
specifically, Judge Bryant found that the defendant removed the
action more than 30 days after receiving correspondence from the
plaintiffs that unambiguously demonstrated that federal
jurisdiction exists pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

A full-text copy of Judge Hickey's July 20, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/micJaq from Leagle.com.

Carla Gibson, Windell Lawson, Joyce Powell, Jeff Rogers, Kathy
Wood, Lillie Woods, Plaintiffs, represented by Allen P. Roberts,
Attorney at Law, David P. Price, Price Law Firm, Phillip A. Stone
-- pstone@southarklaw.com -- VICKERY & SMART, PLLC, Robert L.
Depper, Jr., Depper Law Firm & Samuel E. Ledbetter --
sam@mcmathlaw.com -- McMath Woods P.A..

Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., represented by
Alexander Cale Block -- cblock@barberlawfirm.com -- Barber Law
Firm & John S. Cherry, Jr. -- jcherry@barberlawfirm.com -- Barber,
McCaskill, Jones & Hale, P.A..

Biolab, Inc., represented by Kevin A. Crass --
crass@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge & Clark & Roger
Christopher Lawson -- lawson@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge &
Clark, LLP.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Costco Wholesale Corporation. The
case is captioned JOSIE BADGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01064-RCM (W.D.
Penn., July 20, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon.
Robert C. Mitchell.

Costco Wholesale is an American membership-only warehouse club
that provides a wide selection of merchandise. It is currently the
largest membership-only warehouse club in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
          & KILPELA, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
          E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


CRESUD SOCIEDAD: "Tomka" Suit Seeks Damages Under Exchange Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN TOMKA, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CRESUD SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, COMERCIAL,
INMOBILIARIA, FINANCIERA Y AGROPECUARIA, ALEJANDRO GUSTAVO
ELSZTAIN, EDUARDO SERGIO ELSZTAIN, SAUL ZANG, and MATIAS IVAN
GAIVIRONSKY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05748-UA (E.D.
Penn., July 19, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements.

Cresud is an agricultural company that produces basic agricultural
commodities in Brazil and other Latin American countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacob A, Goldberg, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     101 Greenwood Ave, Ste 400,
     Jenkintown, PA 19046
     E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com


CSX CORP: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 24, 2016, that a class certification
hearing is scheduled for September 2016 in the Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In
August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court
to reconsider its class certification decision. The District Court
remand proceedings are underway and a class certification hearing
is scheduled for September 2016. The District Court has delayed
proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome of the
class certification remand proceedings.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
resolution of this matter or an unexpected adverse decision on the
merits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in that
particular period.


CYTRX CORPORATION: Class-Action Settlement Completed
----------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, that the
class-action settlement the Company announced in December 2015 was
completed on or about May 25, 2016 with the issuance of 1,561,578
shares of the Company's common stock valued at $4.5 million, or
$2.8817 a share, and payment of $4 million in cash, of which $3.5
million was paid by the Company's insurance carriers and $500,000
was paid out of company funds.


DEL TACO: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held July 26
--------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 14, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement,
which is subject to final Court approval on July 26, 2016.

On April 23, 2015, a purported class action and derivative
complaint, Jeffery Tomasulo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC, Lawrence F.
Levy, Howard B. Bernick, Marc S. Simon, Craig J. Duchossois, Ari
B. Levy, Steven C. Florsheim, Gregory G. Flynn, Del Taco Holdings,
Inc., and Levy Acquisition Corp. ("Complaint"), was filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Circuit Court"),
relating to the then proposed Business Combination pursuant to the
Merger Agreement.

The Complaint, which purported to be brought as a class action on
behalf of all of the holders of the Company's common stock,
generally alleged that the Company's pre-merger directors breached
their fiduciary duties to stockholders by facilitating the then
proposed Business Combination and in negotiating and approving the
Merger Agreement. The Complaint also alleged that the Company's
preliminary proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on April
2, 2015 is materially misleading and/or incomplete. The Complaint
further alleged that DTH and Levy Acquisition Sponsor LLC aided
and abetted the alleged breaches by the Company's pre-merger
directors.

The Complaint sought (a) a declaration that the Company's pre-
merger directors breached their fiduciary duties; (b) injunctive
relief enjoining the Business Combination until corrective
disclosures were made; (c) compensatory and/or rescissory damages;
and (d) an award of costs and attorney's fees. On May 19, 2016,
the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which is
subject to final Court approval on July 26, 2016.


DEL TACO: Discovery Completed in Calif. Wage and Hour Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 14, 2016, that in July 2013, a former
Del Taco employee filed a purported class action complaint
alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay overtime wages and has
not appropriately provided meal breaks to its California general
managers. Discovery has been completed and the parties are
preparing their motions for and opposition to class certification.
Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes
should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the
potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter. However, based on management's current understanding of
the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe
that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss
and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco
has not recorded any amount for the claim as of June 14, 2016
(Successor).


DEL TACO: Defending Suit by California Hourly Employees
-------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 14, 2016, that a former Del Taco
employee in March 2014 filed a purported class action complaint
alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately provided meal breaks
and failed to pay wages to its California hourly employees.
Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its
defenses to this threatened class action and the individual
claims. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it
believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as
the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter. However, based on management's current understanding of
the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe
that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss
and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows.


DELTA AIR: Bag Fee Suit in Georgia Wins Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has issued an
order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the first bag fee antitrust litigation against the Company and
AirTran Airways ("AirTran").

In May-July 2009, a number of purported class action antitrust
lawsuits were filed against Delta and AirTran, alleging that Delta
and AirTran engaged in collusive behavior in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act in November 2008 based upon certain public
statements made in October 2008 by AirTran's CEO at an analyst
conference concerning fees for the first checked bag, Delta's
imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on November 4, 2008
and AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on November 12, 2008.
The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on behalf of an alleged
class consisting of passengers who paid the first bag fee after
December 5, 2008 and seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble
damages. All of these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in the Northern District of Georgia.

On July 12, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The defendants have
filed motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. Delta
believes the claims in these cases are without merit and is
vigorously defending these lawsuits.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Revives Portion of Subprime Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
handed a Supreme Court lifeline, shareholders behind consolidated
lawsuits accusing Deutsche Bank of misleading them on $5.4 billion
in subprime securities can advance part of their claims, a federal
judge ruled.

In 2009, the final year of the subprime mortgage crisis, six
class-action lawsuits poured into Manhattan Federal Court alleging
securities fraud on stock offerings sold during the first year the
housing market plunged.

After three unsuccessful attempts to advance the lawsuit, the U.S.
Supreme Court's unrelated decision last year in the case of
pharmaceutical giant Omnicare also opened a window for the
Deutsche shareholders.

In the Omnicare case, the Cincinnati-based subsidiary of CVS
Health was accused of misleading shareholders about how a rash of
whistleblower lawsuits alleging false claims to Medicare and
Medicaid would affect the company.

Omnicare hoped that couching their optimistic forecasts with "we
think" and "we believe" would immunize the company from liability,
but Justice Elena Kagan mocked such corporate incantations as
"those magic words."

"Thus, Omnicare's view would punch a hole in the statute for half-
truths in the form of opinion statements," she wrote.

On Aug. 7, 2015, an attorney for one of Deutsche Bank's
shareholders asked U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts to revisit
his clients' case in light of the high court's ruling.

The bid succeeded on July 25, as Batts revived claims over
Deutsche Bank's November 2007 and February 2008 securities
offerings.  Here, Batts said, the shareholders "sufficiently
alleged that defendants have failed to disclose [the] known trend
and the manner in which it might reasonably be expected to
materially impact [the] company's overall financial position.'"

"Defendants have not identified or directed the court to any
disclosures that may satisfy DB's duty under Item 303 for the
November 2007 and February 2008 offerings," the 100-page opinion
states.

But the judge found the German bank's disclosures passed muster
for the May and June 2007 offerings.

Reuters reported that the claims given the green light involve
$2.55 billion in securities, and those dismissed add up to $2.9
billion.

Attorneys for Deutsche and one of the shareholders did not respond
to emailed requests for comment July 26.

The case is, In re DEUTSCHE BANK AG SECURITIES LITIGATION, 09 CV
1714 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y.).


DIRECTV: Illegaly Debited Customer's Bank Account, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Baker-Dennis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that an indignant customer claims in a class action in Fresno,
Calif. that DirecTV illegally took $666 from his bank account
after he canceled its service.

Mark Bieber says DirecTV debited his bank account without the
consent required by the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. He sued the
company on July 17 in Federal court.

Bieber says his wife signed up with DirecTV in February, but
within a month asked it to cancel the service and come pick up its
equipment.  But rather than do that, he says, "Defendant instead
withdrew six hundred and sixty six dollars and eighty three cents
($666.83) from plaintiff's account without his permission."

Bieber claims that DirecTV has a history of doing this.

DirecTV says on its website that a 2014 survey ranked it as No. 1
in customer satisfaction among all cable and satellite providers.

The Courthouse News database lists 322 lawsuits against DirecTV
since January 2014, of which 75 were class actions.

Bieber seeks class certification and statutory damages of $1,000
per class member, plus attorney fees and costs.  He is represented
by Todd Friedman in Beverly Hills.

Attempts to contact DirecTV for comment were unsuccessful, despite
10 phones calls to customer service numbers and the company's
office of general counsel.


DOLPHIN TOWING: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAYRON RODRIGUEZ and MARQUIS WALLACE, individually, and on behalf
of all other employees of Defendants similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. DOLPHIN TOWING & RECOVERY, INC., a Florida
corporation, and ROBERTO NODARSE, JR., and XAVIER NODARSE,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23125-CMA (S.D.
Fla., July 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked as much as 72
hours per week for the Defendants, but were only paid a salary of
approximately $500.00 per week, which means that they were paid
only $6.94 per hour, including overtime hours.

Dolphin Towing is located at Miami, Florida engaged in towing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          FOWLER RODRIGUEZ LLP
          Santiago J. Padilla, Esq.
          Fowler Rodriguez LLP
          355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 364 8400
          Facsimile: (786) 364 8401
          E-Mail: spadilla@frfirm.com


DOORDASH INC: "Bassknight" Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Francisco claiming that Doordash marks up the prices of
restaurant food it delivers was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice July 26 by the filers.

The case captioned, LEAH BASSKNIGHT, On Behalf of Herself, and All
Others Similarly Situation, Plaintiff, vs. DOORDASH, INC.,
Defendant., Case No. 3:16-cv-01853 JD (N.D. Cal.).


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Sued in Md. Over False False Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SPONN, Individually on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, 7B West Mystic Avenue Mystic, CT 06355, the Plaintiff,
v. EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS, INC., HQ: 400 Professional Drive, Suite
400 Gaithersburg, MD 2087, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-02625-
RWT (D. Md., July 19, 2016), seeks remedies pursuant to the
federal securities laws.

The Defendants allegedly issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
prospects. Specifically, Emergent claimed the U.S. government's
strong and growing demand for BioThrax (TM) was keeping the
Company on track to receive a renewal of its lucrative 5-year
exclusive anthrax vaccine procurement contract with the U.S.
government. Emergent also repeatedly emphasized the U.S.
government's implied ongoing strong -- even growing -- demand for
BioThrax (TM) in light of the U.S. government's funding of
Emergent' s massive expansion of its BioThrax production facility,
claiming it would enable the Company to manufacture some 20-25
million additional doses of BioThrax annually, primarily to be
sold to the U.S. government over the following five year period in
order to build the U.S. govenm1ents' Strategic National Stockpile
of Emergent' s anthrax vaccine to 75 million doses.

Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company. The company's
primary source of revenues is sales of its only U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)-licensed product, BioThrax (TM) (anthrax
Vaccine Adsorbed), an anthrax vaccine, to the U.S. government.

Emergent's anthrax vaccine is the only one licensed by the FDA,
giving the Company a virtual monopoly over anthrax vaccines, and
the U.S. govermnent has historically purchased almost all of the
Company's BioThrax (TM) production.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana W. Mckee, Esq.
          BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
          120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 962 1030
          Facsimile: (410) 385 0869
          E-mail: dwm@browngold.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mary Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392 0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392 0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com


ENDO HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Mahoney" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety the amended
complaint filed in the case captioned SHANNON MAHONEY,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US PARENT), INC., a Delaware corporation,
d/b/a QUALITIEST PHARMACEUTICALS; GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US),
INC., a Delaware corporation; GENERICS BIDCO I, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US HOLDCO),
INC., a Delaware corporation; GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US MIDCO),
INC., a Delaware corporation; and VINTAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, No. 15cv9841(DLC)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Shannon Mahoney brought a putative class action on behalf of a
national class and a New York class against Endo Health Solutions,
Inc. and several related corporations.  Mahoney alleged that she
and other class members suffered an economic loss when they
purchased Qualitest Multi-Vitamin with Fluoride Chewable Tablets,
which are available by prescription for children who do not have
access to fluoridated drinking water.  Mahoney claimed that the
defendants marketed the tablets as having a certain concentration
of fluoride, when in fact the concentration of fluoride was much
lower than the label indicated and lower than the medically-
recommended dosage.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
Mahoney's action in its entirety.

Judge Cote denied the motion with respect to Mahoney's claims for
a violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349, breach of express
warranty, fraud and fraudulent concealment.  However, the judge
dismissed Mahoney's claims for violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation.

A full-text copy of Judge Cote's July 20, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/ul6i4i from Leagle.com.

Shannon Mahoney, Plaintiff, represented by Ryon M. McCabe --
rmccabe@mccaberabin.com -- McCabe Rabin, P.A., Brett Elliott Von
Borke -- bvb@grossmanroth.com -- Grossman Roth, P.A., David Marc
Buckner -- david@bucknermiles.com -- Buckner & Miles, Seth Eric
Miles, Grossman Roth, P.A. & Robert Cartwright Glass --
rglass@mccaberabin.com -- McCabe Rabin, P.A..

Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Generics
International (US Parent), Inc., Generics International (US),
Inc., Generics Bidco I, LLC, Generics Bidco II, LLC, Generics
International (US Holdco), Inc., Generics International (US
Midco), Inc., Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Ingo W. Sprie, Jr. -- ingo.sprie@aporter.com --
Arnold & Porter, LLP, David Fauvre -- david.fauvre@aporter.com --
Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac vice & Jonathan L. Stern --
jonathan.stern@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter, LLP.


EVERBANK FIN'L: Court Approves Allocation Plan in "Vathana" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg approved the proposed allocation plan and
settlement, as well as the motion for attorney's fees and costs,
in the case captioned EK VATHANA, Plaintiff, v. EVERBANK, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-02338-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Class counsel Michael Millin will receive $250,000 from the
settlement fund and reimbursement for $40,127.28 for costs.  Judge
Seeborg also granted lead plaintiff Ek Vathana an incentive award
in the amount of $12,500.  The judge further ordered that the
class administrator may recover up to $21,675 for services in the
case and an additional $2,000 if there is a second-round
distribution.

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's July 20, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/7C3omX from Leagle.com.

Ek Vathana, representing a certified class of investors, brought
the action based on his purchase of two certificates of deposit
(CD) denominated in Icelandic krona (ISK) from the defendants
EverBank, EverBank Financial Corporation, and EverBank World
Markets (collectively "EverBank").  Vathana claimed that
EverBank's decision to close his CDs on their respective maturity
dates rather than roll them over amounted to a breach of contract.
EverBank maintained its action was authorized and compelled by the
banking crisis that gripped Iceland in October of 2008.  A class
was certified of "[a]ll purchasers of EverBank WorldCurrency
Certificate of Deposit denominated in Icelandic krona which
matured between October 8 and December 31, 2008." Vathana became
the class representative and served in that capacity throughout
the litigation.

In March 2016, preliminary approval of the class settlement was
granted, and Rust Consulting, Inc., was assigned to administer all
claims.

Ek Vathana, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Millen, Law Offices
of Michael Millen.

EverBank, EverBank Financial Corp, EverBank World Markets,
Defendants, represented by Brooks Russell Brown --
bbrown@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Alexis L. Shapiro
-- ashapiro@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice,
April Sun -- asun@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Deborah
Sager Birnbach -- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP
& Laura Alexandra Stoll -- lstoll@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin
Procter LLP.


FABI INC: "Garcia" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Garcia individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fabi Inc. dba Forno Rosso and
Nicola Nitti, individually, Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-07401 (N.D.
Ill., July 20, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate a restaurant called Forno Rosso.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDERAL HOME LOAN: Dismissal of OPERS Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit reversed the
district court's dismissal of the third amended complaint in the
case captioned OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; RICHARD F. SYRON;
PATRICIA L. COOK; ANTHONY S. PISZEL; EUGENE M. MCQUADE,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-4189 (6th Cir.).

Lead Plaintiff Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS)
filed a class action suit alleging securities fraud against
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and four senior officers.
The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss,
concluding that OPERS failed to show loss causation.

The Sixth Circuit, however, concluded that OPERS has sufficiently
alleged causation to survive a Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's July 20, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/J4UsKH from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: W.B. Markovits -- bmarkovits@msdlegal.com --  MARKOVITS,
STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.

Jordan D. Hershman -- jordan.hershman@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: W.B. Markovits, Christopher D. Stock --
cstock@msdlegal.com -- MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC,
Cincinnati, Ohio, Richard S. Wayne -- rswayne@strausstroy.com --
STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.

Jordan D. Hershman, Jason D. Frank -- jason.frank@morganlewis.com
-- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Hugh E.
McKay -- hmckay@porterwright.com -- PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR
LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee FHLMC. Mark D. Hopson --
mhopson@sidley.com -- Frank R. Volpe -- fvolpe@sidley.com --
Judith C. Gallagher, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee Syron.

Carl S. Kravitz -- ckravitz@zuckerman.com -- Caroline E. Reynolds
-- creynolds@zuckerman.com -- ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee Cook.

James K. Goldfarb -- jgoldfarb@mmlawus.com -- Michael V. Rella --
mrella@mmlawus.com -- Jonathan Bashi -- jbashi@mmlawus.com --
MURPHY & MCGONIGLE, P.C., New York, New York, Joseph C. Weinstein,
William E. Donnelly -- wdonnelly@mmlawus.com -- MURPHY &
MCGONIGLE, P.C., Washington, D.C., Steven A. Delchin --
steven.delchin@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP,
Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee Piszel.

Michael S. Doluisio -- michael.doluisio@dechert.com -- Joseph S.
McFarlane -- joseph.mcfarlane@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Joseph C. Weinstein --
joe.weinstein@squirepb.com -- Stephen A. Delchin, SQUIRE PATTON
BOGGS (US) LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee McQuade.


FEDEX CORP: Fairness Hearing Set for Jan. 2017 in MDL
-----------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that the multidistrict litigation
court has set a fairness hearing for January 23 and 24, 2017, in
the independent contractor lawsuits.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 25 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators under a
contractor model no longer in use should have been treated as
employees, rather than independent contractors.

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

On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee). In sum, the court ruled on our summary judgment motions
and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20
of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified
as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases
were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states.

The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases.
The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January
2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a
determination with respect to the correctness of the district
court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the
Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit were stayed.

On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20
factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas
Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class
members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was
subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both
parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete
the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made
recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19
cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground requested
that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential
differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas.

On July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion
confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding
that the class members are employees, not independent contractors.
Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a
representative of the court for purposes of setting a case
management conference to address briefing and argument for those
cases.

"During the second quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for
the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case. In the second
quarter of 2016 the Kansas case settled, and we increased the
accrual to the amount of the settlement. The settlement will
require court approval," the Company said.

"During the third quarter of 2016, we reached agreements in
principle to settle all of the 19 cases on appeal in the
multidistrict independent contractor litigation. All of these
settlements require court approval. We recognized a liability for
the expected loss (net of recognized insurance recovery) related
to these cases and certain other pending independent-contractor-
related proceedings of $204 million.

"The Kansas case was remanded to the multidistrict litigation
court, and the other 19 cases remain at the Seventh Circuit;
however, approval proceedings will be conducted primarily by the
multidistrict litigation court. Plaintiffs filed preliminary
approval motions in all 20 cases on June 15 and 29, 2016. The
multidistrict litigation court set a fairness hearing for January
23 and 24, 2017.


FEDEX CORP: Arkansas and Florida Cases Settled
----------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that the multidistrict litigation
court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the
district courts where they were originally filed because its
summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the
claims in those lawsuits. Three of these matters settled for
immaterial amounts and have received court approval. The cases in
Arkansas and Florida settled in the second quarter of 2016, and
the Company established an accrual in each of these cases for the
amount of the settlement. The settlements are subject to court
approval.

"On January 13, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement of the Florida case and granted final approval at a
fairness hearing on July 15, 2016.

"On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement in the Arkansas case.


FEDEX CORP: Approval of Calif. Case Settlement under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that an objector to the class
settlement has filed an appeal from the court approval of the
settlement of a class action lawsuit in California.

Two independent contractor cases in Oregon and one in California
were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the
court reversed the district court decisions and held that the
plaintiffs in California and Oregon were employees as a matter of
law and remanded the cases to their respective district courts for
further proceedings.

"In the first quarter of 2015, we recognized an accrual for the
then-estimated probable loss in those cases," the Company said.

"In June 2015, the parties in the California case reached an
agreement to settle the matter for $228 million, and in the fourth
quarter of 2015 we increased the accrual to that amount. The court
granted final approval of the settlement on June 15, 2016.
However, on June 30, 2016, an objector to the class settlement
filed an appeal of the court's approval of the settlement. We
anticipate that the appeal will be argued in the spring of 2017.
The settlement is not effective until all appeals have been
resolved without affecting the court's approval of the settlement.


FEDEX CORP: Oct. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing in Oregon Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that two independent contractor
class action cases in Oregon were consolidated with a non-
multidistrict litigation independent contractor case in Oregon.
The three cases collectively settled in the second quarter of
2016, and we increased the accrual in these cases to the amount of
the settlement. The settlement was preliminarily approved on April
20, 2016 and the court set a fairness hearing for October 18,
2016.


FEDEX CORP: Contractor-Model Cases Pending
------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that the Company is defending
contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the
multidistrict litigation. These cases are in varying stages of
litigation.

The Company said, "We do not expect to incur a material loss in
these matters; however, it is reasonably possible that potential
loss in some of these lawsuits or changes to the independent
contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be
material. In these cases, we continue to evaluate what facts may
arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts
may render and how these facts and rulings might impact FedEx
Ground's loss. For a number of reasons, we are not currently able
to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in these cases.
The number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of drivers is
defined and how many individuals will qualify based on whatever
criteria may be established."

"In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited
discovery into damages in certain of these cases, which could vary
considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be dependent on
evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which has yet to be
produced in the cases. Further, the range of potential loss could
be impacted substantially by future rulings by the court,
including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx Ground's defenses,
and on evidentiary issues. As a consequence of these factors, as
well as others that are specific to these cases, we are not
currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. We
do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters.

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


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued for Fixing Propane Exchange Tanks Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Marshall, Robert Orr, Eric Blum, Paul Toomey, William
Vincent, David McNally, Steven Luttrell, Ken Cramer, Kevin
Dougherty, James Ristow, Daniel Kelleher, Richard Pedrick, Dallas
May Jr., Tom Roberts, John Gilbert, Mark Stevens, Richard
Paradowski, Hanz De Perio, Josh Bartholow, Joseph M. Haala, Scott
Zuehlke, Wesley H. McCullough, Richard Sanchez and MaryLou Breed,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas, L.P., Amerigas
Partners, L.P., Case No. 4:16-cv-00809-BP (W.D. Mo., July 21,
2016), alleges violations of the Sherman Act.

The action arises out of a conspiracy to fix fill levels of
exchangeable portable cylinder tanks containing propane gas
commonly referred to as "propane exchange tanks." The Plaintiffs
contend that the conspirators are the two leading distributers of
such tanks: Ferrellgas Partners, L.P and Ferrellgas, L.P., doing
business as Blue Rhino, and AmeriGas Partners, L.P., doing
business as AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange.

Ferrellgas Partners is a Delaware limited partnership
headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas.  Ferrellgas Partners
maintains a nearly complete interest in and conducts its business
activities primarily through Ferrellgas LP.  Ferrellgas LP is a
Delaware limited partnership also headquartered in Overland Park.
Ferrellgas LP, doing business as Blue Rhino, operates a national
propane distribution business, and owns or has access to
distribution locations nationwide.  Ferrellgas LP's business
includes the filling, refilling, refurbishing, sale and
distribution of propane exchange tanks under the Blue Rhino name.

AmeriGas is a Delaware publicly traded master limited partnership
with its principal place of business located in King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania.  AmeriGas operates a national propane distribution
business through its subsidiary, AmeriGas Propane, L.P.  AmeriGas
Partners, through AmeriGas Propane, is engaged in the marketing
and sale of propane and propane supply related services, including
the distribution and supply of bulk propane to residential,
commercial, and agricultural customers, and the preparing,
filling, distributing, marketing, and sale of propane exchange
tanks.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
          Sean R. Cooper, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  vahle@stuevesiegel.com
                  cooper@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
          John M. DeStefano, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
                  leonard@hbsslaw.com
                  johnd@hbsslaw.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Carrera Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Nancy Carrera, Karen Jullien, Brent Morrison, Anna
Hershey and Emily Diaz filed an appeal from the District Court's
February 22, 2016 order denying class action certification in the
lawsuit originally titled as Nancy Carrera, et al. v. First
American Home Buyers Protection Company, Case No. 3:13-cv-01585-
BAS-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for Southern California, San
Diego.

The appellate case is styled as Nancy Carrera, et al. v. First
American Home Buyers Protection Company, Case No. 16-56038, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Nancy Carrera, Karen Jullien, Brent
Morrison, Anna Hershey and Emily Diaz are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Niall McCarthy, Esq.
          Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
                  amurphy@cpmlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee FIRST AMERICAN HOME BUYERS PROTECTION COMPANY
is represented by:

          Paul Kakuske, Esq.
          Joel David Siegel, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-5155
          E-mail: paul.kakuske@dentons.com
                  joel.siegel@dentons.com

               - and -

          Charles A. Newman, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          One Metropolitan Square Bldg.
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241-1800
          E-mail: charles.newman@dentons.com

               - and -

          Edward Patrick Swan, Jr., Esq.
          JONES DAY
          12265 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 703-3132
          Facsimile: (858) 314-1150
          E-mail: pswan@jonesday.com


GODADDY.COM: "Dickson" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Dickson, filing individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GoDaddy.com, L.L.C., a
foreign limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02414-BSB (D. Ariz., July 19, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
wages GoDaddy withheld in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

The Defendant allegedly classified the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated GoDaddy employees holding the position of Web
Builder as exempt employees ineligible for overtime wages for the
period of time from approximately the middle of December 2012
through September 2015.

GoDaddy is a publicly traded Internet domain registrar and web
hosting company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Pruitt, Esq.
          Nathaniel Hill, Esq.
          JACKSON WHITE
          40 North Center, Suite 200
          Mesa, AZ 85201
          Telephone: (480) 464 1111
          Facsimile: (480) 464 5692
          E-mail: centraldocket@jacksonwhitelaw.com
                  mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com
                  nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Diamond Suit Over Real Property Assessment
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIAMOND OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS
COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-47553 (D.
Tex., July 19, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less
(attorney's fees) and non-monetary relief correcting the appraisal
roll for Plaintiff's real property.

The District allegedly placed an assessed value on the Plaintiff's
property that is grossly in excess of its actual fair market
value.

The District provides reappraisal values for residential,
commercial and business/industrial property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg J. Dalton, Esq.
          GREGORY J. DALTON PC
          PO Box 109
          Katy, TX 77492
          Telephone: (281) 391 1985
          Facsimile: (281) 391 1987
          E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Stonecrossing Suit Over Property Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------
STONECROSSING WESTCHASE APARTMENT LLC (STONECROSSING AT
WESTCHASE), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
the Defendant, Case No. 2016-47516 (D. Tex., July 19, 2016), seeks
monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief.

The District allegedly appraised the real property owned by the
Plaintiff at an amount of $19,0992,530 which is in excess of the
appraised value required by law.

The District provides reappraisal values for residential,
commercial and business/industrial property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
          Danielle P. Donovan, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN PC
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy, Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: kdonovan@gpd.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: Judge Certifies Age Discrimination Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge July 18, conditionally certified a class of TSA
workers who sued the Department of Homeland Security for age
discrimination.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco allowed TSA workers
who sued in June 2015 to be treated as a class, though class
members will have to opt in, rather than opt out, which is typical
in class actions.

"The court concludes that plaintiffs have offered substantial
allegations that the putative class members were all harmed by a
policy or decision that resulted in the closing of the TSA offices
at which they worked," Tigar wrote. "These allegations
sufficiently support the conclusion that the putative class
members are similarly situated, and that as a result, the class
members will share a number of common issues of law and fact and
the case will benefit from resolution as a collective action
rather than through individual cases."

The class claims the TSA specifically targeted older marshals when
it closed field offices in Cleveland, Tampa, San Diego,
Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Phoenix.

The lead plaintiff, who sued under his initials K.H. due to what
he claims are matters of national security, claims that at least
90 percent of air marshals in the targeted offices were older than
40. Those marshals have been reassigned.

"It is the TSA's intent to force older workers from federal
service and it is the TSA's desire that the older workers will in
fact quit due to the closure of the field offices and the
mandatory office reassignment," K.H. claims.  He says the TSA
wants to "purge" its workforce of older air marshals so it can
"hire two young field air marshals for every older field air
marshal." The move could affect approximately 300 older air
marshals.

In addition, he says, "The TSA is making any potential move to
other offices extremely difficult, expensive, unpalatable, and
problematic."

K.H. says he suffered severe stress about uprooting his family
from Florida and moving to California when the TSA decided to
close the Tampa office, where he worked.  He filed a complaint
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which failed to
act within 180 days.

The plaintiffs are represented by Nicholas Wieczorek with Morris,
Polich & Purdy in Las Vegas, who did not immediately reply to a
request for comment.

The TSA did not respond to a request for comment.

The case captioned, K.H., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant., Case No. 15-cv-02740-
JST (N.D. Cal.)


HOMEWOOD SUITES: Patrons Sue Over E. coli in Hotel Pool
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that hotel patrons claim in a
class-action lawsuit in Memphis that they suffered
gastrointestinal issues after swimming in the Homewood Suites
Memphis - Hacks Cross pool because of E. coli and other germs in
the water.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholder Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the purported
shareholder class action lawsuits filed April 26, 2013, and May
24, 2013, is moving forward on the claims that remain, and
discovery is ongoing.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against a number of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. A substantially identical complaint,
entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365,
was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24,
2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC.

On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees'
Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and
appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part
and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not
to further amend their complaint. On October 22, 2014, the court
granted the Company's motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the court's August 21, 2014, order. The Company
filed its motion for reconsideration on November 5, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 19, 2014, and the
Company filed its reply on November 26, 2014. The court denied the
motion for reconsideration on December 15, 2014. The case is
moving forward on the claims that remain, and discovery is
ongoing.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015,
the Company filed its opposition on October 15, 2015, and the
plaintiffs filed their reply on November 16, 2015. On January 21,
2016, the court held a hearing on the motion, which remains
pending. No trial date has been set. Based on currently available
information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this
matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial position, or future results of operations.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 77 Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
currently named as a defendant in approximately 77 individual
product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal
courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member
underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical
System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some
cases death, as a result of such surgery. The Company has also
received a large number of product liability claims from
plaintiffs' attorneys, many of which are subject to certain
tolling agreements. The Company has also been named as a defendant
in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court. In
total, plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of 55 patients who had da
Vinci Surgeries in 22 different states.

The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying
degrees, that plaintiffs' injuries resulted from purported defects
in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company's
part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare
professionals who performed plaintiffs' surgeries. The cases
further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose
and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the
da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of
causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on
purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and
implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in
many cases, punitive damages. The Company has reached confidential
settlements in many of the filed cases. With certain exceptions,
including the Taylor and Zarick cases described below, the
remaining filed cases generally are in the early stages of
pretrial activity.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have also engaged in well-funded national
advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci
Surgery. The Company has received a significant number of such
claims from plaintiffs' attorneys that it believes are a result of
these advertising efforts. A substantial number of claims relate
to alleged complications from surgeries performed with certain
versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor ("MCS") instruments which
included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a
market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the
subject of a recall in 2013. In an effort to avoid the expense and
distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the Company entered
into tolling agreements to pause the applicable statutes of
limitations for these claims and engaged in confidential mediation
efforts.

After an extended confidential mediation process with legal
counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling
agreements, the Company determined during 2014 that, while it
denies any and all liability, in light of the costs and risks of
litigation, settlement of certain claims was appropriate. During
the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company recorded
pre-tax charges of $6.6 million and $13.8 million, respectively,
to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product
liability claims covered by the tolling agreements. During the
three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company recorded
pre-tax charges of $4.4 million and $6.3 million, respectively,
related to these product liability claims.

The Company's estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving these
claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for claimants who
have participated in the mediation process. Nonetheless, it is
possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals
and that the claimants whose claims were not resolved through the
mediation program, as well as those claimants who have not
participated in mediations, will choose to pursue greater amounts
in a court of law.  Consequently, the final outcome of these
claims is dependent on many variables that are difficult to
predict and the ultimate cost associated with these product
liability claims may be materially different than the amount of
the current estimate and accruals and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, and
future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable
possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists,
the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of
loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time. As of June
30, 2016, and December 31, 2015, a total of $26.1 million and
$24.4 million, respectively, were included in other accrued
liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Wash. Supreme Court Heard Oral Arguments
------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that oral argument on an
appeal before the Washington Supreme Court was heard on June 7,
2016.

In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
product liability action that had originally been filed in
Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the
healthcare providers and hospital involved in a decedent's surgery
on such decedent's behalf (Josette Taylor, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on
behalf of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical,
Inc., No. 09-2-03136-5). In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful
death and product liability claims against the Company, generally
alleging that the decedent died four years after surgery as a
result of injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which
was conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The
plaintiff in Taylor asserted that such injuries were caused, in
whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly
train, warn, and instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought
unspecified damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering,
loss of consortium as well as punitive damages. A trial commenced
in the action on April 15, 2013.

On May 23, 2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that
the Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the
Company's favor on June 7, 2013. Subsequent to the verdict, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. That appeal was denied on July
7, 2015. On July 27, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration with the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal
denied the motion for reconsideration on August 10, 2015. On
September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a Petition for Review with the
Washington State Supreme Court. On February 10, 2016, the
Washington Supreme Court issued an order granting the plaintiff's
Petition for Review. Oral argument on the appeal before the
Washington Supreme Court was heard on June 7, 2016. The court will
issue an opinion at a future time.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Reached Confidential Settlement in "Zarick"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 11, 2016, that the plaintiff and the
Company reached a confidential settlement of the Michelle Zarick
product liability action.

In December 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a
product liability action filed in the Superior Court of
California, Santa Clara County (Michelle Zarick et al. v.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 12-237723). In Zarick, plaintiff
asserted product liability claims against the Company as a result
of injuries purportedly suffered during a hysterectomy, which was
conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The
plaintiff in Zarick asserted that her injuries were caused, in
whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly
train, warn, and instruct the surgeon and by the malfunction of da
Vinci surgical equipment during her surgery. The lawsuit sought
damages for lost earnings, past medical expenses, and pain and
suffering, as well as punitive damages. On April 21, 2016, the
plaintiff and the Company reached a confidential settlement, which
did not have a material effect on the Company's Consolidated
Financial Statements.


IRSA INVERSIONES: Sachsenberg Seeks Damages Under Exchange Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEFAN SACHSENBERG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. IRSA INVERSIONES Y
REPRESENTACIONES SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, EDUARDO SERGIO ELSZTAIN, CRESUD
SOCIEDAD ANONIMA COMERCIAL, INMOBILIARIA, FINANCIERA Y
AGROPECUARIA, SAUL ZANG, and MATIAS IV A.N GAIVIRONSKY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05743-VSB (D. Penn., July 19, 2016),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

The Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements.

IRSA is the leading real estate development firm in Argentina.
Cresud is an agricultural company that produces basic agricultural
commodities in Brazil and other Latin American countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A, Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Ave, Ste 400,
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: "Wan" Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Jiayi Wan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and Hans E.
Bishop, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01083 (W.D. Wash., July 13,
2016), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and
disbursements for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Juno is a biopharmaceutical company that is developing cell-based
cancer immunotherapies. Its leading product candidate is JCAR015,
which is currently in clinical trials. In May 2016, a patient in
the Phase 2 trial of JCAR015 died of a cerebral edema, a form of
neurotoxicity. The following June or early July, two more patients
in the trial died of cerebral edemas. This caused the FDA to issue
a clinical hold and forced Defendants to reveal the truth, which
they finally did on July 7, 2016, after the market closed. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $13.01, or 31.87%, to close
at $27.81 on July 8, 2016.

Plaintiff acquired and held shares of the Company at artificially
inflated prices and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cliff Cantor, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
     627 208th Ave. SE
     Sammamish, WA 98074
     Tel: (425) 868-7813
     Fax: (425) 732-3752
     Email: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

            - and -

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

            - and -

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

                           *     *     *

June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Juno Therapeutics CEO Hans Bishop sold $8.6 million of his stock
after issuing a glowing press release about a cancer immunotherapy
drug, but failed to disclose that a patient had died in clinical
trials, shareholders claim in a federal class action.

The Food and Drug Administration stopped the trials after two more
patients died less than a month later, lead plaintiff Jiayi Wan
says in the July 13 complaint. He sued the company and Bishop.

The FDA stopped clinical trials of Juno's cell-based leukemia drug
JCAR015 on July 8, causing shares to plunge 30 percent, but gave a
green light to resume testing on July 12, after the company
removed an additional chemotherapy drug to the trial regime.

Wan says the company failed to disclose the first patient's death,
and touted its reduced side effects to investors.  However, "The
company knows -- and has previously admitted -- that one of the
notable side effects of JCAR015 is 'severe neurotoxicity.' In May
2016, a patient in the Phase 2 trial of JCAR015 -- dubbed the
'ROCKET' trial by Juno -- died of a cerebral edema, a form of
neurotoxicity," according to the complaint.

"Juno knew the patient death was important. Following the patient
death, the company consulted with its Data Safety Monitoring Board
('DSMB') and the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') about an
appropriate response. Yet Juno failed to report the death to
investors."

In early June, the company issued a press release about the drug's
minimal side effects with no mention of the patient's death.
Juno's stock price went up after the release and Bishop sold his
shares for a huge profit, according to the complaint.

"Shortly thereafter, the company's insiders cashed in. Most
notably, defendant Hans E. Bishop, Juno's CEO, sold over $8.6
million worth of shares in June 2016 -- more than twice the value
of his total sales for all of 2015," the complaint states.

In late June or early July, two more patients died, causing the
FDA to halt trials on July 8. Juno disclosed the news after the
markets closed on July 7 and its stock price fell by $13,
according to the complaint.

Bishop also faced investor complaints of inside trading while COO
of biotech company Dendreon, according to the complaint.

"For defendant Bishop, this was part of a familiar pattern: Bishop
was fired from his previous position as Chief Operating Officer at
Dendreon Corporation on the heels of investor complaints about
management's history of 'failing to disclose important info' and
's[elling] big chunks of stock just weeks before . . . bad news
was announced,'" the complaint states.

Wan seeks to represent investors who bought Juno stock from June 4
through July 7.  He claims Juno violated securities laws by
misrepresenting material facts, making false and misleading
statements and causing the company's stock to be artificially
inflated.  He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He is
represented by Clifford Cantor in Sammamish.

Juno spokesman Christopher Williams told GeekWire that the company
is reassessing its timeline for testing the drug and would have "a
clear sense of that over the next couple of weeks."


JVS RESTAURANTS: "Valasquez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Henry Garcia Valasquez, individually and as class representative
of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. JVS
Restaurants, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Corporation and
Arthur Rivaldo, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-81259
(S.D. Fla., July 13, 2016), seeks declaratory relief and unpaid
wages, damages, pre and post judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

JVS Restaurants operates restaurants located at 713 US Hwy. 1,
North Palm Beach, FL 33408; 279 US Hwy. 1, Tequesta, FL 33469;
and, 421 US Hwy. 1, Stuart, FL 34994 where Plaintiff worked as a
sushi chef.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher C. Copeland, Esq.
     CHRISTOPHER C COPELAND, P.A.
     824 W. Indiantown Road
     Jupiter, FL 33458
     Tel: 561-691-9048
     Fax: 866-259-0719
     Email: Chris@CopelandPA.com
            Carla@CopelandPA.com


K&Y PEACE: "Mendez" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Mendez, Carolina Lizbeth Gavilanes Cortaza and Marco C.
Ruz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. K&Y Peace Corp. (d/b/a Blacksmith Cafe) Sun Mi Chi
and Kyung H. Song, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05562 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 13, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-
of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Laws.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located at 20
West 37th Street, New York, New York 10018, under the name
"Blacksmith Cafe" where Plaintiffs worked as cashier, assistant,
porter and cook.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


K12 INC: "Tarapara" Suit Alleges Violation of Securities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
BABULAL TARAPARA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. K12 INC., RONALD J. PACKARD, NATHANIEL A.
DAVIS, and JAMES J. RHYU, Case 4:16-cv-04069-PJH (N.D. Cal., July
20, 2016), was filed on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired K12 securities between November 7, 2013, and October 27,
2015, inclusive, against the Defendants, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act.

K12 is a technology-based education company that purportedly
provides technology-based educational products and solutions to
public school districts, public schools, virtual charter schools,
private schools, and families.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


KAKECH LLC: Faces "Cook" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA COOK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. KAKECH LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, and
KAMAL BALOGUN, individually, Case 1:16-cv-02632-MHC (UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION, July
20, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

KAKECH LLC is an adult entertainment club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) WORKERS
     Fax: (954) 327-3013
     E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


KRISPY KREME: MOU Reached to Settle Merger Case
-----------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, that
a Memorandum of Understanding has been reached regarding the
settlement of litigation relating to the previously announced
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "merger agreement"),
dated as of May 8, 2016, by and among the Company, Cotton Parent,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), Cotton Merger Sub Inc., a
North Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), and JAB Holdings B.V., a Dutch Besloten
Vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid (private company with
limited liability) ("JAB Holdings").

Pursuant to the merger agreement and subject to the satisfaction
or waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as
the surviving company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the
"merger").

As previously disclosed in the company's definitive merger proxy
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on June 24, 2016 (as amended or supplemented from time to
time, the "proxy statement"), six putative class action complaints
challenging the merger were filed between May 26, 2016 and June
16, 2016, including five in North Carolina Superior Court and one
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina. Subsequent to the filing of the proxy statement,
on July 8, 2016 Jonnie Lomax and Harold Lomax, purported
shareholders of the Company, filed a putative class action
complaint, challenging the merger, in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (together with the
six previously disclosed lawsuits, the "Actions"). The complaint
names the Company and its directors as defendants and alleges
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder in connection
with the merger. In addition, the five actions in North Carolina
Superior Court were consolidated into a single litigation pending
before the Honorable James L. Gale of the North Carolina Business
Court (the "Court") on July 11, 2016, and plaintiffs in this
consolidated litigation filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
merger on July 14, 2016.

Plaintiffs and defendants in the Actions have reached an agreement
in principle to settle the Actions and release the defendants from
all claims relating to the merger, subject to approval of the
Court. Defendants continue to believe that the Actions are without
merit and that no further disclosure is required to supplement the
proxy statement under applicable laws; however, to eliminate the
burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company has
agreed, pursuant to the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding, to
make certain supplemental disclosures to the proxy statement.
Nothing in these supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. Defendants have
vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have
committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful
acts that were alleged in these Actions.


LANCASTER, PA: Refugee Children Denied Educational Opportunities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Lancaster school district is denying refugee children
from war-torn countries educational opportunities guaranteed to
them by law, the American Civil Liberties Union claims in a
federal lawsuit.

The class action was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on July 19.  The lead plaintiffs, "refugees who have fled war,
violence, and persecution from their native countries of Somalia,
Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burma," are between the
ages of 17 and 21 and have been relegated to the school district's
"alternative" Phoenix Academy rather the McCaskey High School,
which offers "full range of curricular and extracurricular
programs and activities, including access to the International
School," the lawsuit says.

According an ACLU press release, "the problem of school districts
refusing to enroll [limited-English-proficiency students] students
or placing them in substandard programs appears to be increasing
around the country. This is the third federal lawsuit filed on
this issue in the past fifteen months, with earlier cases filed
against school districts in Utica, New York , and Collier County,
Florida."

Both of those prior suits have recently been settled.

"Having finally escaped their turbulent environment to resettle in
America, these young immigrants yearn to learn English and get an
education so they can make a life for themselves," the complaint
says.

"Many immigrant LEP students placed at Phoenix drop out because
the district does not provide them with sufficient supports to
overcome language barriers to enable them to learn the core
curriculum, and because of unchecked, persistent bullying in a
severe, authoritarian environment that is particularly ill-suited
for refugees" said the ACLU of Pennsylvania in written statement.

The suit alleges the plaintiffs are English language learners who
do not have access to appropriate programs curriculum and are
subject to bullying at Phoenix Academy, which is "an alternative
high school for 'underachieving' students operated for SDOL on a
contract basis by Camelot Education, a private company that is
known for operating disciplinary schools."

"Phoenix is run more like a disciplinary school than a traditional
public high school. Students are subject to pat-down searches,
prohibited from bringing belongings into or out of the school,
forced to wear colored shirts that correspond with behavior and
not allowed to wear watches or jewelry, expected to 'confront'
peers 'exhibiting negative behavior,' and can be subjected to
physical and even violent restraint, as part of the school's
disciplinary policy," the complaint says.

The bolster its argument, the ACLU points to the 1974 Supreme
Court ruling in Lau v. Nichols, which stated "There is no equality
of treatment merely by providing students with the same
facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who
do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any
meaningful education."

"Our clients have already experienced much trauma and loss before
arriving in this country. Rather than helping them make the
difficult adjustment by providing educational resources required
by law, the school district has denied them an education
completely or forced them into an alternative school, where they
are often bullied and don't learn," said Reggie Shuford, executive
director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, in a statement on the
organization's website.

Kelly Burkholder, the Lancaster School District's coordinator of
community relations, said in an email to Courthouse News that "The
district believes the complaint is without merit and looks forward
to providing our students with educational services that meet
their individual needs consistent with the legal obligations
imposed by state and federal law.

"The district will continue to be on the cutting edge in
developing programs that are unique, such as establishing our
Refugee Welcoming Center, after school programs and special summer
programs for refugee students," Burkholder continued.

The ACLU filed the suit with co-council The Education Law Center,
and Pepper Hamilton LLP, which is providing pro bono counsel.


LAUREN A. ADESSA: Faces "Giammona" Suit in D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Lauren A. Adessa. The case is
captioned GIOVANNA GIAMMONA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LAUREN A. ADESSA
a/k/a LAUREN A. ADESSA, ESQ., and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-04424-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., July 20, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Jose L. Linares.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LENDER PROCESSING: Faces "Lemieux" Suit in S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Lender Processing Center. The
case is captioned Kevin Lemieux, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lender Processing
Center and Hightechlending, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-01850-BAS-DHB (S.D. Cal., July 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Cynthia Bashant.

Lender Processing provides mortgage processing services,
settlement services, and mortgage performance analytics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIFE TIME: "Roth" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages, OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER ROTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.; LTF CLUB OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC.; LTF
CLUB MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC; and LTF YOGA COMPANY, LLC., CASE
0:16-cv-02476 (D. Minn., July 20, 2016), was filed on behalf of a
purported "group fitness instructor" seeking to recover minimum
wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
     Brant D. Penney, Esq.
     Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
     REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
     E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
     332 Minnesota St.
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (651) 287-2100
     Fax: (651) 287-2103
     E-mail: g.blanchfield@gwblawfirm.com
             r.yard@gwblawfirm.com

        - and -

     J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
     HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON PC
     5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
     West Des Moines, IA 50265
     Phone: (515) 223-4567
     Fax: (515) 223-8887
     E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net

        - and -

     Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
     Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
     KARON LLC
     700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: (216) 551-9175
     Fax: (216) 241-8175
     E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
             bhollowell@karonllc.com

        - and -

     Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
     PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
     1422 Euclid Ave., Suite 1610
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Phone: (216) 589-9280
     Fax: (888) 411-0038
     E-mail: arosca@prwlegal.com


LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Gutman" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial Services, L.P. The
case is captioned Brana Gutman, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. LTD Financial
Services, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04037 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 20, 2016).

LTD Financial is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: $23.5MM Settlement Has Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge
preliminarily approved a $23.5 million securities class action in
San Francisco against Magnachip Semiconductor and its directors,
including attorneys' fees not to exceed 25% and a sealed,
supplemental agreement.

The case captioned, KEITH THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants.,
Case No. 14-cv-01160-JST (N.D. Cal.).


MARICOPA, AZ: Phoenix Judge Trimmed Sheriff Arpaio's Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Phoenix July 20, removed some of Sheriff Joe
Arpaio's authority over his Internal Affairs department, finding
"America's Toughest Sheriff" minimized punishments of his command
staff or failed to discipline them at all for civil rights
violations.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow's ruling comes two months after
Snow found the Maricopa County sheriff and three of his aides in
contempt of court for disobeying orders in a longstanding racial-
profiling class action.

Arpaio and Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan also face potential
criminal contempt charges.

In 2007, a class action filed against Arpaio and the Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) claimed deputies racially profiled
Latinos during traffic stops and unlawfully detained them during
crime-suppression sweeps.

Judge Snow barred deputies from profiling in 2011, and in 2013
ordered Arpaio and his office to take steps to prevent racial
profiling. But Arpaio's officers continued to use profiling in its
sweeps and traffic stops, leading to a 21-day contempt hearing.

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, who represent
the class, asked Snow in June to remove Arpaio and his command
staff from overseeing the Internal Affairs division to prevent
them from concealing wrongdoing.

Arpaio and Sheridan "have openly defied the court's authority in
front of subordinates, repeatedly violated the court's discovery
orders, deliberately misled the court appointed monitor, and
willfully subverted MCSO's internal affairs system to evade being
held responsible for their misconduct," the ACLU wrote in a memo.

Snow agreed with the ACLU July 20, finding that Arpaio and his
aides have "manipulated the Internal Affairs process at the MCSO
to ensure that many employees -- including Chief Deputy Sheridan
-- were disciplined in a relatively lenient manner or not at all
for violating the rights of the plaintiff class."

To combat these failures, Snow ordered that an independent
Internal Affairs investigator and an independent disciplinary
authority "make and review disciplinary decisions for all
employees pertaining to the misconduct."

Snow's order also requires the sheriff's office to review all of
its policies and produce new or revised procedures for performing
misconduct investigations.

Among the changes, "No employee who was involved in an incident
shall be involved in or review a misconduct investigation arising
out of the incident," Snow wrote.

Any employee involved in a business or personal relationship with
a witness in a misconduct investigation may not participate in the
investigation, the order states.

Within three months of completing these revised procedures, the
sheriff's office must provide members of its Internal Affairs
division with 40 hours of training on how to conduct
investigations. The sheriff also must train all deputies about the
new policies, Snow ordered.

A hearing on July 22, will address potential criminal contempt
charges Snow might refer against Arpaio or Sheridan. Those charges
could include fines and jail time.

A sheriff's office representative could not be reached for comment
before press time. Arpaio, 84, is attending the Republican
National Convention in Cleveland as a delegate from Arizona.

The case captioned, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; et al. Plaintiffs,
and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Joseph M.
Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County,
Arizona; et al. Defendants (D. Ariz.).


MARICOPA, AZ: Defying Court Orders Not "Criminal," Arpaio Argues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
attorneys for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his top aide
argued in court on July 22, afternoon that their clients' repeated
disregard of a federal judge's orders did not amount to criminal
contempt.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow found Arpaio and Chief Deputy
Gerald Sheridan in civil contempt in May, ruling the two disobeyed
Snow's orders in a 2007 class action to stop racially profiling
Latinos, withheld documents from the court and misstated facts
while under oath.

They both now face referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office for
possible criminal charges of contempt of court, perjury,
obstruction of justice and making false statements to a court-
appointed monitor.

The plaintiff class raised the civil contempt allegations against
Arpaio and Sheridan, claiming the two men and other command staff
in the sheriff's office failed to deliver data to the court and
train deputies on how to make constitutional traffic stops, as
required by a 2013 order.

Mel McDonald, an attorney for Arpaio, told the court July 22, that
Snow should take into consideration the sheriff's lengthy
"exemplary" law enforcement career and his age, but should also
focus on how the criminal referral could affect progress of
complying with the court's orders at the sheriff's office.

"Referring the criminal contempt would almost undermine the
directives you've given," McDonald said. "It is self-defeating."

Snow said he's considered whether the remedies he's ordered will
change the actions of Arpaio and Sheridan.

In an order July 20, Snow removed some of Arpaio's authority over
his internal affairs department, and laid out reforms the
sheriff's office must make when handling misconduct
investigations.

"Chief Deputy Sheridan and Sheriff Arpaio lied in the contempt
hearing," Snow said. "They lied to my face."

Snow, who has overseen most of the nearly decade-old case,
indicated the two men would not receive any special treatment due
to their status within the sheriff's office.

"I am through putting up with that kind of stuff and they are
going to be as responsible for what they do as any other citizen
in Maricopa County," Snow said.

McDonald said mistakes were made by Arpaio in implementing Snow's
previous orders, but improvements have been made in working with
the court-appointed monitor and among supervisors in the agency.

"You have the best of both worlds by not making the referral,"
McDonald said. "Give them the opportunity to prove it to you."

Lee Stein, an attorney for Sheridan, argued that reforms recently
imposed by Snow make a criminal referral unnecessary.

"The court has, as it stands, imposed civil remedies that are
going to result in a number of investigations into Chief
Sheridan," Stein told the court. If any investigation produces
evidence that Sheridan acted against the court's order, it may
result in his termination from the sheriff's office.

"These are severe and profound consequences for Chief Sheridan and
his future," Stein said.

The ACLU, which represents the plaintiff class, urged Snow in June
to refer Arpaio and Sheridan to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Arpaio and Sheridan "have openly defied the court's authority in
front of subordinates, repeatedly violated the court's discovery
orders, deliberately misled the court appointed monitor, and
willfully subverted MCSO's internal affairs system to evade being
held responsible for their misconduct," the memo argued. "And even
after they were called to account in a civil contempt proceeding,
Arpaio and Sheridan continued to flout the rule of law by lying on
the witness stand."

Michele Iafrate, a former attorney for Arpaio, and Capt. Steve
Bailey also face criminal referrals.

The two are alleged to have delayed producing a cache of
identifications to the court.  It is unclear when Snow will rule
on the referrals. Snow is also expected to levy fines against
Arpaio and Sheridan.


MARY JANE ELLIOTT: Settlement Deal in "Knuckles" Has Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Linda V. Parker granted final approval of the class-wide
settlement in the case captioned FALISCIA C. KNUCKLES, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARY
JANE ELLIOTT, PC, Defendant, Civil Case No. 15-10175 (E.D. Mich.).

Faliscia Knuckles filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated, alleging that a debt collection notice
sent by the defendant, Mary Jane M. Elliott P.C., violates the
Fair Debt Collection Practice and Michigan's Regulation of
Collection Practices Act.

The settlement, as reached by the parties, requires the defendant
to pay $7,910.00 to the class administrator within 10 days of
final approval of the settlement.  The claims administrator then
will distribute $14.00 to each class member who timely returns a
valid Proof of Claim form.  Any portion of the settlement fund
that is unclaimed by class members after 90 days shall result in a
cy pres distribution to the National Consumer Law Center.

Within 10 days of final approval of the settlement, the defendant
shall send Knuckles' counsel, Brian Parker, a check made payable
to Knuckles for $2,500.00, representing payment of statutory
damages and a class incentive award.  Within the same time frame,
the defendant is required to send a check to Brian Parker, as
class counsel, representing payment of the approved attorneys'
fees and cost.

A full-text copy of Judge Parker's July 20, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/N5PBch from Leagle.com.

Faliscia C Knuckles, Plaintiff, represented by Brian P. Parker --
brianparker@collectionstopper.com -- Brian P. Parker Assoc..

Mary Jane M. Eilliott, PC, Defendant, represented by Jason M.
Renner -- jason.renner@ceflawyers.com -- Collins Einhorn Farrell
P.C. & Sarah E. Blalock -- sarah.blalock@ceflawyers.com -- Collins
Einhorn Farrell, P.C..


MARY KAY: D.N.J. Ruling in "Collins" Class Suit under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ina M. Collins filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Ina Collins v. Mary Kay Inc., Case No. 2-15-
cv-07129, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Collins, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated persons, commenced the
lawsuit on September 28, 2015, alleging violations of the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law.  She alleged that the Case arises from
the Defendant's rules for Beauty Consultants whereby it would
require them to purchase designated minimum amounts of Mary Kay
products directly from the Company in order to maintain their
designation as Beauty Consultants.

The appellate case is captioned as Ina Collins v. Mary Kay Inc.,
Case No. 16-3178, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 799-1266
          Facsimile: (609) 799-1267
          E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Christine A. Amalfe, Esq.
          Richard S. Zackin, Esq.
          GIBBONS P.C.
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 596-4829
          Facsimile: (973) 639-6230
          E-mail: camalfe@gibbonslaw.com
                  rzackin@gibbonslaw.com


MCCLINTON ENERGY: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JARVIS THOMAS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McCLINTON ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C., SURF-FRAC WELLHEAD
EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. D/B/A SWECO, and TONY D. McCLINTON, Case
7:16-cv-00279 (W.D. Tex., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

McCLINTON ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C. is based in Midland, Texas and is a
provider of equipment and services to nationwide oil and gas
industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     ANDERSON2X, PLLC
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com


MCDONALD CORP: Not Liable for Wage Theft Claims, Judge Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Francisco, July 21, told attorneys for a
class of fast-food workers he does not believe McDonald's can be
held liable for claims of wage theft.

Led by cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith
Zarate the class sued McDonald's and franchise owner Bobby Haynes
in March 2014, saying they were denied meal and rest breaks and
were not paid for all the hours they worked because McDonald's
computer system killed overtime from their time cards.

But U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the class failed to
show that McDonalds exercises enough control over the day-to-day
operation of its franchisees to be considered their employer.
Seeborg said at the July 21 hearing that he was inclined to grant
McDonald's' motion for summary judgment on vicarious liability.

"McDonald's is simply not a joint employer. I think the undisputed
facts are pretty clear. The basic working condition arrangements
are with Haynes and not McDonald's," Seeborg said.

The Haynes Partnership has owned eight franchises in Oakland and
San Leandro since 2010. Seeborg noted that Haynes controlled
hiring, firing, discipline, wages and general working conditions,
much like the franchisees in Ochoa v. McDonald's Corp., another
wage and hour class action in the Northern District of California.

In Ochoa, U.S. District Judge James Donato found that McDonald's
did not directly employ the plaintiffs, as all staffing decisions
were made by franchise owner Edward J. Smith and Valerie S. Smith
Family Limited Partnership.

"The Ochoa case, while not binding on me, is quite persuasive,"
Seeborg said.

Class attorney Barbara Chisholm disagreed.

"The court got it wrong in Ochoa," she told Seeborg. Chisholm said
McDonald's is indeed a joint employer, and that it exercised, at
the very least, indirect control over the Haynes restaurants by
setting requirements for staffing and scheduling. A business
consultant visited the restaurants every so often, and in their
depositions, Chisholm said, both Salazar and Zarate said they saw
the consultant correct employees and shift managers on how to do
their jobs. They also allegedly told Haynes not to let employees
take breaks during busy times.

Seeborg seemed unpersuaded. As to hiring, firing, supervision and
discipline of employees -- the factors that create a direct
employer relationship -- Seeborg said: "At the end of the day, the
Haynes get to make the choice."

But Chisholm said there are unresolved questions about whom the
plaintiffs believed they were working for. She said that when
Salazar was asked about Haynes, she was told that Haynes is part
of McDonald's.

"The confusion as to who really is their employer and whether
Haynes is part of McDonald's is highly reasonable," Chisholm said.
"These are low-wage workers we're talking about."

McDonald's attorney Lawrence DiNardo said that the Haynes family
viewed McDonald's training programs and operating procedures as
suggestions, not requirements.

DiNardo said McDonalds did not have the kind of power to be
considered a joint employer with Haynes.

"The notion of indirect control here is that by some device you
still have the power to hire fire, set wages, etc. It's not just
that you have an influence on those matters," he said. "That's not
enough to make you an employer under the Labor Code."

Seeborg did not indicate when he would rule.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Ochoa" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants McDonald's Corp., McDonald's U.S.A., LLC, and
McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Stephanie Ochoa, et al. v.
McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02098-JD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12, 2016, the
Hon. James Donato granted in part and denied in part a motion for
class certification filed by Plaintiffs Stephanie Ochoa, Ernestina
Sandoval, Yadira Rodriguez, and Jasmine Hedgepeth.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all current and former
employees at the Smiths' restaurants, who worked as crew, crew
trainers, or maintenance workers and were paid on an hourly basis
from four years before the complaint to final judgment or
settlement.  The Plaintiffs move for certification of that single
Class to pursue claims for: (1) miscalculated wages; (2) overtime;
(3) meals and rest breaks; (4) maintenance of uniforms; (5) wage
statements; and (6) related derivative claims.

Under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court certifies the proposed Class for plaintiffs' miscalculated
wages claims, overtime claims and maintenance-of-uniform claims,
and any claims that are derivative of those claims.  A copy of the
Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=A0V1eNjk

The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Ochoa, et al. v.
McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 16-80096, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Respondents Stephanie Ochoa, Ernestina Sandoval, Yadira
Rodriguez and Jasmine Hedgepeth are represented by:

          Barbara Jane Chisholm
          Matthew John Murray, Esq.
          P. Casey Pitts, Esq.
          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: bchisholm@althshulerberzon.com
                  mmurray@altshulerberzon.com
                  ppitts@atlahulerberzon.com
                  mrubin@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com

Defendants-Petitioners McDonald's Corp., McDonald's U.S.A., LLC,
and McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., are represented
by:

          Gregory William Knopp, I, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-6436
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com

               - and -

          Pratik A. Shah, Esq.
          James Edward Tysse, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 887-4210
          Facsimile: (202) 887-4288
          E-mail: pshah@akingump.com
                  jtysse@akingump.com


MDL 1720: 2nd Cir. Vacated Certification of Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust said in its Form 10 D Asset-
Backed Issuer Distribution Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has found that class plaintiffs
were inadequately represented and as a result vacated the district
court's certification of the settlement class consisting of the
merchants that accepted or will accept Visa and/or MasterCard from
November 28, 2012 onwards, reversed approval of the settlement,
and remanded the action for further proceedings.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, including
Citibank, N.A. (collectively Citigroup), together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various
federal district courts and consolidated with other related cases
in a multi-district litigation proceeding before Judge Gleeson in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. This proceeding is captioned In re Payment Card Interchange
Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1720.

On July 13, 2012, all parties to the putative class actions,
including Citigroup, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) setting forth the material terms of a class settlement. The
class settlement contemplated by the MOU provides for, among other
things, a total payment by all defendants to the class of $6.05
billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the damages class
settlement of 10 basis points on interchange collected for a
period of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard networks;
changes to certain network rules that would permit merchants to
surcharge some payment card transactions subject to certain
limitations and conditions, including disclosure to consumers at
the point of sale; and broad releases in favor of the defendants.
Subsequently, all defendants and certain of the plaintiffs who had
entered into the MOU executed a settlement agreement consistent
with the terms of the MOU.

On November 27, 2012, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the proposed class settlements and
provisionally certified two classes for settlement purposes only.
The court held a hearing on September 12, 2013 to consider whether
the class settlements should be finally approved. On December 13,
2013, the court entered an order granting final approval to the
class settlement, and on January 14, 2014, the court entered a
final judgment.

On July 28, 2015, various objectors to the class settlement filed
motions in the U.S. District Court to vacate the court's prior
approval of the class settlement, alleging improprieties by two of
the lawyers involved in the Interchange MDL. Also, a number of
objectors filed an appeal of the final approval order with the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument
regarding the appeals on September 28, 2015.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that
the class plaintiffs were inadequately represented and as a result
vacated the district court's certification of the settlement class
consisting of the merchants that accepted or will accept Visa
and/or MasterCard from November 28, 2012 onwards, reversed
approval of the settlement, and remanded the action for further
proceedings.

Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL
05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.) and 12-4671 (2d Cir.), and at:

            https://www.paymentcardsettlement.com/en


MDL 2002: Summary Judgment BidS Pending in Egg Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court heard oral
argument on the motions for summary judgment on February 22 and
23, 2016, in the Egg Antitrust Litigation but has not ruled on
these motions.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants
-- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to
be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action. The direct purchaser
putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg
Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported, in November 2014, the Court approved the
Company's settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and
entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class
members' claims against the Company.

The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action.  The indirect
purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re:
Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary
hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined
several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal
of the entire case or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions
of the case.  On July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain
affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal
and state antitrust laws. The Court heard oral argument on the
motions for summary judgment on February 22 and 23, 2016. The
Court has not ruled on these motions.

On September 18, 2015, the Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification of 21 separate classes
seeking damages under the laws of 21 states, holding that the
plaintiffs were not able to prove that their purported method for
ascertaining class membership was reliable or administratively
feasible, that common questions would predominate, or that their
proposed class approach would be manageable in a single trial.

In addition to barring any right to pursue a class monetary remedy
under state law, the Court also denied indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' request for certification of an injunctive-relief
class under federal law.  However, the court allowed the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification
seeking a federal injunction.  The plaintiffs filed their renewed
motion to certify an injunctive-relief class on October 23, 2015.
The Company joined the other defendants in opposing that motion on
November 20.  The plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on
December 11, 2015. The plaintiffs requested oral argument on their
renewed motion for injunctive class certification.

The plaintiffs also filed a petition with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the court to hear an
immediate appeal of the trial court's denial of the motion to
certify 21 state-law damages classes.  On December 3, 2015, the
Third Circuit entered an order staying its consideration of the
plaintiffs' request for an immediate appeal of the damages-class
ruling pending the trial court's resolution of the plaintiffs'
renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class.


MDL 2562: Nadola Appeals Approval of $32-Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Objector Caroline Nadola filed an appeal from the Final Order and
Judgment, and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Awarding Fees and Costs both entered on June 16, 2016, in the
multidistrict litigation titled In re: Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd.,
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 4:14-md-02562-
RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis.

The appellate case is captioned Alexia Keil, et al. v. Caroline
Nadola, Case No. 16-3167, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.

In the June 16 Final Order and Judgment, District Judge Rodney W.
Sippel gave final approval to the parties' settlement agreement
and certified this Settlement Class solely for purposes of the
Settlement:

     All residents of the United States of America who, from
     May 7, 2008 through the Preliminary Approval Date, purchased
     any of the Blue Buffalo Products [listed on Ex. 1 to the
     Settlement Agreement].

Judge Sippel noted that Blue Buffalo has already deposited $32
million into the Settlement Fund.  The Court also approved an
incentive award to each named Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500.
Under the Settlement, Blue Buffalo has agreed to pay incentive
awards to the named plaintiffs separate from, and in addition to,
the $32 million common fund.

The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations by
consumers that Blue Buffalo made false and misleading
representations about the ingredients in its pet food products, as
allegedly indicated by laboratory testing commissioned by the
Nestle Purina PetCare Company.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Alexia Keil and Rachael D. Stone are
represented by:

          Timothy M. Cronin, Esq.
          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: tcronin@simonlawpc.com
                  jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Rachael D. Stone is represented by:

          Sean K. Cronin, Esq.
          DONOVAN ROSE NESTER, P.C.
          201 S. Illinois Street
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 212-6500
          Facsimile: (618) 212-6501
          E-mail: scronin@drnpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Nick Hutchison is represented by:

          Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          901 Pine Street
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Kamber, Esq.
          WECHSLER & HARWOOD
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah Kravitz, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          401 Center Street, Suite 111
          Healdsburg, CA 95448
          Telephone: (707) 820-4247
          E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          David Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Reade Wilson, Esq.
          COREA FIRM
          2028 Sarrington Street
          Dallas, TX 75207
          Telephone: (214) 953-3900
          E-mail: jwilson@corealaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Jason Davis is represented by:

          Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq.
          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          901 Pine Street
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com
                  dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          David Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Maja MacKenzie is represented by:

          Joshua Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ LAW FIRM
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com

               - and -

          David B. Helms, Esq.
          Sarah A. Milunski, Esq.
          Richard B. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
          LEWIS RICE LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-7600
          E-mail: smilunski@lewisrice.com
                  rwalsh@lewisrice.com

               - and -

          Michael Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          16th Floor
          100 W. 93rd Street
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: michael@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          Facsimile: (561) 688-0630
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Brian Andacky and Melissa Baggett are
represented by:

          Scott Bursor, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Frederick John Klorczyk, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7129
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com

               - and -

          Don Manley Downing, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Eighth Floor
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000
          Telephone: (314) 732-0728
          Facsimile: (314) 241-4140

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee David Delre is represented by:

          Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          320 E. 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com
                  avozzolo@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Christopher Renna and Kimberly Lemon are
represented by:

          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          KLINGMAN LAW, LLC
          196 Trumbull Street, Suite 510
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 256-6120
          E-mail: pak@klingmanlaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Christopher Renna is represented by:

          Brian Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & EHRLICH
          19 South LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Joshua Teperson is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          James Richard Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Jonathon Fisher is represented by:

          Sara Avila, Esq.
          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Allison Rachel Willett, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, ADELMAN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: savila@majfw.com
                  gwade@majfw.com
                  allison@willettlaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Cindi Inman is represented by:

          Matthew Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM
          8816 Manchester Road
          Brentwood, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 258-0212

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Beth Cox is represented by:

          Daniel Frech, Esq.
          Stuart Scott, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue, E., Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          E-mail: dfrech@spanglaw.com
                  sscott@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
                  jtycko@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Victoria Lyman is represented by:

          Daniel W. Luginbill, Esq.
          WILSON & LUGINBILL LLC
          P.O. Box 1150
          3056 Railroad Avenue
          Bamberg, SC 29003
          Telephone: (803) 245-7799

               - and -

          Robert V. Phillips, Esq.
          MCGOWAN & HOOD
          1539 Healthcare Drive
          Rock Hill, SC 29732
          Telephone: (803) 327-7800

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Stephanie Douglas is represented by:

          Donald C. Douglas, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONALD C. DOUGLAS, JR.
          1070 West Causeway Approach, Suite B
          Mandeville, LA 70471
          Telephone: (985) 246-3034

               - and -

          Robert G. Harvey, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TAMARA KLUGER JACOBSON, LLC
          600 North Carrollton Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 822-2136

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Sarah Jacobs is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Noah Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com


MDL 2562: Sweeney Appeals Approval of $32-Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Objector Pamela Sweeney filed an appeal from the Final Order and
Judgment, and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Awarding Fees and Costs both entered on June 16, 2016, in the
multidistrict litigation titled In re: Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd.,
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 4:14-md-02562-
RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis.

The appellate case is entitled Alexia Keil, et al. v. Pamela
Sweeney, Case No. 16-3168, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.

In the June 16 Final Order and Judgment, District Judge Rodney W.
Sippel gave final approval to the parties' settlement agreement
and certified this Settlement Class solely for purposes of the
Settlement:

     All residents of the United States of America who, from
     May 7, 2008 through the Preliminary Approval Date, purchased
     any of the Blue Buffalo Products [listed on Ex. 1 to the
     Settlement Agreement].

Judge Sippel noted that Blue Buffalo has already deposited $32
million into the Settlement Fund.  The Court also approved an
incentive award to each named Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500.
Under the Settlement, Blue Buffalo has agreed to pay incentive
awards to the named plaintiffs separate from, and in addition to,
the $32 million common fund.

The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations by
consumers that Blue Buffalo made false and misleading
representations about the ingredients in its pet food products, as
allegedly indicated by laboratory testing commissioned by the
Nestle Purina PetCare Company.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Alexia Keil and Rachael D. Stone are
represented by:

          Timothy M. Cronin, Esq.
          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: tcronin@simonlawpc.com
                  jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Rachael D. Stone is represented by:

          Sean K. Cronin, Esq.
          DONOVAN ROSE NESTER, P.C.
          201 S. Illinois Street
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 212-6500
          Facsimile: (618) 212-6501
          E-mail: scronin@drnpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Nick Hutchison is represented by:

          Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          901 Pine Street
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Kamber, Esq.
          WECHSLER & HARWOOD
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah Kravitz, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          401 Center Street, Suite 111
          Healdsburg, CA 95448
          Telephone: (707) 820-4247
          E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          David Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Reade Wilson, Esq.
          COREA FIRM
          2028 Sarrington Street
          Dallas, TX 75207
          Telephone: (214) 953-3900
          E-mail: jwilson@corealaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Jason Davis is represented by:

          Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq.
          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          901 Pine Street
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com
                  dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          David Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Maja MacKenzie is represented by:

          Joshua Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ LAW FIRM
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com

               - and -

          David B. Helms, Esq.
          Sarah A. Milunski, Esq.
          Richard B. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
          LEWIS RICE LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-7600
          E-mail: smilunski@lewisrice.com
                  rwalsh@lewisrice.com

               - and -

          Michael Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          16th Floor
          100 W. 93rd Street
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: michael@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          Facsimile: (561) 688-0630
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Brian Andacky and Melissa Baggett are
represented by:

          Scott Bursor, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Frederick John Klorczyk, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7129
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com

               - and -

          Don Manley Downing, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Eighth Floor
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000
          Telephone: (314) 732-0728
          Facsimile: (314) 241-4140

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee David Delre is represented by:

          Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          320 E. 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Karen Leser-Grenon, Esq.
          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          E-mail: kleser@sfmslaw.com
                  jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Christopher Renna and Kimberly Lemon are
represented by:

          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          KLINGMAN LAW, LLC
          196 Trumbull Street, Suite 510
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 256-6120
          E-mail: pak@klingmanlaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Christopher Renna is represented by:

          Brian Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & EHRLICH
          19 South LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Joshua Teperson is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          James Richard Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Jonathon Fisher is represented by:

          Sara Avila, Esq.
          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Allison Rachel Willett, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, ADELMAN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: savila@majfw.com
                  gwade@majfw.com
                  allison@willettlaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Cindi Inman is represented by:

          Matthew Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM
          8816 Manchester Road
          Brentwood, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 258-0212

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Beth Cox is represented by:

          Daniel Frech, Esq.
          Stuart Scott, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue, E., Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          E-mail: dfrech@spanglaw.com
                  sscott@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
                  jtycko@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Victoria Lyman is represented by:

          Daniel W. Luginbill, Esq.
          WILSON & LUGINBILL LLC
          P.O. Box 1150
          3056 Railroad Avenue
          Bamberg, SC 29003
          Telephone: (803) 245-7799

               - and -

          Robert V. Phillips, Esq.
          MCGOWAN & HOOD
          1539 Healthcare Drive
          Rock Hill, SC 29732
          Telephone: (803) 327-7800

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Stephanie Douglas is represented by:

          Donald C. Douglas, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONALD C. DOUGLAS, JR.
          1070 West Causeway Approach, Suite B
          Mandeville, LA 70471
          Telephone: (985) 246-3034

               - and -

          Robert G. Harvey, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TAMARA KLUGER JACOBSON, LLC
          600 North Carrollton Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 822-2136

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Sarah Jacobs is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Noah Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com


MDL 2562: Sibley Appeals Order Approving $32MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Objector Gary S. Sibley filed an appeal from the Final Order and
Judgment, and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Awarding Fees and Costs both entered on June 16, 2016, in the
multidistrict litigation titled In re: Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd.,
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 4:14-md-02562-
RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis.

The appellate case is titled Alexia Keil, et al. v. Gary Sibley,
Case No. 16-3169, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit.

In the June 16 Final Order and Judgment, District Judge Rodney W.
Sippel gave final approval to the parties' settlement agreement
and certified this Settlement Class solely for purposes of the
Settlement:

     All residents of the United States of America who, from
     May 7, 2008 through the Preliminary Approval Date, purchased
     any of the Blue Buffalo Products [listed on Ex. 1 to the
     Settlement Agreement].

Judge Sippel noted that Blue Buffalo has already deposited $32
million into the Settlement Fund.  The Court also approved an
incentive award to each named Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500.
Under the Settlement, Blue Buffalo has agreed to pay incentive
awards to the named plaintiffs separate from, and in addition to,
the $32 million common fund.

The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations by
consumers that Blue Buffalo made false and misleading
representations about the ingredients in its pet food products, as
allegedly indicated by laboratory testing commissioned by the
Nestle Purina PetCare Company.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Alexia Keil and Rachael D. Stone are
represented by:

          Timothy M. Cronin, Esq.
          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: tcronin@simonlawpc.com
                  jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Rachael D. Stone is represented by:

          Sean K. Cronin, Esq.
          DONOVAN ROSE NESTER, P.C.
          201 S. Illinois Street
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 212-6500
          Facsimile: (618) 212-6501
          E-mail: scronin@drnpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Nick Hutchison is represented by:

          Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          901 Pine Street
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Kamber, Esq.
          WECHSLER & HARWOOD
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah Kravitz, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          401 Center Street, Suite 111
          Healdsburg, CA 95448
          Telephone: (707) 820-4247
          E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          David Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Reade Wilson, Esq.
          COREA FIRM
          2028 Sarrington Street
          Dallas, TX 75207
          Telephone: (214) 953-3900
          E-mail: jwilson@corealaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Jason Davis is represented by:

          Stephen Frank Gaunt, Esq.
          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          901 Pine Street
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com
                  dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          David Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Maja MacKenzie is represented by:

          Joshua Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ LAW FIRM
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com

               - and -

          David B. Helms, Esq.
          Sarah A. Milunski, Esq.
          Richard B. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
          LEWIS RICE LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-7600
          E-mail: smilunski@lewisrice.com
                  rwalsh@lewisrice.com

               - and -

          Michael Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          16th Floor
          100 W. 93rd Street
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: michael@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          Facsimile: (561) 688-0630
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Brian Andacky and Melissa Baggett are
represented by:

          Scott Bursor, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Frederick John Klorczyk, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7129
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Brian Andacky is represented by:

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Melissa Baggett is represented by:

          Don Manley Downing, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Eighth Floor
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000
          Telephone: (314) 732-0728
          Facsimile: (314) 241-4140

Plaintiff-Appellee David Delre is represented by:

          Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          320 E. 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com
                  avozzolo@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Karen Leser-Grenon, Esq.
          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          E-mail: kleser@sfmslaw.com
                  jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Christopher Renna and Kimberly Lemon are
represented by:

          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          KLINGMAN LAW, LLC
          196 Trumbull Street, Suite 510
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 256-6120
          E-mail: pak@klingmanlaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Christopher Renna is represented by:

          Brian Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & EHRLICH
          19 South LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Joshua Teperson is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          James Richard Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Jonathon Fisher is represented by:

          Sara Avila, Esq.
          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Allison Rachel Willett, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, ADELMAN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: savila@majfw.com
                  gwade@majfw.com
                  allison@willettlaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Cindi Inman is represented by:

          Matthew Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM
          8816 Manchester Road
          Brentwood, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 258-0212

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Beth Cox is represented by:

          Daniel Frech, Esq.
          Stuart Scott, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue, E., Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          E-mail: dfrech@spanglaw.com
                  sscott@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
                  jtycko@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Victoria Lyman is represented by:

          Daniel W. Luginbill, Esq.
          WILSON & LUGINBILL LLC
          P.O. Box 1150
          3056 Railroad Avenue
          Bamberg, SC 29003
          Telephone: (803) 245-7799

               - and -

          Robert V. Phillips, Esq.
          MCGOWAN & HOOD
          1539 Healthcare Drive
          Rock Hill, SC 29732
          Telephone: (803) 327-7800

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Stephanie Douglas is represented by:

          Donald C. Douglas, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONALD C. DOUGLAS, JR.
          1070 West Causeway Approach, Suite B
          Mandeville, LA 70471
          Telephone: (985) 246-3034

               - and -

          Robert G. Harvey, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TAMARA KLUGER JACOBSON, LLC
          600 North Carrollton Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 822-2136

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Sarah Jacobs is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Noah Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com


MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Proposed Range Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEMORIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP., TONY R. WEBER,
JAY C. GRAHAM, SCOTT A. GIESELMAN, KENNETH A. HERSH, ROBERT A.
INNAMORATI, CAROL L. O'NEILL, PAT WOOD III, RANGE RESOURCES
CORPORATION, and MEDINA MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-02183
(S.D. Tex., July 21, 2016), is brought on behalf of the public
shareholders of Memorial against Memorial and its Board of
Directors for their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties arising
out of their attempt to let the Company be acquired by Range
through its wholly owned subsidiary by means of an unfair process
and for an unfair price.

On May 16, 2016, Memorial and Range announced in a joint press
release that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated May 15, 2016.  According to the Merger Agreement, Range
would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Memorial common
shares in an all-stock transaction for 0.375 of a Range common
share per Memorial common share for a value of $15.75 per share
based on the May 13, 2016 Range closing price of $42.01.

Memorial is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Houston, Texas.  The Company is an
independent natural gas and oil company focused on the
exploitation, development, and acquisition of natural gas, NGL,
and oil properties in North Louisiana.  The Individual Defendants
are the directors and officers of the Company.

Range is a Delaware Corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Fort Worth, Texas.  Range is an independent
natural gas, NGLs and oil company, engaged in the exploration,
development and acquisition of natural gas and oil properties.
Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned
subsidiary of Range.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-7720

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: srowley@zlk.com


MERCHANT ENTERPRISES: Col. Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL A. RODRIGUEZ-CHAVEZ, MIGUEL A. ROSAS-ROSAS, PANTALEON
RUEDA-ONTIVEROS, ENRIQUE MONGE, SANTOS NOGAL, and VICTOR M.
ESPINOZA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MERCHANT ENTERPRISES, INC., MERCHANT
DEMOLITION, LLC; and WILLIAM E. TIBBETS, Case 1:16-cv-01854 (D.
Col., July 20, 2016),  was filed purportedly on behalf of currently
or formerly employed hourly demolition workers in Defendants'
Lakewood, CO-based construction business, seeking to recover
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
     BUSECHER, KELMAN PERERA & TURNER, P.C.
     600 Grant Street - Suite 450
     Denver, CO 80203
     Phone: (303)-333-7751
     Fax: (303)-333-7758
     E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com

        - and -

     Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
     LUBIN & ENOCH P.C.
     999 18th Street, Suite 3000
     Denver, CO 80202-0008
     Phone: (303)595-0008
     Fax: (602) 626-3586
     E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com


MILDRED DELI: NY Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS TECUN, MANUEL CIPRIANO MEJIA, CONCEPCION SANCHEZ ALONSO,
CRISTINA GATICA LUNA, LAURO GARZON VALENCIA FLORES, and MIRIAM
PINOS BUENDIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. MILDRED DELI GROCERY INC. (d/b/a MILDRED DELI &
GROCERY), COLOMBIA NUNEZ and AURELIA MEDINA, Case 1:16-cv-05796
(S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover minimum and overtime
wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a Deli/grocery located at
231 E. 116th Street, New York, New York 10029 under the name
Mildred Deli & Grocery.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Fax: (212) 317-1620


MISTRAS GROUP: Settled Viceral and Kruger Action
------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, that the
Company on July 19, 2016, entered into a joint stipulation for
settlement and release to settle the class action case pending in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Viceral and Kruger v. Mistras Group, Inc. The case involves claims
related to California and Federal wage and hour and other labor
laws. The Company agreed to pay $6 million to resolve the
allegations and will be responsible for the employer portion of
payroll taxes on the amount of the settlement allocated to wages.
The settlement is subject to court approval. The settlement will
cover claims dating back to April 2011 in some cases, through the
date the settlement receives final approval.


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Bankr. Court Can't Rule on Equitable Mootness
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18, 2016, that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reached a decision in an
appeal in the ignition switch case.

As disclosed in the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2016 of Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust (the
"GUC Trust"), certain plaintiffs in actions relating to the recall
of vehicles by the General Motors Company (together with its
consolidated subsidiaries, "New GM") for ignition switch and other
defects appealed certain threshold decisions made by the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Bankruptcy Court") in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") in In re Motors Liquidation
Co., Nos. 15-2844, 15-2847, 15-2848 (the "Appeal"). On July 13,
2016, the Second Circuit reached a decision on the Appeal.

Background

In July 2009, New GM purchased assets (the "Sale") from Motors
Liquidation Company (formerly known as General Motors Corp.) ("Old
GM") pursuant to a Bankruptcy Court order relying on Section 363
of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Sale Order") that barred certain
product liability and property damage claims against New GM, as
the successor corporation, where such claims arose before July 9,
2009, the closing date of the Sale.

Following New GM's recall of vehicles for ignition switch and
other defects throughout 2014, hundreds of lawsuits were filed.
Plaintiffs in those suits included those who had suffered pre-
closing injuries allegedly arising from the ignition switch defect
(the "Pre-Closing Accident Plaintiffs") and plaintiffs who sought
damages for alleged economic losses arising from the ignition
switch defect in Old GM vehicles (the "Ignition Switch
Plaintiffs").

On April 15, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion relating
to the impact of the Sale Order on plaintiffs' lawsuits. The
Bankruptcy Court allowed the Ignition Switch Plaintiffs to pursue
claims against New GM related to its own, post-Sale conduct, but
the Bankruptcy Court enforced the Sale Order to enjoin all other
claims against New GM, and applied the doctrine of "equitable
mootness" to bar relief for would-be claims against the GUC Trust.

Second Circuit Decision

On July 13, 2016, the Second Circuit reached a decision in the
Appeal (the "Decision"). In its Decision, the Second Circuit held,
in pertinent part, that the Pre-Closing Accident Plaintiffs and
Ignition Switch Plaintiffs were entitled to, but did not receive,
direct-mail notice of the Sale because Old GM "knew or reasonably
should have known about the ignition switch defect prior to
bankruptcy." The Second Circuit also noted that it could not say
with fair assurance that the outcome of the Sale would have been
the same had Old GM given plaintiffs adequate notice of the
ignition switch defect and the Sale, and these plaintiffs voiced
their objections to those provisions of the Sale Order barring
their claims against New GM.  Accordingly, the Second Circuit
ruled that enforcing the Sale Order against the Pre-Closing
Accident Plaintiffs and the Ignition Switch Plaintiffs would
violate their procedural due process rights in these
circumstances, and therefore, they cannot be bound by the terms of
the Sale Order. As a result, the court held that those plaintiffs
are not enjoined from pursuing claims against New GM.

The Second Circuit further held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction to issue its decision as to equitable
mootness for claims against the GUC Trust because no plaintiff has
asserted a claim against the GUC Trust. Therefore, the court held,
any opinion as to equitable mootness was purely advisory. The
Second Circuit did not, however, express any opinion as to the
merits of whether such claims would be equitably moot if brought
against the GUC Trust.

In addition, the Second Circuit held that the Sale Order cannot
enjoin independent claims relating to New GM's post-Sale conduct.
It also held that claims by purchasers who bought used GM vehicles
post-Sale are not bound by the Sale Order and therefore are not
enjoined from pursuing claims against New GM for their losses,
because those claimants lacked a pre-Sale connection to Old GM at
the time Old GM filed its bankruptcy petition.

The Second Circuit remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for it to
conduct further proceedings as to certain plaintiffs whose damages
may not have resulted from defective ignitions switches.

A copy of the Decision is available at https://goo.gl/ymNWGs


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Dismiss "Song" Denied
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Stewart Dalzell denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint in the case captioned SUE SONG, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE HOLDINGS INC., Civil Action No. 16-006 (E.D. Pa.).

Sue Song, on behalf of herself and a putative class, brought
claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. for its allegedly unlawful
failure to terminate her private mortgage insurance in accordance
with her mortgage agreement.

Judge Dalzell denied Nationstar's motion to dismiss because the
Homeowners Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. section 4901 et seq., does
not preempt Song's breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims, and Song's first amended complaint contains sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a facially plausible
claim to relief against Nationstar.

A full-text copy of Judge Dalzell's July 20, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/C7RUCg from Leagle.com.

SUE SONG, Plaintiff, represented by KENNETH J. GRUNFELD --
kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK PC..

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, represented by
DARREN WILLIAM DWYER -- darren.dwyer@troutmansanders.com --
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.


NEW MEXICO: Human Services Dept. Faces Contempt Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Albuquerque recommended that New Mexico's
Human Services Department be held in contempt for failing to abide
by court-ordered changes to its troubled food and medical
assistance programs.

New Mexico has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation: one
in three New Mexicans receive some form of public assistance.

The state's Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Programs, formerly called food stamps, have been accused of
violating federal regulations for decades.

A class-action lawsuit filed in 1988 accused the state's Human
Services Department of failing to notify applicants about the
emergency SNAP program, of not processing applications within the
federally mandated time period, and of denying valid applications.

That lawsuit has not yet been resolved 28 years later, despite a
negotiated resolution and an agreement to "make good faith efforts
to resolve any differences that may arise in the prospective
implementation of the decree," U.S. Magistrate Judge Carmen Garza
wrote in her July 15 recommendation that the Human Services
Department be held in contempt of court.

Garza said the state's failure to comply with court orders despite
multiple deadline extensions was grounds not only for contempt
charges but necessitated the appointment of a special master to
oversee the Human Services Department.

Though Garza noted that Human Services Secretary Brett Earnest has
acknowledged that his department "must make serious and
fundamental changes in order for the SNAP and Medicaid programs in
New Mexico to come into compliance with federal law and the court
orders," she added: "Defendant's realization has come entirely too
late."

The continuing failures have a profound effect on New Mexicans,
Garza wrote, for "when an eligible SNAP or Medicaid applicant is
denied or delayed in receiving benefits, that individual loses
benefits he or she may rely on to eat, feed his or her children,
or to receive essential medical coverage."

In response to the judicial rebuke, Human Services spokesman Kyler
Nerison told the Albuquerque Journal: "While we don't agree with
everything in the judge's decision, it does include our proposal
that would bring in an outside, impartial monitor to review
compliance and help resolve any of these long-standing issues --
some three decades old -- while at the same time allowing us to
continue providing resources to New Mexicans who need them most."

Garza ordered that a special master be in place no later than Jan.
1, 2018, to "objectively review and determine HSD's compliance
with the consent decree, other court orders, and federal law
concerning the process for obtaining and maintaining Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program ('SNAP') and Medicaid benefits."

The case captioned, DEBRA HATTEN-GONZALES, Individually and on
behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BRENT EARNEST, Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services
Department, Defendant.,  No. 88-0385 KG/CG (D.N.M.).


NUTIVA: Faces "Elnathan" Suit Seeking to Enforce Cal. Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
HADASS ELNATHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys
general, v. NUTIVA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
250, inclusive, Case No: BC 627600 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 20,
2016), seeks to enforce and uphold California's wage and hour
laws.

Nutiva -- http://nutiva.com/-- Nutiva is a brand of all-organic
hemp foods, coconut oil, red palm oil and chia seeds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
     Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
     Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
     Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
     555 East Occan Blvd., Suite 818
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 432-8933
     Fax: (562) 435-1656
     E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             ian@carlinbuchcsbaum.com


O'CHARLEY'S LLC: "Otis" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Otis, Megan Hurley Otis, Stacy Rahn, Kaitlyn Jennings, Staci
Walker, Kayla Riggins, Tanya Wilson, Alexa Lucas And Clint Beeler,
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current
and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. O'Charley's LLC, A Tennessee
Limited Liability Company, O'Charley's Management Company, LLC, A
Tennessee Limited Liability Company, O'Charley's Service Company,
LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company and American Blue
Ribbon Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
Hazem Ouf, an Individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02219 (C.D.
Ill., July 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

O'Charley's operates restaurants throughout Illinois and other
states across the Midwestern and Southeastern United States where
Plaintiffs worked as server, bartenders and hosts.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Tel: (901) 754-8001
     Fax: (901) 759-1745
     Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
            rbryant@jsyc.com


OCEAN POWER: Nov. 14 Hearing for Final Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that a Court has scheduled a
hearing for November 14, 2016 to determine, among other things,
whether to grant final approval of the proposed settlement of a
class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "We and our former Chief Executive Officer,
Charles Dunleavy, are defendants in the Securities Class Action.
On May 5, 2016, the parties entered into the Stipulation in which
they agreed to a settlement of the Securities Class Action,
subject to Court approval after notice to class members. The
Stipulation provides, among other things, for a settlement payment
by or on behalf of us of $3,000,000 in cash, of which we will pay
$500,000 and our insurer will pay $2,500,000, and the issuance by
the Company of 380,000 shares of its Common Stock to the class
members. In connection with the proposed settlement, the parties
have agreed to execute mutually agreeable releases."

"On June 7, 2016, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Settlement. The Court has scheduled a hearing for
November 14, 2016 to determine, among other things, whether to
grant final approval of the proposed settlement. The amounts
agreed in the Stipulation agreement, including the amount to be
contributed by our insurance carrier, have been reflected in our
financial statements as of April 30, 2016. The Stipulation is
subject to approval by the Court following notice to all class
members. We cannot assure you that the Court will approve the
Stipulation or that this pending litigation will be settled on
such terms or at all."


OIL STATES: Faces "McDonald" Suit Seeking Payment of OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY MCDONALD, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 1:16-cv-01879 (D. Colorado., July 21,
2016), accuses the Company of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage
Act by failing to: (1) compensate employees, including the
Plaintiff, at "time and one-half" their regular rate of pay for
all overtime hours worked; and (2) ensure that employees received
paid rest breaks during their shifts.

Oil States is a limited liability company organized under the laws
of the state of Delaware with its corporate offices located in
Houston, Texas.  Oil States provides technical services and
associated rental equipment to the energy sector in various
states.  The Plaintiff worked for Oil States at locations in
Colorado.

Pending any modifications necessitated by discovery, the Plaintiff
preliminarily defines this Class:

     All current or former non-exempt Colorado Oil States
     employees: 1) who were not compensated properly for all
     overtime hours worked; and/or 2) who were not provided paid
     rest breaks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          242 Linden Street
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued its order affirming the
District Court's order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss
with prejudice, securities related class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On September 28, 2012, three complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (the "District Court") against us and certain of our
executive officers and one consultant (collectively, the
"Defendants") on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock.
The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class
actions, and, in general, include allegations that Defendants
violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
interim results of our bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC
trial, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common
stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. On February 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated
the related actions with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson
v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-
PSG (FMOx))."

"After the District Court issued two separate orders granting the
Defendants' two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the
District Court issued a third order granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice.
On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with respect to the
District Court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Oral argument for lead plaintiff's appeal was conducted on May 4,
2016, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On
June 8, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued its order affirming the District Court's order granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice."


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending "Michaeli" Case
----------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al.,
C.A. No. 8994-VCL.

The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a derivative/class action
complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No.
8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against certain of our executive officers and directors.
On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
supplemental derivative and class action complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleged that our directors and
executives breached their respective fiduciary duties in
connection with certain purportedly improper compensation
decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past four
fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, including: (i) the grant of a
stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine
broad-based stock option grant to our directors, executives, all
other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and
(iii) the payment, during the past four fiscal years ended April
30, 2015, of compensation to our non-employee directors. In
addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached their
fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder action
on the basis of an allegedly materially false and misleading proxy
statement for our 2013 annual meeting of stockholders. The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, rescission of a
portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and
the stock options granted to the defendants on December 27, 2012,
as well as disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our
non-employee directors during the four fiscal years ended April
30, 2015 and other monetary relief for our benefit."

"The defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on
February 19, 2016. We believe that the Amended Complaint is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. In
addition, due to the early stage of this matter, we cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter."


PNC CAPITAL: Faces "Martin" Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against PNC Capital Investment Advisors.
The case is styled Robert Martin, and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PNC Capital Investment Advisors, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01828-DCN (N.D. Ohio, July 20, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. Donald C. Nugent.

PNC Capital is a privately owned investment manager. The firm
provides its services to high net worth individuals and investment
companies.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Beyer" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates,
LLC (PRA). The case is captioned Kevin C. Beyer, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-04026-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Arthur D. Spatt.

PRA is an American debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: Dismissal of 3226701 Canada Case Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, that the Company has filed a
Motion to Dismiss the case, 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. Qualcomm
Incorporated et al.

On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a securities class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint alleging that the Company and certain
of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business outlook and product development between April 7, 2014 and
July 22, 2015. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. On June 28, 2016, the
Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Company believes the
plaintiffs' claims are without merit.


R.A. ROGERS: Faces "Hargrave" Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against R.A. Rogers, Inc. The case is
captioned Kenesha Yo Hargrave, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. R.A. Rogers, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00928-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va., July 20,
2016). The assigned District Judge is Hon. Leonie M. Brinkema.

R.A. Rogers is a full service collection agency, specializing in
credit unions, banks, medical, property management and commercial
collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Ray Breeden, Esq.
          THOMAS R. BREEDEN PC
          10326 Lomond Drive
          Manassas, VA 20109
          Telephone: (703) 361 9277
          Facsimile: (703) 257 2259
          E-mail: trb@tbreedenlaw.com


ROYAL THAI: Faces "Lopez" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Royal Thai Plus, LLC. The case is
captioned Nael Lopez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Royal Thai Plus, LLC
doing business as Hua Lamphong; Punyachalee Phakamas; Hua
Lumphong; and Yanakarn Laksanaphrom, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-04028 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016).

Royal Thai is a hyper-local, small business, located in and/or
serving the Brooklyn, New York area.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SAMPSON TREE: Faces "Edenfield" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA L. EDENFIELD, v. SAMPSON TREE SERVICE CO., a Florida
Corporation, RICHARD A. SAMPSON, individually, Case 2:16-cv-14306-
RLR (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages
in the form of alleged unpaid overtime compensation and  redress
for the deprivation of rights secured to Plaintiff and other
employees similarly situated persons by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

TREE SERVICE CO. is a tree service business specializing in
removal and disposal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
     Lisa M. Kohring, Esq.
     SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
     625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 600
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Phone: (561) 659-3300
     Fax: (561) 693-4540
     E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com
             mail@schwarzberglaw.com
             lkohring@schwarzberglaw.com
             mail@schwarzberglaw.com


SAN LEANDRO: Faces "Cooper" Suit in Calif. Over Sale Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Cooper individually; and, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAN LEANDRO CAR STOP LLC, dba SAN
LEANDRO CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM; DOE 1, an individual; DOES 2-6,
individuals; and, Santander Consumer USA Inc., dba Chrysler
Capital; and, DOES 1-500, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
RG16828652 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 18, 2016), seeks injunctive
relief and declaratory relief as a result of Defendants' violation
of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Rees-Levering Motor
Vehicle Sales and Finance Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not get a Buyer's
Guide. The Plaintiff allegedly did not get a fully executed copy
of the Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC). The RISC
represents the vehicle as "new" even though it is "used". The RISC
represents the mileage at 6 even though the vehicle had over 40
miles on it at the time of sale.

San Leandro is a new and used car dealer located in San Leandro,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
          LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, a PLC
          553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
          Foster City, CA 94404
          Telephone: (650) 341 0300
          Facsimile: (650) 403 1783
          E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com


SCHLUMBERGER N.V.: Court Dismissed Merger Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Schlumberger N.V. (Schlumberger Limited) said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
19, 2016, that the Delaware Court of Chancery has dismissed a
merger class action lawsuit but retained jurisdiction solely for
the purpose of adjudicating plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses in connection with the additional Proxy disclosures.

On August 25, 2015, Schlumberger Holdings Corporation
("Schlumberger US"), Rain Merger Sub LLC ("Merger Sub"),
Schlumberger N.V. (Schlumberger Limited) ("Schlumberger") and
Cameron International Corp. ("Cameron") entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger. After the announcement of the merger, Cameron,
Cameron's directors, Schlumberger US, Merger Sub and Schlumberger
were named as defendants in four purported class action lawsuits
related to the proposed merger that were filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery. These lawsuits were consolidated for all
purposes under the caption In re Cameron International Corp.
Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 77506, and the plaintiffs filed
a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The plaintiffs
generally alleged that Cameron's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Cameron's stockholders and that Cameron,
Schlumberger US, Merger Sub and Schlumberger aided and abetted the
alleged breaches. The plaintiffs and defendants agreed on
additional disclosures that Cameron included in its definitive
proxy on Schedule 14A filed on November 17, 2015 (the "Proxy").
The plaintiffs thereafter withdrew their pending motions to
expedite proceedings and to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder
vote on the merger.

The merger closed on April 1, 2016, and Cameron became an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Schlumberger.

On April 15, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the
lawsuit but retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in
connection with the additional Proxy disclosures. The parties
subsequently agreed to a payment made directly by Schlumberger to
plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $110,000 for attorneys' fees
and expenses in full satisfaction of their claim for attorney's
fees and expenses in the action. The Court of Chancery has not
been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of
a fee or its reasonableness.


SCHNIPPER RESTAURANTS: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN ALVAREZ a/k/a EDUARDO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. SCHNIPPER RESTAURANTS LLC,
SRG1 LLC  d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S QUALITY KITCHEN, SRG2 LLC d/b/a
SCHNIPPER'S QUALITY KITCHEN, SRG 570 LEX LLC d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S
QUALITY KITCHEN, SRG NYP LLC d/b/a SCHNIPPER'S QUALITY KITCHEN,
ANDREW SCHNIPPER and JONATHAN SCHNIPPER, Case 1:16-cv-05779
(S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover redress under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate four restaurants under the common trade name
"Schnipper's Quality Kitchen."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181


SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS: Sued Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHERMAN ACQUISITIONS LP, the
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08522 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks
equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments
rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and
$1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation"
in debt collection lawsuits.

The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings
that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed
fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo-
Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering
judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and fraud on the court.

Sherman Acquisitions is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged
in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the
Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original
consumer creditors and/or successors in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Teter, Esq.
          TETER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 815823
          Dallas, TX 75381-5823
          Telephone: (214) 850 8095
          Facsimile: (972) 243 2510
          E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail


SLOAN VALVE: Flushing System Makes Toilets Explode, Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Sloan Valve Co. recalled
Series 503 Flushmate III Pressure-Assist Flushing System can make
toilets explode, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal
Court.


SMARTHEAT INC: Settled All Claims in US Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smartheat Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has entered
into an agreement to settle all claims in a US securities class
action lawsuit.

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven
Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al., which purported to allege
federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of
its former officers and directors, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Thereafter,
two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the proceeding.

A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed
on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen Law Firm. The amended complaint
included Oliver Bialowons, our President, and Michael Wilhelm, our
former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding
though they were not officers of the Company during the alleged
class period.

A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the
caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang ,
SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as
defendants.  The second amended complaint alleges two counts
against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management
sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to
those sales.

On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint which was denied. On March 17, 2014 the court,
denied, the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification,
without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the lead plaintiff once
again filed a motion for class certification.  On September 19,
2014, the Company filed an opposition to the lead plaintiff's
motion for class certification, to which plaintiff filed a
response on October 20, 2014.

By Opinion and Order dated January 21, 2015, the Court denied
plaintiffs' class certification motion, finding that it failed to
satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 for typicality,
adequacy and predominance.  Specifically, the Court found that
plaintiffs' theory of liability required a trade-by-trade inquiry
as to whether the sale of the locked-up shares resulted in price
inflation of the company's stock, and that, as a result, the
injury to all class members could not be established by common
proof.

In addition to finding a lack of predominance of common issues,
the Court expressed substantial concerns about the adequacy of the
class representative, and that his claims were typical of other
class members.  The Court also expressed doubts as to how
plaintiffs would establish damages.  The Court's denial of class
certification was without prejudice, and the Court gave plaintiffs
until February 17, 2015 to file a "far more rigorous, and a far
more convincing submission . . .".  The pleadings and court orders
are publicly available.

The Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a US
securities class action lawsuit. No findings of any wrongdoings
were ever made against SmartHeat, any current or former officer or
director of Smartheat or any of the defendants, and the Company
and all other defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing.

The default judgment previously entered against James Jun Wang was
vacated and was dismissed with prejudice. The Company entered into
the settlement in order to avoid further cost of defending any of
the purported actions. According to the settlement, the Company
paid the plaintiffs $120,000. In return, the plaintiffs dismissed
all claims against the Company and all of the individual
defendants with prejudice.  As a result of the settlement, the
case will not be allowed to be re-filed.

The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of
fault by the Company or any of the individual defendants.  The
Company has and continues to assert that the allegations made in
the consolidated lawsuits lack merit and no evidence was ever
asserted supporting the allegations made in the consolidated
lawsuits. The Company has nevertheless agreed to the settlement in
order to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of
further litigation. The Company believes that putting this matter
behind it is in the best interest of its customers, employees and
shareholders so that it can remain focused on growing and
strengthening its business.


SNAP-ON CREDIT: Face "Smith" Suit in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Snap-On Credit, LLC. The case is
captioned Robert Smith, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Snap-On Credit, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-50244 (N.D. Ill., July 20, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Philip G. Reinhard.

Snap-on Credit provides professional tools and diagnostic
equipment financing solutions to Snap-on customers worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Scott Hyslip, Esq.
          HYSLIP & TAYLOR, LLC, LPA
          1100 W. Cermak Road, Suite B410
          Chicago, IL 60608
          Telephone: (312) 380-6110
          E-mail: jeffrey@lifetimedebtsolutions.com


SOCA FUNDING: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOCA FUNDING LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. DC-16-08496 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief
from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against
consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and
$1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation"
in debt collection lawsuits.

The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings
that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed
fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo-
Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering
judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and fraud on the court.

Soca Funding is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the
business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts
of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer
creditors and/or successors in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Teter, Esq.
          TETER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 815823
          Dallas, TX 75381-5823
          Telephone: (214) 850 8095
          Facsimile: (972) 243 2510
          E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail


SONY: To Pay $125MM to Settle Indirect Buyers' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Sony and other electronics manufacturers will pay nearly $125
million to settle claims by indirect buyers of optical disc drives
that they conspired to fix the price of the devices.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg preliminarily approved a class
action settlement with Sony, Panasonic, NEC Corporation and
Hitachi-LG sought by indirect buyers, and preliminarily certified
the settlement classes at a hearing on July 21.

"I'm comfortable with the [proposed] order," Seeborg said. "I know
how hard-fought this litigation has been."

A long list of plaintiffs including Hewlett-Packard sued disc
drive suppliers in 2010 claiming a bid-rigging and price-fixing
scheme that allowed the defendants to control 90 percent of the
optical disc drive market and rake in more than $45 billion in
revenue between 2004 and 2008, according to HP.

The year before, the Justice Department revealed that it was
investigating possible antitrust violations in the optical disc
drive industry. Hitachi-LG Data Storage pleaded guilty to criminal
antitrust violations discovered in the probe and paid a $21.1
million criminal fine, and some of its employees went to prison.

The $124.5 million settlement with the four defendants represents
a 31 percent recovery of damages to plaintiffs by market share,
according to the plaintiffs' preliminary settlement motion.

"We feel it's a very solid number in terms of percentage
recovery," class counsel Jeff Friedman told the court on July 21.

Hitachi-LG will pay $73 million into the settlement fund. Sony's
share is $28.5 million, Panasonic will pay $16.5 million and NEC
will fork over $6.5 million, according to the motion.

For indirect buyers in the 24 jurisdictions certified by the court
in February, the settlement amount represents 15 percent -- $840
million -- of total damages, the plaintiffs said. The plaintiffs'
damages expert had estimated that indirect buyer damages totaled
$1.67 billion nationwide between April 2003 and December 2008.

Class counsel will ask for up to 25 percent of the settlement fund
in attorney's fees, according to the motion. The plaintiffs will
request $4,500 for each class representative.

Six defendants and their subsidiaries remain in the indirect buyer
case, including Toshiba and Philips -- the two defendants with the
largest market share, according to the motion. The plaintiffs said
they anticipate recovering additional settlements or an award
after trial.

The settlement class includes individuals in 23 states and the
District of Columbia that bought computers and standalone optical
disc drives between 2003 and 2008. Panasonic-branded computers
were excluded from the class, though its standalone disc drives
were included.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley oversaw the settlement
discussions. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero oversaw discovery
disputes.

In April, Seeborg awarded direct buyers $37 million following six
years of litigation.


SOUTHERN LANDWORX: Faces "Ayala" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ARMANDO AYALA and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), v. SOUTHERN LANDWORX, INC., FRANK J GONZALEZ, Case
1:16-cv-23145-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2016), was filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

SOUTHERN LANDWORX, INC.'s main line of business include landscape
construction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Markow Seeks Review From "Levitt" Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Gregory Markow filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Adam Levitt, et al. v. Southwest Airlines Company,
Case No. 1:11-cv-08176, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Adam Levitt, et al. v.
Southwest Airlines Company, Case No. 16-3002, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 30,
2016, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted Gregory Markow's motion
for reconsideration and vacated the court's order of April 25,
2016, awarding class counsel fees.  Markow, a class member, moved
the District Court to reconsider its approval (in a reduced
amount) of attorney's fees for class counsel for work done after
the original fee award and on appeal.  Markow argued that the
Court made legal errors in making the fee award.

Judge Kennelly vacated the fee award and ordered notice to be
provided to the class regarding the request for fees.  A full-text
copy of Judge Kennelly's June 22, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/1st4di from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs-Appellees ADAM J. LEVITT and HERBERT C. MALONE are
represented by:

          Joseph Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

Objector-Appellant Gregory Markow is represented by:

          Melissa Ann Holyoak, Esq.
          COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
          1899 L Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (573) 823-5377
          E-mail: melissaholyoak@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY is represented by:

          Huey Thomas Wells, Jr.,
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE PC
          1901 N. Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203-0000
          Telephone: (205) 254-1062
          Facsimile: (205) 714-6362
          E-mail: twells@maynardcooper.com


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Suit Stays in Federal Court, 8th Cir. Ruled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class action against the St. Louis Rams will remain in federal
court, the Eighth Circuit ruled July 19.

On Jan. 12, 2016, four fans sued The St. Louis Rams, The St. Louis
Rams Partnership and ITB Football Company in St. Louis City court.
The filing came less than 24 hours after the National Football
League gave approval for the Rams to move to Los Angeles.  The
fans claimed Rams executives misled fans about the team's
intention to move from St. Louis to Los Angeles in order to induce
the fans to continue to buy tickets and merchandise.

The Rams filed a notice of removal, seeking to move the case to
federal court arguing jurisdiction based on the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA).  Once in federal court, the plaintiffs
claimed the case should be remanded back to state court arguing a
lack of minimal diversity necessary to support CAFA jurisdiction

The Rams submitted two post-removal affidavits to demonstrate
diversity, but the district court expressly declined to consider
the affidavits because they were not included as part of the Rams'
original motion for removal.

The Rams appealed, arguing the federal court erred in not allowing
the affidavits. The plaintiffs conceded that the federal court
should have allowed the affidavits, but argued that another
appropriate and sufficient reason justified remand.

A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit ruled that the matter
should stay in federal court.

"A court has an independent obligation to ensure that the case is
properly before it," the court wrote in a per curiam decision.
"Discovery is often necessary because jurisdictional requirements
rest on facts that can be disputed, for instance, the domicile of
the parties. Here, the district court abused its discretion by
refusing to consider the affidavits simply on the ground that the
Rams submitted the affidavits post removal. The Rams notice of
removal did not need to be accompanied by a submission of
evidence. The district court's refusal to consider post removal
evidence prejudiced the Rams by limiting their ability to prove
their statutory right to a federal forum."

Judges Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Lavenski R. Smith
took part in the ruling.


STELLAR ACQUISITIONS: Sued Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STELLAR ACQUISITIONS CORP., the
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08496 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks
equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments
rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and
$1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation"
in debt collection lawsuits.

The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings
that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed
fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo-
Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering
judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and fraud on the court.

Stellar Acquisitions is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged
in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the
Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original
consumer creditors and/or successors in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Teter, Esq.
          TETER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 815823
          Dallas, TX 75381-5823
          Telephone: (214) 850 8095
          Facsimile: (972) 243 2510
          E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail


TBK 82 CORP: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Rodriguez, Juan Paz, Mario Hernandez, Hermenegildo
Mercenario, And Miguel Flores, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TBK 82 Corp., TBK 49
Corp., Raz 49th Street, LLC, Raz East 82nd LLC (all d/b/a Calista
Superfoods), Chiyan Ng, Thomas Ng, Howard Chung and Jennifer
Chung, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05567 (N.J. Sup., July 12,
2016), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages and liquidated
damages, interest, costs and attorneys fees for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate and/or control health food restaurants
"Calista Superfoods" located at 301 E. 49th Street, New York, New
York 10017 and 1217 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10028
where Plaintiffs were employed as cooks and ostensibly employed as
delivery workers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, suite 2540
      New York, NY10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


TEXAS FINANCIAL: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TEXAS FINANCIAL JUDGMENTS LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08511 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks
equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments
rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and
$1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation"
in debt collection lawsuits.

The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings
that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed
fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo-
Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering
judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and fraud on the court.

Texas Financial is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in
the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the
Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original
consumer creditors and/or successors in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Teter, Esq.
          TETER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 815823
          Dallas, TX 75381-5823
          Telephone: (214) 850 8095
          Facsimile: (972) 243 2510
          E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail


TROY CAPITAL: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
--------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TROY CAPITAL LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. DC-16-08505 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief
from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against
consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and
$1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation"
in debt collection lawsuits.

The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings
that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed
fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo-
Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering
judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and fraud on the court.

Troy Capital is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the
business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts
of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer
creditors and/or successors in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Teter, Esq.
          TETER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 815823
          Dallas, TX 75381-5823
          Telephone: (214) 850 8095
          Facsimile: (972) 243 2510
          E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Curiel May Allow "Cohen" Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the day after Donald Trump accepted the Republican party's
nomination for President, a federal judge in San Diego said he's
likely to allow a major lawsuit against him to go to trial.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said he's likely to deny
Trump's motion for summary judgment in Cohen v. Trump, one of two
class actions against his now-defunct Trump University.

"The court believes at this point there's sufficient evidence to
get this to trial," Curiel told the courtroom packed with
reporters and lawyers.

Curiel's tentative order means both class actions against Trump
University out of San Diego are likely to go to trial.

In Cohen v. Trump, lead plaintiff Art Cohen claims the billionaire
GOP presidential candidate knew Trump University was defrauding
customers but chose to run it anyway. The class claims Trump
violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, which was initially created to crack down on the mafia and
organized crime. The pursuit of civil RICO claims, which triples
damages and attorney's fees, distinguishes Cohen from the other
San Diego class action, Low v. Trump University.

Both cases hinge on similar fraud claims related to the use of the
word "university," which the students claim led them to believe
Trump University was accredited. Some students paid as much as
$35,000 for the real estate seminar classes. The former students
also claim Trump University misrepresented that mentors were
"hand-selected" by Trump himself, and that the mentors did not
provide the hands-on experience students paid thousands for.

Daniel Petrocelli, Trump's attorney, said he recognized the high
burden defendants must meet for a summary judgment motion to
succeed. He nevertheless told Curiel, "Let me just take a shot at
seeing if I can illuminate what's going on."

Petrocelli called the motion a "reality check" and proceeded to
blame the "marketing enterprise" of the shuttered real estate
school for the alleged misconduct. He said Trump could not be
personally responsible for fraud because he was not involved in
the day-to-day operations of the school or its advertising
campaign.

Trump University originally started as an online seminar, which
was later expanded to include the live events and mentorship
program currently in dispute in the two class actions in San
Diego.

While Trump may have been involved in "hand-selecting" the mentors
and instructors used in the online seminar, by 2007 his
involvement with Trump University was "fairly minimal," Petrocelli
said.

But Curiel pressed Petrocelli on the scope of Trump's involvement,
saying evidence lodged in court showed "at a minimum" Trump was
involved in reviewing marketing materials and advertisements to
ensure the "Trump brand" was not diluted.

Petrocelli again shifted the blame away from Trump, saying a civil
RICO claim can only apply to the "leader" of the forbidden
conduct, be it a marketing director or manager.  He called into
question a video cited by the plaintiffs which they claim
demonstrated Trump's involvement in the alleged "marketing scheme"
where he talked about "hand-selecting" mentors for the program.
Petrocelli said the video was essentially copy-and-pasted from an
interview Trump did when the online seminar program was started.

"There's no evidence in the record to show he knew they were using
that video to promote Trump University. This idea he was somehow
in the center of it is not supported by the facts in this case,"
Petrocelli said.

Further insisting Trump was not the person running Trump
University, Petrocelli said the company was "branded off of his
name just like any other celebrity endorsement."

When the plaintiffs' attorney Jason Forge addressed the court, he
told Curiel that the "overarching theme" of the motions filed by
Trump "is somehow belligerence trumps substance."

"He set the tone for the fraudulent betrayal of this university as
being the functional equivalent of learning from Donald Trump,"
Forge said.

Forge said multiple newspaper advertisements featured prominent
pictures of Donald Trump alongside claims he "hand-picked"
instructors who would teach Trump University students his real
estate secrets.

"It's abundantly clear he was the top man and had the authority in
the marketing scheme," Forge said.

Curiel also said he was inclined to deny clarifying a portion of
the case description in the Low case as to the "university claim"
asserted by the plaintiffs, saying it was not clear what exactly
he'd be clarifying.

One of the claims Forge asserts was previously agreed to in a
stipulated description of the case for the class notice was that
the use of "university" led students to believe the school was
"legitimate." But when Petrocelli took over as the fourth attorney
to represent Trump, he disputed the "university" claim, saying it
was limited to students who believed the school was "accredited."

"It was misleading to hold out this enterprise as a university,"
Forge said. "That's what came across pretty closely in the class
notice. The university aspect of this case was really talking
about legitimacy, not accreditation."

Forge suggested clarifying the certified claim would be as simple
as referencing the "university aspect" as it was described in the
class notice.

Curiel also addressed Trump's motion to decertify the Low class in
which Trump argued that each individual student signed up for
Trump University for various reasons that cannot be covered in a
blanket class action.

The judge said he wanted to focus on the reasons that students
signed up for Trump University. Petrocelli said he would want to
call former students as witnesses to ask why they took the
courses, which plaintiff attorney Rachel Jensen objected to. But
Curiel reminded the attorneys on both sides that he wanted to look
at how the case will unfold "since so few of us, if any of us,
have actually had a class action case go to trial."

Curiel took the matters under submission and a written order is
expected soon.

                           *     *     *

Bianca Bruno, in a separate report for Courthouse News Service,
said the San Diego federal judge who has been publicly chastised
by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will hear
arguments Friday for and against dismissing one of the class
action cases against the now-defunct Trump University.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel will decide whether the newer
of two San Diego class actions against Trump and his shuttered
real estate school should be dismissed on a summary judgment
motion.

In Cohen v. Trump, lead plaintiff Art Cohen claims the billionaire
presidential candidate knew Trump University was defrauding
customers but chose to run it anyway. The case claims Trump
violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, which was initially created to crack-down on the mafia and
organized crime. The pursuit of civil RICO claims, which triples
damages and attorney's fees, distinguishes Cohen from the other
San Diego class action, Low v. Trump University.

Both cases hinge on similar fraud claims related the use of the
word "university," which the students claim led them to believe
Trump University was accredited. Some students paid as much as
$35,000 for the real estate seminar classes. The former students
also claim Trump University misrepresented that mentors were
"hand-selected" by Trump himself, and that the mentors did not
provide the hands-on experience students paid thousands for.

In order to prove the RICO claim, Cohen must meet a much higher
burden of proof showing that Trump knew the operation was
fraudulent and proceeded with it anyway.

In the initial filing for summary judgment, Trump's attorney
Daniel Petrocelli called the RICO case "an overreach from
inception."

"It stretches civil RICO beyond the breaking point and would
effectively federalize consumer advertising fraud claims, and
subject officers, directors and employees of every Fortune 500
company to unwarranted personal liability."

Trump's lack of personal involvement in Trump University, which
was highly publicized following the release of his deposition
transcripts, means he could not have knowingly participated in or
conducted a fraudulent operation, the defense claims.

The defense also chalked up the use of the word university as
"sales puffery" found in advertising everywhere.

Curiel will also hear arguments July 22, on a motion to decertify
the class in Low v. Trump University, with Trump arguing that each
of the defendants had individual experiences and he is
constitutionally entitled to have damages assessed on an
individual basis.

Trump cited changing circumstances in the case -- including
Curiel's decision to allow former lead plaintiff Tarla Makaeff to
opt out of representing the class -- and said the recent switch-
ups have positioned the case in "unchartered waters."

Low and the other plaintiffs claim Trump missed the cut-off date
to file the motion to decertify, but Trump asserts the cut-off
date doesn't apply since the motion was filed in response to
recent changes in the case.

Trump also claims the class members cannot prove Trump University
utilized the same marketing tactics across the board, including
that Trump University instructors were "handpicked" by Trump or
that the real estate school was referred to as "accredited."

"They cannot reconcile the disparate issues in their claims with
the requirements for maintaining the case as a class action. Their
failure to formulate a viable trial plan exemplifies some of the
many issues which now compel decertification," the filing states.

The hearing on both matters was set for 1:30 p.m on July 22.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cordas" Suit for Deceptive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CORDAS, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case 4:16-cv-04065 (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2016), alleges
deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and
17500, breach of contract, fraud without the intent to perform,
fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentations, negligent
misrepresentations, breach of covenants of good faith and fair
dealing, willful misconduct, and unjust enrichment.

UBER is an "on-demand" car service that allows passengers to
request private drivers through applications for iPhone, Android,
and other similar devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kristopher P. Badame, Esq.
     Joseph H. Hunter, Esq.
     Michele E. Pillette, Esq.
     BADAME & ASSOCIATES, APC
     25432 Trabuco Road, Suite 207
     Lake Forest, CA 92630
     Phone: (949) 770-2867
     Fax: (866) 230-3044
     E-mail: kbadame@badameandassociates.com
             jhunter@badameandassociates.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Cancellation Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Francisco claims Uber automatically cancels rides people order
and charges them cancellation fees.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Blasts Background Check on Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Uber's team of unlicensed private eyes engaged in "blatantly
fraudulent and arguably criminal conduct" to dig up dirt on a
Connecticut man behind a class-action lawsuit in Manhattan
opposing surge pricing, a federal judge said on July 25.

The day Spencer Meyer sued Uber and its CEO Travis Kalanick on
Dec. 16, the company's general counsel Salle Yoo floated a
question to the company's general security officer.

"Could we find out a little more about this plaintiff?" Yoo
reportedly asked in an email.

The message eventually got forwarded to Mat Henley, Uber's
director of investigations, who retained Manhattan-based firm
Global Precision Research to snoop on Meyer and his lawyer Andrew
Schmidt.

In a 31-page ruling published July 25, U.S. District Judge Jed
Rakoff skewered the course the San Francisco-based company took.

"It is a sad day when, in response to the filing of a commercial
lawsuit, a corporate defendant feels compelled to hire unlicensed
private investigators to conduct secret personal background
investigations of both the plaintiff and his counsel," Rakoff
wrote. "It is sadder yet when these investigators flagrantly lie
to friends and acquaintances of the plaintiff and his counsel in
an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to obtain derogatory
information about them."

Doing business under the name Ergo, the Uber-retained company
describes itself as a business intelligence and advisory firm, and
its website boasts of taking on 800 projects in nearly 120
countries.

The CIA's former chief strategy officer Todd Egeland and ex-
Department of State employee Matthew Moneyhon serve as its
managing partners, and they received Uber's inquiry about
opposition on the lawsuit.

Boasting that they "do quite a bit of this work for law firms,"
the men assigned the case in January to Ergo's investigator Miguel
Santos-Neves, who used false pretenses to pester 28 of his
targets' acquaintances and colleagues, according to the ruling.

The judge said that, in one instance, Santos-Neves posed as a
researcher upon learning that Meyer had been a Yale University-
affiliated conservationist.

Santos-Neves also illicitly recorded phone conversations without
consent in Connecticut and New Hampshire, states with two-party
consent laws, according to the ruling.
Following a roughly two-week investigation, Ergo reported to Uber:
"Meyer may be particularly sensitive to any publicity that
tarnishes his professional reputation."

Ergo's cover got blown after a co-counsel on Meyer's team, Brian
Feldman, got suspicious and followed up on who had been calling
the acquaintances of the firm and its client.

Though Uber and Ergo sought to protect their communications under
work-product privilege, Judge Rakoff found that the crime-fraud
exception undermined that claim.

"Here, the court finds that Ergo, in investigating plaintiff, was
engaged in fraudulent and arguably criminal conduct, and that many
of the documents over which Ergo claimed work-product protection
were intended to facilitate this fraudulent and arguably criminal
activity," the opinion states.

Uber and Ergo did not immediately reply to emailed requests for
comment July 25.

In a phone interview, Meyer's attorney Feldman emphasized that
Ergo's investigation failed because of his client's "sterling
professional reputation."

"We're certainly pleased with the court's opinion," he said,
declining to say much more to protect his client's privacy.

The judge, however, had much more to say about Uber and Ergo's
conduct.

"Even beyond the rules of professional conduct, moreover,
litigation is a truth-seeking exercise in which counsel, although
acting as zealous advocates for their clients, are required to
play by the rules," Rakoff wrote. "It would plainly contravene
this truth-seeking function if non-lawyers working for counsel,
such as Ergo, could make fraudulent representations in order to
surreptitiously gain information about litigation adversaries
through intrusive inquiries of their personal acquaintances and
business associates."

Rakoff ordered Uber not to use the information that it gleaned on
Meyer and Schmidt or try to investigate their backgrounds any
further.

"Specifically, the court hereby enjoins both defendants and Ergo
from undertaking any further personal background investigations of
individuals involved in this litigation through the use of false
pretenses, unlicensed investigators, illegal secret recordings, or
other unlawful, fraudulent, or unethical means," the opinion
states.

Uber avoided monetary sanctions by reaching an undisclosed
settlement for the plaintiff team's legal fees.

The case captioned, SPENCER MEYcR, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- TRAVIS KALANICK and UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants (S.D.N.Y.).


UNIFUND CCR: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
--------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, the Defendant,
Case No. DC-16-08528 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable
relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered
against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and
$1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation"
in debt collection lawsuits.

The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings
that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed
fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo-
Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering
judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and fraud on the court.

Unifund is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the
business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts
of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer
creditors and/or successors in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Teter, Esq.
          TETER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 815823
          Dallas, TX 75381-5823
          Telephone: (214) 850 8095
          Facsimile: (972) 243 2510
          E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail


VION HOLDINGS: Sued in D. Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
----------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VION HOLDINGS LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. DC-16-08520 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief
from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against
consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and
$1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation"
in debt collection lawsuits.

The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings
that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed
fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo-
Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering
judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and fraud on the court.

Vion Holdings is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in the
business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts
of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original consumer
creditors and/or successors in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Teter, Esq.
          TETER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 815823
          Dallas, TX 75381-5823
          Telephone: (214) 850 8095
          Facsimile: (972) 243 2510
          E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail


VXI GLOBAL: Phone Operator Alleges Violations FLSA, OMFWSA & OPPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CODY LIVINGSTON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VXI GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-
05453 (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2016), is brought by the Plaintiff
seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act,
and the Ohio doctrine of unjust enrichment.

VXI is a corporate entity headquartered in Los Angeles,
California.  According to its Web site, the Company "is a leading
provider of business process and information technology
outsourcing services to its clients.  VXI specializes in call
center and BPO1 services, software development, quality assurance
testing, and infrastructure outsourcing with more than 23,000
employees worldwide."

In this capacity, the Company operates Call Centers in California,
Ohio, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.  The Plaintiff has been
employed by the Defendant at the Youngstown, Ohio Call Center as a
Phone Operator since approximately December 2015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          201 Wilshire Boulevard
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R.Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          Jerry Martin, Esq.
          David Garrison, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com


WAVEGUIDE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ferrareze" Lawsuit Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
RODRIGO FERRAREZE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. WAVEGUIDE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JAMES SARAKINIS,
MICHAEL DOWD, and JERE HEIKKILA, Case 0:16-cv-61725-FAM (S.D.
Fla., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Waveguide Communications, Inc. offers global, managed I.T.
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian L. Lerner, Esq.
     KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP
     One Financial Plaza, Suite 2001
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
     Phone: (954) 527-1115
     Fax: (954) 527-1116
     E-mail: blerner@kvllaw.com

        - and -

     John P. Salas, Esq.
     SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A.
     8551 West Sunrise Blvd., Suite 300
     Plantation, FL 33322
     Phone: (954) 315-1155
     Fax: (954) 452-3311
     E-mail: jp@jpsalaslaw.com


WILLIAMS ZINHAM: Must Comply With FDCPA Disclosure Requirements
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARIA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAMS,
ZINMAN & PARHAM PC, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-15672 (9th Cir.),
the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court's ruling which granted summary judgment in favor of
the law firm Williams, Zinman & Parham PC (WZP).

Maria Hernandez filed the lawsuit against WZP in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona as a putative class
action, alleging that WZP, a law firm retained by Thunderbird
Collection Specialists, Inc. to assist in its collection efforts,
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending
a debt collection letter that lacked the disclosures required
under section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on
Hernandez's FDCPA claims.  In its motion, WZP did not address
whether its letter lacked the content required by section
1692g(a).  Rather, it contended that it was not required to comply
with that provision because Thunderbird's March letter was the
"initial communication" sent to Hernandez with respect to the debt
at issue and therefore the sole communication triggering section
1692g(a)'s requirements.  The district court agreed and granted
summary judgment in favor of WZP.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the FDCPA unambiguously
requires any debt collector -- first or subsequent -- to send a
section 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of its first
communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of
any debt.  The appellate court thus found that the district court
erred in concluding that, because WZP was not the first debt
collector to communicate with Hernandez about her debt, it had no
obligation to comply with the statutory validation notice
requirement.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 20, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/hsvh8L from Leagle.com.

Aaron D. Radbil -- aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson
PLLC, Boca Raton, Florida, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Victoria Orze -- vorze@dickinsonwright.com -- Anne L. Tiffen -
atiffen@dickinsonwright.com -- and Charles H. Oldham -
coldham@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Phoenix,
Arizona, for Defendant-Appellee.

Kristin Bateman (argued), Attorney; Nandan M. Joshi, Senior
Litigation Counsel; To-Quyen Truong, Deputy General Counsel;
Meredith Fuchs, General Counsel; Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.

Burke W. Kappler, Colin Hector, and Thomas E. Kane, Attorneys;
David C. Shonka, Principal Deputy General Counsel; Jonathan E.
Nuechterlein, General Counsel; Federal Trade Commission,
Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Federal Trade Commission.


WORLDWIDE ASSET: Sued in Tex. Over False Robo-Signed Affidavits
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WORLDWIDE ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08547 (D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks
equitable relief from unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments
rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

On April 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
assessed penalties of $1,500,000 (against a debt buyer) and
$1,000,000 (against its law firm) for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010 by failing to use "original account-level documentation"
in debt collection lawsuits.

The Texas Attorney General (now Governor) has reported findings
that consumer debt purchasers and their attorneys have committed
fraud "on a massive scale" by using "thousands" of false "Robo-
Signed" affidavits to deceive Texas Judges into rendering
judgments that are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and fraud on the court.

Worldwide Asset is a debt buyer and/or debt collector engaged in
the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the
Courts of the State of Texas as the alleged assignee of original
consumer creditors and/or successors in interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Teter, Esq.
          TETER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 815823
          Dallas, TX 75381-5823
          Telephone: (214) 850 8095
          Facsimile: (972) 243 2510
          E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail


WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Ex-Wrestlers' Suit Over Brain Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman,writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
dozens of retired World Wrestling Entertainment wrestlers are
suing Vince McMahon and his company over the concussions they
claim to have suffered from decades of bumps in the ring.

Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka, Joe "Road Warrior Animal" Laurinaitis and
51 other performers sued their former employer in Connecticut
Federal Court on July 18, for racketeering, misclassifying them as
independent contractors, and hiding the hazards of their job.
They claimed to suffer Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) and
other maladies from the "repetitive head trauma" of performing
their wrestling moves "correctly."

"WWE wrestling matches, unlike other contact sports, involve very
specific moves that are scripted, controlled, directed and
choreographed by WWE," the plaintiffs stated. "As such, the moves
that resulted in Named Plaintiffs' head injuries were the direct
result of the WWE's actions."

Also, they claimed that WWE refused to provide them with health
insurance and publicly questioned the CTE diagnoses in the deaths
of Chris Benoit and Andrew "Test" Martin.

WWE responded to the suit by calling it "ridiculous."

The list of plaintiffs is a who's who of wrestling's past stars,
including "Mr. Wonderful" Paul Orndorff, King Kong Bundy, Ahmed
Johnson and Ken Patera.

Demolition members Bill "Ax" Eadie and Barry "Smash" Darsow joined
forces again in the lawsuit, as did The Powers of Pain (Terry
"Warlord" Szopinski and Sione "Barbarian" Vailahi.

Dave and Earl Hebner, the identical twin referees involved in Hulk
Hogan's controversial WWE title loss in 1988, are also among the
plaintiffs.

Even some "enhancement talent," who did the job of losing matches
on television, joined the lawsuit. These names include Don
Driggers and "Beef Stew" Lou Marconi.

The wrestlers stated that WWE "deliberately ignored and actively
concealed" information that could help them deal with their
injuries from "diseases such as CTE that can result in suicide,
drug abuse and violent behavior."

"WWE placed corporate gain over its wrestlers' health, safety, and
financial security, choosing to leave the Plaintiffs severely
injured and with no recourse to treat their damaged minds and
bodies," the plaintiffs said.  They included the following quote
from CTE expert Dr. Bennett Omalu, who Will Smith portrayed in the
2015 movie Concussion: "The deleterious effects of repeated
concussions to brain cells and nerve fibers are additive and
cumulative."

WWE instituted a Wellness Policy in 2006, but the plaintiffs said
it was "too little too late" for them and "takes no account of
former wrestlers at all."

The plaintiffs acknowledged that WWE has donated more than $2
million to the Concussion Legacy Foundation, which was founded by
former wrestler Chris "Harvard" Nowinski.

However, they stated that "no wrestler's brain has been studied by
CLF since the WWE donated to the organization."

According to the plaintiffs, WWE was aware of the effects of
concussions in 1995, when it scripted a story of Shawn Michaels
collapsing in the ring after getting kicked in the head by Owen
Hart.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs told stories of their battles in
the ring and their aftereffects.

Johnny "The Bull" Hugger said he was knocked out during a match in
2002 but was told by a WWE doctor to "shake it off."

"If you spoke up about injuries, you would be labeled 'injury
prone' and lose your spot," said Patera, a former Olympic
weightlifter.

Snuka referenced the infamous incident in which "Rowdy" Roddy
Piper smashed him in the head with a coconut on a "Piper's Pit" TV
segment.

Orndorff stated that he "gets easily confused, is clinically
depressed, paranoid, repeats himself constantly and has severe
mood swings."

Ahmed Johnson (real name: Tony Norris) was knocked out in 1996
when Jeff Jarrett jumped off the top rope and smashed a guitar
over his head.

Butch "The Natural" Reed said he was sometimes "kicked so hard you
were paralyzed for a few seconds" but added that he "needed to be
in the ring; otherwise there was no payday."

"Princess" Victoria Otis stated that she suffered two cracked
vertebrae in her neck in 1984, but a WWE official told her to
"take a break" and "see how things went."

The plaintiffs range in age from 34-year-old Marc "Mohammed
Hassan" Copani to 84-year-old Don Leo Jonathan, a veteran of
battles against Andre the Giant.

Another plaintiff, former Extreme Championship Wrestling star Axl
Rotten, died earlier this year at the age of 44. His estate is
representing him in the lawsuit. Omalu is analyzing Rotten's brain
tissue, according to the 214-page lawsuit.

"The wrestlers that perform regularly for WWE, at least since the
early 1990s, are required to sign 'booking contracts' that seek to
strip them of any rights they may have to workers' compensation
(and other protected statutory rights) by fraudulently classifying
them as 'independent contractors,'" the plaintiffs alleged.

They also described the physical toll caused by taking basic
falls, or "bumps," in the ring, as well as more elaborate moves
such as the bodyslam, piledriver, DDT and brainbuster.

The wrestlers sued for a declaration that WWE misclassified them
as "independent contractors with few if any rights."

George "The One Man Gang" Gray asserted that he had to "keep his
mouth shut" when he was ordered to portray the "racially
stereotypical" gimmick of Akeem the African Dream, even though
Gray is white.

Copani stated that although he is Italian, he was cast as the
Arabic character Mohammad Hassan. After the London terrorist
bombing in 2005, his gimmick was scrapped as "politically
incorrect," he stated.

Also, the wrestlers sued for declarations that WWE should have
known that their jobs would expose them to traumatic head injuries
and that the wrestlers' contracts were "unconscionable."

They also accused McMahon of "a pattern of racketeering activity,
which has continued for well over two decades" and has deprived
them of "money and property amounting collectively to millions of
dollars" as a result of their being treated as independent
contractors.

In addition, the wrestlers sued WWE for fraudulent concealment,
the wrongful death of Rotten, negligent misrepresentation, and
violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act., the
National Labor Relations Act, and the Family and Medical Leave
Act.  They also sought an injunction to create a "a Court-
supervised, WWE-funded medical monitoring program, which would
facilitate the diagnosis and adequate treatment of Plaintiffs for
neurodegenerative disorder or disease."

Former wrestler Billy Jack Haynes filed a similar lawsuit in 2014.
So did Michelle James, the mother of Matt "Doink the Clown"
Osborne, last year. Osborne died of a drug overdose in 2013 at the
age of 57.

The wrestlers are being represented by:

      Brenden Leydon, Esq.
      Tooher Wocl & Leydon
      80 Fourth Street
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Tel: 203-517-0456
           866-554-1709
      Fax: 203-324-1407

WWE slammed Leydon in a statement, according to a Bloomberg News
report.

"This is another ridiculous attempt by the same attorney who has
previously filed class action lawsuits against WWE, both of which
have been dismissed," the company asserted. "A federal judge has
already found that this lawyer made patently false allegations
about WWE, and this is more of the same."


YOLO, CA: Faces "Alder" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
EVAN ALDER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, v. COUNTY OF YOLO, Case 2:16-at-00871 (E.D. Cal.,
July 20, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendant alleged unpaid
overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated
damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

County of Yolo is a political subdivision of the State of
California and employed the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary M. Messing, Esq.
     Jason H. Jasmine, Esq.
     MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LIT
     980 9thStreet, Suite 380
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Phone: (916) 446-5297
     Fax: (916) 448-5047
     E-mail: gary@majlabor.com
             jasonmailabor.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  * * *