CAR_Public/160803.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 3, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 154




                            Headlines


4 SEASONS: Faces "Zayas-Bazan" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
ACCEL HEATING: "Yanes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
AIRBNB: Files Motion to Compel Arbitration of Discrimination Suit
ALERE INC: Faces "JE" Product Liability Suit in Massachusetts
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing

ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Sued for Refusing to Cover Name-Brand Drug
ARIZONA, USA: Health Care Cost System Faces "Darjee" Class Suit
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Violates FDCPA, "Talbert" Class Suit Alleges
AUTOLIV INC: End-Payor Class Settlement Has Final Approval
AUTOLIV INC: Settlement Reached with Truck and Equipment Dealers

AUTOLIV INC: Four Antitrust Class Suits Pending in Canada
AVENUE STORES: "Perri" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BEST BUFFET: "You" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Laws
BIKETOWN: User Agreement Bars Riders' Rights to Civil Jury Trial
BREG INC: "Swiger" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

BUTLER COUNTY, OH: Drivers Want to Collect Red Camera Damages
CAMDEN, NJ: Police Officers' OT Class Action Settlement Rejected
CANADA: B.C. to Stop Charging Welfare Recipients Methadone Fee
CARRIER IQ: Court Defers Ruling on $9MM Settlement
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Still Defends "Ong" Shareholder Class Action

CNOVA N.V.: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Litigation
DAVIS, CA: Faces "Weist" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
DIGNITY HEALTH: 9th Cir. Says Pension Plan Must Comply with ERISA
ENERGES OILFIELD: Faces "Kanewske" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
FEDERATION OF MEDICAL: Only 3% of Patients Collected Settlement

FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Lewis" Class Action
FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Suits by Misclassified Workers Pending
FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Suits Over Improper Fees Pending
FORT LAUDERDALE TRANSPORTATION: "Ross" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
FORTINET INC: Agrees to Pay $200,000 for Attorneys' Fees

GENERAL GROWTH: "Pezzoli" Action to Junk Amended Bylaws
GENERAL MOTORS: To Appeal Second Circuit Decision
GENERAL MOTORS: Updates on Cases Over Ignition Switch Recall
GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal Over Dealers' Claim to be Heard This Year
GERDAU SA: Lebanon County to Apply for Lead Plaintiff Role

GLENROWAN TAVERN: Faces "Leal" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
GOLDEN STATE: "Padron" Suit Seeks "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA
GREEN LEAF: "Guo" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
HELIX ENERGY: Briefing Completed on Motion to Dismiss
HENRY INDUSTRIES: Faces "Jones" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

HRB GREEN: "Murphy" Class Action Suit Removed to N.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Lumas" Suit Transferred to S.D. Ill.
LANDHAUS SCHWEINE: Faces "Lugo" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
LINCOLN, CA: Faces "Maccracken" Suit Alleging FLSA Breach
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Reached in Derivative Litigation

M&R APPAREL: "Anguiano" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
MARKETO INC: To Oppose Plaintiffs' Request for TRO
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Settlement Reached in "Flynn" Suit
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Defending Action by RCHFU, L.L.C.
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Response to MVCD Complaint Due September 16

MERCK & CO: Over 400 Women Join $250MM Gender Bias Class Action
MYSTIC GARDENS: Faces "Jacinto" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Cook" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492
NEW YORK, NY: "Lynch" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
NW MANAGEMENT: Yakima Farm Workers to Get Settlement Payouts

NY FANCY: Faces NY Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
OLD DOMINION: "Blanco" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
PARRISH AND LEBAR: Faces "Tabor" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
PB USA INC: "Salazar" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Consumer Class Action in Minneapolis

PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: "Kritcher" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
RADIOSHACK CORP: Toscano Files Adversary Proceeding in Delaware
REEL TIME: Faces Lawsuit in Virginia Alleging Violation of FLSA
RIX ENERGY: Faces "Rater" Suit Pursuant to FLSA, Ohio Wage Laws
ROCKER'S PAINTING: "Laferte" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages

ROTONDA GOLF: Class Action Put in Abeyance Until October 7
SAINT-GOBAIN: Seeks Dismissal, Stay of PFOA Class Action
SETERUS INC: Faces Force-Placed Insurance Class Action
SHAWN HARRISON: Accused by "Stout" Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
SNOW ENTERPRISES: Faces "Gundersen" Suit Seeking to Recover Wages

SOLARES CORP: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Violates FDCPA, "Stever" Class Suit Alleges
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in Case Appeal
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Trial in Federal Class Action Not Yet Set
TIVO INC: Pipe Trades Trust Sues BOD Members Over Rovi Merger Deal

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Hamilton County Action
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending City of Stratford Action
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: La Crosse County Dismissed Remaining Claims
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Jackson County Action
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending "Isolde" Class Action

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Inclined to Deny Motion to Dismiss Case
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Drivers' Wage Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Cancellation Fees
UNILEVER: TRESemme Shampoo Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
UNITED STATES: Faces "Lucier" Class Suit in Federal Claims Court

UNITIL CORP: Still Defends Against Massachusetts Class Action
VA VA VOOM: "Carillo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
VIDEOTRON: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Quebec CPA Violation
WELLPOINT COMPANIES: Faces "Montgomery-Beeston" Suit in Texas
WILLIAM MORRIS: Settles NYFW Crew Members' Wage Class Action


                            *********

4 SEASONS: Faces "Zayas-Bazan" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAGALY R. ZAYAS-BAZAN, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. 4 SEASONS GROWERS, INC. a Florida
corporation, ROLANDO MARTINEZ, individually, and JOEL MARTINEZ,
individually, Case 1:16-cv-23147-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2016),
was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

4 SEASONS GROWERS, INC. -- http://4seasonsgrowers.com/-- is an
importer and farm direct distributor of fresh cut flowers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Hudson, Esq.
     Jose A. Socorro, Esq.
     HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC
     355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 444-6628
     Fax: (305) 444-6627
     E-mail: rhudson@hudsoncalleja.com
             jsocorro@hudsoncalleja.com


ACCEL HEATING: "Yanes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Carlos Yanes, Plaintiff, v. Accel Heating and Cooling, LLC and
Edward Riley, Sr. Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-02573 (D.M.D., July
14, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

Accel Heating and Cooling, LLC is located in Gaithersburg,
Maryland and is engaged in the business of installing and
servicing heating and air-conditioning equipment. Plaintiff worked
as a technician. He claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Spicer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFCES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Tel: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454


AIRBNB: Files Motion to Compel Arbitration of Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
when Airbnb Inc. announced on July 20 that it had hired former
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. to devise a stronger anti-
discrimination policy, the startup struck a conciliatory --even
apologetic -- tone in acknowledging racial bias on its home-
sharing platform.

But, in a lawsuit in Washington alleging discrimination, Airbnb is
playing hardball.

One week before the announcement of Mr. Holder's hiring, Airbnb
asked a federal judge in Washington to put the case in the hands
of an arbitrator.  Airbnb, represented by Hogan Lovells, cited an
"unambiguous and mandatory individual arbitration agreement" -- a
type of contract clause that has recently drawn regulatory
scrutiny for depriving consumers of the chance to bring class
actions and have their claims heard in court.

Airbnb filed its motion to compel arbitration in a case brought by
Gregory Selden, a 25-year-old African-American man who claims he
was rejected by a host because of his race.  According to his
complaint, Mr. Selden was later accepted by the host after
creating phony profiles for white men.

In an apparent nod to the handful of accounts Mr. Selden created,
Airbnb lawyers argued Selden had agreed to the company's terms of
service -- including the arbitration agreement -- at least four
times.  Airbnb said the contract language was "conspicuous."

"[Selden]'s suit directly contravenes his agreement with Airbnb to
arbitrate any and all disputes arising out of or relating to the
use of the platform -- including its interpretation -- on an
individual basis," Ellen Kennedy -- ellen.kennedy@hoganlovells.com
-- a Hogan Lovells partner in Washington, wrote in Airbnb's court
papers.  The company is also represented by Hogan Lovells partner
Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general in Holder's
Justice Department.

Ms. Kennedy could not immediately be reached for comment.
Mr. Selden's lawyer, Ikechukwu Emejuru of Emejuru & Nyombi in
Silver Spring, Maryland, declined to comment on July 21, saying he
first wanted to respond to Airbnb's motion in court.

Airbnb drew attention earlier this year when a forced arbitration
clause was included in its tweaked terms of service.  Such clauses
have become commonplace in the aftermath of the landmark AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion case, in which a divided Supreme Court
established a right for businesses to enforce class action waivers
and force consumers into arbitration.

In May, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposed a ban on
class action waivers in contracts for financial products such as
loans and credit cards.  The proposal drew a swift response from
industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has
argued that any ban on class action waivers would effectively
eliminate arbitration programs that provide consumers a quick,
cost-effective forum to resolve disputes.

The rule's supporters, including a group of more than 200 law
professors, have argued that class-action waivers allow companies
to "insulate themselves from enforcement of our laws."

"This harms not only individual consumers but also the public at
large," the professors wrote.


ALERE INC: Faces "JE" Product Liability Suit in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Alere, Inc.  The case is
captioned J. E. and all others similarly situated and J. D. and
all others similarly situated v. Alere, Inc., Alere San Diego,
Inc., and Alere Home Monitoring, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-11515-FDS
(D. Mass., July 22, 2016).

The Plaintiffs assert product liability claims.

Alere, Inc. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in
the State of California and nationwide.  Alere, Inc.,
independently and through its subsidiaries Alere Home Monitoring,
Inc. and Alere San Diego, Inc. manufactures, markets and sells
medical diagnostic testing products including the International
Normalized Ratio monitoring product.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John J. Roddy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
          E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the securities class action
suit by the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund.

On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension
Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and certain of its current or
former officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 with regard to
disclosures concerning pricing and transactions with related
parties that allegedly inflated Altisource Portfolio Solutions
S.A. share prices. The Court subsequently appointed the Pension
Fund for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades
District Council 35 and the Annuity Fund for the International
Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35 as Lead
Plaintiffs.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint which added Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant,
and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. securities between April 25, 2013 and December 21,
2014 and an unspecified amount of damages. Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the suit on March 23, 2015.

On September 4, 2015, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, finding that the Lead Plaintiffs' amended complaint
failed to state a claim as to any of the defendants, but
permitting the Lead Plaintiffs to file another amended complaint.
Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed second and third amended
complaints with substantially similar claims and theories.
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the third
amended complaint on October 22, 2015.

On December 22, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing with
prejudice all claims against Ocwen Financial Corporation and
certain claims against Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and the
officer and director defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss
as to other claims.

Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. intends to continue to
vigorously defend this suit.


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Sued for Refusing to Cover Name-Brand Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Hood, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that a class
action lawsuit charges that Anthem Blue Cross refuses to cover
name-brand medication, even when there is no equivalent generic or
the generic is ineffective.

In the suit, K.F. Petty says that in 2007, her doctor prescribed a
medication described in the suit as "Drug X" to protect her
privacy.  There was no generic equivalent for the drug at that
time, yet just a few months later, Anthem changed her prescription
to a substitute generic that was not pharmaceutically equivalent,
Courthouse News Service reports.

Petty says her doctor then began specifying that she should
receive the name-brand Drug X but Anthem continued to refuse to
cover it.

The suit alleges that Petty's experience is typical and says she
is representative of a class of Anthem clients who had to use non-
equivalent generics "even when the original prescribed drugs are
different and medically necessary for proper treatment."

She charges that Anthem's practice violates California law and has
harmed her and thousands of others.

The U.S. Justice Department has gone to court to block Anthem's
$54 billion merger with Cigna, charging it would reduce
competition and harm consumers.  It is also challenging the
proposed merger of Aetna and Humana.

Not alone

Petty is not alone in complaining of Anthem's drug coverage.  In a
recent ConsumerAffairs review, Janet of Santa Monica said that
after switching to Anthem in January, she "quickly discovered that
Anthem Blue Cross has by far the most restrictive drug formulary
that I have ever encountered."

"I have discovered that five of my medications (three are
generics) are considered to be Non-Formulary," Janet said.
"Furthermore, my internist went through the Prior Authorization
Process for three of my medications and all three requests were
denied by Anthem.  Now, I have filed three grievances and that
process takes at least 30 days.  Customer Service has not proven
to be helpful in any meaningful way."

Leah of Santa Monica reported a similar experience, saying that
"nearly every prescription issued by one of our doctors is
rejected, whether brand or generic."  She charged that Anthem
"makes doctors spend hours fighting with them so their patients
can be approved for basic medical care.  Usually to no avail."

Rate hikes
Anthem has also come under fire for rate hikes and plan changes
that critics say are a disservice to consumers. Legislation
introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jan
Schakowsky (D-Ill.) would give the Secretary of Health and Human
Services the authority to modify or block premium insurance
increases that are considered unreasonable in states, like
California, where insurance regulators do not have the power to do
so.  The bill is in committee.

"Insurance companies answer to Wall Street, not consumers
demanding quality healthcare at an affordable price," said
Edward Barrera of Consumer Watchdog, a frequent Anthem critic.
"Lawmakers need to give regulators a shield to protect consumers,
and we believe Sen. Feinstein's bill will do exactly that."


ARIZONA, USA: Health Care Cost System Faces "Darjee" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aita Darjee, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor child
N.D. on behalf of N.D., and Alma Sanchez Haro, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Thomas Betlach,
Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, in
his official capacity, Case No. 4:16-cv-00489-DTF (D. Ariz.,
July 22, 2016), alleges violations of civil rights.

The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) is the
name of the Medicaid program in the state of Arizona. As with all
Medicaid programs, it is a joint program between the state and the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ellen Sue Katz, Esq.
          WILLIAM E MORRIS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
          202 E Mcdowell Rd., Suite 257
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 252-3432
          Facsimile: (602) 257-8138
          E-mail: eskatz@qwestoffice.net

               - and -

          Martha Jane Perkins, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          101 E Weaver St., Suite G7
          Carrboro, NC 27510
          Telephone: (919) 968-6308
          E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Violates FDCPA, "Talbert" Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric H. Talbert, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons v. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., and
Abrahamsen Ratchford, P.C., Case No. 2:16-cv-03970-JHS (E.D. Pa.,
July 22, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Atlantic Credit 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.

Abrahamsen Ratchford, P.C., headquartered in Scranton,
Pennsylvania, is a debt recovery and collection law firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodor A. Swansen
          334 Queen Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19147
          Telephone: (215) 260-8469
          E-mail: swansen@gmail.com


AUTOLIV INC: End-Payor Class Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the MDL court has
granted final approval of the end-payor class settlement, over the
objections of several individual class members.

The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, the
Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors were
named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust
class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015.
Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were
consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the
Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought
to represent four purported classes -- direct purchasers, auto
dealers, end-payors, and, as of the filing of the last class
action in June 2015, truck and equipment dealers -- who purchased
occupant safety systems or components directly from a defendant,
indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing
such systems, or through purchases of replacement parts.

In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered
into separate settlement agreements with representatives of the
three classes of plaintiffs then pending in the MDL. Pursuant to
the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $40 million
to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto
dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor
settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was
expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In exchange, the
plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the settlement classes
would release Autoliv from all claims regarding their U.S.
purchases that were or could have been asserted on behalf of the
three classes in the MDL. In January 2015, the MDL court granted
final approval of the direct purchaser class settlement, which had
been reduced to approximately $35.5 million because of opt-outs;
in December 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the auto
dealer class settlement; and on June 20, 2016, the MDL court
granted final approval of the end-payor class settlement, over the
objections of several individual class members, some of whom have
appealed the MDL court's approval of the Company's end-payor
settlement and several other defendants' settlements that were
approved at the same time. This appeal will delay the finality of
the Company's settlement with the end-payor class.

In addition, several individuals and one insurer (and its
affiliated entities) have opted-out of all of the pending end-
payor class settlements, including the Company's settlement. The
insurer and its affiliated entities have informed the Company and
other settling defendants that they plan to file a lawsuit seeking
relief regarding damages allegedly sustained in their purchases of
replacement parts and vehicles containing allegedly affected
parts. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of
settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the
unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who
are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states
and municipalities.

In March 2015, the Company, without admitting any liability,
reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve
certain direct purchasers' global (including U.S.) or non-U.S.
antitrust claims that were not covered by the direct purchaser
class settlement. The total amount of these additional settlements
was $81 million. Autoliv expensed during the first quarter of 2015
approximately $77 million as a result of these additional
settlements, net of existing amounts that had been accrued in
2014.


AUTOLIV INC: Settlement Reached with Truck and Equipment Dealers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in April 2016, the
Company reached an agreement to settle with the truck and
equipment dealers class for a non-material amount. The settlement
is subject to court approval following notice to the class and the
opportunity for class members to object to or opt-out of the
settlement.


AUTOLIV INC: Four Antitrust Class Suits Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that remaining four
antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan
Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M.
Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court
of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and
Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et
al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina
in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian
cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct
and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. The Company
believes that a loss is probable with respect to these Canadian
antitrust cases and accrued an initial amount for the three month
period ended March 31, 2016 related to these claims.

Due to further developments with respect to these claims, the
Company accrued an additional amount during the three month period
ended June 30, 2016. The aggregate accrued amount remains not
material to the Company's results of operations. There is
currently no timeline for class certification or discovery in the
Canadian occupant safety systems class actions. These actions have
been stayed pending proceedings in certain earlier-filed auto
parts cases. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration
or ultimate outcome of the Canadian antitrust cases.


AVENUE STORES: "Perri" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled MICHAEL PERRI, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Avenue Stores, LLC,
Case No. 2016CH08496, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-07491 to the proceeding.

Avenue Stores, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company.
Avenue Stores (formerly United Retail Group) caters to the plus-
size customer -- in this case size 14 or larger.  The retailer
sells moderately priced plus-size (sizes 14 to 32) clothing and
accessories to fashion-conscious women ages 25 to 55 through about
300 Avenue stores in some 35 states.


BEST BUFFET: "You" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
XIN YOU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BEST BUFFET, INC. d/b/a 110 JAPAN, YEE DAI
SHEK, SONNY LIN, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case 2:16-cv-04036-
LDW-ARL (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law, arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

Best Buffet, Inc. owns and operates a Japanese restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIKETOWN: User Agreement Bars Riders' Rights to Civil Jury Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter D'Auria, writing for Willamette Week, reports that
Portland's new bike-share system contains an extraordinary clause
in the user agreement: It bars riders from suing BikeTown in
court.

Buried in the BikeTown user agreement is a clause where riders
waive their right to a civil jury trial if something goes wrong on
a bike-share ride.  The contract forces them into a mandatory
arbitration instead.

"You agree that any dispute or Claim relating in any way to Your
use of the Services will be resolved by binding arbitration,
rather than in court," the agreement reads.

Private arbitration clauses in user agreements like Biketown's are
used to shield corporations from consumer lawsuits, says
Mark Ginsberg, a Portland-based personal injury attorney and
bicycling advocate.

"Private arbitrations are typically run by these private
arbitration companies," said Mr. Ginsberg.  "They are very pro-
corporation biased.  They are not fair, they are not level playing
field.  They are not even close."

Mr. Ginsberg says consumers are also barred from speaking about or
appealing the decisions.

The agreement goes on to bar riders from joining a class-action
lawsuit, or from receiving a jury trial.

The only way to ride a BikeTown bike and not lose your right to
sue? Opt out of the deal within the first 30 days of riding.  The
contract reads,

But Ginsberg says this will do little good, because very few
customers are willing to muddle their way through pages of dense
legalese.

"You don't read them," Mr. Ginsberg says.  "Admit to yourself, you
don't read them."

In an email, PBOT spokesmen Dylan Rivera said the city was not
involved in crafting the user agreement created by the vendor, a
New York-based company called Motivate.

"Throughout the process of launching BIKETOWN, we have been
careful not to discuss the ins and outs of the contract
negotiations," Mr. Rivera tells WW in an email.  "We feel this is
important in order to preserve the integrity of both past and
future negotiations.  We do encourage all people who use BIKETOWN
to read the user agreement."

In a statement, a Motivate spokesperson defended the company's
practices.

"We believe arbitration is the most efficient and expedient
process for resolving disputes," Motivate tells WW in a company
statement.  "The process assigns a neutral arbitrator to each case
and provides an option for either part to have a new arbitrator
assigned if there is any doubt about the first one. And,
consistent with best practices we provide an opportunity for any
members who prefer not to arbitrate to opt out."

Mandatory arbitration clauses, which are used by companies from
American Express to Microsoft to Pokemon Go, have recently
received increased public attention due to a New York Times
investigation last year.  But they remain a powerful tool in the
hands of corporations.

Mr. Ginsberg says that mostly, he's disappointed by the language
in the agreement.

"I really do want Biketown to succeed," Mr. Ginsberg says.  "[But]
that type of agreement is not needed to run a bike-share program."


BREG INC: "Swiger" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Richard E. Swiger, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Breg, Inc., Viscent LLC, and
Orthorx, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00955 (M.D.N.C., July
14, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime pay, liquidated
damages, attorney fees and interest pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Viscent and/or OrthoRx employed Swiger as an Orthotic Fitter in
its facilities at ACC and Meadowmont, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Breg owned and operated both facilities where Swiger was paid on a
bi-monthly basis and was allegedly never paid overtime.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen A. Dunn
      S. Michael Dunn
      EMANUEL & DUNN
      Post Office Box 426
      Raleigh, NC 27602
      Tel: (919) 832-0329
      Tel: (919) 832-0731
      Email: sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com
             mdunn@emanuelanddunn.com

             - and -

      Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
      Zev H. Antell, Esq.
      BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
      140 Virginia Street, Ste. 302
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Tel: (804) 648-4848
      Fax: (804) 237-0413
      Email: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
             ev.antell@butlerroyals.com


BUTLER COUNTY, OH: Drivers Want to Collect Red Camera Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
FoxNews.com reports that drivers who won a $1.8 million class-
action suit against a small Ohio town over its use of red light
cameras want to collect their damages -- straight from the pockets
of a new crop of motorists caught by the unpopular and all-seeing
digital eyes.

Lawyers for thousands of drivers cited in New Miami filed a class-
action lawsuit in 2013 against the Butler County town of 2,000 for
using an automated speed camera system that they said violated due
process rights.  The plaintiffs won their case and a subsequent
appeal by the town, which now hopes to put the case before the
Ohio Supreme Court.

In the meantime, plaintiffs -- and their lawyers -- want their
money.  And in a case of extreme irony, they want to collect it by
garnishing fines generated by New Miami's new red light camera
vendor, Blue Line Solutions.

"We want to make sure that any money that New Miami received from
their new speed camera program goes to pay back the plaintiffs
that had to pay under the old speed camera system," attorney
Michael Allen told FoxNews.com on July 20.

Mr. Allen, along with the other four attorneys involved in the
suit, argue that the new stream of ticket revenue is the cash-
strapped town's "only remaining substantial asset."

Butler County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Oster denied the
motion to garnish New Miami's current red light camera revenue --
at least until the final appeal is exhausted.

"This case is currently pending review before the Supreme Court of
Ohio," Judge Oster wrote on July 21, adding that garnishment [is]
an extraordinary remedy under these circumstances, which should
not be considered lightly."

Mr. Allen said the attempt was rejected for "legal, technical
reasons."

"We're waiting for the Supreme Court to say, 'No, village of
Miami.  Get your wallets out and start paying these people,'" he
said.


CAMDEN, NJ: Police Officers' OT Class Action Settlement Rejected
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a federal judge
has rejected a proposed settlement of a lawsuit alleging former
Camden City police officers were not paid for overtime hours.

The ruling marked the second setback for the lawsuit, filed in
April 2012 as a proposed class-action suit for some 170 city cops.

In the first reversal, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio
denied class-action status to the suit on Jan. 15.  That blocked a
proposed settlement worth up to $150,000.

On July 20, Judge Donio rebuffed a smaller settlement on behalf of
the suit's three named plaintiffs -- former officers Edgar
Feliciano, Robert Chew and Xemaril Cruz.

This time, the city had agreed to pay about $16,000 to settle the
suit -- $750 each for Feliciano, Chew and Cruz, and $14,000 for
their legal expenses.

"We were quite surprised (by Judge Donio's ruling)," said
Jodi Jaffe, a Lawrenceville attorney representing the former
officers. An attorney for the city could not be reached.

In contrast, the January settlement proposal had offered $500 each
to prospective class members, an additional $1,000 each for the
three original plaintiffs, and $47,000 for legal expenses.

"We had 170 officers all saying basically the same thing,"
Ms. Jaffe said of the request for class certification.  "Ninety-
nine percent of the time, that would be approved."

But in each ruling, Judge Donio said the former officers had not
provided enough evidence to support their claims.

Her ruling noted the city contends the lawsuit's allegations are
"meritless" and it has not violated state or federal laws
regarding overtime pay.  The city says it wants to settle the
dispute "to avoid the burden and expense of prolonged litigation,"
the decision added.

Judge Donio said she "has no reason to believe that the settlement
agreement is unfair," but that she lacks an "adequate foundation
to make an independent judgment."

Judge Donio said she could not determine that $750 per plaintiff
was "a reasonable compromise" because the former officers had
given no estimate of the overtime pay they're allegedly owed.

She also refused to award $14,000 in legal fees, an amount
described as about 85 percent of the plaintiffs' actual expenses.
Judge Donio said she could not determine the fee amount was
reasonable in part because she could not say whether the payment
for the plaintiffs was also fair.

Judge Donio ordered the two sides to prepare a revised settlement
by Aug. 15.

The former city police force ceased operations in May 2013, when
it was replaced by the Camden County Police Department.


CANADA: B.C. to Stop Charging Welfare Recipients Methadone Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geordon Omand, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that faced with
a potential class-action lawsuit, the British Columbia government
has ended its practice of deducting money from the welfare cheques
of recovering addicts receiving treatment from private methadone-
dispensing clinics.

Legal documents received by the plaintiff's lawyer from the
provincial government indicate the Ministry of Social Development
has changed its policy and will pay any additional clinic fees for
affected clients on income or disability assistance.

It's the latest development in a legal challenge launched last
November aimed at stopping the government from allowing private
clinics to take $18.34 from clients' social-assistance cheques in
exchange for methadone treatment, as well as compensating those
already affected by the policy.

"The government's change of heart is (its) way of acceding to the
inevitable," said Jason Gratl, lawyer for the proposed
representative plaintiff.

"In the future, the $18.34 will remain in the pockets of the most
desperate, the most disadvantaged in our province" Mr. Gratl said.
The question of whether they'll be reimbursed for the funds
already taken has yet to be decided, he added.

The Ministry of Social Development could not be reached for
comment.

Mr. Gratl said the program affects between 5,000 and 10,000 people
and has been in place since at least 2008, meaning the overall
amount of money deducted could be as much as $13 million.

The original lawsuit said private methadone clinics require
clients to sign a $60 government-drafted fee agreement, which is
in turn reduced by $41.66 by a government-provided supplement. The
remainder is either paid out of pocket or, in the case of those on
income assistance, is drawn from the client's monthly allowance.

An application was filed in B.C. Supreme Court requesting an
injunction against the practice continuing while the original
lawsuit worked its way through the legal system.

Raymond Fieltsch, an executive director with the Ministry of
Social Development, wrote in an affidavit dated July 20 and
received by Mr. Gratl that recipients of income or disability
assistance have been or will be informed that the subtractions
from their cheques would cease.

"Any current or future recipient of income assistance or
disability assistance who applies to access the alcohol and drug
treatment supplement will not have amounts deducted from his or
her cheques pursuant to a fee agreement," reads the document.

Mr. Gratl said the proposed class-action lawsuit would continue in
order to secure compensation for methadone fees taken from past
social assistance payments.


CARRIER IQ: Court Defers Ruling on $9MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Carrier IQ's $9 million settlement with smartphone users who
accused it of collecting their personal information is in limbo
after a federal judge questioned how many people were informed of
the settlement.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on July 29, deferred ruling on a
motion for final approval of the settlement, attorney's fees and
incentive awards. He ordered class counsel to provide more
information about the "reach" of the class notice, citing the low
number of claims submitted by class members as a potential
indicator that not enough people learned about the settlement and
their eligibility for an award during the notice period.

With a response rate of less than half of one percent, Chen said
the reach of the class notice may not have been sufficient. He
asked for more information about how people were reached through
both paper publications and the internet, as well as what
additional notice could be done and how much it would cost.

The nationwide settlement class consists of 30 million unique
members. Less than 40,000 members responded.

"The overall settlement in view of risks and everything else is
within range and that hasn't changed, but we need to make sure
reasonable notice did get out and that these people had a fair
chance to decide whether they want to participate or not," Chen
said.

Carrier IQ was on track to settle claims that it used a device
called IQRD to access smartphones while hiding its presence and
subverting standard operating system functions or other
applications, and then sent personal information to Sprint, AT&T
and other companies.

The plaintiffs said the software allowed Carrier IQ to log users'
keystrokes, including their private text messages and web
searches, in violation of federal and state wiretap laws.

Class counsel told the court it placed half-page ads about the
settlement in People magazine, USA Today and on the internet,
including social media channels like Twitter, on the premise that
the ads could be seen by anyone over the age of 18 who used an
affected cellphone.

But Chen said there was no evidence that everyone who had an
affected phone read one of those publications and saw the ad, and
that he wanted to know how class counsel's notice expert
determined that 81 percent of the class saw the ads in the
demographics that each media outlet attracts.

"This is all conclusory and I don't have any sense of whether we
reached 1 percent, 10 percent or 80 percent," Chen said.

Chen also questioned the award amount proposed for class
representatives, asking if those who spent only a few hours on the
suit should receive the same $5,000 award as those who invested a
substantial amount of time, but class attorney Daniel Warshaw
argued that the judge should also consider factors like agreeing
to put their name on a legal filing and their inclination to
challenge the industry.

At the July 29, hearing, an objector -- identified by class
counsel in an email read aloud in court as having a "history of
sabotaging class actions" -- challenged class counsel's request
for 25 percent of the settlement fund, arguing there is little in
the record to justify fees that high.

"It appears to me you're asking for money in exchange for dropping
your objection," Chen said.

Nonetheless, the judge said he would consider awarding less than
the 25 percent benchmark given class members' low response rate.

"That is not something you should penalize class counsel for,"
Warshaw said. "The record has established that we've done a good
job for the class. We fought hard."

If the settlement is approved, class members will receive $148.85
each. Carrier IQ has also agreed to stop using the same port for
SMS text messages that it uses to receive instructions, and to
only collect the web URLs of U.S. customers when their device is
transferring data on its own network or when a third-party carrier
notifies users that URL data may be collected.

Warshaw is with the firm Pearson, Simon & Warshaw in Sherman Oaks,
California.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Still Defends "Ong" Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Susie Ong filed on
January 8, 2016, a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock between
February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016.  The complaint purports to
state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief Executive
Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules, based on the
Company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to
disclose material information about the Company's quality controls
and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The
complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest,
and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.  The Company intends to defend this case vigorously, but it
is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of
or any potential liability from the case.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together
with its subsidiaries, develops and operates fresh Mexican food
restaurants serving burritos, tacos, burrito bowls (a burrito
without the tortilla) and salads.


CNOVA N.V.: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Cnova N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that an amended consolidated complaint
has been filed in the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "We, certain of our current and former officers
and directors, and the underwriters of our initial public offering
have been named as defendants in a securities class action
asserting claims arising out of the subject matter of the internal
review at Cnova Brazil, including issues related to inventory
management. The action consolidates three separate class actions
that were brought on January 15, 2016, January 20, 2016 and
January 22, 2016, respectively. On April 15, 2016, those cases
were consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and captioned as In re Cnova N.V.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 16-CV-444. On June 13, 2016, an
amended consolidated complaint was filed in that consolidated case
on behalf of a putative class alleging a violation of Section 11
of the Securities Act by us and the underwriters of our initial
public offering and alleging a violation of Section 15 of the
Securities Act by certain of our officers and directors."

"Factually, the lawsuit alleges a number of material misstatements
and omissions in our registration statement on Form F-1 filed with
the SEC in connection with our initial public offering,
concerning, among other issues, our net sales and other financial
information. We are unable at this time to predict the extent of
our potential liability in these matters, including what, if any,
parallel action the SEC might take as a result of the facts at
issue in these matters or the related internal review conducted by
us and the advisors retained by our board of directors. Depending
on the outcome of the class action lawsuit, we may be required to
pay a significant amount of monetary damages and/or incur other
penalties or sanctions, some or all of which may not be covered by
insurance. In addition, under certain agreements, we have an
obligation to indemnify certain of our current and former officers
and directors and the underwriters of our initial public offering
in relation to these matters, and we may not have sufficient
coverage under directors' and officers' or other insurance
policies to cover our costs, in which case our business, results
of operations, financial condition or price of our ordinary shares
may be materially and adversely affected."


DAVIS, CA: Faces "Weist" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WEIST, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, v. CITY OF DAVIS Case 2:16-at-00872 (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 pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant, City of Davis, is a political subdivision of the State
of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary M. Messing, Esq.
     Jason II. Jasmine, Esq.
     MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LIT
     980 9th Street, Suite 380
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Phone: (916) 446-5297
     Fax: (916) 448-5047
     E-mail: gary@majlabor.com
             jason@majlabor.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: 9th Cir. Says Pension Plan Must Comply with ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that nonprofit Dignity Health's pension plans are not "church
plans" and must comply with the requirements of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, an appeals court ruled.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit upheld the Northern District of California's ruling that
Dignity Health's pension plan does not qualify for ERISA's church
plan exemption because it was not established by a church.

The dispute stems from a class action filed in 2013 by former
Dignity Health billing coordinator Starla Rollins, who claimed
that Dignity Health's pension benefits plan was underfunded in
violation of ERISA.  Dignity countered that its plan need not
conform to ERISA standards because it was a church plan.

Enacted in 1974, ERISA establishes minimum funding standards and
disclosure obligations for employee benefit plans, among other
requirements, to ensure that workers receive the benefits their
employers promise.  But ERISA exempts church plans from its
requirements. "Church plan" refers to any "plan established and
maintained by its employees by a church or a convention or
association of churches."

Writing for the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge William Fletcher found
that ERISA requires that church plans must be established by an
actual church. Contrary to Dignity Health's contention, Congress
did not eliminate that requirement when it amended ERISA in 1983
to allow organizations controlled by or affiliated with a church,
with the principal purpose of providing employee benefits, to
maintain church plans.

Dignity Health formed after two Sisters of Mercy congregations in
California established nonprofit hospital systems and subsequently
merged them to form Catholic Healthcare West. In 1989, the
congregations, the hospitals and Catholic Healthcare West merged
their pension plans.

Dignity Health says its pension plans qualify as church plans
because an organization associated with a church maintains them.

"If a church plan may cover employees of a church-associated
organization, and a church-associated organization may maintain
the plan, Congress had no reason to insist that the church itself
must establish the plan," Dignity Health argued in its brief.

Fletcher disagreed, finding Dignity Health's argument to be "based
on a misreading of the legislative history."

Congress amended ERISA in 1983 to allow employees of church-
affiliated organizations like hospitals and schools to continue
participating in church pension plans as they had before the
statute was enacted to head off higher maintenance costs and other
problems that ERISA compliance would have created.

"The parties' dispute would have been easily resolved under
ERISA's originally enacted text, which unambiguously provided that
a church plan must have been established by a church," Fletcher
wrote in his 26-page opinion, published July 28.

Congress also amended ERISA to qualify pension plans maintained by
a church-controlled or affiliated organization, such as a pension
board, as church plans. The panel found that the amendment applied
only to these types or organizations.

"There is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that
Congress intended, in expanding the definition of eligible
employees, to eliminate the requirement that a church plan be
established by a church," Fletcher said. "Nor is there anything in
the legislative history to suggest that Congress intended, in
broadening the definition of organizations that are authorized to
maintain a church plan, to eliminate that same requirement."

But Dignity Health argued in its appeal that interpreting ERISA to
require that church plans be established by a church violates the
First Amendment's religion clauses. Exempting church-established
plans from ERISA but not those established by other religious
groups discriminates against certain types of religious groups,
Dignity Health said. ERISA authorizes any religious group to
establish a church plan, Dignity Health said.

Fletcher was not convinced. "Dignity Health's argument can only be
understood as an outright constitutional challenge to the church-
plan exemption itself, a challenge Dignity Health surely does not
intend to advance," Fletcher said.

The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to federal court for further
proceedings.

The case captioned, STARLA ROLLINS, on behalf of herself,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California non-profit
corporation; HERBERT J. VALLIER, an individual, Defendants-
Appellants., No. 15-15351 (9th Cir.).

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision is available at
https://is.gd/EhFdnT from Leagle.com.


ENERGES OILFIELD: Faces "Kanewske" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN KANEWSKE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ENERGES OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case 4:16-
cv-02145 (S.D. Tex., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ENERGES OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC provides well testing, flowback,
torque and test, and safety services to the oil and gas industry
throughout the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDERATION OF MEDICAL: Only 3% of Patients Collected Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Presse Canadienne reports that a very small percentage of Quebec
patients, who had their surgeries cancelled during three days in
2002 and 2003, have claimed the money obtained as part of a class
action lawsuit against the Federation of Medical Specialists of
Quebec (FMSQ).

Medical specialists cancelled surgeries on Nov. 13 2002, Dec. 2
2002 and Jan. 16 2003, for what they called "study days",
organized by the Federation.  In reality, these were disguised
strike days, says Paul Brunet, CEO and spokesman of the Council
for the protection of patients.

And while 3,300 patients can claim $500 each, only 100 of them --
about three per cent -- have taken advantage, he says.

The sums to be obtained will be available for distribution within
the next six months, Mr. Brunet said in interview.

This is also a historical trial, he argues, because it establishes
that doctors do not have the right to work together to stop giving
care.

In s 2010 decision, Judge Clement Trudel sentenced the FMSQ to
$4.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

"The Tribunal concludes that the study days were in reality
concerted work stoppages, and massive integration of strategies
and tactics of the doctor's union, a collective breach of the duty
of diligence and respect for prior commitments," he wrote in his
ruling.  "By participating at the expense of their professional
duties, particularly by cancelling their appointments with their
patients without good reason, doctors committed a civil fault,
likely to engage their responsibility."

The Federation, in encouraging the fault, also adopts some of the
responsibility.  In 2013, the Court of Appeal, however, reduced
the size of the group of patients to 3,351 and legally reduced the
amount collectively rewarded to $837,750 in compensatory damages.
The Court completely cancelled the awarding of exemplary damages.

Mr. Brunet says it is easy for eligible patients whose surgery was
cancelled on those dates to get their monetary compensation by
completing the claim form on the website of the law firm in charge
of the litigation, Roy Larochelle Avocats Inc.


FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Lewis" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents charged
an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance transaction,
including Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
on November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Idaho.  A court has granted class
certification in Lewis.  The Company has been unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of
loss.


FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Suits by Misclassified Workers Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
misclassified certain employees, including:

     * Cruz v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on November 25, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Orange,

     * Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, and

     * Weber v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., filed on April 17, 2015
and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

These lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class has
not been certified.  For the reasons described, as well as the
applicability of certain indemnification rights the Company may
have, the Company has not yet been able to assess the probability
of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or,
where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company
believes the amount is not material to the condensed consolidated
financial statements as a whole.


FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Suits Over Improper Fees Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that most of
the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its
subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services,
denied home warranty claims, failed to timely file certain
documents, and gave items of value to developers, builders,
brokers and others as inducements to refer business in violation
of certain laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws
generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
obligations, including:

     * Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States
District Court of New Jersey,

     * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     * Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles,

     * Lennen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on May 19, 2016 and pending in the United States District
court for the Middle District of Florida,

     * McCormick v. First American Real Estate Services, Inc., et
al., filed on December 31, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange,

     * Nichols v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 26, 2016 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California,

     * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, and

     * In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class
actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a
class was certified but that certification was subsequently
vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded and the judgment
has been affirmed on appeal.

The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of
loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where
the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company
believes the amount is not material to the condensed consolidated
financial statements as a whole.


FORT LAUDERDALE TRANSPORTATION: "Ross" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Ross, and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Fort
Lauderdale Transportation, Inc. d/b/a USA Transportation Services,
and Michael Solomon, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-61697 (S.D.
Fla., July 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant is a transportation service provider where Plaintiff
worked as a chauffer. The Plaintiff claims to be denied overtime
pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Barakat, Esq.
      Barakat Law, P.A.
      2701 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 202
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 444-3114
      Facsimile: (305) 444-3115


FORTINET INC: Agrees to Pay $200,000 for Attorneys' Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Fortinet, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, that
Fortinet, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Fortinet" or the
"Company"), on May 27, 2015, entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among Fortinet, Malbrouck
Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Fortinet, and Meru Networks, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Meru"), pursuant to which Fortinet acquired Meru on
July 8, 2015. Between June 4, 2015 and June 12, 2015, five Meru
stockholders filed class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Court") challenging the transaction
and alleging that the defendant companies and individual members
of Meru's Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching
their fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches.
Defendants' position was that they had not engaged in any such
violations. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, additional
disclosure of facts relating to the merger in connection with the
shareholder vote thereupon, injunctive relief and rescission, as
well as fees and costs.

After limited discovery, the parties agreed, in connection with
the settlement of plaintiffs' claims and without any admissions of
liability on the part of defendants, on certain additional
disclosures to Meru's Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9, which were made in a Schedule 14-9/A filing on
June 29, 2015. These additional disclosures pertained to the Meru
board of directors' financial advisor's fairness opinion, the
financial projections provided to the board's financial advisor,
the potential conflicts of interest in connection with the merger,
and the background of the merger.

On May 5, 2016, the Court entered an order dismissing these
lawsuits with prejudice only as to the named plaintiffs, and
without prejudice as to any absent members of the putative class.
Pursuant to the order, the Court retained jurisdiction of the
actions solely for the purpose of adjudicating plaintiffs'
counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses in connection with mooted disclosure
claims asserted by plaintiffs in the actions. The Company
subsequently agreed to pay $200,000 to plaintiffs' counsel for
attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of their claim
for attorneys' fees and expenses in the actions. This fee will be
paid by Fortinet. The Court has not been asked to review, and will
pass no judgment on, the payment of a fee or its reasonableness.

The Company said, "As instructed by the Court, we are providing
contact information for plaintiffs' counsel and defendants'
counsel, so that they can be reached by any person with questions
regarding this matter. Plaintiffs' counsel: W. Scott Holleman,
Johnson & Weaver, LLP, 99 Madison Avenue, New York, New York,
212.802.1486. Defendants' counsel: Jay Pomerantz, Fenwick & West,
LLP, 801 California Avenue, Mountain View, California,
650.988.8500."


GENERAL GROWTH: "Pezzoli" Action to Junk Amended Bylaws
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Pezzoli, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of General Growth Properties, Inc.,
Plaintiff, v. Richard B. Clark, Mary Lou Fiala, J. Bruce Flatt,
John Aley, Daniel Hurwitz, Brian Kingston, Sandeep Mathrani, David
Neithercut, Mark R. Patterson, and General Growth Properties,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 12556 (Del. Ch. July 14, 2016), seeks
to nullify, void, find ineffective, and invalidate Amended Bylaws
for breach of fiduciary duties and violation of Sections 141(k) of
the Delaware General Corporation Law.

The Board's amendments to the Company's Bylaws and Certificate of
Incorporation includes preventing stockholders from removing
directors without cause.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Tel: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (856) 685-7417

           - and -

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Telephone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530


GENERAL MOTORS: To Appeal Second Circuit Decision
-------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
appeal the decision of a three-judge panel of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming in part,
reversing in part, and vacating portions of the Bankruptcy Court's
April 15 decision and subsequent judgment.

The Company said, "In 2014 we announced various recalls relating
to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls
included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under
certain circumstances unintentionally move from the "run" position
to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of
power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the
event of a crash."

"Through July 15, 2016 we were aware of 100 putative class actions
pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in
the U.S. and 21 putative class actions pending in various
Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that consumers who purchased
or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors
Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the
recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions
associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). In general,
these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory
damages, such as alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as
well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief.
There are also two civil actions brought by state governmental
entities relating to the 2014 recalls that seek injunctive relief
as well as economic damages and attorneys' fees for alleged
violations of state laws.

"Through July 15, 2016 we were aware of 285 actions pending in
various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and 16 actions
pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging injury or
death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls
announced in 2014 (personal injury cases). In general, these
personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory
damages, punitive damages and other relief.

"Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) has issued orders from time to time directing
that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal
lawsuits involving faulty or allegedly faulty ignition switches or
other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in 2014
be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court,
the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation).
Through July 15, 2016 the JPML has transferred 307 pending cases
to, and consolidated them with, the multidistrict litigation. At
the court's suggestion, the parties to the multidistrict
litigation engage from time to time in discussions of possible
mechanisms to resolve pending litigation. Since September 17, 2015
we have reached various agreements with certain personal injury
claimants regarding possible settlement of their claims.

"In order to facilitate the resolution of the multidistrict
litigation, the Southern District of New York (the district court)
scheduled six cases involving personal injury for bellwether
trials in 2016 (i.e., trials designed to be representative of the
group of personal injury cases in the multidistrict litigation).
Through July 15, 2016 two of the cases set for bellwether trials
were dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiffs. In a third
bellwether trial, a jury concluded that GM was not liable to the
plaintiffs. In a fourth case set for a bellwether trial, GM and
the plaintiff entered into a confidential settlement. The final
two of the original six bellwether trials are scheduled to
commence in September and November 2016, respectively. The
district court has also scheduled additional personal injury
bellwether trials for 2017. In addition to the federal bellwether
trials, there are two bellwether personal injury trials scheduled
to commence in August and September 2016, respectively, in a state
court multidistrict litigation pending in Texas. Each bellwether
trial will be tried on its facts and the result of any subsequent
bellwether trial may be different from the earlier bellwether
trials.

"On July 15, 2016 the district court overseeing the multidistrict
litigation issued a ruling on GM's motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint seeking damages for alleged economic loss relating to
the ignition switch and other recalls by GM in 2014. The district
court granted GM's motion in part and denied it in part. The
district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims brought under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), and
those brought by any plaintiff whose vehicle was not allegedly
defective when sold. The district court also rejected Plaintiffs'
broadest theory of damages -- that plaintiffs could seek recovery
for alleged reduction in the resale value of their vehicles due to
damage to GM's reputation and brand as a result of the ignition
switch matter. The district court also held that plaintiffs did
not have a common basis for their claims across all defects and
models to proceed as a single class, and that the remaining claims
may have to proceed individually or in subclasses of vehicles
affected by a common defect. Further, the district court held that
the named plaintiffs may assert claims only on behalf of owners of
the same vehicle models that they themselves purchased (or leased)
or models with sufficiently similar defects, and that it will not
specify the specific permissible class claims until the class-
certification stage. Finally, the district court granted GM's
motion to dismiss with respect to certain state law claims but
denied it as to other state law claims. The court held that the
viability of state law claims will depend on each state's specific
laws and plaintiffs' specific factual allegations.

"While the ruling is limited to post-bankruptcy claims, we believe
the district court's legal holdings rejecting plaintiffs' broadest
damages theory and dismissing certain other claims should apply to
similarly limit plaintiffs' pre-bankruptcy claims.

"Because many plaintiffs in the actions are suing over the conduct
of General Motors Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that
entity for liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to
enforce the terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction (2009
Sale Order) issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude
claims from being asserted against us for, among other things,
personal injuries based on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss
claims based on acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and
claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by
General Motors Corporation (successor liability claims).

"On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision
precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims
based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and
successor liability claims, except for claims asserting
liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009
Sale Agreement, and claims that could be asserted against us only
if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own
independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts
or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs appealed the
Bankruptcy Court's decision and we cross appealed with respect to
certain issues to preserve our rights.

"On July 13, 2016 a three judge panel of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) issued a
decision and judgment affirming in part, reversing in part, and
vacating portions of the Bankruptcy Court's April 15 decision and
subsequent judgment. Among other things, the Second Circuit held
that the 2009 Sale Order could not be enforced to bar claims
against GM asserted by either plaintiffs who purchased used
vehicles after the sale closing or against purchasers who asserted
claims relating to the ignition switch defect, including pre-
closing personal injury claims and economic loss claims. The
Second Circuit also vacated that portion of the Bankruptcy Court
judgment enforcing the 2009 Sale Order against plaintiffs with
pre-sale claims based on defects other than the ignition switch
and remanded that issue to the Bankruptcy Court for further
proceedings.

"We intend to appeal the decision and judgment."


GENERAL MOTORS: Updates on Cases Over Ignition Switch Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company provided
updates on proceedings related to ignition switch recall and other
recalls.

The Company said, "In 2014, GM voluntarily established the
Ignition Switch Recall Compensation Program, administered by an
independent administrator, which provided compensation for
individuals who suffered personal injuries resulting from the
ignition switch defect, both before and after bankruptcy. As a
result, certain pre-closing personal injury claims relating to the
ignition switch defect were resolved through this program."

"In addition on December 4, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a
judgment regarding certain issues, including the extent to which
punitive damages could be asserted against GM based on claims in
connection with vehicles manufactured by General Motors
Corporation, for which GM assumed liability in the 2009 Sale
Agreement. Various groups of plaintiffs have appealed that
decision to the district court overseeing the multidistrict
litigation.

"In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Eastern District) on behalf of purchasers of our common stock
from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014 (Shareholder Class
Action), the lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers'
Retirement System alleged that GM and several current and former
officers and employees made material misstatements and omissions
relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in
SEC filings and other public statements.

"On February 11, 2016 the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the
dismissal of four consolidated shareholder derivative actions that
had been pending in the Delaware Chancery Court. In light of the
Delaware Supreme Court's decision, proceedings have resumed in the
two consolidated shareholder derivative actions in the Eastern
District that had been stayed pending disposition of the Delaware
cases and the Eastern District is now considering our motion to
dismiss in those actions. During the three months ended March 31,
2016 an additional shareholder derivative action was filed in the
Eastern District against certain current and former GM directors
and officers making similar allegations to the two other
shareholder derivative actions that are pending in the Eastern
District. This new derivative action has been transferred to the
same judge handling those two other shareholder derivative
actions. Two derivative actions filed in the Circuit Court of
Wayne County, Michigan, have been consolidated and remain stayed
pending disposition of the federal derivative actions.

"In connection with the 2014 recalls, various investigations,
inquiries and complaints have been received from the United States
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the
Office), Congress, the SEC, Transport Canada and 50 state
attorneys general. In connection with the foregoing we have
received subpoenas and requests for additional information and we
have participated in discussions with various governmental
authorities. We have not received inquiries from the committees in
Congress for a substantial period of time and are unaware of any
further action they may take. On June 3, 2015 we received notice
of an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
concerning certified pre-owned vehicle advertising where dealers
had certified vehicles that allegedly needed recall repairs. On
January 28, 2016 the FTC published a proposed consent agreement
for public comment. The public comment period has closed; the
matter remains pending before the FTC. We believe we are
cooperating fully with all pending requests for information in
ongoing investigations. Such matters could in the future result in
the imposition of material damages, fines, civil consent orders,
civil and criminal penalties or other remedies.

"We have resolved, partially or totally, several matters relating
to the recalls announced in 2014, including the recognition of
additional liabilities for such matters.

"First, with regard to the investigation by the Office, on
September 16, 2015 we entered into a Deferred Prosecution
Agreement (the DPA) with the Office regarding its investigation of
the events leading up to certain recalls regarding faulty ignition
switches. Under the DPA we have paid the United States $900
million as a financial penalty, and we agreed to retain an
independent monitor to review and assess our policies, practices
or procedures related to statements about motor vehicle safety,
the provision of information to those responsible for recall
decisions, recall processes and addressing known defects in
certified pre-owned vehicles. In addition, the Office agreed to
recommend to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Southern District) that prosecution of GM on the two-
count information filed in the Southern District be deferred for
three years. The Office also agreed that if we are in compliance
with all of our obligations under the DPA, the Office will, within
30 days after the expiration of the period of deferral (including
any extensions thereto), seek dismissal with prejudice of the two-
count information filed against GM.

"Second, on May 23, 2016 the district court entered a judgment
approving a class-wide settlement of the Shareholder Class Action
described above for $300 million. One significant shareholder
opted out of the settlement prior to approval and one shareholder
has filed an appeal of the decision approving the settlement.

"Third, on September 17, 2015 we announced we had reached a
memorandum of understanding regarding a $275 million settlement
that could potentially cover approximately 1,400 personal injury
claimants who have lawsuits pending in the multidistrict
litigation or who have otherwise asserted claims related to the
ignition switch recall or certain other recalls announced in 2014.
In December 2015 the court overseeing the multidistrict litigation
established a qualified settlement fund and appointed a special
master to administer certain facets of the settlement pursuant to
the terms of the memorandum of understanding. The special master
commenced his work in the three months ended December 31, 2015 and
his work continues.

"The total amount accrued at June 30, 2016 for the remaining
investigations, claims and/or lawsuits relating to the ignition
switch recalls and other related recalls represents a combination
of our best single point estimates where determinable and, where
no such single point estimate is determinable, our estimate of the
low end of the range of probable loss with regard to such matters,
if that is determinable. We believe it is probable that we will
incur additional liabilities beyond what has already been accrued
with regard to at least a portion of the remaining matters,
whether through settlement or judgment; however, we are currently
unable to estimate an overall amount or range of loss because
these matters involve significant uncertainties. The uncertainties
include the legal theory or the nature of the investigations,
claims and/or lawsuits, the complexity of the facts, the lack of
documentation available to us with respect to particular cases or
groups of cases, the results of any investigation or litigation
and the timing of resolution of the investigation or litigations,
including any appeals, and further proceedings following the
Second Circuit's July 13 decision, and the district court's July
15 decision. We will continue to consider resolution of pending
matters involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where
it makes sense to do so."


GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal Over Dealers' Claim to be Heard This Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company anticipates
that the appeal related to the GM Canada Dealers' Claim will be
heard in 2016.

The Company said, "On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GM Canada on behalf of a
purported class of over 200 former GM Canada dealers (the
Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements
with GM Canada. In May 2009 in the context of the global
restructuring of GM's business and the possibility that GM Canada
might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GM Canada
offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist
with their exit from the GM Canada dealer network and to
facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion.
The Plaintiff Dealers allege that their Dealer Sales and Service
Agreements were wrongly terminated by GM Canada and that GM Canada
failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its
statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the
Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to
coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down
agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the
wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers'
initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" $750
million Canadian Dollar, without explanation of any specific
measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved
certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of
specifically defined issues. A number of former dealers opted out
of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the
certified class. On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court
dismissed the Plaintiff Dealers' claim against GM Canada. The
court also dismissed GM Canada's counterclaim against the
Plaintiff Dealers for repayment of the wind-down payments made to
them by GM Canada as well as for other relief. All parties have
filed notices of appeal. We anticipate that the appeal will be
heard in 2016."


GERDAU SA: Lebanon County to Apply for Lead Plaintiff Role
----------------------------------------------------------
John Latimer, writing for Lebanon Daily News, reports that Lebanon
County will file to be a lead plaintiff in a class action suit
against a Brazilian steel manufacturer accused of attempting to
defraud its government of more than $400 million in taxes.

The issue came to light last year when federal authorities in
Brazil began investigating Gerdau SA, resulting in corruption
charges being filed against the company's CEO on allegations that
Gerdau evaded $429 million in taxes.

Controller Bob Mettley, who serves as secretary of the retirement
fund, told the county commissioners on July 21 that Kessler,
Topaz, Meltzer & Check, a Chester County law firm which monitors
the retirement portfolio, detected that the county's pension fund
had lost $100,000 because one of its stable of investment managers
had invested in Gerdau SA.

The county has already joined the class action suit filed against
Gerdau SA, but because of the size of its loss it may be able to
gain preferential treatment, Mr. Mettley told the commissioners.

"Since we lost over $100,000 as a result of their wrong-doing,
Kessler-Topaz has identified that we have a possibility to file as
a lead plaintiff," he said.

The commissioners agreed to go forward with the filing as lead
plaintiff after Mr. Mettley told them he had consulted county
solicitor David Warner, who determined there would be no cost or
risk to the county or the retirement fund.

There are a couple of benefits from being a lead plaintiff,
including being one of the first to receive payment should Gerdau
SA be found guilty, Mr. Mettley said.

"One of the other highlights is, we would actually be part of the
approval process for any proposed resolution to the litigation and
final settlement agreement," he added.

Other counties have been successful when taking this approach in
other cases of fraud but there are no assurances Lebanon County
will be deemed a lead plaintiff, Mr. Mettley told the
commissioners.

"If the court would decide we are not lead plaintiff, we just then
fall back in with the regular class people and wait two, three,
four years down the line for them to send a notice and get
recovery," he said.

Any money returned to the county would go back into the retirement
fund, which currently stands at more than $100 million, Mr.
Mettley said.


GLENROWAN TAVERN: Faces "Leal" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMJNO MORALES LEAL, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. GLENROWAN TAVERN & GRILL, INC. d/b/a GLENROWAN SPORTS
BAR & GRILL, JOAN FEEHAN, GARY FEEHAN, Case 1:16-cv-05771-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

GLENROWAN TAVERN & GRILL, INC. is a bar and restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


GOLDEN STATE: "Padron" Suit Seeks "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL PADRON as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GOLDEN STATE PHONE & WIRELESS, a California
Corporations and DOES 2 through IO, Case 5:16-cv-04076-HRL (N.D.
Cal., July 20, 2016), seeks recovery of unpaid wages and penalties
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Business and
Professions Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order.

GOLDEN STATE PHONE & WIRELESS is a cellular service, retail sales,
and business phone systems operation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq.
     Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
     BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP
     733 Marsh Street. Suite 110
     San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
     Phone: (805) 322-3412
     Fax: il80S) 322-3413
     E-mail:hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com
            mkm@bbemploymentlaw.com


GREEN LEAF: "Guo" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Guo Jin Wu, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Green Leaf & Chinese Restaurant
Inc. d/b/a Green Leaf Chinese & Thai Cuisine, Shi Yong, Meizi
Yong, and Does 1 - 10, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03924
(E.D.N.Y., July 14, 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 and/or operate the restaurant Green Leaf Chinese &
Thai Cuisine owned by Shi Yong and Meizi Yong and located at 72-60
Metropolitan Ave. Right Side Middle Village, New York, 11379 where
Plaintiff was primarily employed as a delivery worker.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week
that he worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which the span of his workday
exceeded 10 hours.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew C. Heerde, Esq.
      YERMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      225 Broadway, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10007
      Phone: (347) 460-3588
      Fax: (212) 819-8177
      Email: mheerde@yermangroup.com


HELIX ENERGY: Briefing Completed on Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit have completed briefing on
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Company said, "On July 31, 2015, a purported stockholder,
Parviz Izadjoo, filed a class action lawsuit styled Parviz Izadjoo
v. Owen Kratz and Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. against the
Company and Mr. Kratz, our President and Chief Executive Officer,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of shares of
our common stock between October 21, 2014, and July 21, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit asserts violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 as to both us and Mr.
Kratz, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Kratz,
based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings
and other public disclosures regarding projections for 2015 dry
docks of two of our vessels working in the Gulf of Mexico that
allegedly caused the price at which putative class members bought
stock during the proposed class period to be artificially
inflated."

"On January 28, 2016, the judge in the case approved a motion for
the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14,
2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint,
adding Mr. Tripodo (our Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer) and Mr. Chamblee (our former Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer) as individual defendants,
alleging the same types of claims made in the original complaint
(alleged violations during the Class Period of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 with respect to all
defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants), but asserting that the alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures are related to the condition of and repairs to certain
equipment aboard the Q4000 vessel. The defendants filed a motion
to dismiss on April 28, 2016 and the parties have completed
briefing on that motion. We believe this lawsuit to be without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against it."


HENRY INDUSTRIES: Faces "Jones" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVESTER JONES, v. HENRY INDUSTRIES, INC. Serve at Registered
Agent 3801 Jewell Wichita, KS 67231, Case: 4:16-cv-01184 (E.D.
Mo., July 20, 2016), seeks recovery of damages for alleged
violation of anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Henry Industries Inc. -- http://henryindustriesinc.com/-- is a
full-service nationwide provider of distribution center, warehouse
and logistic needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
     2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
     St. Louis, MO 63144
     Phone: (314)645-4100
     Fax: (314)736-6216
     E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com


HRB GREEN: "Murphy" Class Action Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Monique Murphy, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. HRB Green Resources,
LLC, Case No. C16-01160, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Contra Costa to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-04151-EDL to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related disputes.

HRB Green Resources, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam Joseph Karr, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: akarr@omm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Lumas" Suit Transferred to S.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
Tanashiska Lumas v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.,
Imerys Talc America, Inc. and Personal Care Products Council, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00741 (S.D. Ill., July 1, 2016), was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois on July 15, 2016, and consolidated under Multi-District
Litigation Docket No. 16-71.

The complaints allege violations of state consumer protection acts
and causes of action based on breach of express and implied
warranty, negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, failure
to warn, design and/or manufacturing defect, civil conspiracy,
concert of action, aiding and abetting, negligent
misrepresentation, survival, wrongful death, restitution or
disgorgement based on unjust enrichment, loss of consortium, fraud
and fraudulent concealment.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
      Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
      Sterling Starns, Esq.
      Cary Littlejohn, Esq.
      Brandi Hamilton, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A.
      404 Court Square
      Lexington, MI 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Fax: (662) 834-2628
      Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
             dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
             kriley@barrettlawgroup.com
             sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com
             clittlejohn@barrettlawgroup.com
             bhamilton@barrettlawgroup.com


LANDHAUS SCHWEINE: Faces "Lugo" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA LUGO on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, v. LANDHAUS SCHWEINE LLC d/b/a LANDHAUS AT THE WOODS
and MATTHEW LIEF, Case 1:16-cv-04033 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016),
seeks to recover alleged : (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated
damages, (3) compensation for retaliation and (4) attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

LANDHAUS SCHWEINE LLC d/b/a LANDHAUS AT THE WOODS provides "farm
to sandwich" food services through catering and on-site
preparation.

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


LINCOLN, CA: Faces "Maccracken" Suit Alleging FLSA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MACCRACKEN, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals, v. CITY OF LINCOLN, Case 2:16-cv-01680-KJM-
KJN (E.D. Cal., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated
damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Lincoln is a city in Placer County, California, United States,
part of the Sacramento metropolitan area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Mastagni, Esq.
     Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
     Ace T. Tate, Esq.
     MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
     1912 "I" Street
     Sacramento, CA 95811
     Phone: (916) 446-4692
     Fax: (916) 447-4614


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Reached in Derivative Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22,
2016, that the Company has entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with the defendants in the derivative litigation.

The Company previously disclosed that on June 15, 2016, it and the
other defendants (the "Securities Class Action Defendants") had
entered into a definitive settlement agreement (the "Securities
Class Action Stipulation") with the lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated securities class action captioned In re Lumber
Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Securities
Class Action Litigation"). The court preliminarily approved the
Securities Class Action Stipulation on July 7, 2016, subject to
further consideration at a settlement hearing scheduled to be held
on November 17, 2016. The Company also previously announced that
on May 17, 2016, the Company and the defendants (collectively, the
"Derivative Defendants") entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding dated as of May 16, 2016 (the "Derivative MOU") with
the plaintiff's representatives to memorialize an agreement in
principle to settle the derivative litigation matter captioned In
re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Derivative
Litigation (the "Derivative Litigation Matter").

On July 18, 2016, the Company entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with the Derivative Defendants consistent with the terms
of the Derivative MOU (the "Derivative Stipulation").

Under the terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation, the
Company will contribute $26.0 million to a settlement fund (the
"Securities Class Action Fund") that will be used to compensate
individuals who purchased the Company's shares during the period
from February 22, 2012 to February 27, 2015. In addition, under
the terms of the Securities Class Action Stipulation, the Company
will issue 1 million shares of its common stock to the Securities
Class Action Fund with a value of approximately $16.0 million
based on the $16.02 closing price of the Company's common stock on
April 27, 2016.

The Derivative Stipulation provides for the Company's insurance
carriers to pay $26.0 million to the Company and for the Company
to contribute all of these insurance proceeds into the Securities
Class Action Fund. The Derivative Defendants will agree that the
Company will not use any cash, other than these insurance
proceeds, to resolve the Securities Class Action Litigation. The
Company will pay the lead plaintiffs in the Derivative Litigation
Matter legal fees of $5.0 million and expects to fund half of this
amount from insurance proceeds. The Derivative Stipulation also
provides for a process by which the Company will add a new member
to the Board of Directors for one term and for the Company to make
certain corporate governance changes such as, among other things,
the adoption of a modified plurality voting policy for directors,
stock holding guidelines, a clawback policy and a policy on
lobbying and political contributions, and the creation of a
regulatory affairs committee of the Board.

The Company previously disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 (the "Form 10-Q") that it
had determined a probable loss had been incurred relating to the
Securities Class Action Litigation and recognized a net charge to
earnings of approximately $16.0 million within selling general and
administrative expense in the first quarter of 2016. This expense
was comprised of the loss contingency of approximately $42.0
million ($26.0 million cash and $16.0 common stock), net of
expected insurance proceeds of approximately $26.0 million. The
amount of loss associated with an issuance of shares of common
stock will be determined based on the trading value of the shares
on the date of issuance, which could increase the recognized loss
if the trading value increases or result in a gain if the trading
value decreases. While it is reasonably possible that the Company
may incur a loss greater than the recognized amounts, the Company
is unable to determine a range of possible losses greater than the
amount recognized.

The Company also disclosed in the Form 10-Q that it had recorded
$2.5 million ($5.0 million minus $2.5 million of expected
insurance proceeds) in connection with the Derivative Litigation
Matter within other current liabilities and selling, general and
administrative expenses in the first quarter of 2016. The Company
does not expect to record an additional loss relating to the
Derivative Litigation Matter.

Both the Securities Class Action Stipulation and the Derivative
Stipulation are dependent on each other and are subject to court
approvals and other contingencies. Therefore, there can be no
assurance that a settlement will be finalized by the parties and
approved by the courts or as to the ultimate outcome of the
Securities Class Action Litigation or the Derivative Litigation
Matter.

A copy of the Derivative Stipulation is available at
https://is.gd/hwu5iL


M&R APPAREL: "Anguiano" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Patricia Anguiano, as an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, M&R Apparel, Inc., a California
corporation and Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC627111 (Cal. Super., July 14, 2016), seeks overtime premium
wages, requisite minimum wage for all hours worked, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.

M&R Apparel Inc. is in the apparel and accessory stores industry
in South El Monte, CA.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kaveh S. Elihu, Esq.
     Kanna Godoy, Esq.
     EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, LLP
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1120
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 382-2222
     Facsimile: (213) 382-2320


MARKETO INC: To Oppose Plaintiffs' Request for TRO
--------------------------------------------------
Marketo, Inc. said in its Form 8-K/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, that
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have filed a request for a
Temporary Restraining Order seeking to enjoin the shareholder
vote. Marketo intends to vigorously oppose the request.

A purported stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Rosati v.
Marketo, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-3907 ("Federal Complaint"),
was filed on July 12, 2016, in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California against Marketo and its directors.
The lawsuit alleges, generally, that Marketo and its directors
violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 14a-9 by issuing a false and misleading Proxy Statement.  The
lawsuit also alleges that Marketo's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Marketo stockholders by failing to disclose
all material facts concerning the proposed Merger to stockholders
and seeking to sell Marketo through an allegedly defective
process, for an unfair price, and on unfair terms. The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the
consummation of the proposed Merger, rescissory damages to the
extent the Merger is consummated, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a request for a Temporary
Restraining Order seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote. Marketo
intends to vigorously oppose the request.

The allegations of the Federal Complaint are substantially similar
to those alleged in the previously disclosed lawsuit captioned
Porwal v. Marketo, Inc. et al., Case No. 16CIV00265 filed in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.

A copy of the Rosati complaint is available at
https://is.gd/nR1pXO

A copy of the Porwal complaint is available at
https://is.gd/Vf1Vk5


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Settlement Reached in "Flynn" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 17, 2016, that the
parties in the Flynn class action lawsuit have executed a
settlement agreement.

In August 2014, Michael and Marla Flynn, owners of weeks-based
Marriott Vacation Club vacation ownership products at two of our
resorts in Hawaii, filed a claim with the American Arbitration
Association on behalf of a putative class consisting of themselves
and all others similarly situated. The claimants alleged that the
introduction of our points-based MVCD program caused an actionable
decrease in the value of their vacation ownership interests. The
relief sought included compensatory and exemplary damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees
pursuant to applicable timeshare and unfair trade practices acts,
and common-law theories of breach of contract and breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On March 30, 2015, the arbitrator ruled that the Flynns' claims
are not subject to arbitration, and dismissed the Flynn
proceeding.

On October 2, 2015, Michael and Marla Flynn, joined by Patrick and
Mary Flynn as Trustees of the Flynn Family Trust, filed a civil
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii, asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief on
behalf of themselves and a putative class consisting of themselves
and all others similarly situated.

"On December 24, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss. On February
29, 2016, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part. On June 28, 2016, the parties executed a settlement
agreement by which the plaintiffs agreed to release all claims in
exchange for a nominal sum," the Company said.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Defending Action by RCHFU, L.L.C.
-----------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 17, 2016, that the
Company intend to defend against the RCHFU, L.L.C. action
vigorously.

The Company said, "On July 18, 2016, RCHFU, L.L.C. and other
owners of 50 fractional interests at The Ritz-Carlton Club, Aspen
Highlands ("RCC-Aspen Highlands") filed an amended complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against us
and certain of our subsidiaries. The amended complaint alleges
that the plaintiffs' fractional interests were devalued by the
affiliation of RCC-Aspen Highlands and other Ritz-Carlton Clubs
with our points-based MVCD program. The relief sought includes,
among other things, unspecified damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees. The amended complaint also drops
all class action allegations that were asserted in prior versions
of the complaint. We dispute the material allegations in the
amended complaint and intend to defend against the action
vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the
potential liability, if any, at this time."


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Response to MVCD Complaint Due September 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 17, 2016, that the
Company's response to the MVCD complaint is due September 16,
2016.

The Company said, "On May 20, 2016, we and certain of our
subsidiaries were named as defendants in an action filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by
Anthony and Beth Lennen. The case is filed as a putative class
action; the plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of
themselves and all other purchasers of MVCD points, from inception
of the MVCD program in June 2010 to the present, as well as all
individuals who own or have owned weeks in any resorts for which
weeks have been added to the MVCD program. Plaintiffs challenge
the characterization of the beneficial interests in the MVCD trust
that are sold to customers as real estate interests under Florida
law. They also challenge the structure of the trust and associated
operational aspects of the trust product. The relief sought
includes, among other things, declaratory relief, an unwinding of
the MVCD product, and punitive damages. Our response to the
complaint is due September 16, 2016. We dispute the material
allegations in the complaint and intend to defend against the
action vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range
of the potential liability, if any, at this time."


MERCK & CO: Over 400 Women Join $250MM Gender Bias Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The women in Smith et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc. et. al.,
3:13-cv-02970 (D.N.J.), a $250 million gender bias class action,
reached another milestone on July 21, when Counsel for the
Plaintiffs, Sanford Heisler, LLP and Feinstein Doyle Payne &
Kravec LLC, announced that over 400 women have come forward with
claims of discrimination in the past month.  This brings the total
number of women asserting that Merck discriminated against them to
405.  There remain three weeks for current and former female
employees to join the class.

"The message sent by these women is clear: Many women across the
country believe that they suffered pay discrimination while
working at Merck," said David Sanford --
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- Chairman of Sanford Heisler, LLP
and co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs.  "What started out as one
woman against a corporation has now grown to more than four
hundred," he continued.  Russell Kornblith --
rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com -- Senior Litigation Counsel at
Sanford Heisler, LLP, added, "pay discrimination on the basis of
gender is illegal, and it is also illegal to retaliate against
anyone who joins this lawsuit. These are important civil rights,
and we are committed to vindicating them."

On April 27, 2016, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey ordered that female sales representatives
across the country be given notice of their opportunity to join
the Equal Pay Act lawsuit against Merck.  On June 16, 2016,
Sanford Heisler, LLP and Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec LLC sent
3,183 women the court authorized notice.  These women were given
an opportunity to join the case through the web portal
www.genderclassaction.com

In addition to challenging unequal, centralized pay decisions in
their suit against Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp.,
and Intervet, Inc., the Plaintiffs also allege that Merck
systematically discriminates against female sales representatives,
and pregnant women in particular, in promotions and other terms
and conditions of employment.  The Plaintiffs plan to seek class
certification of their systemic gender discrimination claims under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in the coming months.

"We are pleased with the great response of the female class," said
Deborah Marcuse -- DMARCUSE@FDPKLAW.COM -- of Feinstein Doyle
Payne & Kravec, LLC, co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs and the class.
"In the three weeks remaining for female current and former Merck
employees to join the class, we expect that many more women will
file their opt-in forms.  These women should all be celebrated as
champions in the fight for equal pay for women."

Plaintiffs and the class are represented by David Sanford, Andrew
Melzer, Russell Kornblith, and David Tracey --
dtracey@sanfordheisler.com -- of Sanford Heisler, LLP and by
Deborah Marcuse of Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC.

                    About Sanford Heisler LLP

Sanford Heisler, LLP -- http://www.sanfordheisler.com-- is a
national public interest class-action litigation law firm, which
has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco, and San
Diego.  Sanford Heisler is committed to protecting the rights of
individuals in employment discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam,
and other civil rights matters.  The firm also represents select
individual clients such as executives, lawyers in employment
disputes, and whistleblowers.


MYSTIC GARDENS: Faces "Jacinto" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BERNABE MOLINA JACINTO and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. MYSTIC GARDENS LAWN CONTRACTORS INC., MYSTIC
GARDENS LAWN SERVICES INC, MYSTIC GARDENS PROPERTIES, LLC, HELINEL
MONTENEGRO, ANNIA DOMINGUEZ, Case 1:16-cv-23154-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
July 20, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mystic Gardens Lawn Contractors Inc. operates in the lawn and
garden services industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Cook" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492
---------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Cook v. Pac-12 Conference, et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-02630, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-07321 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete
Concussion Injury Litigation, MDL No. 2492.

The actions in the litigation seek medical monitoring for putative
classes of former student-athletes at NCAA-member schools, who
allege they suffered concussions.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term
effects of concussion injuries.

Plaintiff Daniel Lee Cook is represented by:

          Todd M. Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew Philip Slania, Esq.
          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099


NEW YORK, NY: "Lynch" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Norma Lynch, Edith Adams, Dorethea Andrews, Linda Brisbane, Horace
Brown, Colin Chang, Janice Chase, Dianne Clarke, Debra Coleman,
Tonya Crawford, Chivon Daniels, Nicole Dorsey, Joyce Fields, Juan
German, Patricia Gordon, Tabatha Heckstall, Chaya Kearse, Cymah
Lovell, Diane Mamet, Marcella McMurrin, Diane McPhatter, Donald
Mercado, Kenneth Miller, Elizabeth Murchison, Jannette Nyack,
Ahmed Omer, Carol Perdue, Desirie Price, Jeanette Rodriguez, Maria
Rodriguez, Natisha Smith, Adrian Straker, Carolyn Walters,
Veronica White, Sylvia Williams, Euadne Wilson, Maxine Wilson,
Tamyra Winningham-Hyppolite, Plaintiffs, v. The City Of New York,
Defendant, seeks monetary liquidated damages equal to their unpaid
compensation with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
disbursements of this action and such other relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are, and at all times material herein have been,
employed by the Department of Homeless Services, City of New York,
as a Principal Administrative Associate I or Principal
Administrative Associate II. They all claim to be denied overtime
pay and worked through breaks without compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hope Pordy, Esq.
     SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
     1700 Broadway, Suite 2100
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 765-2100
     Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com

            - and -

     Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
     Sara Faulman, Esq.
     WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
     1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 833-8855
     Email: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
            slf@wmlaborlaw.com


NW MANAGEMENT: Yakima Farm Workers to Get Settlement Payouts
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Worthington, writing for KIMAtv.com, reports that Yakima
Valley farm workers involved in a class-action lawsuit since 2012
against a management company for wrongful firing were set to
receive their settlement payments on July 24 according to a news
release from Columbia Legal Services.

NW Management and several other companies agreed to a settlement
payment after several years of litigation according to the news
release.

Columbia Legal Services says a federal judge approved the
agreement and ruled that over $1 million be awarded to the over
700 people involved in the class-action lawsuit.  Each worker will
receive $1,000-$3,000 depending on how long they worked.
The class-action lawsuit was originally filed in 2012 when ten
farm workers said they had been fired by NW Management as
retaliation for calling 911 when their job foreman fired off a gun
in the orchards to intimidate the workers.

Several of the workers had been employed at the Alexander and
Independence orchards near Sunnyside for a decade according to
Columbia Legal Services.

The federal courts heard the case and federal Judge Thomas Rice
awarded over $1 million to the class of farmworkers in 2013.
Columbia Legal Services says the money would be distributed the to
the farm workers on Sunday, July 24 at Radio KDNA in Granger.


NY FANCY: Faces NY Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO SALAS VALDEZ and, CHRISTIAN CALLE, on behalf of
themselves, and other similarly situated employees, v. NY FANCY
NATURAL FOODS, INC., dba FANCY SPECIAL TY FOODS, INC., and SEUK
KUN CHANG, Case 1:16-cv-04030 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016), was filed
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

NY Fancy Natural Foods Inc. is a major wholesale food distributor
for the New York metropolitan area.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     E-mail: pcooper@jcpelaw.com


OLD DOMINION: "Blanco" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Issac Blanco, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., Case No. RG16819118, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:16-cv-04140-KAW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over labor-related issues.

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. is a trucking company doing
business in California, which is engaged in transportation
services for new and used vehicles from manufacturing plants,
ports, railhead, and auctions to retail dealerships.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com


PARRISH AND LEBAR: Faces "Tabor" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Tabor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Parrish and Lebar, L.L.P., and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 1:16-cv-04458-RBK-KMW (D.N.J., July 22, 2016), is brought over
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Parrish and Lebar is a law firm that focuses its practice on
creditors' rights/debt collection and residential and commercial
real estate.  The Firm was founded in Richmond, Virginia, in 1985
as a general practice law firm.

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


PB USA INC: "Salazar" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Leticia Vidal Salazar, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PB USA Inc. and John
Doe, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05616
(S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2016), seeks unpaid or underpaid overtime
compensation, compensatory, punitive and statutory damages,
interest, costs and disbursements and attorney's fees and such
other relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New
York Labor Laws, N.Y. Minimum Wage Act and the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

Defendants operate a clothing company located at 270 West 38th
Street, 10th Floor, New York, New York, where defendants employed
the plaintiff as a cleaner, maintenance worker, and inspector.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Consumer Class Action in Minneapolis
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that, though the multibillion
settlement tobacco companies reached with Minnesota in 1998
precluded their claims, consumers who tried to sue Philip Morris
over Marlboro Lights claim in a federal class action in
Minneapolis that they are still awaiting compensation from the
state.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: "Kritcher" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Kritcher, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Prudential
Security, Inc. and Gregory Wier, a Michigan for-profit corporation
and its corporate officer, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-12637
(E.D. Mich., July 14, 2016), seeks unpaid wages owed, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Prudential Security is a security agency with its principal place
of business located at 20600 Eureka Rd, Suite 900 Taylor, MI
48180, where Plaintiff worked as a security guard. He claims to be
denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
      Omar Badr, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
      23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
      Brownstown, MI 48134
      Phone: (734) 692-9200
      Fax: (734) 692-9201
      Email: bryan@yaldoulaw.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Toscano Files Adversary Proceeding in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation, now known as RS Legacy Corporation, is
facing an adversary proceeding titled FABIOLA TOSCANO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. admin, Case No.
16-51033-BLS (D. Del., July 22, 2016).

The lawsuit seeks recovery of money/property, injunctive relief
and declaratory judgment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel I. Barness, Esq.
          BARNESS & BARNESS LLP
          11377 West Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 594-3011
          Facsimile: (310) 473-8700
          E-mail: Daniel@BarnessLaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Huston, Jr., Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1300
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 425-3310
          Facsimile: (610) 371-7972
          E-mail: jhh@stevenslee.com

               - and -

          Mia Munro, Esq.
          Douglas N. Silverstein, Esq.
          KESLUK, SILVERSTEIN, & JACOB, PC
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411
          P.O. Box 9729
          Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309
          Telephone: (310) 273-3180
          E-mail: Mmunro@californialaborlawattorney.com
                  Dsilverstein@californialawattorney.com

                        About RadioShack

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, RadioShack Corporation is a
retailer of mobile technology products and services, as well as
products related to personal and home technology and power supply
needs.  RadioShack's retail network includes more than 4,300
company-operated stores in the United States, 270 company-operated
stores in Mexico, and approximately 1,000 dealer and other outlets
worldwide.

RadioShack Corp. and affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 15-10197) on Feb. 5, 2015,
disclosing total assets of $1.2 billion, versus total debt of $1.3
billion.

                          *     *     *

After an auction in March 2015, the Debtors sold most of the
assets to General Wireless, Inc., an entity formed by Standard
General, L.P., for $150 million.  The Debtors also sold Mexican
assets to Office Depot de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., for $31.8 million
plus the assumption of debt.  Regal Forest Holding Co. Ltd. bought
the Debtors' intellectual property assets in Latin America for a
purchase price of $5,000,000.

In June 2015, the Debtors changed their name to RS Legacy
Corporation, et al., following the sale of the Company's brand
name and customer data to General Wireless.

The bankruptcy judge on Oct. 2, 2015, issued an order confirming
the first amended joint plan of liquidation of the Debtors.  The
centerpiece of the Plan is the resolution of various disputes
among the Debtors, the Creditors' Committee and the SCP Secured
Parties.

The Plan was declared effective on Oct. 7, 2015.


REEL TIME: Faces Lawsuit in Virginia Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Tignor, Fred Draine, Jason Scott, and Stanley Tignor on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Reel Time,
LLC and Randy Sparks, Case 3:16-cv-00615-MHL (E.D. Va., July 20,
2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Reel Time, LLC offers plumbing, heating, building and painting
services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
     Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
     CURWOOD LAW FIRM
     530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Phone: (804) 788-0808
     Fax: (804) 767-6777
     E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
             ccurwood@.curwoodlaw.com


RIX ENERGY: Faces "Rater" Suit Pursuant to FLSA, Ohio Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RATER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, V. RIX ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, JKD RED DIRT OILFIELD
SERVICES, INC. D/B/A RED DIRT OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., JK RED DIRT
RENTALS, LLC A/K/A JK RED DIRT RENTALS, INC., KYLE LEWIS, JOHN
MOORE, III, and AARON LEWALLEN, Case: 2:16-cv-00705-EAS-TPK (S.D.
Ohio, July 20, 2016),  was filed under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.

RIX ENERGY SERVICES, LLC is a well servicing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 221-4221
     Fax: (614) 744-2300
     E-mail: rderose@barkanmeizlish.com
             rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

        - and -

     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


ROCKER'S PAINTING: "Laferte" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Laferte, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Rocker's Painting Corp and Roque F. Barralaga,
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-61695 (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2016),
seeks actual damages for unpaid overtime compensation, interest,
double damages/liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs of suit and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Rocker is a painting and construction company where Laferte was
employed as a painter and driver. Plaintiff routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week without being compensated for
overtime.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     Brandon Gibson, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Telephone: (305) 503.5131
     Facsimile: (888) 270.5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
            bgibson@saenzanderson.com


ROTONDA GOLF: Class Action Put in Abeyance Until October 7
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq., of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for
Mondaq, reports that a golf course class action has now been put
in abeyance as the parties seek to work out a settlement.  The
case is entitled Werman et al. v. Rotonda Golf Partners LLC and
was filed in federal court in the Middle District of Florida.

The proposed collective action was based on the theory that
employees were forced to work off the clock and were therefore not
paid proper overtime.  The lawyers filed a joint motion asking for
a stay so they could discuss settlement.  The case is now in
abeyance until October 7.

The joint motion noted that "the parties respectfully submit that
it would be most efficient for the parties to spend their time and
limited resources working toward a mutually agreeable settlement
rather than responding to the amended complaint, filing a case
management report, engaging in discovery and engaging in motion
practice relating to, among other things, the overtime exemption
asserted by defendants."

The protocol agreed on will include letters being sent to the
employees so they can opt in if they choose.  The defendants then
have to provide the payroll records to the plaintiffs' lawyers so
they can "reasonably necessary to determine whether, as plaintiffs
allege but which defendants deny, compensation is owed to the opt-
in."

The suit alleges that employees were directed not to punch in when
they got to work and to keep working after they punched out. The
employees allege that they received two paychecks that showed only
a portion of their hours worked.  They also received part of their
monies as "employees" and then received the rest of their pay
through a 1099, i.e. as independent contractors.  The workers
contend that they were intentionally misclassified so the
employers could avoid paying overtime.

The Takeaway

This is a big step forward in resolving this litigation and it
will dramatically cut down the litigation fees which the employer
would have to spend and avoid inflating the adversary's fee
petition/demand.

It appears to me, as a management side practitioner, that this is
the right strategy.  The most crucial thing is to fix what was
broken -- treating people as W2 employees and 1099 independent
contractors in the same work week(s) smacks of deception and an
intent to avoid payment of overtime.  Off-the-clock cases are very
bothersome, especially when the evidence suggests that there was a
focused, management effort to order people to work off-the-clock.


SAINT-GOBAIN: Seeks Dismissal, Stay of PFOA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick McArdle, writing for Rutland Herald, reports that the
international company targeted in a multimillion-dollar class-
action lawsuit over PFOA contamination is asking a federal court
to dismiss or stay the lawsuit because the company is in
litigation with the state of Vermont.

The complaint, filed in May, asks that Saint-Gobain pay damages
for the effects the PFOA contamination found in a number of
private wells in North Bennington and Bennington has had on
residents.

Filed by two Bennington County law firms, a Middlebury firm and a
North Carolina law firm that filed a PFOA-related class action
suit in its home state last year, the complaint accuses Saint-
Gobain of negligence in disposing of PFOA.

It also accuses the company of trespass because PFOA was found in
private wells, and battery for harming a drinking water supply.

This, a Brattleboro law firm, Downs, Rachlin, Martin joined a
New York City law firm in filing a memorandum of law that asked
the court to delay moving forward on the class-action lawsuit. The
memorandum said that was necessary because Saint-Gobain was
challenging the state's standard for PFOA which, the attorneys
said, is the most stringent in the world.

PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, a laboratory chemical used in
products such as stain-resistant clothing and water-resistant
fabrics, has been linked to health problems such as liver and
testicular cancer.

The Environmental Protection Agency has set an advisory of 70
parts per trillion, but the Vermont Department of Health has set
an advisory standard of 20 parts per trillion of perfluorinated
chemicals such as PFOA.

"This level is the lowest set by any state, federal or even
foreign government," the memorandum said.  "Public comments to the
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources reflect concern regarding the
promulgation of the enforcement standards and designations
regarding PFOA, and Saint-Gobain is challenging the PFOA
Groundwater Rules in the Vermont state courts on substantive and
procedural grounds.  As a matter of science, Vermont public policy
and administrative procedure, these rules should not stand."

The memo argues that parts of the class-action lawsuit are based
on the 20 parts per trillion standard.  The lawsuit should not be
allowed to proceed while that standard is being challenged, the
memo said.

"Indeed, because Plaintiffs premise their claims and their
proposed class on the PFOA Groundwater Rules, claims by dozens
upon dozens of potential class members are impacted by the outcome
of the state court actions currently being litigated," the memo
said.

A class-action lawsuit, such as this one, names some people who
are believed to be representative of a certain class but, if
successful, could affect many others if it establishes a certain
class of people can be identified and that they suffered harm.

The complaint against Saint-Gobain would identify those whose
wells have shown an elevated level of PFOA, according to the
Vermont standard that residents should not use water if PFOA is
present at levels higher than 20 parts per trillion.

In an email, attorney Patrick Bernal said the motion to dismiss
was not a surprise.

"Defendants typically file motions like this, even though they
rarely succeed," he said.  "We will oppose this motion vigorously
and proceed with the case.  We look forward to bringing our case
before a Vermont jury."

The memo says there is legal precedent for the federal court to
abstain from taking up a case in order to give a state and its
agencies, in this case the Vermont Departments of Health, Natural
Resources and Environmental Conservation to determine their own
policies and laws without bumping up against other ongoing
litigation.

A spokeswoman for Saint-Gobain said on July 21 the company had no
comment beyond what was in the legal filing.

Mr. Bernal said the law firms involved in the class-action case
will hold an informational meeting at 5:30 p.m. Aug. 9, at the
business office for the Old First Church in Bennington at Monument
Circle.


SETERUS INC: Faces Force-Placed Insurance Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that as
Americans continue to bring lender insurance lawsuits against
entities that allegedly force-place insurance onto property owners
at higher rates, Canadians who own property in the US continue to
be warned about the potential for lenders insurance.

RBC, otherwise known as the Royal Bank of Canada, continues to
advise its clients owning property in the US that lenders have the
right to force-place Lender insurance on any property mortgaged
through a US lender but owned by a Canadian, and which shows a
lack of adequate coverage, or the complete absence of insurance
protection.  RBC, in a bulletin residing on its web site, notes
that lenders require annual verification that insurance is in
force, in good standing, and is adequate.  Failing that, RBC notes
that lenders are required to send the property owner two notices:
one at the time insurance expires, and another 45 days following
said expiry.  If the lender doesn't hear from the property owner
within a reasonable period of time, lenders insurance is force-
placed on the property.

It's interesting to note that various plaintiffs bringing a Force-
placed insurance lawsuit often complain that they have not been
advised of any pending, or actual force-placement. Plaintiffs also
allege that in some cases insurance coverage is placed for hazards
which don't necessarily apply to their property, or has overlapped
when standard insurance has been in force.  It is also alleged
that rates for lenders insurance have been far higher than
standard policies that provide more coverage for the money.

The allegation is that lenders cozy up with insurance providers,
force-place insurance upon property owners, and kick commissions
and other incentives back to each other at the expense of the
homeowner.

A recent Force-placed insurance lawsuit, originally brought
May 24 in Cook County Circuit Court, alleges Seterus Inc. and QBE
First Insurance Agency force-placed insurance amidst a kickback
scheme, or so it is alleged.

The force-placed insurance class action was filed by plaintiff
Jolanta Rozwadowska, a resident of Illinois who owns a property in
Hoffman Estates.  According to the putative class action, the
mortgage on the property had been modified in 2014, assigned to
Fannie Mae, and serviced by Seterus on behalf of Fannie Mae.  The
latter, in 2015, is described as having filed a foreclosure
against the property. In tandem with the aforementioned events,
hazard insurance on the property was allowed to lapse.  Seterus,
as is its right, then moved to place hazard insurance on the
property, billing the plaintiff.

While the plaintiff appears to have no quarrel with the force-
placement of insurance, the Force-placed insurance terms are
another matter, and are alleged to fly in the face of contract
language that allowed Seterus to purchase "reasonable and
appropriate" coverage.

According to the forced-placed insurance class action, Seterus and
QBE "have an exclusive arrangement," under which "QBE First
monitors Seterus' mortgage loan portfolio to identify lapses in
coverage or inadequacy of insurance."

Seterus, in such an event, authorizes QBE to purchase insurance
with the premium folded into the property owner's mortgage.

The plaintiff, in her lawsuit, alleges that Forced-placed
insurance terms reflected coverage that was overpriced because a
considerable portion of the premium charged to borrowers is
"kicked back to Seterus and/or QBE First," or so it is alleged.


SHAWN HARRISON: Accused by "Stout" Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Steven Stout, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Shawn Harrison Associates, PLLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, and Shawn E. Harrison,
individually, Case No. 6:16-cv-01323-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., July 22,
2016) was filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to its Web site, Shawn Harrison Associates offers
comprehensive, professional and aggressive legal and strategic
business solutions.  From national corporations to entrepreneurs
just starting out in the business world, the Company takes pride
in helping its clients find answers to their business needs.  The
Company's attorneys have years of experience in litigation,
business formation, sales and acquisitions, and government
relations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234-5150
          Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


SNOW ENTERPRISES: Faces "Gundersen" Suit Seeking to Recover Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC GUNDERSEN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
vs. SNOW ENTERPRISES SOUTHEAST, LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability company, and MICKEY D. SNOW, individually, Case 8:16-cv-
02080-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla., July 20, 2016), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SNOW ENTERPRISES SOUTHEAST, LLC provides property appraisal, new
construction inspections, environmental inspections, benchmark
inspections, as well as assessment, marketing reports and
portfolio management to its home owners and commercial clients.

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


SOLARES CORP: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sixto Rodriguez, Francisco Asuncion Andrade, Rodrigo Grijalva
Ascencion, Santos Bautista, Jacquelin Cabrera Romero, And Wilson
Flores individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Solares Corp. (d/b/a Rancho Mofongo) and Domingo
Moronta, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03922 (E.D. N.Y., July 14,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours
compensation for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Laws.

Defendants own and/or operate a restaurant located at 106-16
Northern Blvd., Corona, New York 11368 under the name Rancho
Mofongo where Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as
bartenders, bar backs, porters, stockers, delivery workers and
general assistants. They claim to have worked in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime
compensation.

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


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Violates FDCPA, "Stever" Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR STEVER, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, L.P., Case No. 2:16-cv-
04468-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., July 22, 2016), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Southwest Credit is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in Case Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that oral argument has
not yet been set in class action appeals.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in three
cases, two filed in Arkansas state court in 2010 and 2013 and one
in federal court in 2014, on behalf of putative classes of royalty
owners on some of the Company's leases located in Arkansas.  The
chief complaint in all three cases is that one of the Company's
subsidiaries underpaid the royalty owners by, among other things,
deducting from royalty payments costs for gathering,
transportation, and compression of natural gas in excess of what
is permitted by the relevant leases.

In September and October 2014, the judges in the two Arkansas
state actions entered orders certifying classes of royalty owners
who are citizens of Arkansas.  The Company's subsidiaries have
appealed those orders.  Oral argument has not yet been set in
either case.


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Trial in Federal Class Action Not Yet Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the trial date has
been vacated and no new date set in a federal class action
lawsuit.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in three
cases, two filed in Arkansas state court in 2010 and 2013 and one
in federal court in 2014, on behalf of putative classes of royalty
owners on some of the Company's leases located in Arkansas.  The
chief complaint in all three cases is that one of the Company's
subsidiaries underpaid the royalty owners by, among other things,
deducting from royalty payments costs for gathering,
transportation, and compression of natural gas in excess of what
is permitted by the relevant leases.

On November 17, 2015, the court in the federal case denied the
plaintiff's motion to certify a class of royalty owners not
included in either of the two state cases.  On April 11, 2016, the
court certified a broader class that includes Arkansas residents
and citizens.

The plaintiff in the federal case presented two alternative
damages theories.  Under one theory, plaintiffs have asserted that
obligations to affiliates are not "incurred" and therefore the
exploration and production subsidiary was not entitled to deduct
any post-production costs; the federal court has granted partial
summary judgment for the Company's subsidiaries on this theory.
Under another theory, plaintiffs assert that the gathering and
treating rates the Company deducted from royalty payments exceeded
the affiliates' actual costs or otherwise were not reasonable.
The plaintiffs have not disclosed a specific damage calculation
for any putative class, but based on the class representative's
disclosure regarding the calculation of claimed damages, class-
wide damages could exceed $100 million.

Although trial previously was set for March 15, 2016, following
transfer to a different judge and the certification of the class,
that trial date has been vacated and no new date set.


TIVO INC: Pipe Trades Trust Sues BOD Members Over Rovi Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Fund And West Palm Beach
Firefighters Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated stockholders of TiVo Inc. Plaintiffs, v. Peter
Aquino, Jeff Hinson, Dan Moloney, Thomas S. Rogers and Wendy Webb,
Defendants, Case No. 12560 (Del. Ch., July 14, 2016), seeks
enjoinment of consummation of merger, full disclosure of all
material information, costs and disbursements of this action,
including attorney, accountants and expert fees and such other and
further relief for breach of fiduciary duties.

The proposed merger of TiVo, Rovi, Titan Technologies Corporation,
Nova Acquisition Sub, Inc. and Titan Acquisition Sub, Inc. was
opposed by two of its independent directors, thus casting a shadow
of doubt over the merits of the merger. Their view were not made
accessible to the shareholders.

Plaintiffs are stockholders of TiVo and have owned TiVo common
stock.

TiVo is a next-generation video technology software services and
innovative cloud-based software-as-a-service solutions provider.
Jeff Hinson, Peter Aquino, Jeff Hinson, Dan Moloney, Thomas S.
Rogers and Wendy Webb are members of its board of directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
     John Vielandi, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Tel: (212) 554-1400

           - and -

     Jeff Almedia, Esq.
     Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
     Joseph Christensen, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     123 Justison Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 622-7000


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Hamilton County Action
----------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is aware of
four class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET
Plus. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 26,
2014, titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois,
Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of
Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of
Illinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St.
Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff and
to expand the proposed class. The case is being brought by
plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101
counties of the State of Illinois and on behalf of cities,
villages, incorporated towns, and township governments of the
State of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and
Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications
to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was
acceptable for use on the nation's highways based on federal
testing standards and approval for federal-aid reimbursement. The
plaintiffs also allege breach of implied warranties, violation of
the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, for which plaintiffs seek actual damages related to
purchases of the ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a
common fund for class members, punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and injunctive relief. This lawsuit was previously
stayed by order of the Court. On September 30, 2015, the Court
lifted the stay on this action.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending City of Stratford Action
------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is aware of
four class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET
Plus.  The Company has also been served in a lawsuit filed
February 11, 2015, titled The Corporation of the City of Stratford
and Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and
Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., Case No. 15-2622 CP, pending in
Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The alleged class in this
matter has been identified as persons in Canada who purchased
and/or used an ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The plaintiff
alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products,
LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn of
dangers associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus
guardrail end terminals, breached an implied warranty, breached a
duty of care, and were negligent. The plaintiff is seeking $400
million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive
damages. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims the right to an
accounting or other restitution remedy for disgorgement of the
revenues generated by the sale of the modified ET Plus in Canada.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: La Crosse County Dismissed Remaining Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is aware of
four class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET
Plus.  The Company was served in a lawsuit filed February 25,
2015, titled La Crosse County, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity
Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-117 (Western District of
Wisconsin). The case was brought by the plaintiff for and on
behalf of itself and all other purchasers of allegedly defective
ET Pluses, including proposed statewide and nationwide classes.
The plaintiff alleged that the Company and Trinity Highway
Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus
and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for
use on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards
and approval for federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiff also
alleged strict liability design defect, breach of contract, breach
of express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The
plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is
defective, actual damages related to class-wide purchases of the
ET Plus, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

On March 31, 2016, the Court partially granted Trinity's Motion to
Dismiss as to some but not all of plaintiff's claims, with only
plaintiff's claims for breach of express and implied warranties,
violation of the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
and unjust enrichment remaining. On July 18, 2016, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed its remaining claims with prejudice.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Jackson County Action
---------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is aware of
four class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET
Plus.  The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5,
2015, titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf
of a class of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries,
Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684
(Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being
brought by plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri
counties with a population of 10,000 or more persons, including
the City of St. Louis, and the State of Missouri's transportation
authority. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity
Highway Products did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus
and these allegedly undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus
allegedly defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The
plaintiff alleges product liability negligence, product liability
strict liability, and negligently supplying dangerous
instrumentality for supplier's business purposes. The plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs,
and in the alternative plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that
the ET Plus is defective, the Company's conduct was unlawful, and
class-wide costs and expenses associated with removing and
replacing the ET Plus throughout Missouri.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending "Isolde" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that defendants intend to
vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde class
action case.

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future
filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment
and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United
Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund as co-
lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs).

On May 11, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Complaint alleging defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, James E. Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements and/or by
failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the
FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of
America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell deny and intend
to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case.

"Based on the information available to the Company, we currently
do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to this
shareholder class action; therefore no accrual has been included
in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of
the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of
certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of
possible losses with respect to these matters," the Company said.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Inclined to Deny Motion to Dismiss Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Spagat, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge said on July 22 that he is inclined to deny a
request by Donald Trump's lawyers to dismiss a lawsuit that
accuses the Republican presidential nominee of defrauding
customers at the now-defunct Trump University.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel did not elaborate on his
thinking during a lengthy hearing in San Diego -- one day after
Trump accepted the Republican nomination for president of the
United States.

Mr. Trump's attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, urged the judge to
reconsider, calling the lawsuit a "gross overreach" of federal
civil racketeering statutes.  He told the judge the plaintiffs
have failed to show that Mr. Trump himself orchestrated allegedly
misleading marketing claims.

"He did not run Trump University. He was not the chief operating
officer.  He did not direct the day-to-day affairs,"
Mr. Petrocelli said.  "The idea that he is somehow at the center
of it is not supported by the evidence in the case."

Judge Curiel, a target of the nominee's repeated public scorn,
will issue a final decision in writing at a later time.

The complaint, filed in 2013 by former customer Art Cohen, is one
of two class-action lawsuits that Trump is facing in San Diego
over Trump University before the same judge. Trump also faces a
lawsuit in New York.

The lawsuits allege that Trump University gave seminars and
classes in hotel ballrooms across the country that were like
infomercials, constantly pressuring customers to buy more and, in
the end, failing to deliver.  Mr. Cohen went to a three-day
seminar in 2009 in Palo Alto, California, for $1,495 and bought
into the "Gold Elite" mentorship program for $34,995.

Mr. Trump has maintained that customers were overwhelmingly
satisfied and that he did nothing to deceive them.

Trump University's sales pitches "are classic examples of sales
puffery common to advertising everywhere," his lawyers said in
court documents filed for the July 22 hearing arguing the lawsuit
is an abuse of federal racketeering conspiracy statutes.  They
minimize Mr. Trump's involvement, saying he delegated
responsibilities after creating Trump University in 2005.

Lawyers for the plaintiff wrote mockingly that Mr. Trump's lawyers
should argue their case on Earth, not in "District Court in
Bizarro World."  They dismiss Trump's claims of limited
involvement, saying, "He only starred in the marketing materials.
Signed them.  Corrected them.  And approved them."

The Cohen lawsuit has not been scheduled for trial.  The trial for
the other lawsuit is set for Nov. 28.

July 22 was the second time in a month that Judge Curiel has faced
Mr. Trump's lawyers.  News organizations argued that he should
allow the release of Mr. Trump's sworn testimony at depositions in
December and January.

Mr. Trump's lawyers, fearing the video will be used in campaign
attack ads, argued that transcripts should be enough.  Judge
Curiel has yet to rule on the video request.

When Judge Curiel permitted the release of unrelated documents in
the case in May, Mr. Trump intensified his attacks on the judge,
mentioning his Mexican heritage.  Those remarks drew criticism
from Republican leaders.

Mr. Trump vowed in early June to avoid talking about the judge.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Drivers' Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that a prospective
class action in which Uber drivers alleged the company did not pay
them wages, overtime, and made them cover their own expenses in
violation of federal employment law has been allowed to move
forward.

The dispute revolved around the drivers' claims that they had been
misclassified by Uber as independent contractors when they were,
in fact, employees.  Uber moved for the dismissal of their case
and for the court to compel arbitration.

However, in his opinion on July 21, U.S. District Senior Judge
Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania put the
brakes on Uber's request for arbitration, writing that the drivers
had exercised their right to opt out of the arbitration provision
of their employment agreements by sending a letter to the company.

Judge Baylson said, "Here, the arbitration provision contains a
broad delegation clause, which states that 'disputes arising out
of or relating to interpretation or application of this
arbitration provision, including the enforceability, revocability
or validity of the arbitration provision or any portion of the
arbitration provision . . . shall be decided by an arbitrator and
not by a court or judge.'"

He noted, however, "the arbitration provision also contains a
conspicuous opt-out provision, which allows for the resolution of
disputes between drivers and Uber in a court of law."

The plaintiffs complied with the requirements of that opt-out,
Judge Baylson said, by sending "formal notice" in the form of a
letter.

Uber argued that even if the court ruled the opt-outs were in
effect, it must still dismiss the case because prior Uber
agreements contained arbitration clauses from which the plaintiffs
never opted out. The prior agreements between Uber and the
drivers, the company argued, must be enforced.

But Judge Baylson said that one of the former agreements contained
a merger clause.

"Because the arbitration provision contains a merger clause, the
court will not substitute this valid agreement to arbitrate with a
prior arbitration provision that has been superseded," Judge
Baylson said.  "The arbitration provision is valid, plaintiffs
took advantage of their putative right to opt out from defendants'
arbitration dispute resolution scheme, and this action will
proceed."

Uber's attorney, Matthew Hank -- mhank@littler.com -- of Littler
Mendelson, did not return a call seeking comment.  Uber's
corporate media office did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

The attorney for the drivers, Jeremy Abay -- jabay@sackslaw.com
-- of Sacks Weston Diamond, said he was pleased that Judge Baylson
"took a practical approach in recognizing the opt-out notice."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Cancellation Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Lamar Anderson, writing for Modern Luxury, reports that in July
2015, Michael Cordas hailed an Uber and waited for it at the
appointed place, outside the Grand Hyatt Hotel in midtown
Manhattan.  And he waited.  The car's estimated arrival time came
and went.  After 10 minutes, Mr. Cordas tried calling the driver.
Instead, he got an operator recording -- the number was a
"non-working number."  A text he sent returned the same response.
A few minutes later, the Uber app notified him of a $10 charge,
because he had "canceled" his Uber request.

After going through the same rigamarole two more times -- in
Toronto and Irvine -- Mr. Cordas, a California resident, became
the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed on July 20 in
the U.S. District Court's Northern District of California.  In the
Irvine incident, which took place in May 2016, the suit alleges
that a $5 cancellation fee was never reversed.  It goes on to
allege that these three instances are not isolated incidents, but
part of a "deceptive scheme" to "generate millions of dollars
based on [Uber's] fraudulent, unearned and unconscionable
'Cancellation Fees.'"

An email sent to Uber's PR team has so far not been returned.

Is there really evidence of a widespread problem with bogus fees
for no-show rides? Asked whether Mr. Cordas is the only plaintiff
on board so far, Kristopher Badame, the attorney whose firm filed
the class action, didn't give a definitive answer, replying only
that Mr. Cordas is the lead plaintiff but that the class "consists
of all Uber users in the United States that were subjected to
their fraudulent cancellation fees."  The suit asks the court to
send notices to all current and former Uber customers of the past
four years who may have paid these fees for rides that didn't
appear.

In April, Uber began a pilot that toughens the rules on canceling
rides.  The pilot -- only active in New York City, New Jersey,
Phoenix, and Dallas -- penalizes riders if they cancel a ride more
than two minutes after requesting it (the previous time limit was
five minutes).

This new suit contends that Uber's algorithm is "intentionally
designed to charge a cancellation fee regardless of circumstances
to the customer/driver."  As far as Mr. Badame knows, his firm's
suit is "the first case on file regarding these allegations," he
says.  Past suits -- which Uber settled -- have been over the
classification of workers as freelancers, not employees, and the
misleading $1 Safe Rides Fee.

Could the cancellation fees blow up into a big deal, or is this
one more suit nipping at the heels of a behemoth? "I don't see
many bigger consequences of this lawsuit," says Eric Goldman,
director of the High Tech Law Institute at the Santa Clara
University School of Law, after reviewing the complaint.  "The
plaintiffs may have discovered a glitch in Uber's software or
policies.  Those kinds of glitches happen to every large online
service; and if the lawsuit makes it far enough, they get resolved
with a settlement that Uber can afford."

Mr. Goldman also wants to know more about how Uber's software
behaves.  "Does Uber routinely refund cancellation fees, even if
they allegedly didn't refund it for the named plaintiff?" he asks.
"If so, there may not be many Uber users to join the class."


UNILEVER: TRESemme Shampoo Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ChemicalWatch reports that a US federal judge has preliminarily
approved a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit against
Unilever. It comes after allegations that the company falsely
advertised its TRESemme Naturals shampoo line as 'natural'.

The complaint alleged that the company's representation of the
product was false and misleading because the named shampoos
contained numerous synthetic ingredients including:

   -- ammonium laureth sulfate;
   -- dipropylene and propylene glycol;
   -- methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone; and
fragrances.

The proposed agreement calls for a $3.25M settlement to be paid to
the plaintiffs in the class-action suit, and to cover attorney
fees and administrative costs.

Separately, two class action suits have been brought against
Procter & Gamble.  These concern allegations they advertised
Pampers baby wipes as 'natural' when they are not.

One suit names Pampers "natural clean" wipes.  It alleges their
advertising was "false and misleading" because they contain
phenoxyethanol, an "unnatural and potentially harmful ingredient".

The second complaint alleges that advertising Pampers baby wipes
as natural was "false, deceptive, and likely to mislead a
reasonable person", because the product contains dimethicone,
phenoxyethanol, and ethyhexyl glycerin.

The Honest Company and Kimberly-Clark are among the personal care
products that have faced similar lawsuits in recent years.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently clamped down on
claims that consumer products are "all natural" or "100% natural".
But the agency's Green Guides do not offer guidance on the use of
the term natural.


UNITED STATES: Faces "Lucier" Class Suit in Federal Claims Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew S. Lucier, Lawrence E. Nelson, Marilyn G. Nelson, Allen
O'Bannon, Jan Pettigrew, Scott L. Putzier, Susan K. Putzier and
Keith D. Quentin, For Themselves and As Representatives of a Class
of Similarly Situated Persons v. USA, Case No. 1:16-cv-00865-MBH
(Fed. Cl., July 22, 2016), was brought pursuant to the Tucker Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Robert Sears, Esq.
          BAKER STERCHI COWDEN AND RICE, LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 950
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 231-2925
          Facsimile: (314) 231-4857
          E-mail: sears@bscr-law.com


UNITIL CORP: Still Defends Against Massachusetts Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company will
continue to defend itself vigorously against a class action
lawsuit in Massachusetts.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et
al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of
temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and
physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008. The Town of Lunenburg has filed a separate action
in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm.

The Company continues to believe that both of these suits are
without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously. The
Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel and
others, that the ultimate resolution of these suits will not have
a material impact on its financial position, operating results or
cash flows.


VA VA VOOM: "Carillo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Jose Carillo, individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v.  Va Va Voom, a California corporation; and
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC627112 (Cal.
Super., July 14, 2016), seeks overtime premium wages, requisite
minimum wage for all hours worked, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Orders.

Plaintiff was hired by the defendant as a sales representative. He
claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kaveh S. Elihu, Esq.
     Kanna Godoy, Esq.
     EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, LLP
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1120
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 382-2222
     Facsimile: (213) 382-2320


VIDEOTRON: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Quebec CPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eve Tessier, Esq. -- etessier@millerthomson.com -- and Sarah
Lazure, Esq., of Miller Thomson LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that on July 4, 2016, Ms. Stephanie Benabu, a Montreal
resident, filed an application with the Quebec Superior Court to
authorize a class action.  This potential class action targets two
dozen titans of industry from the banking, technology and
telecommunications sectors.  These businesses, including
Videotron, Netflix, Apple and several Canadian banks, engage in
nearly identical negative option billing practices.  The Class
Action Applicant argues that the Defendants systematically violate
paragraph 230 c) of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").

In 2010, the CPA was amended to include paragraph c) to article
230.  This amendment seeks to forbid merchants' negative option
billing practices, which intend to entice new clients.  Paragraph
230 c) states that if a consumer acquires a good or service during
a promotional or trial period, merchants cannot automatically
charge the consumer the regular price for the good or service at
the end of that timeframe.  According to the government, the
purpose of this amendment was to prevent consumers from actively
having to take steps to opt-out of a promotional contract in
advance of billing at the end of a trial period.

Application to Authorize a Class Action

The targeted class and subclass members of this potential action
are fairly large.  It includes every consumer who since July 4,
2013 "was provided services or goods at a reduced price, or for
free, for a fixed period, and who after that period, was required
to send a notice to any of the Defendants indicating that they did
not wish to obtain the services or goods at the regular price".
The damages being requested are substantial.  The Class Action
Applicant claims that each member of the class and subclass would
be entitled to compensatory damages for the difference between the
regular and reduced price of their monthly payments.  Damages for
trouble and inconvenience incurred in recovering said price
difference, along with punitive damages, are also being claimed.

Application of Recent Case Law

(a) Marcotte case

In 2014, a class action was launched by consumers seeking
repayment of conversion charges imposed by several banks.  It was
then argued that, based on the requirements of the CPA, conversion
charges had not been properly disclosed by credit card issuers.
As a result of this lawsuit, the Supreme Court of Canada (the
"SCC") released a decision pertaining to the applicability of the
CPA to Canadian banks.

Throughout the trial, the banks argued that because of the
exclusive federal jurisdiction over bank lending under the
Canadian Constitution, the CPA did not apply to them.  The SCC
ultimately held that regardless of the fact that bank lending is
of federal jurisdiction, the application of numerous provisions of
the CPA cannot be said to (i) "impair or significantly trammel"
the core of federal banking power or (ii) frustrate general
federal rules applicable to bank lending.  The SCC also considered
that the CPA did not provide standards applicable to banking
products and services offered by banks, but in fact articulated
contractual norms analogous to the general rules governing
contracts.

The SCC also established that punitive damages are to be awarded
based on an examination of the overall conduct of merchants,
before, during and after the violation of the CPA.  Such conduct
must be "lax, passive, or ignorant" with respect to consumers'
rights, or the behavior must display "ignorance, carelessness or
serious negligence".

This case proved that all federally regulated organizations in
Canada must be mindful of provincial statutes like the CPA.

(b) Application to Canadian banks specifically

At the heart of its analysis, the SCC reiterated that the mere
fact that the "Parliament has legislated in an area does not
preclude provincial legislation from operating in the same area".
However, the SCC left the door open for banks to challenge the
application of other CPA provisions.  It will thus be interesting
to see how the Quebec Superior Court will reconcile recent case
law with potentially contradictory federal legislation, namely the
Negative Option Billing Regulations.

These Regulations, adopted in 2012, apply to federally regulated
financial institutions and provide that certain products and
services may only be offered to consumers on an opt-in basis.  The
Regulations also provide for disclosure requirements applicable to
"promotional, preferential, introductory or special offer".  Under
such Regulations, consumers must be provided with advance notice
prior to the end date of a promotional period and any charges that
may be imposed after that date must be disclosed.

While, in Marcotte, the SCC held that there was no direct conflict
between the federal and provincial regulations governing
disclosure requirements, the outcome in the situation at hand
could be different considering that specific federal rules apply
to promotional periods.

Next Steps

The next step for this class action application is for the Quebec
Superior Court to authorize the action.  In order to authorize a
class action, a managing judge must establish that the Applicant
has serious and concrete allegations that appear to be
well-founded upon face value.  Such process can take place
anywhere from months to years following the filing date of the
application.  If the authorization is successful, the members of
the class action will be determined, a representative plaintiff
will be appointed to represent all members of the class action and
the main issues and conclusions sought will be defined.  As a
result of this authorization, a notice to all class members would
also be published through newspaper, social media advertisements,
or the like to inform consumers in Quebec about the class action.


WELLPOINT COMPANIES: Faces "Montgomery-Beeston" Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA MONTGOMERY-BEESTON, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER
29 USC 216(B) v. THE WELLPOINT COMPANIES, INC. fka THE ANTHEM
COMPANIES, INC. dba ANTHEM, INC., & AMERIGROUP CORPORATION, Case
4:16-cv-02160 (S.D. Tex., July 20, 2016), was filed pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of a purported class of
Practice Consultants.

THE WELLPOINT COMPANIES, INC. is a health insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. DEREK BRAZIEL, Esq.
     J. FORESTER, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010


WILLIAM MORRIS: Settles NYFW Crew Members' Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law reports that New York Fashion Week producers
William Morris Endeavor and IMG have agreed to settle a class
action lawsuit filed against them in March 2015 on the heels of
February's Fall/Winter 2015 shows.  According to the proposed
class action suit, which was filed by Brian Davis, a member of
NYFW's "House Crew," WME/IMG failed to adequately pay him and
other crew members for their work on the bi-annual fashion events.

Mr. Davis claimed in his complaint that for six week periods
leading up to the runway shows, he and fellow NYFW crew members
"regularly worked over 100 hours per week without ever receiving
premium overtime pay" of one and one-half time the regular rate.
Their tasks reportedly consisted of "handling the logistics of
Fashion Week including providing support to vendors and
contractors; managing the delivery, warehousing and disbursement
of supplies; and managing the delivery, setting up and breaking
down of furniture and barricades."

WME/IMG has agreed to pay out $560,000 to end the lawsuit.  The
settlement agreement provides "significant relief" to the 82 class
members "in a prompt and efficient manner" and avoids a trial that
would be costly for both parties, as reported by Law360.  "The
$560,000 settlement amount represents substantial value given the
risks of litigation, even though the recovery could be greater if
plaintiffs prevailed." The settlement includes up to $110,000 of
court-approved attorney's fees, up to $10,000 in claims
administrator's fees, a $10,000 reserve fund and half of the
employer's payroll taxes.


                            *********

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  * * *