CAR_Public/160809.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 158




                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: "Benzion" Suit Moved from S.D. to M.D. Florida
2425 BROADWAY: "Chen" Files Suit Over FLSA Breach
A & M CONTRACTORS: Leyva Seeks Certification of Class of Laborers
A1 TELEKOM: Consumer Association Wins SIM Flat Class Action
ADT CORP: Court Dismisses Two Stockholders Class Actions

ADVANCE STORES: Certification of Class Sought in "Whitehead" Suit
ADVANCED ROOFING: Pentiuk Suit Seeks Certification of Class
AF HAUSER: Certification of Class Sought in Lifespan Medical Suit
AFFORDABLE DIGITAL: Bridgeview Appeal Pending in U.S. Sup. Ct.
AIR EVAC: Faces Class Action Over Air Ambulance Fees

ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over St. Clair Severe Inmate Beating
ALERE: Faces Class Action in Massachusetts Over Blood Test
AM RETAIL: "Ramos" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
AMAZING SIDING: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ANZ BANK: Awaits Ruling on Critical Bank Fees Class Action

ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT: Certification in "Darden" Suit Denied
ASSOCIATION FOR SERVICES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Suit Claims
AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
BALTIMORE, MD: Bid to File Amended Complaint in "Cherry" Denied
BIOGEN INC: GBR Appeals Dismissal of Securities Suit to 1st Cir.

BLUE FLAME: Faces "Lloyd" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BREATHLESS MEN'S: Judge Tosses Dancer's FLSA Collective Action
BRIGHT HOUSE: Faces "Bowden" Suit in Northern District Alabama
BUMBLE BEE: DOJ to Focus on Most Culpable Execs in Antitrust Case
CAREMARK PHC: Class of Call Center Reps Certified in "Woods" Suit

CARIDAD-BRONX: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
COBALT MORTGAGE: "Grewe" Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
COMCAST CORP: Washington AG Sues Over Consumer Act Violations
COOK COUNTY, IL: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued
COVISINT CORP: December 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

COWAY: Faces Class Action Over Defective Water Purifiers
CREDIT BUREAU: Class Certification Sought in "Pietraszewski" Suit
CREDIT CONTROL: O'Connell Seeks Certification of Class in Wisc.
CT & TC: Faces "Wen" Suit in Eastern District New York
CYTRX CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in California

DHL: November 4 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing
DOONEY & BOURKE: Court Dismisses "Rael" False Discount Suit
EATON CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
EVOLVED INC: "Perkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

FACEBOOK INC: Insurers in Dispute Over Class Action Settlement
FIRST NATIONAL: Court Partly Grants Attorney's Fees, Costs
FISERV INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
FITBIT INC: Judge Sends Securities Actions Back to State Courts
FONTEM US: Sept. 12 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit

FOREMOST INSURANCE: Court Wants Class Certification Discovery
FRESNO, CA: Residents Face Rusty Water Problems
GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Sanchez" Suit Sent to Arbitration
GROUPON INC: Appeal Filed From W.D.N.C. Ruling in "Keena" Suit
GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION: Court Refuses to Certify "Vasquez" Class

GULF COAST: Bid to Certify FLSA Class in "Francois" Suit Denied
GUTHY-RENKER: FDA Investigates Hair Product-Related Complaints
HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: "Edwards" FDCA Suit Removed to Atlanta Div.
HHGREGG INC: Not Obligated to Pay Bonuses, Ind. Ct. App. Says
HIGHLAND PARK, NJ: Williams Files Appeal in 3rd Cir. Ct.

HILLTOP INVESTMENTS: Pension System Sues Over Lions Gate Merger
HOMERS TASTE: Faces "Zhu" Suit in Eastern District New York
IACOBONI SITE: "Stump" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
INNOVATIVE FACILITY: "Ocaranza" Suit Seeks OT, Reimbursements
IOWA: Settles Apartments Downtown Tenants' Class Action

JEUNESSE LLC: Faces "Aboltin" Suit in Ariz. Dist. Ct.
KANSAS: Mosier Appeals Ruling in Planned Parenthood Suit
KOMET USA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Degnen" Suit
KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over Listeria-Contaminated Peas
LAMPS PLUS: Brief in "Varela" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Jan. 9, 2007

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settles Securities Class Action for $26MM
MAINE FISH: Dineen Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
MDL 2328: A Plus Appeals Ruling in Pool Products Antitrust Case
MDL 2437: Direct Purchasers Seek Certification of Class

MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Sued in Texas Over Proposed Sale to Range
MOSER ENGINE: Schultz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Owens" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Unveils New Concussion Protocol Amid Suits
NEW YORK: "Seibert" Suit v. Tax Dept. Transferred to Albany County

NEWBY ISLAND: Landfill Odor Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
NIANTIC INC: N.J. Real Estate Owner Files Suit Over Pokemon Go
NOB LLC: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
NRS BILLING: "Williams" Suit Proceeds with Discovery
NSK LTD: Settles Indirect Purchasers' Class Action for $34.5MM

NUUN & COMPANY: Faces "Riedel" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
NUVASIVE INC: No Trial Date Yet in Securities Litigation
PANDORA MEDIA: 4 Suits by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan Pending
PANERA BREAD: "Boswell" Files Appeal in 8th Cir. Ct.
PHELAN HALLINAN: "Borg" Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices

PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking Class Suits Pending in Brazil & Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Pending in ADESF Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing for Merits Appeal in Letourneau
PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing for Merits Appeal in Blais
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Case

PHILIP MORRIS: Says "Dorion" Complaint Not Yet Properly Served
PHILIP MORRIS: 3 Lights Cases Pending in Italy and Chile
POINT & PAY: Cross Seeks Certification of Class & Two Subclasses
PSCU INC: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Jones" Suit
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Motion for Leave to Amend Suit Pending

REMINGTON ARMS: Missouri Judge Set to Decide on Rifle Settlement
RENO'S INC: "Downard" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Class Certification Sought in "Menear" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 34 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q2
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 34 Cases Scheduled for Trial Through June 2017

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 10 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in Q2
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs Must File Expert Disclosures
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11th Circuit Decision in "Graham" Case Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,473 Broin II Cases Pending in Florida
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 23 Non-Shareholder Class Action Cases Pending

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Supreme Court Won't Review "Price" Ruling
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Aug. 24 Status Conference in "Turner"
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Case Remains Stayed Pending "Price"
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Sept. 12 Status Conference in "Collora"
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Set for Sept. 12 in "Black"

RITE AID: Certification of Consumers Class Sought in "Moore" Suit
SADDLEBACK EYE: Sued in Cal. Over LASIK Blade-Free Procedure
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Class Counsel Named in "Baker" Suit
SAN DIEGO, CA: Leon Dismissed from "Jones" Suit
SANTORINI REST: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

SANTORINI REST: Faces "Ramirez" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
STERICYCLE: Pension Funds File Fraud Class Action in Chicago
STRATASYS LTD: Macomb Employees Appeal Ruling in Securities Suit
SUFFOLK BANCORP: Faces Thaler Suit in New York Supreme Court
TARGET CORPORATION: "Garcia" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Minn.

TENNESSEE: Hepatitis C-Infected Inmates File Class Action
TERRAFORM POWER: Lead Plaintiff Named in "Chamblee" Suit
THOMA BRAVO: Faces "Garagarza" Suit Over Qlik Acquisition
TOBIKO RESTAURANT: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
TROTT & TROTT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Wilson" Suit

TYCOON CONSTRUCTION: "Lituma" Sues Over Breach of Contract
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: CEO Can't Use PI Info in Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Arbitration Bid in Antitrust Case
VISA INC: B&R Supermarket Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Jefferson County May Join Fraud Class Action

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Seeks Dismissal of U.S. Investors' Class Action
WEWORK: Faces NLRB Complaint Over Arbitration Agreement
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Motion to Quash Denied in "Chambers" Settlement
WILLIS TOWERS: Resolution on Fee Bid Pending in Del. Chancery
WILSON COUNTY, KS: Class Certification in "Ogden" Suit Granted

WORK OUT WORLD: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Susinno" Class Suit

* Federal Securities Class Action Filings Up 17% in 1st Half 2016
* New York Governor Signs Bill Against Tampon Sales Tax
* Volkswagen Case Prompts Call for US-Style Class Action in Korea


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: "Benzion" Suit Moved from S.D. to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Benzion, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Petitioner, v. 21st Century Oncology, LLC,
21st Century Oncology, Inc., 21st Century Oncology Management
Services, Inc., and 21st Century Oncology Services, LLC, Case No,
9:16-cv-80597, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers). The Middle District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00591-UA-MRM to the
proceeding. The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Mac R. McCoy.

21st Century provides state-of-the-art radiation therapy and
integrated cancer treatments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889 5913

               - and -

          Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
          THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, PA
          5400 S University Dr Ste 413
          1920 N Commerce Pkwy
          Davie, FL 33328-5313
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889 5913
          E-mail: mpascucci@elplawyers.com

               - and -

          Jerry R. Linscott, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          200 S Orange Avenue
          Suite 2300 PO Box 112
          Orlando, FL 32802-0112
          Telephone: (407) 649 4000


2425 BROADWAY: "Chen" Files Suit Over FLSA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Jianjun Chen, Qing Pu, Youchun Zheng, Allen Chun Kang and Minzhong
Duan, Chee Kiang Foo, Jianshe Wang, Guolong Fu, Guangzheng Sun,
Genxiang Zhang, Gengshen Zhao, Jianxin Feng and Qun Wan on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 2425
Broadway Chao Restaurant, LLC, WMK 89th Street LLC, Trattoria Di
Vino, Tsu Yue Wang, "John" Wang, Cho Kam Sze, Cindy "Doe", Anthony
J. Mazzola, Victor Kasner and Kevin Garcia, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-05735 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2016), seeks redress for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

2425 Broadway Chao Restaurant, LLC does business as Ollie's To Go
Restaurant. WMK 89th Street LLC does business as Trattoria Di
Vinocs, Inc.

Jianjun Chen, Qing Pu, Youchun Zheng, Allen Chun Kang and Minzhong
Duan, Chee Kiang Foo, Jianshe Wang, Guolong Fu, Guangzheng Sun,
Genxiang Zhang, Gengshen Zhao, Jianxin Feng and Qun Wan are pro se
plaintiffs.


A & M CONTRACTORS: Leyva Seeks Certification of Class of Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled SANTIAGO LEYVA, Individually
and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. A & M
CONTRACTORS, INC., PALMERA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
MOHAMMAD YOUSEF, and ABDULHAMID ("ABED") DUMANI, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00631 (S.D. Tex.), moves for conditional certification of his
overtime claims against the Defendants as a collective action, and
issuance of a judicially approved notice and schedule to a class
consisting of:

     All individuals who are employed by or have been employed by
     A&M Contractors, Inc., Palmera Construction & Development
     LLC, Mohammad Yousef, and/or Abdulhamid "Abed" Dumani at any
     time since March 10, 2013 as laborers or construction
     workers.

Santiago Leyva filed the Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated to
him, to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, and costs owed to current and former laborers and
construction workers, who worked over the past three years for the
Defendants.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6kPrHrB9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


A1 TELEKOM: Consumer Association Wins SIM Flat Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Telecompaper reports that the Commercial Court in Vienna ruled
that a clause in A1 Telekom Austria's terms and conditions not to
pay out a proportional reimbursement for a SIM flat sum is
inadmissible.  The court did not see a noticeable factual
justification that A1 should receive fees in return for no service
at the end of the contract term.  The Austrian Consumer
Association (VKI) had launched a class action suit on behalf of
the Employment Chamber of Upper Austria.


ADT CORP: Court Dismisses Two Stockholders Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
The following is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

Notice to Former ADT Stockholders Regarding Litigation Challenging
the Merger with Protection

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MSS 12-09 TRUST, on behalf of all itself and all
other similarly situated stockholder of
The ADT CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS COLLIGAN, RICHARD J. DALY,
TIMOTHY DONAHUE, ROBERT DUTKOWSKY,
BRUCE GORDON, NAREN GURSAHANEY,
BRIDGETTE HELLER, KATHLEEN HYLE, and
CHRISTOPHER HYLEN,
Defendants.

C.A. No. 12133-VCL
PETER ROY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE ADT CORPORATION, NAREN GURSAHANEY,
THOMAS COLLIGAN, RICHARD J. DALY,
TIMOTHY DONAHUE, ROBERT DUTKOWSKY,
BRUCE GORDON, BRIDGETTE HELLER,
KATHLEEN HYLE, CHRISTOPHER HYLEN,
Defendants.

C.A. No. 12160-VCL
NOTICE

On February 16, 2016, the ADT Corporation ("ADT") announced that
it had entered into an agreement with Apollo Global Management,
LLC ("Apollo") pursuant to which Apollo would acquire ADT pursuant
to a transaction in which each share of ADT stock would receive
$42.00 in cash.

On March 24, 2016 and April 4, 2016, two separate ADT stockholders
filed purported class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against ADT's board members (the "Board") and CEO
alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the
proposed transaction (the "Transaction").  The lawsuits
challenged, among other things, ADT's public disclosures about the
Transaction.  Plaintiffs in the lawsuits identified information
that the plaintiffs contended should have been, but was not,
disclosed to ADT's stockholders in the proxy statement related to
the Transaction.   Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted certain
disclosure claims relating to, inter alia: (a) prior engagements
and fees paid to Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated ("BofA Merrill Lynch") -- the Board's financial
advisor retained to run the "go shop" process associated with the
Transaction -- by Apollo; (b) prior engagements of and fees paid
to Goldman Sachs (the Board's primary financial advisor) and BofA
Merrill Lynch by Koch Industries, Inc., which participated in the
Transaction alongside Apollo; and (c) information about the
process leading to ADT's decision to grant Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP a conflicts waiver that allowed the law
firm to represent Apollo in connection with the Transaction
despite simultaneously representing ADT in other pending
litigations.  The April 4, 2016 lawsuit also sought to enjoin the
Transaction and alleged concerns relating to the proposed
consideration in the Transaction.

On April 11, 2016, and in response to the lawsuits, ADT made
supplemental disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures") within
an amended Definitive Proxy Statement that it filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.   The Supplemental Disclosures
made the disclosure claims asserted in the lawsuits moot.
Therefore, the plaintiffs in the lawsuits petitioned the Court for
voluntary dismissal of the lawsuits.  On April 12, 2016 and April
13, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered orders dismissing the
lawsuits and the claims asserted in the lawsuits with prejudice
only as to all named plaintiffs individually, and without
prejudice as to any actual or potential claims of the putative
class or any other class members.  Pursuant to the orders, the
Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
determining plaintiffs' potential application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

On April 22, 2016, ADT's stockholders approved the Transaction,
which closed on May 2, 2016.

After dismissal of the lawsuits, the parties commenced
negotiations concerning plaintiffs' counsel's application for fees
and expenses based on the alleged benefits provided by the
Supplemental Disclosures.  After negotiations, ADT has agreed to
make a fee and expense payment to plaintiffs' counsel in the
lawsuits of $350,000.00 to resolve any application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to be made by counsel for plaintiffs
in the lawsuits for the alleged benefit conferred on ADT
stockholders through the issuance of the Supplemental Disclosures.
The Court of Chancery has not been asked to review, and will pass
no judgment on, the payment of fees and expenses or its
reasonableness.

If you have any questions regarding the litigation, please contact
any of the attorneys below:

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
Donald J. Enright
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 524-4290

Counsel for Plaintiffs

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
Paul C. Gluckow
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
(212) 455-2653

Attorneys for Defendants The ADT Corporation, Naren Gursahaney,
Thomas Colligan, Richard J. Daly, Timothy Donahue, Robert
Dutkowsky, Bruce Gordon, Bridgette Heller, Kathleen Hyle, and
Christopher Hylen


ADVANCE STORES: Certification of Class Sought in "Whitehead" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Whitehead, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, moves the Court for a formal class certification order
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the
lawsuit captioned JORDAN WHITEHEAD v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INC.,
d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-00250-RBD-PRL
(M.D. Fla.).

The purported class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated against the
Defendant because of its alleged failure to adequately protect its
employees' confidential personal information and/or private
personal and/or financial information, which led to the loss,
disclosure and breach of such information resulting in violation
of his and the putative class's federal and state constitutional
rights, rights under the laws of the United States and the State
of Florida, and damages.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DjBU5MFw

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          Jason M. Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue, #400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822-1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
          E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  jason@thefllawfirm.com


ADVANCED ROOFING: Pentiuk Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled PENTIUK, COUVEREUR & KOBILJAK,
P.C., a Professional Corporation, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED ROOFING, a Michigan Domestic
Profit Corporation and d/b/a ADVANCED ROOFING - MIDWEST, a
Michigan Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-12863-DPH-
EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class:

     "All person who: (1) on or after November 11, 2015, December
      1, 2015, March 2, 2016, May 2, 2016, June 10, 2016, and
      July 26, 2016; (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages
      of material advertising commercial availability of any
      property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendant;
      and (3) which did not display a legally compliant opt out
      notice."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint itself as class
representative and Plaintiff's attorney as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G4cix44u

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kerry L. Morgan, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
          2915 Biddle Avenue, Suite 200
          Wyandotte, MI 48192
          Telephone: (734) 281 7100
          E-mail: Kmorganesq@aol.com


AF HAUSER: Certification of Class Sought in Lifespan Medical Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled LIFESPAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATES
LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. A.
F. HAUSER, INC., an Indiana corporation, HAUSER LLC, an Indiana
limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:16-cv-
07772 (N.D. Ill.), filed its motion for class certification
pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th
Cir. 2011).  The Plaintiff proposes this class definition:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) from which Defendants did not
     have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which
     did not display a proper opt-out notice.

Lifespan asks the Court to certify the Class, appoint it as the
Class representative, and appoint its attorneys as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5Dhd3ZrI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


AFFORDABLE DIGITAL: Bridgeview Appeal Pending in U.S. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for writ of certiorari has been filed in the appeal
case captioned Bridgeview Health Care Center, Ltd., Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner v.
Jerry Clark, dba Affordable Digital Hearing, Case No. 16-91 (U.S.
Sup. Ct., July 20, 2016).  The case appeals lower court decisions
entered in Case No. 14-3728 (7th Cir. Ct of Appeals, Aug. 21,
2015) and Case No. 15-1793 (7th Cir. Ct of Appeals, Aug. 21,
2015). The deadline to respond to the writ of certiorari is on
August 19, 2016.

Affordable Digital offers quality hearing aids.

The Petitioner is represented by:

          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS
          & OPPENHEIM LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          E-mail: david@classlawyers.com


AIR EVAC: Faces Class Action Over Air Ambulance Fees
----------------------------------------------------
EMS1 reports that over a dozen clients that were billed thousands
of dollars for an air ambulance have asked a judge to certify a
lawsuit as a class action.

Attorneys Noble McIntyre and Ed White are representing more than a
dozen clients in the suit, and have asked a judge to certify the
lawsuit as a class action.

One individual, former OSU basketball coach Tommy Wade, was flown
by medical helicopter last year when he had a heart attack.

"$38,000 for a 20 minute air flight from Stillwater to Oklahoma
City? I told them I can't pay the bill.  I can't afford it,"
Mr. Wade told KFOR.

Although Mr. Wade's insurance paid the air ambulance company what
they felt was sufficient, the company is still billing Mr. Wade.

Four air ambulance companies  --  Air Evac EMS, Inc., Air Methods
Corporation, Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC and EagleMed LLC  --
have been named in the lawsuit as defendants.

"They're making profit margins of in excess of 750%.  These are
huge profit margins they're trying to get from the average
public," Mr. White said.

EagleMed released the following statement to KFOR: "We are still
looking into the allegations and prefer not to discuss ongoing
litigation, especially when all we have is the initially filed
Petition.  EagleMed has been, and currently is, in network with
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma -- the largest insurer in the
State.  At this point, we don't know why we were sued if our
patient had BCBS insurance.  We would expect the BCBS agreement to
deal with this situation.  The only other EagleMed patient was
said to have United Health Care insurance, which covered about
half of the cost.  If our patients need financial assistance with
our invoices, we work with them -- and we ask them to work with us
when their insurance company underpays for services. We still
would like to take our patient out of the middle and see if United
Health Care will pay usual and customary rates."

Air Evac released this statement as well: "Air Evac Lifeteam is
still looking into the allegations and prefer not to discuss
ongoing litigation, especially when all we have is the initially
filed Petition.  At this point, we don't know why we were sued.
Based on the Petition, the only claim against Air Evac is for
transporting a patient who was injured in an on-the-job incident.
We would expect an on-the-job injury to be covered by workers'
compensation with no patient financial responsibility. In
addition, Air Evac has been, and currently is, in network with
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma -- the largest insurer in the
state.  Caring for our patients doesn't stop when we get them to
the hospital.  If our patients need financial assistance with our
invoices, we work with them -- and we ask them to work with us
when their insurance company underpays for services."


ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over St. Clair Severe Inmate Beating
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rashad Snell, writing for Alabama News, reports that a lawsuit was
filed on July 25 in Montgomery County Circuit Court arising from a
severe beating of an inmate by DOC employees at the St. Clair
Correctional Facility, a prison well known for abuse, neglect,
murders and beatings from the hands of prison guards and top
officials at the prison.

Birmingham attorney Tommy James represents the victim in this
case.

In July, 2014, Venture Harrison was severely beaten by two prison
guards while their Lieutenant looked on and did nothing to stop
the unprovoked attack.  The guards ordered Venture Harrison out of
his cell in the middle of the night, took him into the hallway
outside of his area, handcuffed him, and then hit him on the back
of his head with handcuffs wrapped around their knuckles, causing
severe injuries, including 17 staples in his head, bruised ribs
and permanent eye injuries.  Mr. Harrison received multiple death
threats from the defendants before and after the attack on him.

"When Mr. Harrison was placed in the troubled St. Clair
Correctional Facility, he was under the care, custody and control
of DOC and its employees.  Sadly, DOC guards beat the hell out of
my client for no reason," Mr. James said.  "This case and other
cases at this prison have been under investigation by the U.S.
Attorney's office and the FBI.  We are obviously assisting them in
any way we can in these investigations."

"The Equal Justice Initiative has previously filed a class action
lawsuit against the defendants in the case that we filed on
July 25.  That suit mentions what happened to my client," Mr.
James said.

The Alabama Department of Corrections, current commissioner
Jefferson Dunn, Warden Carter Davenport, Karen Carter,
Donald Lukima and Christopher Smith are named as defendants in
this suit.

"When an individual is sentenced to prison, they are sentenced to
pay their debt to society.  They are not sentenced to beatings by
state employees and worse.  We truly hope that this lawsuit will
send a message that there must be change at this prison.  The
justice department clearly agrees with this," said Mr. James.


ALERE: Faces Class Action in Massachusetts Over Blood Test
----------------------------------------------------------
Don Seiffert, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that
adding to a lengthy list of problems faced by Waltham-based
diagnostics firm Alere as it aims to complete its merger with
Abbott came one more: A new class-action lawsuit over a home blood
coagulation test that was recalled over concerns of its accuracy.

The lawsuit is similar to one filed in California in June,
according to John Roddy -- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- a partner
in the Boston offices of Alabama-based law firm Bailey & Glasser
LLP, which filed the latest class-action lawsuit against Alere on
July 22 in federal court in Boston.  Both address problems with
the INRatio home blood test sold by Alere, used by patients who
take blood thinners to determine the optimum size of dose needed
for treatment.

The INRatio test was the target of a Class 1 recall -- the most
serious type -- in December 2014 because it was determined that
the tests were giving inaccurate readings, which could lead to
dosage levels that were either too high or too low, either of
which could threaten the health of patients.  According to
Mr. Roddy, the recall consisted mostly of letters sent out to
users of the INRatio test informing them of the action, but
without any offer to compensate them for the test.

"It's called a recall, but it's not like when your car is recalled
and they give you a new one.  These devices are still out there,"
he said.

The two lead plaintiff's in the lawsuit -- who are identified only
by their initials to protect their medical information -- did not
get any notification from Alere, according to Mr. Roddy, who said
the reasons are "somewhat of a mystery."  The patients found out
about the recall and contacted the company, but according to the
lawsuit, "Alere has refused to refund the cost of its INRatio
System to them, or to any purchaser."

Roddy said the company has 30 days to respond to the demand
letter, and unless they agree to refund those who purchased the
test, the suit will move forward.  He said at some point in the
future, the suit could be combined with the similar one in
California.  Mr. Roddy said it's not known how many INRatio tests
were sold, and therefore it's difficult to say how much money
Alere could owe if it refunded all users.

Separate from the class action suits are several other lawsuits
from patients who have had "bad outcomes" believed to have been
caused by the inaccurate test, said Mr. Roddy.

The legal challenges come almost six months after Illinois
drugmaker Abbott agreed to buy Alere for $5.8 billion, about 50
percent higher than its market value prior to the news.  Soon
after the deal was announced, however, Alere disclosed a subpoena
from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the INRatio test,
and also said it wouldn't file its annual report by a federal
deadline due to an internal analysis of revenue reported
stretching back to 2013.  Alere has yet to file its financial
statements.

Abbott reportedly tried to back out of the deal earlier this year,
but Alere refused the offer.  In April, comments by Abbott CEO
Miles White on a conference call were interpreted as a sign that
he's till not happy about the merger agreement.


AM RETAIL: "Ramos" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AM Retail Group, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-16-552324, was removed
from the San Francisco County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-04316-MEJ to the
proceeding. The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Maria-Elena
James.

AM Retail operates retail stores in the United States. Its stores
offer men and women outerwear, as well as fashion accessories,
such as handbags.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephanie Anne Sheridan, Esq.
          Sedgwick LLP
          333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
          Telephone: (415) 781 7900
          Facsimile: (415) 781 2635
          E-mail: stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com


AMAZING SIDING: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Winston Perry, Individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Amazing Siding Corporation d/b/a Renewal by
Andersen of Houston, Robert W. Birner, Case No. 4:16-cv-02195
(S.D. Tex., July 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of selling and installing
windows and doors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      Alecia D. Best, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P.
      9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302
      Houston, TX 77042
      Telephone: (713) 223-8855
      Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
      E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com
              AB@Tranlawllp.com


ANZ BANK: Awaits Ruling on Critical Bank Fees Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gluyas, writing for The Australian, reports that the High
Court was set to rule on July 27 on the critical bank fees class
action, which has clear implications for all the major banks as
well as utility and other companies charging late fees.

Backed by litigation funder IMF Bentham and argued by law firm
Maurice Blackburn, a test case was launched against ANZ Bank in
the Federal Court almost six years ago.

Judge Michelle Gordon, who has since joined the High Court, found
that late payment fees could potentially be regarded as unlawful
penalties.

She ruled against the plaintiff, however, on four other categories
of charges, including over-limit fees on credit cards, as well as
honor, dishonor and non-payment fees on deposit accounts.

Undeterred, the plaintiff appealed to the High Court, which
overturned 150 years of legal history by clarifying that bank fees
could be construed as penalties.

The case was then referred back to the Federal Court, where
Justice Gordon ruled in favor of the plaintiff on credit-card late
payment fees, while backing ANZ on the four other fee categories.

On appeal, the Full Court said Justice Gordon had the right legal
principles in mind when determining whether a fee was a penalty,
but wasn't even close when it came to calculating the bank's costs
for processing a late payment fee.

The judge found that fees of up to $35 were "extravagant and
unconscionable" as costs were sometimes as low as 50c.

The Full Court, on the other hand, said costs had to be examined
on a forward-looking basis.

Allowance had to be made for things like provisioning and the cost
of holding additional regulatory capital if the customer's risk
rating deteriorated.

The judges said in some cases ANZ's costs could actually be higher
than the fee.

A long list of considerations on whether ANZ had acted
unconscionably all went in the bank's favor.

There was no dishonesty, trickery or sharp practice, the fees were
fully and not unfairly disclosed, they could be avoided, there was
no victimization or taking advantage of the plaintiffs, and there
was no lack of good faith by ANZ. Both sides have spent in the
tens of millions of dollars on legal costs.

Meanwhile, Financial Stability Board chair Mark Carney's self-
congratulatory letter to G20 finance ministers and central bank
governors will be hard to stomach for some bank directors and
executives.

In a clear reference to the 2007-08 financial crisis, Carney says
two recent spikes in volatility have been notable for the way they
were dampened and not amplified by the financial system.

As the system's chief custodian, it's no surprise that the FSB
chief and Bank of England governor attributes this to the fine
work of his own institution. "This resilience in the face of
stress demonstrates the enduring benefits of the G20 reforms,"
Carney says. He goes on to cite the vastly improved capital
buffers for large institutions, and stronger liquidity profiles
that enable banks to continue lending through stressed conditions.

As a result, financial markets were more robust to shocks, with
credible stress tests also proving their worth. Carney's
backslapping, which kicks off his six-page letter, is confirmation
of the sharp divide between regulators and some institutions over
the impact of post-crisis reforms.

Rather than congratulating themselves for shock-proofing the
financial system, there is a widespread view that regulators like
Carney should accept they have created a new risk -- a lack of
market liquidity that has exacerbated volatility.

Sure, the potential for bank failures has been mitigated.

However, this has partly been achieved by regulators forcing banks
to dial down their appetite for risk. The problem is that once
banks and other institutions withdraw from markets, volatility
gets magnified.

It leads to the kind of wild gyrations and losses associated with
Britain's vote in June to leave the European Union, or the slower
growth outlook for some G20 countries that emerged earlier this
year. In a sense, Carney's letter is a response to the naysayers'
view that nothing much has changed since the crisis.

He hits back, lauding the increased resilience of the financial
system as confirmation that the G20 is "on the right track".

But if banks are indeed safer, maybe all that's happened is that
risk has migrated somewhere else in the system.


ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT: Certification in "Darden" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan O. Hickey denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit styled RICKY DARDEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT, INC., d/b/a Southwest Arkansas
Development Council, Case No. 4:16-cv-04023-SOH (W.D. Ark.).

"The Court finds that the motion is ripe for the Court's
consideration.  On August 3, 2016, the Court entered an order
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
class claims in this case" Judge Hickey.  "The state law class
claims are the only class claims alleged in this case.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Certification of
these claims is DENIED AS MOOT," Judge Hickey added.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=os1eBNiU


ASSOCIATION FOR SERVICES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irina Love f/k/a Irina Kislitsina, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals v. Association For Services
For The Aged, Inc., Jasa Corporation d/b/a Jasacare, and John Does
1-25, Case No. 1:16-cv-04095 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate in the home healthcare industry in New York
City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sass on, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856


AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Y. Satter, writing for Benefits Pro, reports that a
settlement in the class action suit against New York City-bsaed
cosmetics company Avon Products Inc. has been given preliminary
approval in federal court after participants in the company's
retirement plans sued over the stock's drop in price.

Plaintiffs in the case said that purchases of Avon stock for the
company's retirement plans should have been frozen while Avon was
being investigated for foreign corruption practices.  They filed
suit in early 2015 after alleging that the company's fiduciaries
breached fiduciary duty by continuing to purchase Avon stock for
the plans.

In December of 2014, Avon agreed to pay $67 million to settle a
civil probe by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
another $68 million to settle criminal claims brought by the U.S.
Department of Justice.  The company's Chinese subsidiary allegedly
violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in making $8 million in
payments to officials overseeing direct selling regulations in
that country.  The bribes were made between 2004 and 2008, as Avon
sought access to the new market.

At the time of the suit's filing, Avon's stock price was trading
below $9.  It had been punished over the last five years; in
October 2010, it traded at around $35.

Participants in the plan at any time from July 31, 2006, through
Feb. 29, 2016, or a beneficiary of those participants, whose plan
account included investment in the Avon Stock Fund are members of
the settlement class.

A notice to participants said that a qualified settlement fund
consisting of $6.25 million in cash is being established, and that
class counsel "believes that the Qualified Settlement Fund will
allow for tax-free distribution to retirement accounts of members
of the Class."  The court will approve a plan of allocation of the
award, and the estimated amount of the net settlement fund is
$4,345,000.

The court will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 11 at 10:30 a.m. in
Courtroom 1106 of Judge Lorna G. Schofield, United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, N.Y. 10007.


BALTIMORE, MD: Bid to File Amended Complaint in "Cherry" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT F. CHERRY, JR., et al. Plaintiffs v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, et al. Defendants, Civil
Action No. MJG-10-1447  (D. Md), Judge Marvin J. Garbis denied the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
The judge also denied as moot the defendant Mayor and City Council
of Baltimore City's motion to abstain.

In 1962, Baltimore City enacted the Fire and Police Employees'
Retirement System of the City of Baltimore (the "Plan"), which
provides defined benefits to its members and beneficiaries.  In
2010, the City enacted Ordinance 10-306, that unilaterally
modified the provisions of the Plan in several respects, effective
July 1, 2010.  The plaintiffs filed the First Amended and Restated
Class Action Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary
Relief asserting state-law contract claims and federal claims
under the Contract and Takings clauses of the United States
Constitution.

The Court held that the City had violated Constitutional rights of
certain union members in violation of the Contract Clause.  By
agreement of the parties, the Court dismissed the Takings Clause
claim as moot, dismissed the state-law contract claims without
prejudice, and entered a final judgment subject to appeal.  On
appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
held that the Contract Clause rights had not been impaired because
the plaintiffs retained a state-law remedy for breach of contract
and that the Takings Clause Claim was no longer moot.   The Court
remanded the case for further proceedings.

The plaintiffs sought to refile the state-law contract claims in
federal court in the proffered Second Amended Complaint.  The
defendants sought to have the Court deny the motion or,
alternatively, to abstain from deciding the state-law contract
claims.

Judge Garbis held that the court shall exercise its discretion to
decline to accept supplemental jurisdiction of the state-law
claims.  The Court will, however, retain jurisdiction of the
federal claims, but shall stay proceedings thereon pending the
resolution of the related state-law claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Garbis' July 22, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/sTbTcF from Leagle.com.

Robert F. Cherry, Jr., Robert J. Sledgeski, John Lewandowski,
Charles Williams, Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge
#3, Inc., Baltimore City Firefighters' IAFF, Local 734,
Plaintiffs, represented by Charles O Monk, II -- cmonk@saul.com --
Saul Ewing LLP, Devin John Doolan, Jr -- ddoolan@saul.com -- Saul
Ewing LLP, Geoffrey M Gamble -- ggamble@saul.com -- Saul Ewing
LLP, Nicholas J Nastasi, Jr -- nnastasi@saul.com -- Saul Ewing LLP
& Paul Monroe Heylman -- pheylman@saul.com -- Saul Ewing LLP.

Baltimore Fire Officers Union, Local 964, International
Association of Fire Fighters, Petitioner, represented by James E
Carbine, James E Carbine, P.C. & Robert D Klausner --
bob@robertdklausner.com -- Klausner and Kaufman PA.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, Defendant, represented
by James P Ulwick -- julwick@kg-law.com -- Kramon and Graham PA,
Jean Evelyn Lewis -- jlewis@kg-law.com -- Kramon and Graham PA &
Matthew W Nayden, Baltimore City Law Department.

Board of Trustees of the Fire and Police Employees' Retirement
System of the City of Baltimore, Defendant, represented by
Christine C Carey -- cccarey@venable.com -- Venable LLP & James A
Dunbar -- jadunbar@venable.com -- Venable LLP.

Edward J. Gallagher, Defendant, represented by James P Ulwick,
Kramon and Graham PA, Jean Evelyn Lewis, Kramon and Graham PA,
Kevin Francis Arthur, Kramon and Graham PA & Matthew W Nayden,
Baltimore City Law Department.


BIOGEN INC: GBR Appeals Dismissal of Securities Suit to 1st Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GBR Group, Ltd., one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled In
re: Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-13189-FDS (D.
Mass.), appealed the dismissal of the litigation.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Biogen Inc. Securities
Litigation/GBR GROUP, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant; NICOLE TEHRANI,
Plaintiff v. BIOGEN, INC.; GEORGE A. SCANGOS; PAUL J. CLANCY;
STUART A. KINGSLEY, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-1976, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 15,
2016, District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss in the litigation.

The putative class action involved alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Lead
plaintiff GBR Group, Ltd. has brought suit, on behalf of a class
of similarly situated persons, against biopharmaceutical company
Biogen Inc. and three Biogen executives.  The Plaintiffs contend
that class members were harmed when they purchased Biogen's common
stock at prices that were artificially inflated by the Company's
materially misleading statements and omissions about Tecfidera,
its leading multiple sclerosis drug.

In his Memorandum and Order dated June 23, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/CU3N7H from Leagle.com, Judge Saylor IV held that
plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that defendants made
those statements with a "conscious intent to defraud or 'a high
degree of recklessness.'"

Plaintiff-Appellant GBR Group, Ltd., is represented by:

          Angelina Nguyen, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          Guillaume Buell, Esq.
          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: anguyen@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com
                  gbuell@labaton.com
                  jgardner@labaton.com
                  mstocker@labaton.com

               - and -

          Garrett J. Bradley, Esq.
          Andrea Marino Landry, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
          100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 720-1333
          Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
          E-mail: gbradley@tenlaw.com
                  alandry@tenlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Yitzchak E. Soloveichik, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
                  soloveichik@bgandg.com

Plaintiff Nicole Tehrani is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI KORSINSKY LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com

Defendants-Appellees Biogen, Inc., George A. Scangos, Paul J.
Clancy and Stuart A. Kingsley are represented by:

          James R. Carroll, Esq.
          Michael S. Hines, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 573-4800
          Facsimile: (617) 573-4822
          E-mail: James.Carroll@skadden.com
                  Michael.Hines@skadden.com

Movant Biogen Investor Group is represented by:

          Eugene R. Richard, Esq.
          HURWITZ, RICHARD & SENCABAUGH LLP
          One Boston Place, Suite 3620
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 720-7870
          Facsimile: (617) 720-7877
          E-mail: generichard@hrsllp.com

Movant Chillar Family Trust is represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI KORSINSKY LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com

Movant The City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers'
Retirement Trust is represented by:

          Alan L. Kovacs, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN L. KOVACS
          257 Dedham Street
          Newton, MA 02461
          Telephone: (617) 964-1177
          Facsimile: (617) 332-1223
          E-mail: alankovacs@yahoo.com

Movant Robert L. Myer is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com


BLUE FLAME: Faces "Lloyd" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
India T. Lloyd, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Blue Flame Lounge, Inc., and Jacquelyn White, Case No.
1:16-cv-02664-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 22, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment nightclub located at
1097 Harwell Road, Atlanta, Georgia, 30318.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
      THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
      11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
      Alpharetta, GA 30022
      Telephone: (678) 242-5297
      Facsimile: (678) 802-2129
      E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com


BREATHLESS MEN'S: Judge Tosses Dancer's FLSA Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a lawsuit claiming that a strip club wrongly classified a dancer
as an independent contractor has been tossed out by a federal
judge in Newark.

Alissa Moon waived her litigation rights when she signed an
employment contract containing an arbitration agreement, U.S.
District Judge Susan Wigenton ruled July 29 when she granted
summary judgment to Breathless Men's Club, the Rahway
establishment where Moon worked.  The plaintiff's claims that she
was misclassified as an independent contractor are directly in
conflict with the agreement's provisions, which state that she is
a contractor and not an employee, Judge Wigenton ruled.

Ms. Moon brought a collective action against Breathless for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the state Wage
Payment Law and Wage and Hour Law.  She claimed the club violated
the laws by failing to pay dancers any wages, let alone the
applicable minimum wage, failing to pay an overtime premium for
time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, requiring dancers to
pay a fee for the chance to work a shift, and requiring dancers to
pay for their own costumes.

Dancers at the club are not paid by management, but receive all
their compensation in tips.  They pay a "house fee" of $30 per
shift on Wednesday through Saturday and $20 on other nights of the
week, according to court documents.

Ms. Moon's complaint cited nearly two dozen cases from around the
country where federal courts found exotic dancers were wrongly
categorized as independent contractors.  She cited a long list of
rules imposed on dancers at Breathless, such as the $30 fee to
management to work a shift, required tips of $10 per shift to the
disc jockey and $5 for the "house mom," and a requirement that
they pay for their own costumes, including jerseys during football
games and red and green outfits during the Christmas season.

The suit was brought on behalf of all persons who currently work
as dancers for Breathless, along with those who worked there as
dancers for the three years before the suit was filed.

The plaintiff claimed the arbitration agreement was unconscionable
because it was a contract of adhesion and because its terms were
one-sided, Judge Wigenton noted.  In particular, Judge Wigenton
said, the plaintiff cited her waivers of the right to litigate in
a judicial forum and to proceed on a class or collective action
basis.

"However, a plain reading of the arbitration provision shows that
the parties mutually waived their litigation rights; plaintiff did
not waive any of these rights unilaterally.  As a result, even if
this court were to consider the agreement a contract of adhesion,
there is no genuine dispute as to whether the arbitration
provision is unconscionable," Judge Wigenton said.

Plaintiff lawyer Jeremy Abay, of Sacks Weston Millstein Diamond in
Philadelphia, said he was considering an appeal because the judge
did not reference two of the cases he cited in his pleadings.  He
added that, if the case proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator
would have to be paid to resolve issues that could have been
decided by a judge for no cost.

Marc Gross -- mgross@greenbaumlaw.com -- of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith
& Davis in Roseland, representing the club, did not return a call
about the case.


BRIGHT HOUSE: Faces "Bowden" Suit in Northern District Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Bright House Networks LLC. The
case is captioned Rebecca Bowden, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bright House Networks LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01237-JHE (N.D. Ala., July 29,
2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. John H England, III.

Bright House owns and operates cable systems that provide video,
high-speed data, home security, and automation and voice services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


BUMBLE BEE: DOJ to Focus on Most Culpable Execs in Antitrust Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Seaman, writing for Undercurrent News, reports that a plethora
of executives are named in amended civil lawsuits accusing the top
three US tuna brands of market collusion, but the focus of the US
Department of Justice (DOJ) will be on the most culpable, said a
lawyer involved in the civil lawsuits.

The DOJ previously requested a pause on discovery in the civil
lawsuits accusing Bumble Bee Foods, Thai Union Group-owned Tri-
Union Seafoods, parent of Chicken of the Sea; and Dongwon
Industries-backed Starkist of engaging in price fixing.

Despite this, amended complaints were filed in late May in the
civil lawsuits, expanding on the allegations contained in the
lawsuits last year.  In one of the lawsuits, in the "track" for
complaints from retailers and wholesalers who have opted to be
outside a class action, it is alleged top executives from Bumble
Bee, Chicken of the Sea and Starkist were involved.

In the amended complaint, Chris Lischewski, CEO of Bumble Bee from
1999 to the present day; Don Binotto, Starkist CEO from the 1990s
through November 2010; John Signorino, Chicken of the Sea CEO from
January 2005 to October 2007; and Shue Wing Chan, Signorino's
successor, are all named.

In another of the amended complaints, Andrew Choe, CEO of
Starkist, is also named.  None of the executives named are
defendants in the civil suits, however, and the lawyers on the
civil side are in the dark as to what the DOJ intended to do.

"DOJ does not tell civil litigants what its intentions are with
respect to charging any person or entity with violating antitrust
laws," Christopher Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- of law firm
Hausfeld, which is overseeing the class action track for direct
buyers, such as Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, told
Undercurrent News.

Lebsock, however, was able to give a general idea of how the DOJ
process works.

"Company executives are not immune from prosecution.  However, DOJ
often limits prosecutions to the executives who are most culpable
and in control," he said.

He also gave a sense of what would happen next, if the DOJ does
indeed decide to proceed with actions against individuals or
companies.

"Generally, DOJ would advise a target that it intends to seek
indictment.  The target then needs to decide whether he/she/it is
willing to enter a guilty plea or fight the indictment," he said.

"If the latter course is decided, then once the indictment is
issued, the target, now a formal criminal defendant, would have
all procedural and substantive defenses available to him/her.
Basically, there would be pretrial efforts to have the charges
dismissed, then discovery, and trial.  In the US, there must be a
unanimous verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,"
Mr. Lebsock said.

A trial would take place before a jury, unless the government and
the defendant waive the jury, he said.  "The jury would hear
evidence and decide whether the target participated in a
conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt."

Speaking to Undercurrent in September last year, Andre Barlow --
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com -- a partner with the Washington. D.C.-
based law firm Doyle Barlow and Mazard, said US regulators have
also shown a willingness to go after firms that collude.

"The antitrust division has been real aggressive and people have
been put in jail," he toldUndercurrent.

According to DOJ statistics, in 2014, 10 people were sent to
prison as a result of criminal antitrust probes and US officials
collected $1.4bn in criminal fines.  Over the past five years,
judges have handed out jail terms that are an average of 25 months
long.

The new information behind the more detailed complaints came from
outside of formal discovery, said Mr. Lebsock.  In addition,
Tri Marine has been removed as a defendant.

"The pause on discovery is still in place.  The additional
allegations set forth in the amended complaints are based on the
plaintiffs' continuing investigation," he said.

Grand jury convened

Although what exactly is going on with the DOJ probe is not clear,
the class action lawsuit from the direct buyers stated the San
Francisco office of the antitrust division of the DOJ has
confirmed it is conducting an investigation into anticompetitive
practices in the packaged seafood sector in the US. The DOJ has
convened a grand jury in the northern district of California.

In its motion to intervene in the civil litigation, DOJ stated:
"Both the civil and criminal cases pertain to allegations of
collusive conduct among packaged seafood manufacturers" in
violation of the Sherman Act.

The complaint for the direct buyers' section of the class action,
which Mr. Lebsock's firm Hausfeld are representing, indicates the
DOJ likely has an amnesty applicant.

"Typically, the DOJ gets documents and other information from an
amnesty applicant, and then goes to the other companies.  This can
result in guilty pleas if the DOJ believes that there is enough
evidence to justify a prosecution," said Mr. Lebsock.  "When
deciding on the level of a fine, the DOJ will look at how culpable
was a company, how co-operative they were and also how solvent the
company is."

In one of the civil lawsuits filed last year, Starkist was named
as being the likely amnesty applicant.  Then, latter lawsuits
stated it is likely to be Chicken of the Sea.

The amended complaints, however, hedge their bets somewhat.  They
all state that Thai Union, the owner of Chicken of the Sea, and
Bumble Bee have publicly stated they have been subpoenaed by the
DOJ, but Starkist has not.

The class action from the direct buyer plaintiffs stated it has
been publicly reported Chicken of the Sea is the amnesty
applicant.


CAREMARK PHC: Class of Call Center Reps Certified in "Woods" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen R. Bough granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit titled TIMOTHY WOODS and
KIMBERLY GIBSON, On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly
Situated v. CAREMARK PHC, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION
and CAREMARK, L.L.C., Case No. 4:14-cv-00583-SRB (W.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiffs have moved the Court to conditionally certify a
nationwide collective of all current and former Caremark/CVS non-
exempt hourly Customer Care Representatives, who worked at any of
Caremark's/CVS' call centers as a telephone-dedicated customer
service employee in the past three years.  The Plaintiffs alleged
that the putative collective members were victims of a single
decision, policy, or plan implemented by the Defendants resulting
in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Judge Bough directed the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs
within 14 days of the Order the names, last known addresses, and
electronic e-mail addresses of all former and current employees of
Caremark/CVS who worked as non-exempt, hourly, telephone-dedicated
customer service employees at any of Caremark/CVS call centers at
any time up to three years prior to the agreed tolling date.
Judge Bough also approved the same notice and dissemination plan
previously ordered -- i.e. mailing notice as well as e-mailing
reminder notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t7bb38zA


CARIDAD-BRONX: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Sanchez, and all other persons similarly situated v.
Caridad-Bronx Restaurant Corp., and Orquidia Andreyev, Case No.
1:16-cv-05908 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1436
Williamsbridge Road, Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COBALT MORTGAGE: "Grewe" Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCENE GREWE and LORI EBERHARD, on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COBALT MORTGAGE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C16-0577-JCC (W.D. Wash.), District Judge John
C. Coughenour approved the parties' second motion for settlement
approval after reviewing that the settlement of $650,000 reflects
a fair and reasonable amount for the 427 putative class members.

The case involves a collective action settlement under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In the case, the Court ruled that the supplemental brief of the
Defendant's total equity is more than sufficient to cover the
settlement amount.

Francene Grewe, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Beth E. Terrell
-- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
& Rowdy B. Meeks -- owdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com -- ROWDY MEEKS
LEGAL GROUP LLC, pro hac vice.

Cobalt Mortgage Inc, Defendant, represented by Taylor S. Ball -
taylorball@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Ryan Coby Hess, DAVIS
WRIGHT TREMAINE & Sheehan H. Sullivan Weiss --
sheehansullivanweiss@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


COMCAST CORP: Washington AG Sues Over Consumer Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seal, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the
Washington Attorney General's Office has sued Philadelphia-based
cable and internet titan Comcast Corp. in King County Superior
Court, alleging 1.8 million violations of the state's Consumer
Protection Act for misrepresentations, overcharges and improper
practices.  The lawsuit seeks refunds for approximately 500,000
Washington residents and more than $100 million in total damages,
the office said.

By claiming that its service protection plan was "comprehensive,"
despite the fact that it covers only a narrow scope of repairs,
Comcast deceived roughly 500,000 Washington customers in the past
five years into paying $4.99 per month for the plan, the office
said in a complaint filed on Aug. 1.  From January 2013 through
July 2015, consumers paid $41.6 million in subscription fees --
allegedly due to deceptive advertising -- for a plan that helped
them avoid just $5 million in service call charges, the complaint
said.  It also alleged the company deceives consumers through its
customer guarantee that they won't be charged for a service visit
resulting from an issue with Comcast's equipment or network, as
well as CPA violations tied to the company's credit-screening
tactics.

Comcast said the service protection plan gives great value to
consumers by covering more than 99 percent of their repair calls.
The company also said it worked with the Attorney General's Office
to address issues it raised, and improved its services based on
the office's input.

"Given that we were committed to continue working collaboratively
with the Attorney General's Office, we're surprised and
disappointed that they have instead chosen litigation," the
company said in a statement.  "We stand behind our products and
services and will vigorously defend ourselves."

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the case represented
a "classic example" of corporate deception for financial gain.

"I won't allow Comcast to continue to put profits above customers
-- and the law," he said in a statement.

The Attorney General's Office said the complaint is the first of
its kind, but noted that the service protection plan is used
nationally and many of the improper practices are used in all of
Comcast's markets.

According to the lawsuit, Comcast's protection plan allows
customers to avoid service call fees if they have a problem
requiring an on-site visit from a technician.  But the company
"grossly misrepresented" the plan, the Attorney General's Office
said.  For example, despite telling consumers it would cover all
"inside wiring," Comcast did not include wiring inside a home's
walls under the plan's coverage, the lawsuit said.  The plan often
failed to cover any repairs at all because of limitations in its
terms and conditions, the complaint said.

"Deception formed the core of Comcast's service protection plan
sales pitch," the complaint said.

Through its customer guarantee, Comcast further deceived
Washington residents, charging thousands of them for service calls
resulting from an equipment or network problem, including issues
with HDMI and component cables and cable cards, the complaint
said.  The company also gave its technicians a fix code that
allowed them to add service charges to a visit that would not
normally be charged.

Comcast's credit-screening practices comprised a third facet of
the lawsuit, which alleged that the company improperly obtained
deposits from more than 6,000 Washington customers in violation of
the CPA.  New Comcast customers are subjected to a credit
screening prior to obtaining service, unless they pay Comcast a
deposit to avoid the screening -- and for those with low credit
scores, the deposit is required.  Comcast obtained deposits from
individuals with high credit scores, "revealing that they
improperly ran credit checks on customers who paid a deposit to
avoid the credit check," the complaint said.

In some cases, the Attorney General's Office alleged, Comcast ran
credit checks on consumers more than a day after they paid the
deposit to avoid the checks.  The credit checks cost between $50
and $150, the complaint said, and they result in a hit on the
consumer's credit profile that can damage their credit score.
The complaint sought a decree that Comcast committed unfair and
deceptive acts, and a permanent injunction against the alleged
conduct.  It also requested civil penalties of up to $2,000 per
violation of the state's unfair-competition law, as well as
restitution of more than $73 million in service protection plan
subscriber payments and at least $1 million in restitution for
service calls that applied an improper resolution code.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gary Feinerman entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Walter Williams, Plaintiff, v. Sheriff of Cook County, et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07639 (N.D. Ill.), continuing
Plaintiff's motion to certify case as class action.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 4, 2016,
the Court further:

     (1) granted Plaintiff's motion to set hearing and
         application for preliminary injunction; and

     (2) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion to
         authorize expedited discovery.

Preliminary injunction hearing, limited to Plaintiff's individual
claim, is set for August 24, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. By August 22,
2016, each party shall file an exhibit list and a witness list for
the preliminary injunction hearing. Both sides may take expedited
discovery limited to the matter to be addressed at the preliminary
injunction hearing. The Defendants may take the expedited
deposition of the detained pro se plaintiff, Walter Williams. The
Initial status hearing is set for September 22, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=f1L333Ow


COVISINT CORP: December 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP regarding the Covisint
Corporation Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KAREN J. DESROCHER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COVISINT CORPORATION, COMPUWARE CORPORATION, DAVID A. MCGUFFIE,
ENRICO DIGIROLAMO, ROBERT C. PAUL, BERNARD M. GOLDSMITH,
WILLIAM O. GRABE, RALPH J. SZYGENDA, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC, EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., and PACIFIC CREST SECURITIES
LLC,

Defendants.


Civil Action No. 14 cv-03878-AKH

CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE


TO:      ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF COVISINT
CORPORATION ("COVISINT") PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO COVISINT'S
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2013
THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 14, 2014

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on December 15, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., before
the Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge,
at the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom
14D, New York, New York, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Action for
the principal amount of Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000.00)
cash, plus interest, should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation of Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application
of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses
and the application of Plaintiffs for an award of time and
expenses in connection with this Action should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED ANY COVISINT COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR
TRACEABLE TO COVISINT'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING DURING THE PERIOD
FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 14, 2014,
INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
ACTION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY
POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OF COVISINT COMMON STOCK DURING
THE CLASS PERIOD.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies
by writing to Covisint Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30228, College
Station, TX 77842-3228, or on the internet at
www.covisintsecuritieslitigation.com.  If you are a Class Member,
in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail or online no
later than October 19, 2016, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  You will be bound by any Judgment rendered in the
Action unless you timely and validly request to be excluded, in
writing, by filling out the Request for Exclusion form attached to
the Notice, received by November 28, 2016.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
fee and expense application must be received, not simply
postmarked, by each of the following recipients no later than
December 1, 2016:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY  10007

Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
FRANK J. JOHNSON
600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
San Diego, CA  92101

Counsel for Defendants:

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
ROBERT E. ZIMET
Four Times Square
New York, NY  10036

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
ADAM S. HAKKI
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY  10022

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the addresses listed above.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
DATED: July 7, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


COWAY: Faces Class Action Over Defective Water Purifiers
--------------------------------------------------------
Lee Hyo-sik, writing for Korea Times, reports that nearly 300
people have filed a class-action lawsuit against Coway over its
defective ice/water purifiers, demanding some 740 million won
($655,000) in compensation.

Lawyer Nam Hee-woong submitted a petition to the Seoul Central
District Court, on July 26, on behalf of 297 users of Coway's
three nickel-contaminated water purifier models: CHPI-380N (CPI-
380N), CHPCI-430N and CPSI-370N.

The lawsuit demands that Coway pay each plaintiff 2.5 million won:
1.5 million won in health examination fees and 1 million won in
consolation money.

Nam said Coway did not notify its customers of the defect even
though it was aware that the purified water was contaminated by
nickel, stressing that they suffered significant health damage.

"We need to conduct a thorough health exam on those who drank
nickel-tainted water to find out what physical damage they
suffered," Nam said.  "The court will side with the plaintiffs
because they were traumatized by the fact that they were exposed
to hazardous material for an extended period of time."

The lawyer said another group of Coway customers, which could
reach as many as 1,000, will file another class-action lawsuit
against the company.

Coway said it became aware of the lawsuit from media reports.
"When we are formally notified by the court, we will deal with the
matter in a faithful and responsible manner," a company spokesman
said.

On July 4, Coway issued a recall and apologized, saying that it
would compensate all buyers of its three controversial water
purifier models.  It also said it would take full responsibility
for health issues caused by the defect.

However, the company has not been able to ease public outrage
because it intentionally did not tell the users for more than a
year about the defect.  Instead of notifying consumers of its
findings, Coway had repaired and exchanged the affected products
through after-sales service.

According to Nam, at the center of the lawsuit is whether users of
the defective ice/water purifiers suffered any health damage from
drinking nickel-contaminated water.  The lawyer argues that even
when consumed in small amounts, nickel can cause cancer,
allergies, asthma and other illnesses.

Currently, the Ministry of Environment and the Korean Agency for
Technology and Standards are jointly conducting a study on
nickel's harmful effects on humans.

Coway said it has completed about 80 percent of the recall by
collecting about 92,000 purifiers in question.  It plans to take
back the remaining 20 percent or 18,000 by the end of July.


CREDIT BUREAU: Class Certification Sought in "Pietraszewski" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Pietraszewski moves the Court to certify the class
described in the lawsuit styled PATRICIA PIETRASZEWSKI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA COUNTY, INC., d/b/a CHASE RECEIVABLES, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01015-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks requests that
the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant her (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the motion.

Ms. Pietraszewski asserts that Damasco and decisions like it
imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's
Counsel, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir.
2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787
(7th Cir. 2015).  To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a
putative class representative's individual stake in the
litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs
to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a
motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until
discovery could commence.

As this Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco,
the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, Ms. Pietraszewski contends.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7zlhzDu6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT CONTROL: O'Connell Seeks Certification of Class in Wisc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
James O'Connell moves the Court to certify the class described in
the lawsuit titled JAMES O'CONNELL, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-01016 (E.D. Wisc.).  He further asks the Court to both
stay the motion for class certification and to grant him (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the motion.

Mr. O'Connell asserts that Damasco and decisions like it imposed
significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel,
citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).  To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative
class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the
Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a
certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to
stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could
commence.

As this Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco,
the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CT & TC: Faces "Wen" Suit in Eastern District New York
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against CT & TC Corporation. The case is
captioned Qing Cong Wen, Si Ning Yuan, Wen Jie Hu, Jin Long Li,
Elva Lin, Zhen Run Situ, Cheung Ning Lai, and View H. Chung,
individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. CT & TC Corporation, d/b/a Orient Odyssey; V & T
Kitchen Corp., d/b/a The Orient Restaurant; Cheong Kan Tan; Vicky
Tan; and Tong Hwa Chu, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04214
(E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2016).

CT & TC operates the Orient Odyssey restaurant.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


CYTRX CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on July 25 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
investors who purchased CytRx Corporation ("CytRx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:CYTR) securities between November 18, 2014, and
July 11, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  CytRx investors
have sixty days from the date of this notice to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their CytRx investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the clinical hold placed on
the Phase 3 trial of aldoxorubicin for STS would prevent
sufficient follow-up for patients involved in the study; (2) that,
as a result, nearly half of all patients would be censored
(excluded) from the progression free survival evaluation; (3)
that, in response, CytRx would likely conduct a second analysis;
(4) that, as such, the results of the trial could be materially
affected and/or approval of aldoxorubicin for STS could be
delayed; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about CytRx's business, operations, and prospects, were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased shares of CytRx during the Class Period you have
sixty days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish
to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


DHL: November 4 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased Freight Forwarding Services Providing domestic
and international shipping, You Could Get Benefits from a $53.55
Million Settlement

If you or your company used the services of certain freight
forwarders, you may be entitled to a potentially significant cash
payment from class action Settlements.  Settlements have now been
reached with the final two Defendants.  Settlements were
previously reached with 29 Defendants.

The Settlements involve a lawsuit claiming that certain freight
forwarding companies secretly agreed to prices for their freight
forwarding services worldwide, including on routes in the U.S. and
between the U.S. and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, India,
Germany, the U.K. and other parts of Europe.  The Settling
Defendants deny that they did anything wrong.

Freight Forwarders provide transportation, or logistics services
for shipments relating to the organization or transportation of
items via air and ocean, which may include ancillary rail
and truck services, both nationally and internationally, as well
as related activities such as customs clearance, warehousing,
and ground services.

Who is Included
You may be included in one or more of the Settlements (as a Class
Member) if you: (1) Directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services; (2) from any of the Defendants, their subsidiaries, or
affiliates; (3) from January 1, 2001 through January 4, 2011; (4)
in the U.S., or outside the U.S. for shipments within, to, or from
the U.S.

What Do the Settlements Provide?
DHL and Hellmann will establish a $53,550,000 Settlement Fund. The
amount of your benefits will be determined by the Plan of
Allocation, which is posted on www.FreightForwardCase.com

How to Get Benefits?
You need to submit a Claim Form, online or by mail, by April 3,
2017 to get a payment from the Settlements.  You can obtain a
Claim Form by calling one of the numbers below or visiting the
website.  If you already submitted a Claim Form for the first or
second round of Settlements, you do not need to file a new claim.
You will automatically be paid from this third round of
Settlements.

Your Other Rights
Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions.
If you want to keep your right to sue DHL or Hellmann
yourself, you must exclude yourself by September 20, 2016 from
that Settlement.  If you stay in a particular Settlement, you
may object to it by September 20, 2016.

The Court has appointed lawyers to represent you at no charge to
you.  You may hire your own lawyer at your own cost.  The Court
will hold a hearing on November 4, 2016 to consider whether
to approve: (1) the Settlements, (2) a request for attorneys' fees
up to 33% of the Settlement Fund, plus interest, and
reimbursement for litigation expenses; and (3) a request for Class
Representative service awards of no more than $75,000
each.  You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing.

This notice is only a summary. For detailed information:
Call U.S. & CANADA: 1-877-276-7340 (Toll-Free)
INTERNATIONAL: 1-503-520-4400 (Toll) or Visit
www.FreightForwardCase.com


DOONEY & BOURKE: Court Dismisses "Rael" False Discount Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MONICA RAEL, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOONEY & BOURKE, INC., a
Connecticut corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case
No. 16cv0371 JM(DHB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller granted
Dooney & Bourke, Inc.'s (D&B) motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
first amended class action complaint, with leave to amend.

The plaintiff was granted 14 days to file a second amended
complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Miller's July 22, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/ykz6qy from Leagle.com.

The case concerns allegations that the defendant D&B is engaged in
false discount pricing by offering outlet store merchandise at
purported discounts from fabricated "original" prices.  Monica
Rael, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, asserted
causes of action for (1) violations of California's Unfair
Competition Laws (UCL), California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq.; (2) violation of California's False
Advertising Laws (FAL), California Business & Professions Code
section 17500, et seq.; (3) violation of California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code section 1750, et seq.;
(4) violation of the consumer protection laws on behalf of classes
of states with similar laws; and (5) negligent misrepresentation.

Monica Rael, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Courtney Casola --
bcasola@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter LLP & Todd D. Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
-- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP.

Dooney & Bourke, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles E. Loeser
-- cloeser@cravath.com -- Cravath Swain & Moore LLP, pro hac vice,
J. Wesley Earnhardt -- wearnhardt@cravath.com -- Cravath Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Sean Freund -- freundr@gtlaw.com
-- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Robert J. Herrington, Greenberg Traurig,
LLP, Roger G. Brooks -- rgbrooks@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas J. McAndrew, Thomas J. McAndrew,
Esq., Ltd., pro hac vice.


EATON CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on July 25 disclosed
that on July 22, 2016, it filed a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of its client Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan
("Local 449") against Eaton Corporation plc ("Eaton" or the
"Company") (NYSE:ETN), and certain of its senior executives
(collectively, "Defendants").  The action, which is captioned
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Eaton Corporation plc, No.
16-cv-5894 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Eaton between November 13, 2013 and July 28, 2014, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's unencumbered ability
to divest its automobile-part manufacturing business.  Eaton is an
Ireland-based manufacturer of engineered products marketed to
customers in the industrial, agricultural, construction,
aerospace, and vehicle markets.  For most of its 100 year history,
Eaton primarily was a vehicle component manufacturer.  Since 2008,
however, the Company has been making strategic shifts away from
its vehicle business, while growing its electrical component
businesses.

In 2012, the Company engaged in a merger (the "Merger") with the
Irish-headquartered Cooper Industries plc. ("Cooper"), which
reincorporated the Company in Ireland.  Following the Merger, and
during the Class Period, in response to questions from securities
analysts about the effect of the Merger on the Company's ability
to spin-off its business, Eaton executives falsely assured
investors and the market of the continued feasibility of divesting
the Company's automobile-part manufacturing business on a tax-free
basis.  This prospect was key to investors' and analysts' ability
to value the Company.  As a result, Eaton and its executives
artificially inflated the price of Eaton stock.

On July 29, 2014, Eaton Chief Executive Officer Alexander M.
Cutler ("Cutler") finally informed investors that, contrary to the
Company's prior assurances, Eaton could not feasibly divest its
vehicle business until late 2017 due to tax-law restrictions
related to the Merger with Cooper.  Defendant Cutler further
revealed that the Company had been "well aware" of these
restrictions "all along."  This disclosure caused a material
decline in the price of Eaton stock.

If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of
Eaton during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and
may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York no later than September 23, 2016.  A
lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com

You can view a copy of the complaint online at:

                     https://is.gd/FAiCWc

Local 449 is represented by Labaton Sucharow --
http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest
pension funds in the United States and internationally with
collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half
century of securities litigation experience, 60 full-time
attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts,
and forensic accountants.  Labaton Sucharow has been recognized
for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently
ranked in leading industry publications.  Offices are located in
New York, NY, and Wilmington, DE.


ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased shares of EndoChoice Holdings, Inc. ("EndoChoice" or the
"Company") pursuant and or traceable to the Company's Registration
Statement issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public
Offering on or about June 5, 2016.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint alleges that the documents issued with the Initial
Publice Offering (the "IPO") were materially misleading and/or
omitted material facts.  On June 5, 2015, EndoChoice launched its
IPO of 6,350,000 shares priced at $15.00 per share of common
stock.  On November 5, 2015, EndoChoice revealed a drop in Fuse
placements in the third quarter and announced it had joined a
strategic partnership with De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc.
to provide new financing options for US EndoChoice customers.
Following this news, EndoChoice stock dropped over 22%.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action.  To discuss
this action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/#!gi/de2saor contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
EndoChoice, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  In addition to representing institutions and other
investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the
firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial
litigation, as well as securities arbitration.


EVOLVED INC: "Perkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Perkins, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Evolved, Inc., Skin F/X
Inc., and Nicholas S. Wolak, Case No. 2:16-cv-00724-JLG-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio, July 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in tanning, tattooing, piercing and
jewelry sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
      COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 949-1181
      Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
      E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

         - and -

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Jason C. Cox, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              jcox@barkanmeizlish.com


FACEBOOK INC: Insurers in Dispute Over Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Larry P. Schiffer, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that most significant
insureds that provide services purchase both directors and
officers liability insurance ("D&O") and errors and omissions
insurance ("E&O").  When the services provided are that of a stock
exchange, claims by investors against the exchange for wrongful
acts concerning the listing of a security may implicate both types
of coverage.  In a recent case, a court construed the interplay
between these coverages and the application of the professional
services exclusion typically found in D&O policies.

In Beazley Ins. Co. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., No. 15-cv-5119 (JSR),
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90332 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2016), a coverage
dispute arose between the insured's E&O carriers and its D&O
carriers over who should contribute to the settlement of an
investor class action over the initial public offering of Facebook
on the NASDAQ.  The E&O insurers advanced defense costs for the
underlying various class actions and ultimately settled with the
class action plaintiffs on the underlying allegations. The D&O
insurers, however, disclaimed coverage based on the D&O policy's
professional services exclusion.

In the coverage/contribution litigation between the E&O and D&O
carriers, the court, in an earlier decision, granted the E&O
carriers partial summary judgment against the primary D&O carrier
on the issue of defense costs.  The issue in this decision
concerned the applicability of the professional services exclusion
in the D&O policy to the claims made in the underlying class
action.

The exclusion provided that "[t]he Insurer shall not be liable for
that portion of Loss on account of any Claim: . . . by or on
behalf of a customer or client of the Company, alleging, based
upon, arising out of, or attributable to the rendering or failure
to render professional services." As the court pointed out,
neither customer or client nor professional services is defined.

In finding in favor of the applicability of the exclusion, the
court held that the underlying plaintiffs, retail investors in
Facebook, were unambiguously customers or clients of the exchange.
The court reached its conclusion by construing federal securities
case law and the custom and usage of these terms in that context.
The court also found that industry usage also reinforced and
confirmed its conclusion.  Thus, the court concluded that a
reasonably intelligent person who is cognizant of the customs,
practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the
industry would understand customers as that term is used in the
professional services exclusion to unambiguously encompass retail
investors.  Finding no ambiguity, the court did not need to resort
to extrinsic evidence.

The court then went on to conclude that the underlying claims were
alleging, based upon, arising out of, or were attributable to the
rendering or failure to render professional services as a matter
of law.  The court used a "but for" analysis to reach this
conclusion.  But for the excluded conduct, could the claim
otherwise succeed.  The court found that "the federal securities
claims would have failed but for NASDAQ's allegedly botched
rending of professional services."  The court concluded that
because the professional services exclusion unambiguously applied,
the court did not have to resort to construing the contract
against the drafter and held that the D&O carriers had no duty to
indemnify NASDAQ.

Notably, however, the court did not relieve the primary D&O
carrier of its responsibility for advancing defense costs based on
the earlier holding and the broader duty to defend.


FIRST NATIONAL: Court Partly Grants Attorney's Fees, Costs
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL MUNGER, Plaintiff, v. FIRST NATIONAL
COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-11276 (E.D. Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson
granted in part the plaintiff's petitions for attorney's fees.

The plaintiff, Michael Munger, filed a complaint on April 3, 2015,
alleging in a single count violations of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act (FDCPA), based on the allegedly deceptive
communications in the defendants' dunning letter.

The case was resolved initially when Munger accepted an offer of
judgment, in which the defendants offered to pay $3,001, plus the
"[p]laintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs."  The parties
have not been able to agree on an amount of those fees and costs,
which led to the filing of three petitions for attorney fees
separately filed by the five attorneys who appeared for Munger as
counsel of record in this case.  They sought fees and costs in
excess of $106,000.  They conceded that almost all of their
billing is derived from or related to work done in contemplation
of the class claims that never proceeded.

Judge Lawson concluded that it is not reasonable to allow
attorney's fees for work done on a claim that was never advanced
because Munger accepted the offer of judgment.  No class was
certified, and there was no class recovery.  Therefore, the judge
held that the petitions for attorney's fees will be allowed only
for fees incurred on the case absent the putative class claims,
and denied in all other respects.

Judge Lawson held that the plaintiff's attorneys are entitled to
attorney's fees and costs totaling only $8,594.69.

A full-text copy of Judge Lawson's July 25, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/3Cz4J7 from Leagle.com.

Michael Munger, Plaintiff, represented by David Scott Parnell --
david@parellfirm.com -- The Parnell Firm, PLLC, Lynn H. Shecter,
Roy, Shecter, and Vocht, P.C., Sean R. O'Mara, O'Mara Law Firm PC,
William A. Roy, Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C. & Michelle E. Vocht,
Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C..

First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Charity A. Olson, Olson Law Group, Matthew Philip Kostolnik --
matt.kostolnik@lawmoss.com -- Moss & Barnett, A Professional
Association & Michael S. Poncin -- mike.poncin@lawmoss.com -- Moss
& Barnett.

Resurgent Capital Services L.P., Defendant, represented by Charity
A. Olson, Olson Law Group & Michael S. Poncin, Moss & Barnett.


FISERV INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Los Angeles man has filed a class-action suit against a
debt collector over allegations it used an autodialer to
repeatedly call him despite his requests to stop.

Jason Alan filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on July 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Fiserv Inc. and Does 1-10 alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in
March 2015, he sustained damages and charges for incoming calls
from the defendants in an attempt to collect an alleged debt.  The
plaintiff holds Fiserv Inc. and Does 1-10 because the defendants
allegedly contacted plaintiff several times using an automatic
dialing system despite his requests to stop calling.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages for each and every violation, $1,500 in treble damages for
each and every violation and any other relief as the court deems
just.  He is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Meghan E. George and
Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman in Beverly
Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-05479


FITBIT INC: Judge Sends Securities Actions Back to State Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston granted the Plaintiffs' motions to
remand their securities class actions to state court finding that
the intent of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
(SLUSA) explicitly divested state courts of jurisdictions over
class actions, and following the persuasiveness of previous
authority showing a great majority of other judges in similar
cases finds that remand is proper.

The adjudged related cases are captioned, RAUL RIVERA, Plaintiff,
v. FITBIT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02890-SI (N.D.
Calif.) and ANA DA LUZ, Plaintiff, v. FITBIT, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-03381-SI, (N.D. Calif.). The "Rivera"
case is sent back to the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, while the "Da Luz" case is
remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Francisco.

Plaintiffs' request for awards of attorneys' fees is denied.
District courts have ample discretion when deciding whether to
award attorneys' fees in an order to remand, the Court said.

A copy of the Court's decision dated July 27, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/UQ1cCZfrom Leagle.com.

Raul Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Robbins --
brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, George Carlos
Aguilar -- gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP & Jay
Nabil Razzouk -- jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.

Fitbit, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Ryan M. Keats --
ryan.keats@aporter.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Anna Erickson
White -- AVickery@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by
Jonathan Rosenberg - jrosenberg@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
pro hac vice, Matthew David Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny
& Myers LLP, William Sushon -- wsushon@omm.com -- O'Melveny and
Myers LLP, pro hac vice & Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice.


FONTEM US: Sept. 12 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, In re
Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.,
filed 2015), a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss is
scheduled for September 12, 2016.

In In re Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig. (U.S.D.C.
C.D. Cal., filed 2015), the plaintiffs brought a class action
against RAI, Lorillard, another RAI affiliate, and two other
defendants on behalf of putative classes of California, New York,
and Illinois purchasers of blu brand e-cigarettes. This action
results from the consolidation of two actions - Diek v. Lorillard
Tobacco Co. and Whitney v. ITG Brands, LLC. The plaintiffs allege
that certain advertising, marketing and packaging materials for
blu brand e-cigarettes made deceptive claims, omitted material
information, or failed to contain required disclosures.

On behalf of one or more of the classes, the plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, equitable relief, and compensatory and punitive
damages under California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et seq., California
Business & Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq., California
Business and Professions Code Sec.17,500 et seq., New York General
Business Law Sec. 349, and Illinois Consumer Fraud And Deceptive
Business Practices Act Sec. 505/1 et seq. Pursuant to the terms of
the asset purchase agreement relating to the Divestiture, RAI
tendered the defense of the now-consolidated Diek and Whitney
actions to, and sought indemnification for those actions from,
ITG. Pursuant to the terms, limitations and conditions of the
asset purchase agreement relating to the Divestiture, ITG agreed
to defend and indemnify RAI and its affiliates against losses
arising from the operation of the blu brand e-cigarette business.

On May 20, 2016, the trial court stayed the matter pending the
outcome of the appeals in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Jones v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, that
are pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The stay does
not apply to finalizing the pleadings and related briefing.

On May 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint. Briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss is underway, and a hearing on that motion is scheduled for
September 12, 2016.


FOREMOST INSURANCE: Court Wants Class Certification Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan O. Hickey granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to
withdraw a previously filed motion for class certification without
prejudice to refiling, in the lawsuit styled DAVID BRADEN and DALE
BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND
RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-04114-SOH (W.D.
Ark.).

The Court finds that Plaintiffs should be permitted to withdraw
their previously filed Motion for Class Certification and be
permitted to refile the Class Certification Motion after class
certification discovery has been conducted.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=un2yAvcR


FRESNO, CA: Residents Face Rusty Water Problems
-----------------------------------------------
Gene Haagenson, writing for KFSN, reports that some residents have
already paid to have their plumbing re-done.  While others are
waiting for the city to figure out what's wrong.

So far, residents of a few hundred Fresno homes have expressed
concerns about rust colored water to the city.

A similar problem afflicted 5,000 homes in Santa Clarita and
resulted in a lot of work for southern California plumbers.

"We'd come up, just the kids would say can I have something to
drink and you'd go to pour and instead of being nice and clear it
was brown," Dorothy Belli of Santa Clarita said.  "It was
horrible."

The 2,151 residents of the neighborhood in Santa Clarita say they
can relate to the water problems in northeast Fresno.

Just 20 years ago, they started having rusty, discolored water
coming out of their faucets and discovered they had corroded and
leaking pipes.

Nobody listened to their complaints until they went to court.

"It was an extreme hassle," resident John Hunsinger said.  "We had
to initiate a class action lawsuit against the developer in order
to recover our costs of repairing and replacing the pipe, it
wasn't something we wished to go through and hopefully won't go
through again."

The finally got a settlement of more than $40 million against a
Korean pipe manufacturer, developers and contractors who built
their neighborhood.

"Yeah, real pain you expect, especially from the builder who has a
reputation out here you would expect to get something top
quality," resident Mark Link said.

The money from that settlement went to replace the plumbing in
5,000 homes but it may be too late for that kind of action in
Fresno.

"You are time barred because of the fact the lawsuit was not filed
within 10 years of the time the house was completed," attorney
Russell Cook said.

Mr. Cook handles construction cases in Fresno.

He says the statute of limitations on building defects is 10 years
whether the homeowner was aware of the problem or not.

Most of the homes affected in Fresno were built in the late 80's
and early 90's.  The rusty water problems started in 2004 with the
opening of the city's surface water treatment plant.

"That would be their argument that the PH of the water caused the
pipe to rust and fail.  But that still is governed by the 10-year
statute of limitations," he explained.

The city has blamed Korean pipe manufacturer DongBu, the same
company that had defective pipes in Santa Clarita.

But some affected Fresno residents think the city may have failed
to properly treat it's water, causing the corrosion.

The city is investigating and has not accepted responsibility.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Sanchez" Suit Sent to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ABEL SANCHEZ, et al, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-50
(S.D. Tex.), Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos granted the motion filed
by the defendants to compel arbitration.

Judge Ramos ordered the parties to submit their claims to
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the defendants' plan, termed
"Solutions: An Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure."

A full-text copy of Judge Ramos' July 22, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/xTtn5K from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs filed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit
as a collective action for unpaid overtime wages against General
Electric Company, GE Oil & Gas, Inc., GE Oil & Gas Logging
Services, Inc., and GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, LP (jointly GE)
on February 15, 2016.  The plaintiffs also asserted a class action
for declaratory judgment on behalf of all workers who had signed
certain agreements releasing GE from FLSA claims, seeking to
render those agreements unenforceable.

Abel Sanchez, Lamont Moore, Plaintiffs, represented by Austin W.
Anderson, Anderson2X, PLLC, James Rick Holstein, Phipps Anderson
Deacon, Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Anderson2X, PLLC, Rose Vela, Rose
Vela Attorney at Law & William Clifton Alexander, Anderson2X,
PLLC.

Derrick Corpus, Plaintiff, represented by William Clifton
Alexander, Anderson2X, PLLC, Austin W. Anderson, Anderson2X, PLLC,
James Rick Holstein, Phipps Anderson Deacon, Lauren Elizabeth
Braddy, Anderson2X, PLLC & Rose Vela, Rose Vela Attorney at Law.

General Electric Company, GE Oil & Gas, Inc., GE Oil & Gas Logging
Services, Inc., GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, LP, Defendants,
represented by Carolyn A. Russell --
carolyn.russell@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins et al &
Stephen Jose Quezada -- stephen.quezada@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


GROUPON INC: Appeal Filed From W.D.N.C. Ruling in "Keena" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Erin Keena filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled ERIN KEENA, for herself and all others similarly
situated v. GROUPON, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00520-GCM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina at Charlotte.

The appellate case is captioned as ERIN KEENA, for herself and all
others similarly situated v. GROUPON, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 16-1873, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 14,
2016, Judge Graham C. Mullen granted Groupon Inc.'s motion to
compel arbitration of the Case.  The Case is stayed pending the
arbitrator's decision.  A full-text copy of Judge Mullen's
June 21, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/26SNZf from
Leagle.com.

Groupon is a Web-based company that partners with retail
businesses and offers the businesses' products and services for a
discounted price if purchased from Groupon's Web site.  Erin Keena
filed a suit on October 29, 2015, alleging breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and
deceit, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade practices,
fraudulent inducement, and negligence.


GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION: Court Refuses to Certify "Vasquez" Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. G. Michael Harvey denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of an opt-in collective action under the
D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act in the lawsuit styled LUIS
ALEXANDER VASQUEZ v. GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-02106-GMH (D.D.C.).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UMVaCi9v


GULF COAST: Bid to Certify FLSA Class in "Francois" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan C. Bucklew denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification and court authorized notice
in the lawsuit titled ESTIME FRANCOIS and RENETTE ORDEUS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GULF
COAST TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 8:16-cv-01061-SCB-TBM (M.D.
Fla.).

Estime Francois and Renette Ordeus allege that they were formerly
employed by the Defendant as taxicab drivers and that the
Defendant misclassified them (and all other taxicab drivers) as
independent contractors.  As a result, the Plaintiffs contend that
due to the Defendant's willful misclassification of them as
independent contractors, the Defendant did not pay taxicab drivers
any wages at all, in violation of the minimum wage requirements of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs move the Court to conditionally certify a putative
class of drivers that they describe as:

     All persons employed by [Defendant] as taxicab drivers in
     Florida from the three years preceding the filing of th[e]
     complaint through the date of final judgment in this action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H6oeQ2g6


GUTHY-RENKER: FDA Investigates Hair Product-Related Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Jacewicz, writing for NPR, reports that hair products
aren't at the top of most people's health worry list, but the Food
and Drug Administration is investigating a surprisingly high
number of reports of problems after people used a particular
cleansing conditioner.

As of July 7, the FDA had received 127 complaints of "hair loss,
hair breakage, balding, itching, and rash" after people used Wen
by Chaz Dean cleansing conditioner products -- more reports than
the agency has ever received for a cosmetic hair product.

"This kind of report is very rare," says Paradi Mirmirani, a
dermatologist in Vallejo, Calif.  "For the most part, shampoo
products out there are all very safe."  The agency's safety alert
says it has not determined a possible cause for the problems
reported.

Late last year, mediation began for a class-action lawsuit in
California against Guthy-Renker, the company that markets and
manufactures Wen.

The FDA doesn't approve cosmetics before they go on the market,
though it does set upper limits for bacteria in cosmetics and
hygiene products.  Instead, says Linda Katz, director of the FDA's
Office of Cosmetics and Colors, the agency monitors consumer
complaints for many factors to decide whether to investigate a
product.

In this case, the sheer number of complaints played a role in the
decision.  The agency says it is investigating more than 21,000
complaints reported to Chaz Dean Inc. and Guthy-Renker. (Gianna
Cesa, a PR representative for Chaz Dean, says the company did not
receive this number of complaints.)

Ms. Katz says she can't discuss any working hypotheses associated
with the investigation, though she did say investigators have no
reason to believe the product was contaminated with something
foreign, like microbes.  For now, the FDA is still gathering
information.  Officials will look at the product's quality testing
and whether there have been any changes to how the product is
made.

In an email, a spokesman for Chaz Dean said the company stands
behind its products and that "the brand has consistently
cooperated with the FDA and will continue to do so."

Dermatologists say hair care products can cause these sorts of
symptoms. One common reason is allergy.

"There are thousands of ingredients that are in personal hair
products," says Bruce Brod, a clinical professor of dermatology at
the University of Pennsylvania.  "While most people in the
population won't react to them, there's a small subpopulation that
will."

Common allergy triggers include surfactants, the ingredients in
shampoos and conditioners that make them sudsy, as well as
preservatives that increase shelf life and chemicals used to
create fragrances.

These allergic reactions can occur regardless of whether a product
is "all natural," says Dr. Mirmirani.  "Lots of plants give people
a reaction as well," she says, citing poison oak as an example.
And because allergic reactions can take a while to occur, people
may not immediately realize a hair product is causing issues.

But there are also causes of scalp problems that have nothing to
do with cosmetics, says Nicole Rogers, an assistant clinical
professor of dermatology at Tulane Medical School. For example,
she says, male-pattern or female-pattern baldness are both common
causes of hair loss.  Or a patient could suffer from alopecia
areata, a disease in which the immune system attacks hair
follicles.  She says she believes it's unlikely the consumers'
complaints are tied to Wen.

Stress, changes in diet and pregnancy can cause hair loss as well,
says Anthony Rossi, a dermatologist who serves as a consultant to
Chaz Dean's PR firm.

That said, all the doctors told Shots that people with scalp
problems should visit a dermatologist and discuss hair products,
along with other possible factors.  Doctors can do allergy tests
on patients to analyze as many as 55 potential allergy triggers.
It's important, says Mr. Brod, to look at all potential causes of
symptoms, rather than looking at Internet chat rooms alone.

"Often, there's a suggestive herd effect," he says.  "If somebody
says, 'I'm using something and it itches my scalp,' the person
next to him will say, 'You know what? Me too.' "

Ms. Katz of the FDA also urges people to visit doctors in addition
to reporting complaints to the FDA.  And if someone decides to
switch from Wen to a different conditioner,
Ms. Mirmirani says, "There's plenty more out there."


HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: "Edwards" FDCA Suit Removed to Atlanta Div.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Edwards, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Handy Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02619 (N.D. Ga., Dekalb Division, July 19, 2016), has
been removed to the Atlanta Division on July 20, 2016. Plaintiff
sues over violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Handy Technologies operates an online platform for individuals
looking for household repair services.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony Rocco Pecora, Esq.
     Matthew Anderson Dooley
     O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA CO. LPA
     5455 Detroit Road
     Sheffield Village, OH 44054
     Tel: (440) 930-4001
     Email: apecora@omdplaw.com
            mdooley@omdplaw.com

            - and -

     Clifton Dorsen, Esq.
     James Marvin Feagle
     SKAAR AND FEAGLE
     2374 Main Street, Suite B
     Tucker, GA 30084
     Tel: (404) 373-1978
     Email: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
            jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

            - and -

     Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
     Kris Kelly Skaar
     SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP - WOODSTOCK
     133 Mirramont Lake Drive
     Woodstock, GA 30189
     Tel: (770) 427-5600
     Fax: (404) 601-1855
     Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
            krisskaar@aol.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Leslie A. Dent, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON PC - ATL
     3344 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1500
     Atlanta, GA 30326-4803
     Tel: (404) 233-0330
     Fax: (404) 759-2354
     Email: ldent@littler.com


HHGREGG INC: Not Obligated to Pay Bonuses, Ind. Ct. App. Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Gregg Appliances, Inc., and HHGregg, Inc.,
Appellant-Defendant, v. Dwain Underwood, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Appellee-Plaintiff, No. 49A04-1509-
PL-1434 (Ind. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed
the trial court's ruling and directed entry of summary judgment
for HHGregg, Inc. ("Gregg").

Dwain Underwood and other senior managers at Gregg brought a class
action after Gregg did not pay them bonuses based on HHGregg's
2012 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization (EBITDA).  Gregg asserted its EBITDA was below the
threshold level for payment of the bonuses, but its calculation of
EBITDA excluded nearly 40 million dollars in life insurance
proceeds it received after its executive chairman died.  The trial
court granted summary judgment for Underwood after determining a
Total Rewards Statement (TRS) Gregg provided, indicating what
level of EBITDA would result in bonuses, required the EBITDA to
include the insurance proceeds.

The appellate court, however, held that Gregg was not obligated to
pay the bonuses.  "As the parties could not have intended the
EBITDA on which the TRS was based would include a one-time event
in the form of insurance proceeds that did not reflect the
company's performance, Gregg was entitled to summary judgment.  We
accordingly reverse and remand for entry of judgment for Gregg,"
the appellate court said.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's July 22, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/bGOR7r from Leagle.com.

Todd J. Kaiser -- todd.kaiser@ogletreedeakins.com -- Christopher
C. Murray -- christopher.murray@ogletreedeakins.com -- Amanda
Couture -- amanda.couture@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak, & Stewart, P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana,
Attorney for Appellant.

Eric S. Pavlack -- eric@pavlacklawfirm.com -- Colin E. Flora --
colin@pavlacklawfirm.com -- Pavlack Law, LLC, Indianapolis,
Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.


HIGHLAND PARK, NJ: Williams Files Appeal in 3rd Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
LOUISE M. WILLIAMS and ELIE FEUERWERKER, Individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. BOROUGH OF HIGHLAND PARK, the Defendant - Appellee, Case No.
16-3179 (3rd Cir., July 30, 2016), is an appeal filed before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from a lower
court decision in Case No. 2-15-cv-06879 (D.N.J., March 28, 2016).

Highland Park is a borough in Middlesex County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs - Appellants are represented by:

          Vahbiz P. Karanjia, Esq.
          EPSTEIN OSTROVE
          220 Davidson Avenue
          Somerset, NJ 08873
          Telephone: (732) 828 8600

               - and -

          Elliot D. Ostrove, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY
          One Jefferson Road
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (732) 828 8600

The Defendant - Appellee is represented by:

          Donald A. Klein, Esq.
          WEINER LESNIAK
          629 Parsippany Road
          P.O. Box 438
          Parsippany, NJ 07054


HILLTOP INVESTMENTS: Pension System Sues Over Lions Gate Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself
and all other similarly situated stockholder of STARZ, the
Plaintiff, v. JOHN MALONE, GREGORY MAFFEI, CHRIS ALBRECHT,
IRVING AZOFF, ANDREW T. HELLER, SUSAN LYNE, JEFF SAGANSKY, DAN
SANCHEZ, CHARLES TANABE, ROBERT S. WIESENTHAL, LESLIE MALONE,
THE TRACEY L. NEAL TRUST A, THE EVAN D. MALONE TRUST A, ROBERT R.
BENNETT, DEBORAH J. BENNETT, HILLTOP INVESTMENTS, LLC, LIONS GATE
ENTERTAINMENT CORP., AND ORION ARM ACQUISITION INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 12584 (Del. Chancery Ct., July 21, 2016), was
filed in connection with the merger between Starz and Lions Gate.

Over the last 18 months, Malone has endeavored to combine
Starz and Lions Gate. In February 2015, he swapped a portion of
his Starz stock for 4.5% of Lions Gate's outstanding shares and
received an irrevocable proxy entitling him to still vote the
Starz shares he had given to Lions Gate. Then, in November 2015,
two companies in which Malone holds significant voting power
each purchased an additional 3.4% stake in Lions Gate. Finally, on
June 30, 2016, Starz and Lions Gate announced they had reached an
agreement whereby Lions Gate would acquire Starz for $4.4 billion
in cash and stock.

Malone allegedly structured the merger in such a way that Lions
Gate will assume control over Starz (and pay Malone different and
more valuable consideration than it will pay the Company's public
stockholders), regardless of whether the Company's public
stockholders approve the deal. Moreover, Malone has deterred
potential alternative bidders from making a superior proposal
through a side agreement with Lions Gate.

Hilltop delivers investment banking and related financial
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          John C. Kairis, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Cole, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com


HOMERS TASTE: Faces "Zhu" Suit in Eastern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Homers Taste Restaurant Inc. The
case is captioned ZHENG ZHU, individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Homers Taste
Restaurant Inc., Xin Yun Bao, Xiao Lin Fang, and JOHN or JANE DOES
1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04229 (E.D.N.Y., July 29,
2016).

Homers Taste is a restaurant located at College Point Blvd,
Flushing, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


IACOBONI SITE: "Stump" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
WESLEY C. STUMP, JR. 5534 Edwin Court, White Marsh, Maryland
21162, the Plaintiff, v. IACOBONI SITE SPECIALISTS, INC., 9301
Philadelphia Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21237; and THOMAS J.
IACOBONI, 15635 Yeoho Road, Sparks, Maryland 21152, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02647-ELH (D. Md., July 21, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff has not received compensation from the Defendants
reflecting the prescribed overtime wage rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week. The Defendants allegedly did not
compensate Plaintiff for the overtime wages he was owed.

Iacoboni Site is a company that is engaged in the business of site
work including demolition, sediment control, grading, paving, and
utilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Spicer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244 7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244 8454


INNOVATIVE FACILITY: "Ocaranza" Suit Seeks OT, Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Ocaranza, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Innovative Facility Services, LLC and Does
1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC627812 (Cal. Super., June 21,
2016), seeks unpaid premium wages for failure to provide meal
periods, unpaid wages for off-the-clock hours worked,
corresponding overtime wages, indemnification for expenditures and
losses incurred for business-related expenses, restitutions of
moneys wrongfully withheld, waiting time penalties, prejudgment
interest, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
of suit and such other relief under California Labor Laws.

Defendants are in the business of providing janitorial services to
department stores and other commercial facilities in California,
where Defendant worked as a janitor.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Justian Jusuf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC
      17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
      Huntington Beach, CA 92647
      Phone: (714)274-9815
      Fax: (714)362-3148

            - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Blvd.
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Phone: (818)609-0807
      Fax: (818)609-0892


IOWA: Settles Apartments Downtown Tenants' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Schmidt, writing for The Gazette, reports a settlement
has been reached in a class-action lawsuit that pitted about
14,000 former tenants against Iowa City's largest landlord
company.

District Court Judge Chad Kepros earlier in July ordered the
settlement in the five-year-old class-action lawsuit.

With the settlement, tenants who rented with Apartments Downtown
and Apartments Near Campus -- which are operated by the same
company -- from 2010 through 2014 will receive a $65 payment for
each year of their tenancy.

The dollar figure is tied directly to a mandatory carpet-cleaning
charge that was present in the company's lease for all tenants.
Such a mandatory charge was deemed illegal.

Christopher Warnock, lawyer with the Iowa Tenants Project,
estimated the class-action case will amount to more than $1
million.

Mr. Warnock said the deadline to submit claims in the class action
suit is November 15.

Mr. Warnock said the settlement includes a court order so an Iowa
Tenants Project lawyer would handle any future tenant complaints
against Apartments Downtown.

That lawyer would represent the tenants to ensure fairness while
providing more accountability from the landlord, he said.

"While the class action settlement is great, I am even more
excited about the complaint process," Mr. Warnock said in a July
25 news release.  "We see this as a new partnership between
landlords and tenants."

The Iowa Tenant Project first began its case against Apartments
Downtown about five years ago, with a few former tenants alleging
that leases they signed with the rental provider contained
prohibited provisions, carpet-cleaning fees, responsibility for
repairs and maintenance and liquidated damages -- all of which
violated the Iowa Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act,
according to court documents.

Last summer, a Johnson County District Judge ruled that Apartments
Downtown had violated Iowa Code.  Apartments Downtown appealed the
ruling last August.


JEUNESSE LLC: Faces "Aboltin" Suit in Ariz. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Jeunesse LLC. The case is
captioned James J Aboltin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Jeunesse LLC
also known as Jeunesse Global Incorporated, a Florida limited
liability company; Wendy R Lewis, an individual, Ogale Ray, named
as Ogale "Randy" Ray, an individual; Scott A Lewis, an individual;
Kim Hui, an individual; Jason Caramanis, an individual; Alex
Morton, an individual; and Unknown Parties named as John and Jane
Does 1-100, individual natural persons, and ABC Corporations,
Companies and/or Partnerships 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02574-ESW (D. Ariz., July 30, 2016). The assigned Magistrate
Judge is Hon. Eileen S Willett.

Jeunesse develops and sells skincare products and supplements
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Geoffrey Bray, Esq.
          David Nunzio Ferrucci, Esq.
          Jonathan Scott Batchelor, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          1850 N Central Ave., Ste. 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 285 5000
          Facsimile: (602) 285 5100
          E-mail: dbray@dickinsonwright.com
                  dferrucci@dickinsonwright.com
                  jbatchelor@dickinsonwright.com


KANSAS: Mosier Appeals Ruling in Planned Parenthood Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Defendant SUSAN MOSIER, Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and
Environment in her official capacity, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Planned Parenthood, et al. v.
Mosier, Case No. 2:16-CV-02284-JAR-GLR, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas - Kansas City.

The appellate case is titled Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Mosier,
Case No. 16-3249, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 18,
2016, Judge Julie A. Robinson granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, thus
restraining Susan Mosier, in her official capacity as Secretary of
the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), her
employees, agents, and successors in office from terminating the
Medicaid provider agreements of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and
Mid-Missouri (PPKM) and Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region
and Southwest Missouri (PPSLR).  A full-text copy of Judge
Robinson's July 5, 2016 memorandum and order is available at
https://is.gd/5LvF8A from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs PPKM, PPSLR, the individual providers, and three
Jane Doe patients filed the action challenging the KDHE's decision
to terminate as Medicaid providers PPKM, PPSLR, and 11 current and
former individual providers who are, or were in the past,
employees of PPKM and PPSLR.  The challenge was brought under the
Medicaid Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution, and the plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive
relief from the termination decisions.  On June 13, 2016, the KDHE
reconsidered and reversed its decision to terminate the 11
individual health care provider plaintiffs from the Medicaid
program.  On June 29, 2016, the individual providers voluntarily
dismissed their claims in this matter.

Plaintiffs-Appellees PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF KANSAS AND MID-
MISSOURI, PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ST. LOUIS REGION, JANE DOE #1,
JANE DOE #2 and JANE DOE #3 are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Melissa Cohen, Esq.
          Diana O. Salgado, Esq.
          PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA - NY
          123 William Street, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 541-7800
          Facsimile: (212) 247-6811
          E-mail: melissa.cohen@ppfa.org
                  diana.salgado@ppfa.org

               - and -

          Douglas N. Ghertner, Esq.
          SLAGLE, BERNARD & GORMAN
          4600 Madison Ave.
          600 Plaza West Bldg.
          Kansas City, MO 64112-3012
          Telephone: (816) 410-4600
          E-mail: dghertner@sbg-law.com

Defendant-Appellant SUSAN MOSIER is represented by:

          Darian P. Dernovish, Esq.
          KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
          1000 SW Jackson; Suite 560
          Topeka, KS 66612
          E-mail: ddernovish@kdheks.gov

               - and -

          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          Patrick Strawbridge, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 247-8006
          E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com
                  patrick@consovoymccarthy.com


KOMET USA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Degnen" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John A. Ross denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled SUZANNE
DEGNEN, D.M.D., P.C. D/B/A SUNSET TOWER FAMILY DENTISTRY v. KOMET
USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01631-JAR (E.D. Mo.).

Suzanne Degnen filed the Motion concurrently with its initiation
of the lawsuit, and as discovery is not yet complete, it is too
early in the litigation for the Court to make an informed
evaluation of whether class certification is proper, Judge Ross
stated.  However, the Court noted that the United States Supreme
Court recently decided Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, holding that
"an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot
a plaintiff's case."  Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663,
672 (2016).

In light of this holding, and given the Plaintiff's early motion
for class certification, Judge Ross opined, no unaccepted offer of
judgment shall moot the case or otherwise affect a proper
determination of class certification later in the proceedings.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gLlb1qwu


KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over Listeria-Contaminated Peas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class-action suit has been filed
against a grocery chain and frozen vegetable manufacturers over
allegations that a man's family was sickened by Listeria.

Roger Coffelt Jr. filed a complaint on behalf of all those
similarly situated on July 7 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against The Kroger Co., The
Pictsweet Co. and CRF Frozen Foods LLC alleging violation of the
warranty of merchantability and negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he
purchased the defendants' frozen peas that were adulterated with
Listeria monocytogenes, a dangerous bacteria that can cause death.
The suit states that the peas caused illness to and Listeria
infection of his family members.  The plaintiff holds The Kroger
Co., The Pictsweet Co., CRF Frozen Foods LLC responsible because
the defendants allegedly grown, processed and sold the adulterated
subject frozen peas and maintained their food production and
packing facilities in an unsanitary and unhygienic condition.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
defendants for damages for not more than $30,000,000 plus
penalties, attorneys' fees and costs and for such other and
further relief as the court deems proper.  He is represented by
Clayeo C. Arnold and Joshua H. Watson of Clayeo C. Arnold APC in
Long Beach, California.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 5:16-cv-01471


LAMPS PLUS: Brief in "Varela" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Jan. 9, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK VARELA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAMPS PLUS, INC.
LAMPS PLUS CENTENNIAL, INC., LAMPS PLUS HOLDINGS, INC., and DOES,
1-10, inclusive, the Defendants - Appellants, Case No. 16-56085
(9th Cir., July 29, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a lower court
decision in Case No. 5:16-cv-00577-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal., March 29,
2016).

Appellants Does, Lamps Plus Centennial, Inc., Lamps Plus Holdings,
Inc. and Lamps Plus, Inc. opening brief is due
January 9, 2017.

Appellee Frank Varela answering brief is due January 8, 2017.

Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of
the answering brief.

The Plaintiff - Appellee is represented by:

          Richard Dale McCune, Jr., Esq.
          David Christopher Wright, Esq.
          McCUNE & WRIGHT, LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: 909 557 1250

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 North Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505

The Defendants - Appellants are represented by:

          Michael Keith Grimaldi, Esq.
          Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
          Jeffry A. Miller, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS
          BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250 1800


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Settles Securities Class Action for $26MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
StreetInsider.com on July 25 reported that Lumber Liquidators
settled its lawsuit with the "derivative defendants" but the story
runs deeper than the headlines.  The company will give $26.0
million to a settlement fund to be used to compensate those who
bought company's shares between February 22, 2012 and February 27,
2015 and issue 1 million shares valued at 16 million to provide
for compenstation.

The 8-K states: "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."

However, the full cost of the cash portion of the settlement ($26
million) is covered by insurance and the $16 million in common
stock was recognized as a charge to earnings in 1Q.  From an
accounting standpoint, other than the impact of plaintiff
litigation expenses, the charges have already been absorbed by the
company.


MAINE FISH: Dineen Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled KRISTEN DINEEN and JOHN
TEDONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. MAINE FISH MARKET RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a MAINE FISH MARKET and
NICHOLAS VAMVILIS, Case No. 3:15-cv-01554-WIG (D. Conn.), ask the
Court to enter an order:

   (1) granting preliminary approval of the parties' settlement
       agreement,

   (2) conditionally certifying the Connecticut Rule 23
       Settlement Class under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
       Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of
       effectuating the Settlement;

   (3) appointing Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC and Pechman
       Law Group PLLC as Class Counsel; and

   (4) approving the Proposed Notice of Class and Collective
       Action Settlement.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0q87wdWP

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com

               - and -

          William G. Madsen, Esq.
          MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC
          402 Asylum Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 246-2466
          Facsimile: (860) 246-1794
          E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Miguel A. Escalera, Esq.
          Shel D. Myers, Esq.
          KAINEN, ESCALERA & MCHALE, P.C.
          21 Oak Street, Suite 601
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 493-0870
          Facsimile: (860) 493-0871
          E-mail: mescalera@kemlaw.com
                  smyers@kemlaw.com


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Russell, writing for MassLive, reports that Massachusetts
Mutual Life Insurance Co. would admit to no wrongdoing should a
federal judge approve a $30.9 million settlement in a class action
lawsuit involving retirement benefits the company offers its
employees.

The plaintiffs allege that the company charged excessive fees to
employees who participated in the plan.

Lawyers representing both sides in the dispute signed a settlement
proposal filed in U.S. District Court in Springfield on June 15.
The settlement has been negotiated between the company and lawyers
representing present and former MassMutal employees who
participate in the retirement plan.

Presiding Justice Michael A. Ponsor on July 5 granted preliminary
approval to the settlement.  A hearing has been scheduled for
November to determine whether the settlement should be approved,
allowing time for those who might object to do so.

"MassMutual's Thrift Plan contains unreasonably expensive and
imprudent investment options.  The plan's fiduciaries caused and
continue to cause the plan to pay multiples of the market rate for
comparable services to institutional investors and other large
ERISA retirement plans," states the complaint, which was filed in
2013.

ERISA refers to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, which governs private pension plans and established minimum
standards.

"These funds were not selected and retained as the result of an
impartial or prudent process, but were instead selected and
retained by defendants as investment options in the plan because
defendants benefited financially from the inclusion of these
investment options," the complaint alleges.  "By choosing and then
retaining these imprudent proprietary investment options,
defendants enriched themselves at the expense of the plan."

In addition to the company, defendants named in the lawsuit are
MassMutual CEO Roger Crandall of Longmeadow; his predecessor,
Stuart Reece; and Reece's predecessor, Robert O'Connell.

MassMutual Thrift Plan members, who are current or former
employees, that filed the lawsuit in 2013 are: Dennis Gordon of
Longmeadow, John Hine of South Hadley, Ronald Lindner of West
Springfield, Donna Flieger of Palm Coast, Florida, Patricia Hurley
of Chicopee, Janice Reynolds of Agawam and Sharon Jewell of
Springfield.  They are the named plaintiffs in the class action
suit representing thousands of Thrift Plan members.

According to Fortune magazine, MassMutual has more than 11,000
employees, with $266.5 billion in assets.  The company, with $38.2
billion in revenue, was ranked 76th in the U.S. and 356th
globally.  Its headquarters are in Springfield.


MDL 2328: A Plus Appeals Ruling in Pool Products Antitrust Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs A Plus Pools Corporation, Aqua Clear Pools & Decks,
Liquid Art Enterprises, Oasis Pool Service, Incorporated, Pro Pool
Services, SPS Services, L.L.C. and Thatcher Pools, Incorporated,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in multidistrict titled In re:
Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
2:12-md-02328-SSV, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, New Orleans.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Pool Products
Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 16-30885, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Pool Corporation, SCP Distributors LLC, and Superior Pool Products
(Pool) are the country's largest distributor of products used for
the construction and maintenance of swimming pools (Pool
Products). Hayward Industries, Inc. (Hayward), Pentair Water Pool
and Spa, Inc. (Pentair), and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (Zodiac)
are the three largest manufacturers of Pool Products in the United
States.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the direct-
purchaser plaintiffs (DPPs) and indirect-purchaser plaintiffs
(IPPs) filed an antitrust case against Pool and the manufacturers.
DPPs have filed two consolidated amended complaints, the first on
June 29, 2012 and the second on June 21, 2013 each of which
defendants moved to dismiss.  The Court issued orders on both
rounds of motions to dismiss.  Following the orders, DPPs were
left with the following five claims: (1) a Section 1 claim under
the per se rule involving a horizontal agreement between the
manufacturer defendants and Pool to fix free freight minimums; (2)
three Section 1 claims under the rule of reason involving three
separate vertical conspiracies (one between Pool and each
Manufacturer Defendant) to exclude Pool's competitors; and (3) a
Section 2 attempted monopolization claim against Pool.  Defendants
have moved for summary judgment on these five claims.  In
addition, DPPs have moved for class certification.  The Court has
dismissed DPPs' Section 1 per se claim on summary judgment.

Plaintiffs-Appellants AQUA CLEAR POOLS & DECKS, A PLUS POOLS
CORPORATION, LIQUID ART ENTERPRISES, doing business as Carl
Boucher, OASIS POOL SERVICE, INCORPORATED, PRO POOL SERVICES, SPS
SERVICES, L.L.C., doing business as Premier Pools & Spas, and
THATCHER POOLS, INCORPORATED, are represented by:

          Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, L.L.P.
          10 E. 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016-0000
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
          E-mail: Aranoff@bernlieb.com

               - and -

          Leonard Arthur Davis, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, L.L.C.
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: ldavis@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW, L.L.P.
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0834
          Facsimile: (212) 883-7501
          E-mail: jhimes@labaton.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, L.L.P.
          850 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-0000
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com

Defendants-Appellees POOL CORPORATION, SCP DISTRIBUTORS, L.L.C.,
and SUPERIOR POOL PRODUCTS, L.L.C., are represented by:

          William Gaudet, Esq.
          ADAMS & REESE, L.L.P.
          701 Poydras Street
          1 Shell Square
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 581-3234
          E-mail: william.gaudet@arlaw.com

               - and -

          Wayne Joseph Lee, Esq.
          STONE PIGMAN WALTHER WITTMANN, L.L.C.
          546 Carondelet Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 593-0814
          E-mail: wlee@stonepigman.com


MDL 2437: Direct Purchasers Seek Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
13-MD-2437 (E.D. Pa.), move the Court to certify this class under
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All persons or entities that purchased Paper-backed Gypsum
     Wallboard in the United States from January 1, 2012 through
     January 31, 2013 (the "Class Period") directly from: (a)
     American Gypsum Company, LLC, Eagle Materials Inc., Lafarge
     North America, Inc., New NGC, Inc., PABCO Building Products,
     LLC, USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, TIN
     Inc., or Georgia Pacific LLC (collectively, "Manufacturer
     Co-Conspirators"); and/or (b) L&W Supply Corporation or any
     of its subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively, "L&W")
     where the Paper-backed Gypsum Wallboard was manufactured by
     American Gypsum Company, LLC, Eagle Materials Inc., PABCO
     Building Products, LLC, USG Corporation, or United States
     Gypsum Company. Excluded from the Class are (a) Manufacturer
     Co-Conspirators and Certainteed, along with each of their
     respective parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates
     (e.g., Pacific Coast Supply, LLC and L&W), and (b) federal
     governmental entities and instrumentalities of the federal
     government.

The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint (i)
Sierra Drywall Systems, Inc.; Janicki Drywall, Inc.; New Deal
Lumber & Millwork Co.; and Grubb Lumber Co., Inc. as
representatives of the Class, and (ii) the law firms of Berger &
Montague, P.C., Cohen Milstein Seller & Toll PLLC and Spector
Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. as Co-Lead Class Counsel under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

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

The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are represented by:

          H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Esq.
          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Ruthanne Gordon, Esq.
          Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Candice Enders, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: hlmontague@bm.net
                  ecramer@bm.net
                  rgordon@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net
                  cenders@bm.net

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          Rachel E. Kopp, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  jcorrigan@srkw-law.com
                  rkopp@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
          David A. Young, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
                  dyoung@cohenmilstein.com


MEMORIAL RESOURCE: Sued in Texas Over Proposed Sale to Range
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Memorial Resource Development Corp., Tony R. Weber,
Jay C. Graham, Scott A. Gieselman, Kenneth A. Hersh, Robert A.
Innamorati, Carol L. O'Neill, and Pat Wood III, Case No. 4:16-cv-
02201 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
stockholders of the common stock of Memorial Resource Development
Corp., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Memorial by Range
Resources Corporation, through a flawed process and inadequate
consideration.

Memorial Resource Development Corp. is an independent natural gas
and oil company focused on the exploitation, development, and
acquisition of natural gas, natural gas liquids and oil properties
with a majority of its activity in the Terryville Complex of North
Louisiana.

Range Resources Corporation is a petroleum and natural gas
exploration and production company headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
      New York, NY  10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
              jwilson@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY  10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


MOSER ENGINE: Schultz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF SCHULTZ, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MOSER ENGINE SERVICE, INC., and
RANDALL J. MOSER, KATHERINE I. MOSER, and JAKOB Z. NORMAN,
Individually and in Their Official Capacities, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00738 (W.D. Tex., July 21, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

While employed with Defendant, Plaintiff and other workers
similarly situated to him worked an approximate minimum of 80-120
hours per week, up to 7 days a week (for weeks at a time) as a
Generator Field Technician. However, these workers were only paid
a flat annual salary but never received overtime for all of the
hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Moser Engine is a heavy construction equipment rental company
located in Casper, Wyoming.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
          906 West Basse Road, Suite 100
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 822 5666
          Facsimile: (210) 822 5650


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Owens" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orenthal James Owens, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southeastern Conference and
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-01409 (S.D. Ind., May 17, 2016), was transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois on July 19, 2016 under Case No.
1:16-cv-07324.

Plaintiff is a former college football player who asserts that the
Defendants failed to protect the safety of student-athletes from
the dangers of repeated head injuries.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William E. Winingham, Esq.
     WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM
     2859 North Meridian Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46208
     Tel: (317) 920-6400
     Fax: (317) 920-6405
     Email: winingham@wkw.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Robert W. Fuller, Esq.
     ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA
     101 N Tryon St., Suite 1900
     Charlotte, NC 28246
     Tel: (704) 377-8324
     Fax: (704) 373-3924
     Email: rfuller@robinsonbradshaw.com

            - and -

     Todd G. Relue, Esq.
     PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP
     1346 North Delaware Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46202
     Tel: (317) 637-0700
     Fax: (317) 968-0976
     Email: trelue@psrb.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Unveils New Concussion Protocol Amid Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ken BElson, writing for The New York Times, reports that N.F.L.
teams will be subjected to fines of hundreds of thousands of
dollars and possibly the loss of draft picks if they fail to take
players out of games after sustaining a concussion, according to
new rules announced on July 25 by the league and the N.F.L.
Players Association.

The N.F.L. has come under repeated criticism, from doctors and
players, for acting slowly to address injuries from hits to the
head. Some of those who have accused the league have claimed it
has hid the dangers of head trauma and not done enough to protect
the well-being of the players.  The N.F.L. has agreed to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars to settle a class-action lawsuit,
and has donated tens of millions of dollars to companies aiming to
develop safer equipment.

Still, the league remains under an intense microscope, which is
why it felt compelled to act after several players last season
were hit in the head but not removed from the game, only to later
have concussions diagnosed.  After being lambasted for not doing
enough to enforce its own rules, the league said in February that
it would review its concussion protocol.

The most egregious case came in November when St. Louis Rams
quarterback Case Keenum was slammed to the ground after throwing
the ball late in a game against the Baltimore Ravens.  After his
head hit the turf, Mr. Keenum could be seen putting both hands on
his helmet. H e then tried to get up but fell back down.

The Rams' trainer ran onto the field to look at Keenum but
returned to the sideline without removing him from the game.  Only
after the game did the Rams test Mr. Keenum to see if he had
sustained a concussion, and it was confirmed that he had.

Teams previously were not fined for violating the league's
concussion protocol.  Under the revised rules, the league and the
union will each appoint a person to monitor games to ensure that
players are tested for concussions when warranted.

Teams that are found to have skirted the rules can be fined up to
$150,000 for a first violation, and a minimum of $100,000 for
subsequent violations.  If the commissioner determines that a
team's medical staff did not follow the concussion protocol for
competitive reasons -- for example, by keeping a concussed player
in the game -- the team could be forced to forfeit one or more
draft picks.

Separately, the league and the union said that data on injuries
would be reviewed annually to see if game rules needed to be
changed to improve player safety.  The two sides also established
a committee to review the surface of playing fields to help
prevent injuries.  Players have consistently said they prefer
playing on natural grass and have complained that fields made of
synthetic material can be too hard.


NEW YORK: "Seibert" Suit v. Tax Dept. Transferred to Albany County
------------------------------------------------------------------
Margo Seibert, Jennifer Moore, Catherine O'Neil, Natalie
Brasington and Taja-Nia Henderson, on behalf of themselves and all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The New York State
Department of Taxation and Finance and Jerry Boone in his
individual capacity and in his official capacity as the
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and
Finance, Defendants, Case No. 151800/2016 (N.Y. Sup., New York
County, March 3, 2016), was transferred to Albany County on July
21, 2016, and assigned Case No. 151800/2016.

Plaintiff alleged that tampon and sanitary pad sales tax imposed
by the State is discriminatory against women.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ilann M. Maazel, Esq.
     Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq.
     Zoe Salzman, Esq.
     EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
     600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
     New York, NY 10020
     Tel: (212) 763-50000


NEWBY ISLAND: Landfill Odor Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Bauer, writing for Milpitas Post, reports that a class-action
lawsuit that alleged noxious odors, dust and air pollution that
emanate from the Newby Island Landfill and Resource Recovery Park
on the Milpitas-San Jose border harm area residents was settled
earlier in July.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan on July 8
granted the final settlement agreement, which ended years of
litigation involving the landfill operated by Republic Services of
Santa Clara County at 1601 Dixon Landing Road in San Jose and
residents living near the dump.

"The court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable and
that denial of the settlement would, in fact, be harmful to the
class rather than beneficial," Kirwan wrote. . . . While the
proposed settlement does not provide for closure of the landfill
site or prevent expansion of the landfill site, it does provide
for significant remediation measures to be implemented that could
have a substantial impact on the door leaving the disposal
facility.  If the court were to not approve this settlement, those
remediation measures would not go into effect.  In other words,
the odor and nuisance issues would remain as they currently
exist."

With the judge's action, Republic agreed to create a $1.2-million
fund to be disbursed among 6,800 households mostly in a 1.5-mile
radius from the landfill's composting facility, which the
plaintiff's law firm claims is the main source of odors.

"As part of the settlement, residents who reside within the 1.5-
mile radius were allowed to submit claims for monetary
compensation from a settlement fund established as part of the
settlement agreement," Russ Knocke, a Republic spokesperson, said.
"Also, as part of the settlement, Newby Island agreed to a number
of improvements to reduce the potential for odors."

According to the approved agreement, Republic Services agreed to
provide about $2 million in injunctive relief to mitigate odors
via a landfill gas collection system over the next five years.
Also, by Dec. 31, 2017, Republic will have the sole option to
either cease the receipt of green waste materials for composting
or utilize forced air static piles for odor control (using cured
compost on top of the piles as a bio-filter) for green waste
composting.  However, much of the basic processes for composting
at the facility -- including providing compost for "beneficial
uses" -- would be allowed to continue under terms of the
settlement.

Also, over the next 12 months, the company will also expand its
misting system, which includes the use of odor neutralizers,
around the compost facility.  Similarly, over a five-year period,
a total of $750,000 would be used to mitigate and prevent
potential odors at the adjoining recyclery, the agreement states.

The company will also cease, and pursue no further, the outdoor
stockpiling of "wet" waste at the landfill bunker, which awaits
processing, among other mitigation measures, the agreement states.

In 2012, Evans Law Firm of San Francisco, in conjunction with
Detroit-based Liddle & Dubin PC, sued Republic (named in the suit
as International Disposal Corp. of California) over the San Jose
landfill on behalf of Milpitas residents Peter Ng and Dolly Wu and
thousands of other unnamed residents.

But after the waste company challenged the data submitted to
substantiate the odor nuisance allegations, the court ruled in
January 2015 to deny the lawsuit's assertions.

At that time, Judge Kirwan in part ruled that the suit was "overly
broad" and members of the class action could not be easily
identified as Milpitas residents or persons living within the
vicinity of the landfill.  The judge also asserted the case was
not a class action per se -- a decision that briefly stalled
proceedings.

Previously, Mr. Knocke told this newspaper that the settlement was
actually reached by the parties in July 2015 following the judge's
initial ruling.

"The case settled after Judge Kirwan denied the plaintiffs' motion
to certify the lawsuit as a class action, forcing the two named
plaintiffs to try the case as individuals," Mr. Knocke said
previously. "The Newby Island defendants were and remain confident
they would win if the case were to go to trial. However, Newby
Island settled the lawsuit to avoid the high costs of continued
litigation."

Also, Mr. Knocke asserted then that his company was not
responsible for causing noxious odors smelled in Milpitas or any
other nearby community.

"Newby Island has not caused any damages to residents, and the
evidence in the case shows that the odors complained of by some
Milpitas residents result from a number of nearby natural and man-
made sources, including the many tidal sloughs and marshes around
Newby Island and prevalent in the South Bay, stagnant impoundments
in the bay that were once used in salt production, and the bay
itself," Mr. Knocke said previously.

He noted the man-made sources include nearby public and private
facilities involved in treating sewage and other forms of waste.

"Scientific measurements by independent experts we have provided
to the City of San Jose Planning Commission confirm the landfill
is not a significant source of local odors," he said previously.

In the last couple of years, talk of odor apparently emanating
from Newby Island Landfill -- and impacting residents here --
coincided with plans to see the dump site grow in size.  Under a
proposal by Republic, the company seeks to increase the landfill's
height by 95 feet, increase its capacity by approximately 15.12
million cubic yards and extend its estimated closure date until
January 2041. The landfill's current closure date is 2025.

However, to gain further information over possible impacts of odor
on surrounding communities City of San Jose requested a formal
odor study be conducted -- in part, based on an appeal Milpitas
filed in 2014 over San Jose Planning Department's approval of a
permit allowing the landfill to grow.

In San Jose, that city's planning commission -- as well as
Republic Services -- still awaits the results of the odor study.
Those results may be announced at the panel's Aug. 24 meeting.

And although there was initial talk among some in the community
that the class-action lawsuit might be used to close down the
Newby Island Landfill, Judge Kirwan's July 8 ruling dispelled that
notion.

"The court attempted to make it clear that closing Newby Island
landfill was not sought in the underlying lawsuit and was not part
of the relief requested by the plaintiffs," Judge Kirwan wrote . .
. . Even if this settlement were rejected and the case proceeded
to trial, relief in the form of closing the landfill or preventing
expansion of the landfill would not be available as remedies."

The plaintiff's attorneys could be reached for comment by press
time.


NIANTIC INC: N.J. Real Estate Owner Files Suit Over Pokemon Go
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that a New Jersey real
estate owner who on July 29 sued the companies behind the wildly
popular "augmented reality" game Pokemon Go.  The game has led to
hoards of players roaming the physical world in search for virtual
Pokemon creatures to catch, train, and do combat with on their
smartphones.

Jeffrey Marder of West Orange, New Jersey, claims that shortly
after the game was released in June, Pokemon Go players began
lingering around his property and knocking on his door seeking to
capture creatures in his backyard.

Mr. Marder's lawyer at Pomerantz wrote in a complaint filed on
July 29 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California that game designers placed virtual Pokestops and
Pokemon gyms on or adjacent to private property such as
Mr. Marder's without sign-off from the real-world property owners.
The lawyers point out that the in-game sites, where players get
items to help capture and feed their virtual creatures or fight
virtual "battles" with other players, have popped up in locations
including cemeteries and even the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
in Washington, D.C.

"Niantic has encouraged Pokemon Go's millions of players to make
unwanted incursions onto the properties of plaintiff and other
members of the class -- a clear and ongoing invasion of their use
and enjoyment of their land from which defendants have profited
and continue to profit," wrote Jennifer Pafiti of Pomerantz.
Ms. Pafiti was in a mediation on Aug. 1 and wasn't immediately
available to comment.

According to the complaint, Pokemon Go had been downloaded more
than 30 million times as of July 23 generating more than $35
million in revenue for Niantic Inc., The Pokemon Co., and Nintendo
Co. Ltd. The suit seeks to certify a class of all real estate
owners in the United States whose property is on or next to
Pokestops and Pokemon gyms and to force the companies behind the
game to change their practices.

Niantic Inc., the San Francisco-based software development company
behind the game, is targeted with common law nuisance claims in
the suit.  Marder v. Niantic is believed to be one of the first
suits targeting the companies with claims on behalf of private
property owners.

The complaint also seeks unjust enrichment claims against Niantic
and the other defendants. They hold a financial interest by
profiting from "a more immersive gaming experience" by encouraging
players to venture onto private property, the suit says.

Spokespeople for the companies didn't immediately respond to email
messages on Aug. 1.


NOB LLC: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
------------------------------------------------------
Texas Fraudulent Judgment Victims and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NOB LLC, The Kissel Co. and Does 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-08777, (N.D. Tex., July 21, 2016), seeks
restitution, disgorgement of all illegal profits obtained,
reasonable attorney fees and equitable relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010.

Defendant allegedly failed to obtain and use original account-
level documentation in preparing the pleadings and initiating the
lawsuits and relied solely on summary data needed to sue the
consumer and used system-signed affidavits to deceive Texas courts
into rendering judgments.

NOB LLC is a debt collector engaged in the business of filing
consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of
Texas.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ross Teter, Esq.
     TETER LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 815823
     Dallas, TX 75381-5823
     Tel: (214) 850-8095
     Fax: (972) 243-2510
     Email: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


NRS BILLING: "Williams" Suit Proceeds with Discovery
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRENNA NICOLE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NRS BILLING SERVICES,
LLC, a New York LLC, Defendant, No. 16-CV-75-A (W.D. N.Y.),
District Judge Richard J. Arcara granted Plaintiff's request to
proceed with discovery despite the receipt of the Clerk's Entry of
Default against the Defendant.

The Court ruled that Plaintiff may seek discovery of Defendant as
if Defendant were a non-defaulting party. Based on a similar case,
entitled, Minx, Inc. v. West, No. 2:11-CV-00895-BSJ, 2011 WL
5844486 (D. Utah Nov. 21, 2011), the court concluded that, a
defendant in default should be treated as a "party," rather than a
"nonparty," for purposes of ordering discovery.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 27, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/06dqRzfrom Leagle.com.

Ms. Brenna Nicole Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander
Jerome Douglas -- alex@gp-nola.com -- Gesund and Pailet.


NSK LTD: Settles Indirect Purchasers' Class Action for $34.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class actions (the "Class Actions") against NSK Ltd. and some of
its subsidiaries in Japan and the United States (collectively,
"NSK"), have been pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.  It is hereby announced that NSK
has agreed to settle with some indirect purchasers that are part
of the plaintiff classes on the 22nd of July, 2016 (JST) (21st of
July, 2016 (EST)).

1. Process from Filing of Class Actions to Settlement

The plaintiffs of the Class Actions have alleged, among other
things, that the defendants, including NSK, conspired with each
other to restrict competition in sales of bearing products and
other products in the United States, and have sought damages,
injunctive relief, and other relief against the defendants.  As a
result of negotiations with some of the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs, NSK came to the conclusion that the best option to
resolve those plaintiffs' claims was an early settlement and so
reached a settlement with some of the indirect purchasers.

2. Concerned Parties of the Settlement

Indirect purchasers (automobile dealers and end buyers of
automobiles)

3. Contents of the Settlement

Settlement Amount: US$34.5 million (Approximately  3.6 billion)
The settlement will require the approval of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

4. Future Prospects

NSK does not plan to revise its consolidated business forecast for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.  The Class Actions by other
plaintiffs against NSK are still pending.

The Class Actions are based on the actions that the U.S.
Department of Justice investigated, which ended no later than July
2011; in other words, the filing of the Class Actions does not
mean that any other suspicious conduct at NSK has been found in
the United States thereafter.  However, NSK recognizes the gravity
of the incident described in this press release, and in addition
to the preventive measures NSK has already developed, NSK will
continue to develop measures to enhance its compliance systems,
including strengthening of internal controls and further education
and training of relevant personnel.


NUUN & COMPANY: Faces "Riedel" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Nuun & Company, Inc. The case is
captioned Jutamat Riedel and John Does 1-100, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Nuun & Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04226
(E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2016).

Nuun produces and distributes electrolyte hydration drink tablets
for athletes and enthusiasts in cycling, running, triathlon, golf,
outdoor, and general fitness.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

NUVASIVE INC: No Trial Date Yet in Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a District Court has
issued an order rejecting the Company's motion to dismiss the
Fifth Amended Complaint in the securities litigation and a trial
date has not yet been set for this matter.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically relating to the purported
improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The
complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October
22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks
unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On
February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws. The District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend
its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on
September 8, 2014, and the District Court once again granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On
December 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company's motion
was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended
Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended
Complaint. On August 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order
granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended
Complaint with leave to amend.

On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint,
and in July 2016, the District Court issued an order rejecting the
Company's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint. A trial
date has not yet been set for this matter.

At June 30, 2016, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot
be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential
loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation
of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual
related to this litigation.


PANDORA MEDIA: 4 Suits by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the company continues
to defend four class action lawsuits filed by Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan.

The Company said, "On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a
class action suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal
district court for the Central District of California. The
complaint alleges misappropriation and conversion in connection
with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to
February 15, 1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to
strike the complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic
Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute. This
motion was denied, and we have appealed the ruling to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the district court
litigation has been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's review."

"On September 14, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a
class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal
district court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint alleges common law misappropriation, unfair competition,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of California rights
of publicity arising from allegations that we owe royalties for
the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to
February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015, the Court granted the
parties' stipulation to stay the district court action pending the
Ninth Circuit's review of Pandora's appeal in Flo & Eddie et al.
v. Pandora Media, Inc., which involves similar allegations.

"On September 16, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a
second class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the
federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of
New York right of publicity, unfair competition and unjust
enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the
public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February
15, 1972. On October 28, 2015 the Court granted the parties'
stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Second
Circuit's review of Sirius XM's appeal in the Flo & Eddie et al.
v. Sirius XM matter, which involves similar allegations.

"On October 17, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a
third class action suit against us in the federal district court
for the Northern District of Illinois ("Third Class Action Suit").
The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation
of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, conversion,
and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe
royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded
prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a
motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the Second
Circuit's decision. The motion to stay was denied, and the motion
to dismiss remains pending.

"On October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a
fourth class action suit against us in the federal district court
for the District of New Jersey ("Fourth Class Action Suit"). The
complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, unfair
competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we
owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings
recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora
filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the
Second Circuit's decision. On March 16, 2016, the district court
granted the motion to stay."


PANERA BREAD: "Boswell" Files Appeal in 8th Cir. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
Mark Boswell, Vickie Svyder, and David Lutton, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs -
Appellees, v. Panera Bread Company, a Delaware Corporation, and
Panera, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendants
- Appellants, Case No. 16-3230 (8th Cir., July 29, 2016), is an
appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit from a lower court decision in Case No. 4:14-cv-
01833-AGF (E.D. Mo., October 29, 2016).

Panera Bread is an American chain of bakery-cafe fast casual
restaurants in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiffs - Appellees, are represented by:

          Bert Stephen Braud, Esq.
          Dennis E. Egan, Esq.
          POPHAM LAW FIRM
          712 Broadway, Suite 100
          Kansas City, MO 64105-0000
          Telephone: (816) 221 2288

               - and -

          Timothy Coffield, Esq.
          COFFIELD PLC
          5374 Gordonsville Road
          Keswick, VA 22947
          Telephone: (434) 218 3133

The Defendants - Appellants are represented by:

          Justin M. Dean, Esq.
          Patrick Francis Hulla, Esq.
          Jennifer K. Oldvader, Esq.
          OGLETREE & DEAKINS
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Business: (816) 471 1301
          Personal: (816) 471 1301


PHELAN HALLINAN: "Borg" Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Borg on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Phelan, Hallinan, Diamond & Jones, PLLC, Plaintiff,
Case No. 8:16-cv-02070 (W.D. Wis., July 19, 2016), sues over
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Phelan, Hallinan, Diamond & Jones, PLLC is a collection agency.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     Luis A. Cabassa
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
     1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
     Tampa, FL 33602-3343
     Tel: (813) 224-0431
     Fax: (813) 229-8712
     Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
            lcabassa@wfclaw.com


PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking Class Suits Pending in Brazil & Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of
July 22, 2016, there were a number of smoking and health cases
pending against the Company, its subsidiaries or indemnitees:

     * 65 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina
(31), Brazil (19), Canada (2), Chile (8), Costa Rica (2), Italy
(1), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 65 such
cases on July 29, 2015, and 63 cases on July 30, 2014; and

     * 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such
cases on July 29, 2015 and 11 such cases on July 30, 2014.

Smoking and Health Litigation cases primarily allege personal
injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a
class or purported class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs'
allegations of liability in these cases are based on various
theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence,
strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure
to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of
deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes.
Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief, including
compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable
relief. Defenses raised in these cases include licit activity,
failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause,
assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of
limitations.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Pending in ADESF Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal
remains pending in the the class action in Brazil, The Smoker
Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip
Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the
Central Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil,
filed July 25, 1995.

The Company's subsidiary and another member of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking
damages for all addicted smokers and former smokers, and
injunctive relief.

In 2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$310) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the
rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did
not award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second
phase of the case. The size of the class was not estimated.
Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff
appealed the decision. In February 2015, the appellate court
unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal.

In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Justice. In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal
to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did
not have standing to bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still
pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing for Merits Appeal in Letourneau
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the
appeal related to the class action pending in Canada, Cecilia
Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, the
Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for the merits appeal
to begin in November 2016.

The case was filed in September 1998, and the Company's subsidiary
and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and
JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member
of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was
certified in 2005.

Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The
trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court
found our subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable
and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $100
million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million
(approximately $35 million) to our subsidiary. The trial court
found that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec
Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the
dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that defendants
conspired to prevent consumers from learning the dangers of
smoking. The trial court further held that these civil faults were
a cause of the class members' addiction.

The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the
class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show
that defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants' advertising
did not convey false information about the characteristics of
cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using
the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar
delivery. The trial court estimated the size of the addiction
class at 918,000 members but declined to award compensatory
damages to the addiction class because the evidence did not
establish the claims with sufficient accuracy. The trial court
ordered defendants to pay the full punitive damage award into a
trust within 60 days and found that a claims process to allocate
the awarded damages to individual class members would be too
expensive and difficult to administer. The trial court ordered a
briefing on the proposed process for the distribution of sums
remaining from the punitive damage award after payment of
attorneys' fees and legal costs.

The Company said, "In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the
appellate process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial
court's judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In
July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that our subsidiary make the
payment into a trust within 60 days."

"In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of
Appeal seeking security in both the Letourneau case and the Blais
case. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $173 million), in the form of cash into a
court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $28.8 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017. . . .  The Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for
the merits appeal to begin in November 2016.

"Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of liability and
damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set aside on any
one of many grounds, including the following: (i) holding that
defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn class members of
the risks of smoking even after the court found that class members
knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that
plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants' alleged
misconduct caused in jury to each class member in direct
contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual
presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise,
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all
class members, (iv) holding that the addiction class members'
claims for punitive damages were not time-barred even though the
case was filed more than three years after a prominent addiction
warning appeared on all packages, and (v) awarding punitive
damages to punish defendants without proper consideration as to
whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future
misconduct."


PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing for Merits Appeal in Blais
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the
appeal related to the class action pending in Canada, Conseil
Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald
Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998,
the Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for the merits appeal
to begin in November 2016.

The Company said, "The Company's subsidiary and other Canadian
manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald
Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking
organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly
suffers from certain smoking-related diseases."

"The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March 2012 and
concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its judgment on
May 27, 2015. The trial court found our subsidiary and two other
Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members'
compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion,
including pre-judgment interest (approximately $11.9 billion).

"The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and
several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary
(approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $2.4 billion)). In addition, the trial court
awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $69,000) in punitive damages,
allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $23,000) to our subsidiary
and found that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec
Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the
dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that defendants
conspired to prevent consumers from learning the dangers of
smoking. The trial court further held that these civil faults were
a cause of the class members' diseases.

"The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the
class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show
that defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants' advertising
did not convey false information about the characteristics of
cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using
the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar
delivery. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957
members. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion
(approximately $766 million) of the compensatory damage award into
a trust within 60 days, CAD 200 million (approximately $153
million) of which is our subsidiary's portion and ordered briefing
on a proposed claims process for the distribution of damages to
individual class members and for payment of attorneys' fees and
legal costs. In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also
filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order for payment into
a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal.

"In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel
and overturned the trial court's ruling that our subsidiary make
an initial payment within 60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking an order that
defendants place irrevocable letters of credit totaling CAD 5
billion (approximately $3.8 billion) into trust, to secure the
judgments in both the Letourneau and Blais cases. Plaintiffs
subsequently withdrew their motion for security against JTI-
MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only against our subsidiary and
Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

"In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $173 million) to cover both the Letourneau
and Blais cases. Such security may take the form of cash into a
court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $28.8 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada
Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately
$580 million) in seven equal consecutive quarterly installments of
approximately CAD 108 million (approximately $83 million)
beginning in December 2015 through June 2017. In June 2016, our
subsidiary made its third quarterly installment of security for
approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately $28.8 million) into
a court trust. This payment is included in other assets on the
condensed consolidated balance sheets and in cash used in
operating activities in the condensed consolidated statements of
cash flows.

"The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a
final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's
judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal. The Court
of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for the merits appeal in
November 2016.

"Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of liability and
damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set aside on any
one of many grounds, including the following: (i) holding that
defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn class members of
the risks of smoking even after the court found that class members
knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that
plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants' alleged
misconduct caused injury to each class member in direct
contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual
presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise,
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all
class members, (iv) relying on epidemiological evidence that did
not meet recognized scientific standards, and (v) awarding
punitive damages to punish defendants without proper consideration
as to whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future
misconduct."


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
preliminary motions are pending in the class action pending in
Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.,
The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009.

The Company, its subsidiaries, and indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered,
or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits.


PHILIP MORRIS: Says "Dorion" Complaint Not Yet Properly Served
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the
class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products.

"To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been
properly served with the complaint. No activity in this case is
anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action
filed in Saskatchewan," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: 3 Lights Cases Pending in Italy and Chile
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of
July 22, 2016, there were 3 lights cases brought by individual
plaintiffs pending against the Company's subsidiaries or
indemnitees in Chile (2) and Italy (1), compared with 2 such cases
on July 29, 2015, and 2 such cases on July 30, 2014.

These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, allege that the use
of the term "lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading
conduct. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are
based on various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek
various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief,
and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack
of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and
statute of limitations.


POINT & PAY: Cross Seeks Certification of Class & Two Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DAVID CROSS, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. POINT & PAY, LLC, a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:16-cv-01182-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla.),
asks the Court to certify these class and subclasses:

     (a) (i) All persons (ii) who paid money to Point & Pay, LLC
         via debit or credit card (iii) where Point & Pay, LLC
         provided bill pay services, (iv) where Point & Pay, LLC
         imposed a fee for such service (v) and where such fee
         actually charged was at a greater rate than the
         advertised or stated rate offered (vi) during the five
         year period prior to the filing of the complaint in this
         action through the date of certification.

     (b) (i) All persons who reside in Florida (ii) who paid
         money to Point & Pay, LLC via debit or credit card (iii)
         where Point & Pay, LLC provided bill pay services, (iv)
         where Point & Pay, LLC imposed a fee for such service
         (v) and where such fee actually charged was at a greater
         rate than the advertised or stated rate offered (vi)
         during the five year period prior to the filing of the
         complaint in this action through the date of
         certification. (Florida Subclass ).

     (c) (i) All consumers presently residing in areas subject to
         bill payment processing (ii) serviced by Point & Pay,
         LLC (iii) using a debit or credit card (iv) through
         Point & Pay, LLC's bill payment service (v) and who are
         subject to future improper surcharges for such payment
         (vi) at the date of certification. (Injunctive and
         Declaratory Relief Subclass).

Mr. Cross also asks the Court to (i) enter and continue his Motion
and defer its ruling on the Motion, (ii) allow for the Parties to
engage in discovery on class-wide issues, (iii) grant him leave to
file a full memorandum in support of his Motion upon the
conclusion of class-wide discovery, and (iv) grant his Motion or,
alternatively, grant the Motion in its entirety after the close of
class-wide discovery and full briefing of the issues presented.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H4pj2QeG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PSCU INC: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Jones" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled CA'NON JONES, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PSCU INCORPORATED, a
Florida corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-11387-SJM-SDD (E.D. Mich.),
asks the Court to:

   (1) certify a collective action for unpaid overtime wages
       under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, with
       the proposed FLSA class defined as:

       All current and former hourly customer service
       representatives -- both call center based and home based
       -- who worked for Defendant at any time during the last
       three years;

   (2) approve the Court-supervised notice to the collective
       action Class members to be sent via U.S. Mail, e-mail and
       text message; and

   (3) order PSCU to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
       providing names, last known addresses, dates of
       employment, job titles, mobile phone numbers, and e-mail
       addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10
       days of the entry of the order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cy7Z6RPS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-3000
          E-mail: npioch@sommerspc.com


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Motion for Leave to Amend Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a motion for leave to
amend a securities class action lawsuit remains under
consideration by the Court.

On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court") against the Company and certain of its current
and former directors, executive officers, and stockholders
(collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act Claims") and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the
September 2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings. On
August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
System and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were
appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). An
amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to
the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also added claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act
Claims") seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive. On January
26, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs sought and
were granted leave to file an amended complaint. On February 27,
2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. Like the
prior amended complaint, the second amended complaint asserts 1933
Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint was filed on April 28, 2015, the Plaintiffs' opposition
was filed on June 12, 2015, and the Defendants' reply was filed on
July 13, 2015.

On March 30, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On May 23,
2016, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended
complaint. The Defendants' opposition brief was filed on June 9,
2016, and the Plaintiffs' reply was filed on June 20, 2016. The
motion for leave to amend remains under consideration by the
Court. The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit and will continue to defend against the litigation
vigorously.


REMINGTON ARMS: Missouri Judge Set to Decide on Rifle Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a prominent class notice expert has warned a federal judge
that the vast majority of the more than 7.5 million gun owners
that could be part of a settlement over defective Remington rifles
still won't know about it or be convinced to make claims.
The dire prediction, outlined in an amicus letter on July 5, comes
ahead of an Aug. 9 hearing in which U.S. District Judge Ortrie D.
Smith in Kansas City, Missouri, is set to decide whether to
approve the settlement, which provides retrofits and refunds to
consumers of about a dozen models of Remington rifles that have a
defect that makes them accidentally trigger.  The settlement does
not address lawsuits filed over injuries and deaths.

On Dec. 8, Judge Smith ordered lawyers to provide supplemental
briefing on several issues, primarily his concern that the notice
plan attracted only 2,327 claims.

In his letter, the expert -- Todd Hilsee of The Hilsee Group LLC
in Philadelphia -- wrote that the case exemplifies how an
increasing number of companies offer low-cost notice plans that
aren't effective.  He said he filed a letter in this case because
human lives were at risk.

"According to plaintiffs' own complaint, there's a defect that is
inherent in the guns and could kill someone," he said in an
interview.  "If this can be acceptable notice for a case like
this, then the hope for effective notice in other cases is almost
lost."

Plaintiffs lawyers Richard Arsenault -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com
-- of Neblett, Beard & Arsenault in Alexandria, Louisiana, wrote
in an email that they "have retained, and the Court has approved,
one of the nation's most capable notice providers that developed a
robust notice plan.  Now, internationally recognized experts on
social media campaigns have developed an additional proposal that
centers on a state-of-the-art, pre-tested social media program
specifically designed for this case."  Throughout his detention,
Lewis was not permitted to appear before a tribunal and was not
charged with a crime.

John Sherk -- jsherk@shb.com -- a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon
in Kansas City, Missouri, who represents Remington Arms Co., also
did not respond to a request for comment.

In the 2014 settlement, Remington denied that its rifles have
defects.  Plaintiffs lawyers have sought $12.5 million in attorney
fees and costs.

Most of the initial notices were sent out through an online site,
banner ads, print magazines and social media.

"Even under conservative calculations, this response rate is quite
low," Judge Smith wrote in his December order.  "The court cannot
conceive that an owner of an allegedly defective firearm would not
seek the remedy being provided pursuant to this settlement
agreement."

In a June 10 response, lawyers on both sides submitted a revised
plan that would remind gun owners of the settlement, primarily
through emails, Facebook and radio.  They emphasized that the
original notice reached 74 percent of all potential class members.
But those numbers were misleading, wrote Mr. Hilsee, who has
worked with the Federal Judicial Center to develop best practices
for class action notice standards.  The original notice, which had
small headlines and confusing claim forms, likely reached about
half the potential class members and should have been closer to 95
percent.

He predicted that the new plan will have the same results.
"I'm afraid the court and class will get stung," he wrote.


RENO'S INC: "Downard" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled JULIA DOWNARD and VALORIE
WASHBURN, On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RENO'S, INC., RENO'S MANAGEMENT,
INC., RENO'S EAST, INC., RENO'S NORTH, INC., RENO'S WEST, INC.;
all doing business as "Reno's Sports Bar & Grill," and JESSIE
STIPCAK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00927-PLM-PJG (W.D.
Mich.), Julia Downard and Valorie Washburn move the Court for
entry of an order as follows:

  (1) conditionally certifying a class pursuant to the Fair
      Labor Standards Act:

      "Any individual who worked as a server and/or bartender at
      any Reno's Sports Bar & Grill located in Lansing or East
      Lansing, Michigan at any time in the past three years";

  (2) approving Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent forms
      for dissemination to members of the Class via U.S. Mail and
      e-mail;

  (3) requiring Defendants to identify all putative members of
      the proposed Class by providing their names, last known
      addresses, dates and locations of employment, job titles,
      phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in computer-readable
      and searchable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet,
      within 14 days of the entry of the order;

  (4) giving putative members of the Collective 60 days from the
      date the Court approved notice and consent forms are mailed
      to join this case if they so choose; and

  (5) requiring that throughout the 60-day notice period
      requested, the Defendants must post Plaintiffs' proposed
      notice in each Reno's Sports Bar & Grill location in a
      place likely to be viewed by employees and make consent
      forms available to putative Collective members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qsU1hZkI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Nicholas R Conlon, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd St., Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: Nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Class Certification Sought in "Menear" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JAMES MENEAR, DWAYNE ANDERSON
and PATRICK HILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. RETRIEVAL MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC.,
D/B/A AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, AND QUEST DIAGNOSTICS,
INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00690-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), move the Court to
certify the class described in the complaint, and to both stay the
motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (and
the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the motion.

According to the Motion, Damasco and decisions like it imposed
significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel,
citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).  To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative
class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the
Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a
certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to
stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could
commence.

As this Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco,
the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8oWpar3B

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 34 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q2
--------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that during the second
quarter of 2016, 34 tobacco-related cases were served against
Reynolds Defendants.  The Company als disclosed that on June 30,
2016, there were, subject to exclusions, 286 cases pending against
Reynolds Defendants: 269 in the United States and 17 in Canada, as
compared with 262 total cases on June 30, 2015. Of the U.S. cases
pending on June 30, 2016, 36 are pending in federal court, 232 in
state court and one in tribal court, primarily in the following
states: Maryland (47 cases); Illinois (47 cases); Florida (29
cases); New York (19 cases); Missouri (19 cases); California (15
cases); and New Mexico (13 cases). The U.S. case number excludes
the approximately 564 individual smoker cases pending in West
Virginia state court as a consolidated action, 2,967 Engle Progeny
cases, involving approximately 3,839 individual plaintiffs, and
2,473 Broin II cases, pending in the United States against RJR
Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco or certain other Reynolds Defendants.

The table lists the categories of the U.S. tobacco-related cases
pending against Reynolds Defendants as of June 30, 2016, compared
with the number of cases pending against Reynolds Defendants as of
March 31, 2016, as reported in RAI's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2016, filed with the SEC on
April 26, 2016, and a cross-reference to the discussion of each
case type.

                                              Change in
                                              Number of
                         U.S. Case Numbers    Cases Since
                         as of June 30,       March 31, 2016
   Case Type             2016                 Increase/(Decrease)
   ---------             -----------------    -------------------
Individual Smoking and
Health                   121                  2

West Virginia IPIC
(Number of Plaintiffs)*   1 (approx. 564)     No change

Engle Progeny
(Number of Plaintiffs)**  2,967 (approx.      4 (12)
                          3,839)

Broin II                  2,473               (15)

Class Action              24                  (9)

Filter Cases              76                  15

Health-Care
Cost Recovery             2                   No change

State Settlement          28                  No change
Agreements -
Enforcement
and Validity;
Adjustments

Other Litigation
and Developments          17                  3


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 34 Cases Scheduled for Trial Through June 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that there are 34 cases,
exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of June
30, 2016 through June 30, 2017, for RJR Tobacco, Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., Lorillard Tobacco or their affiliates
and indemnitees: five individual smoking and health cases, 24
Filter Cases and five Broin II cases. There are approximately 105
Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard
Tobacco set for trial through June 30, 2017, but it is not known
how many of these cases will actually be tried.

Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are
dismissed before trial.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 10 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in Q2
-----------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that from January 1, 2013
through June 30, 2016, 131 smoking and health, Engle Progeny and
health-care cost recovery cases in which RJR Tobacco, Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., and/or Lorillard Tobacco were
defendants were tried, including eight trials for cases where
mistrials were declared in the original proceedings. Verdicts in
favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco and, in some
cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco and/or other
defendants, were returned in 64 cases, including 16 mistrials,
tried in Florida (62), West Virginia (1), and California (1).
Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned in 60 cases
tried in Florida, and one in California. Four cases in Florida
were dismissed during trial. One case in Florida was a retrial
only as to the amount of damages. In another case in Florida, the
jury entered a partial verdict that did not include compensatory
or punitive damages, and post-trial motions are pending.

In the second quarter of 2016, ten Engle Progeny cases in which
RJR Tobacco and/or Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried:

* In Davis v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

* In Dupre v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

* In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 20% at fault
and RJR Tobacco 80% at fault, and awarded $3 million in
compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.

* In Enochs v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 22% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 66% at fault, and the remaining defendant 12%
at fault, and awarded $21 million in compensatory damages and
$6.25 million in punitive damages against each defendant.

* In Pardue v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a
mistrial due to the inability to seat a jury.

* In Dion v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 25% at fault
and RJR Tobacco 75% at fault, and awarded $12 million in
compensatory damages and $30,000 in punitive damages.

* In Nally v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 25% at fault
and RJR Tobacco 75% at fault, and awarded $6 million in
compensatory damages and $12 million in punitive damages.

* In McCabe v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 70% at fault
and RJR Tobacco 30% at fault, and awarded $5 million in
compensatory damages and $6.5 million in punitive damages.

* In Durrance v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a
mistrial due to a medical emergency.

* In Mooney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

In addition, since the end of the second quarter of 2016, two
other Engle Progeny cases, in which RJR Tobacco and/or Lorillard
Tobacco were a defendant, were tried:

* In Sermons v. Philip Morris USA Inc., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 80% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 5% at fault, and the remaining defendant 15% at
fault, and awarded $65,000 in compensatory damages and $17,075 in
punitive damages against RJR Tobacco and $51,225 in punitive
damages against the remaining defendant.

* In Varner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco but against the remaining
defendant.

In the second quarter of 2016, no non-Engle Progeny individual
smoking and health cases, in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant,
were tried.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs Must File Expert Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, In re:
Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases, the court
granted the defendants' motion to compel and required the
plaintiffs to file additional expert disclosures necessary to
attempt to proceed with their claims.

In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases (Cir.
Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed beginning in 1999), is a series of
roughly 1,200 individual cases asserting claims against Philip
Morris USA Inc., Lorillard Tobacco, RJR Tobacco, B&W and The
American Tobacco Company based on alleged personal injuries. The
cases were consolidated for a Phase I trial on various defense
conduct issues, to be followed in Phase II by individual trials of
remaining claims.

On May 15, 2013, the Phase I jury found that defendants'
cigarettes were not defectively designed; defendants' cigarettes
were not defective due to a failure to warn before July 1, 1969;
defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties, and did
not engage in conduct warranting punitive damages; and defendants'
ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964
and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct.

In November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the
verdict. On June 8, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari. On the same date, the
trial court issued an order finding that only 30 plaintiffs are
alleged to have smoked ventilated filter cigarettes in the
relevant period.

On October 9, 2015, the trial court outlined the procedures it
will follow for resolving the claims of the 30 Phase II
plaintiffs, which claims will focus on whether plaintiffs blocked
cigarette vents and, if so, whether blocking proximately caused
their alleged injuries. Five cases have been selected to be the
first claims tried, and they were tentatively scheduled to be
tried beginning on May 1, 2018.

In June 2016, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel
and required the plaintiffs to file additional expert disclosures
necessary to attempt to proceed with their claims. The court will
set a revised discovery and trial schedule after the expert
disclosures are tested for admissibility.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11th Circuit Decision in "Graham" Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Graham v.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., oral argument occurred on June 21,
2016, and a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit is pending.

In July 1998, trial began in Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
a then-certified class action filed in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade
County, Florida, against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, Philip Morris USA Inc., and
others. The then-certified class consisted of Florida citizens and
residents, and their survivors, who suffered from smoking-related
diseases that first manifested between May 5, 1990, and November
21, 1996, and were caused by an addiction to cigarettes.

In July 1999, the jury in Phase I found against RJR Tobacco, B&W,
Lorillard Tobacco and the other defendants on common issues
relating to the defendants' conduct, general causation, the
addictiveness of cigarettes, and entitlement to punitive damages.

On July 14, 2000, the jury in Phase II awarded the class a total
of approximately $145 billion in punitive damages, which were
apportioned $36.3 billion to RJR Tobacco, $17.6 billion to B&W,
and $16.3 billion to Lorillard Tobacco. The defendants appealed.

On December 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court prospectively
decertified the class and set aside the jury's Phase II punitive
damages award. But the court preserved certain of the jury's Phase
I findings, including that cigarettes can cause certain diseases,
nicotine is addictive, and defendants placed defective cigarettes
on the market, breached duties of care, concealed health-related
information, and conspired. The court also authorized former class
members to file individual lawsuits within one year, and it stated
that the preserved findings would have res judicata effect in
those actions.

In the year after the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision,
putative class members filed thousands of individual actions
against RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, Philip Morris USA
Inc., and the other Engle defendants, which actions commonly are
referred to as Engle Progeny cases.

As of June 30, 2016, 2,951 Engle Progeny cases were pending in
state courts, and 16 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal
court. Those cases include claims by or on behalf of approximately
3,839 plaintiffs.  As of June 30, 2016, RJR Tobacco also was aware
of 11 additional Engle Progeny cases that have been filed but not
served. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of
reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary
dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of
judgment," referred to in Florida statutes as "proposals for
settlement," from RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco and/or RJR
Tobacco's affiliates and indemnitees. An offer of judgment, if
rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco's and Lorillard
Tobacco's right to recover attorneys' fees under Florida law in
the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco or Lorillard
Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered
mediations.

At the beginning of the Engle Progeny litigation, a central issue
was the proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco
has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual
elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and
concealment) is a violation of federal due process.

In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the
Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument.  The Eleventh Circuit,
this time sitting en banc, recently heard argument on this issue
again. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR
Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco raise many other factual and legal
defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include,
among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper
member of the Engle class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any
statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted
unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by
applicable statutes of limitation, or that any injury was caused
by the smoker's own conduct.

In Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. and Russo v. Philip Morris USA
Inc., decided on April 2, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court held
that, in Engle Progeny cases, the defendants cannot raise a
statute of repose defense to claims for concealment or conspiracy.

On April 8, 2015, in Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the
Eleventh Circuit held that federal law impliedly preempts use of
the preserved Engle findings to establish claims for strict
liability or negligence. On January 21, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit
granted the plaintiff's motion for rehearing en banc and vacated
the panel decision. On March 23, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit
requested briefing on the issues of whether plaintiff's claims are
preempted and, if not, whether the defendants' due process rights
are violated. Oral argument occurred on June 21, 2016. A decision
is pending.

On January 6, 2016, in Marotta v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the
Fourth DCA, disagreed with the Graham panel decision and held that
federal law does not impliedly preempt any tort claims against
cigarette manufacturers, including those of Engle Progeny
plaintiffs. The Florida Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction in
Marotta, and briefing is underway.

In June 2009, Florida amended its existing bond cap statute by
adding a $200 million bond cap that applied to all Engle Progeny
cases in the aggregate. In May 2011, Florida removed the provision
that would have allowed it to expire on December 31, 2012. The
bond cap for any given individual Engle Progeny case varies
depending on the number of judgments in effect at a given time,
but never exceeds $5 million per case. The legislation, which
became effective in June 2009 and 2011, applied to judgments
entered after the original 2009 effective date.

During the first quarter of 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard
Tobacco, together with Philip Morris USA Inc., tentatively settled
virtually all of the Engle Progeny cases then pending against them
in federal district court. The total amount of the settlement was
$100 million divided as follows:

   RJR Tobacco - $42.5 million;
   Philip Morris USA Inc. - $42.5 million; and
   Lorillard Tobacco - $15 million.

In March 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco paid their shares
of the settlement. The settlement, which received final approval
from the court on November 6, 2015, covers more than 400 federal
progeny cases but does not cover 12 federal progeny cases
previously tried to verdict and currently pending on post-trial
motions or appeal; one federal progeny case pending as of June 30,
2016, involving pro se plaintiffs unrepresented by counsel; and 2
federal progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who
negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs.

Between August 3, 2015 and January 4, 2016, RJR Tobacco and Philip
Morris USA Inc. removed 39 Engle Progeny cases from state to
federal courts in Florida. These cases were not part of the
settlement and were all remanded back to state court.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,473 Broin II Cases Pending in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016,
there were 2,473 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have
been no Broin II trials since 2007.

Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
filed 1991), was a class action brought on behalf of flight
attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments
caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins.

In October 1997, RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, B&W and other
cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin, agreeing to pay a
total of $300 million in three annual $100 million installments,
allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research on
the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco
smoke. It also required those companies to pay a total of $49
million for the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses. RJR
Tobacco's portion of these payments was approximately $86 million;
Lorillard Tobacco's was approximately $57 million; and B&W's was
approximately $31 million.

The settlement agreement, among other things, limits the types of
claims class members may bring and eliminates claims for punitive
damages. The settlement agreement also provides that, in
individual cases by class members that are referred to as Broin II
lawsuits, the defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect
to whether ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases,
referred to as "general causation." With respect to all other
liability issues, including whether an individual plaintiff's
disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane
cabins, referred to as "specific causation," individual plaintiffs
will bear the burden of proof. On September 7, 1999, the Florida
Supreme Court approved the settlement.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 23 Non-Shareholder Class Action Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016, 23
class-action cases, excluding the shareholder cases, were pending
in the United States against Reynolds Defendants. These class
actions seek recovery for personal injuries allegedly caused by
cigarette smoking or, in some cases, for economic damages
allegedly incurred by cigarette or e-cigarette purchasers.

In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American
Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class of
persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco
products, finding that the district court failed to properly
assess variations in the governing state laws and whether common
issues predominated over individual issues. Since the Fifth
Circuit's ruling in Castano, few smoker class-action complaints
have been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal.
Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and most
state courts that have considered the issue have rejected class
certification in such cases. Apart from Castano, only two smoker
class actions have been certified by a federal court -- In re
Simon (II) Litigation and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA
Inc., both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and were later decertified.

Class-action suits based on claims that class members are at a
greater risk of injury or injured by the use of tobacco or
exposure to ETS, or claims that seek primarily economic damages
are pending against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, or their
affiliates or indemnitees in state or federal courts in
California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina and West Virginia.

The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term
"lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under
state law or violates federal RICO. Such suits are pending in
state courts in Illinois and Missouri.

E-cigarette class-action cases are pending against RJR Vapor, RAI,
and other RAI affiliates in California state and federal courts.
In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Vapor, Lorillard
Tobacco, and other RAI affiliates made false and misleading claims
that e-cigarettes are less hazardous than other cigarette products
or failed to disclose that e-cigarettes expose users to certain
substances. The cases are typically filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes and seek recovery of
economic damages.

Several class actions relating to claims in advertising and
promotional materials for SFNTC's NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
cigarettes are pending in federal courts. In general, these
plaintiffs allege that use of the words "natural," "additive-
free," or "organic" in NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT advertising and
promotional materials suggests that those cigarettes are less
harmful than other cigarettes and, for that reason, violated state
consumer protection statutes or amounted to fraud or a negligent
or intentional misrepresentation.

Additional class actions relating to either (1) RJR Tobacco's
discontinuation of the "Camel Cash" promotion in 2007 or (2)
alleged personal injuries purportedly caused by use of cigarettes
or exposure to ETS are pending.

Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost
recovery actions in the form of class actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Supreme Court Won't Review "Price" Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the U.S. Supreme Court
has denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari in the
case, Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Four "lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco
or B&W, two in Illinois state court and two in Missouri state
court. The classes in these cases generally seek to recover
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.
In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

The seminal "lights" class-action case is Price v. Philip Morris,
Inc. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000), an action filed
against the predecessor of Philip Morris USA Inc., referred to as
Philip Morris. In March 2003, the trial court entered judgment
against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1 billion in
compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages. In
December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion
reversing and remanding with instructions to dismiss the case. On
December 5, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its mandate,
and the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal later in
December 2006. In multiple filings since December 2008, the Price
plaintiffs have argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis upon which the
Illinois Supreme Court had reversed the Price trial court's 2003
judgment and, on that basis, have attempted to reinstate that
judgment. In April 2014, the intermediate appellate court
reinstated the trial court's 2003 judgment. In November 2015, the
Illinois Supreme Court (1) vacated the lower courts' judgments,
(2) dismissed the case without prejudice to allow the plaintiffs
to file a motion to have the Illinois Supreme Court recall its
December 5, 2006, mandate that had reversed the trial court's 2003
judgment, and (3) directed entry of a judgment of dismissal. The
plaintiffs then moved in the Illinois Supreme Court to have that
court recall its December 5, 2006 mandate. On January 11, 2016,
the Illinois Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. The
plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court on January 22, 2016, which was denied on June 20,
2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Aug. 24 Status Conference in "Turner"
--------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Turner v.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed
2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR
Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in November 2001. In November 2003,
the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay
pending the court's final appeal decision in the Price case. The
stay subsequently expired, and the court accordingly scheduled a
series of status conferences, all of which were continued by
agreement of the parties. The next status conference is scheduled
for August 24, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Case Remains Stayed Pending "Price"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in Howard v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed
2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of B&W
"lights" cigarettes in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of the Price case. In August 2005, the Illinois Fifth District
Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order. There is
currently no activity in the case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Sept. 12 Status Conference in "Collora"
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Collora v.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed
2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR
Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in December 2003. A status conference
is scheduled for September 12, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Set for Sept. 12 in "Black"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Black v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo.,
filed 2000), a putative class action filed on behalf of a class of
purchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes, a status conference is
scheduled for September 12, 2016.


RITE AID: Certification of Consumers Class Sought in "Moore" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned KYRA MOORE, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. RITE AID HDQTRS CORP.
d/b/a RITE AID CORPORATION, Case No. 2:13-cv-01515-JD (E.D. Pa.),
asks the Court to certify this class of consumers:

     All applicants for employment or promotion with Defendant
     Rite Aid residing in the United States (including all
     territories and other political subdivisions of the United
     States) who (a) were mailed a letter substantially similar
     to the April 25, 2011 letter sent to Plaintiff Kyra Moore,
     (b) from March 23, 2011 until the date in 2014 when Rite Aid
     extended the period of time between the two letters First
     Advantage Screening Solutions sends on its behalf to job
     applicants classified Non-Competitive from five days to
     seven and (c) were not hired by Rite Aid.

Kyra Moore alleges that she brought the consumer protection class
action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, against a large
national employer that, as a tool in its high-volume, high-speed
hiring operation, uses background screening reports it purchases
from a third-party vendor to disqualify candidates for hire.

Ms. Moore also asks the Court to certify that she is a proper
representative of the class, and to appoint Francis & Mailman,
P.C., Langer, Grogan & Diver, P.C., Community Legal Services,
Inc., and Consumer Litigation Associates P.C. as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
          100 S. Broad Street, 19th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
          LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, PC
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5660
          Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
          E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com

               - and -

          Nadia Hewka, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
          1424 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 981-3700
          E-mail: nhewka@clsphila.org

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC
          12515 Warwick Boulevard # 101
          Newport News, VA 23606
          Telephone: (703) 273-7770
          Facsimile: (888) 892-3512
          E-mail: leonard@clalegal.com


SADDLEBACK EYE: Sued in Cal. Over LASIK Blade-Free Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER LEE, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public
and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SADDLEBACK EYE
CENTER, an unknown business entity; CHARLES C. MANGER III, M.D.,
INC., a California corporation, d/b/a SADDLEBACK EYE CENTER;
CHARLES C. MANGER III, M.D., an individual; and DOES 1-
25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2016-00865007-CU-BT-CXC
(Cal. Super Ct., July 21, 2016), seeks adequate compensation for
damages and injuries resulting from Defendants' misrepresentation
to consumers that the laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis
(LASIK) performed by Charles C. Manger III. M.D. at Saddleback Eye
Center would be a 100% blade-free procedure.

The Plaintiff brought the action on behalf of himself, the general
public and those similarly situated because Dr. Manger did not
always perform a 100% blade-free procedure.

LASIK or Lasik, commonly referred to as laser eye surgery or laser
vision correction, is a type of refractive surgery for the
correction of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism.

Dr. Manger is the founder of Saddleback Eye Center, is the only
LASIK surgeon at this facility, and has performed over 76,000
LASIK procedures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI
          STAHLE & TORRIJOS LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844 9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0168


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Class Counsel Named in "Baker" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart appoints interim class counsel
in the consolidated case of MICHELE BAKER, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., et al., Defendants, Civ.
Nos. 1:16-CV-0220 (LEK/DJS), 1:16-CV-0292 (LEK/DJS), 1:16-CV-0394
(LEK/DJS), 1:16-CV-0476 (LEK/DJS), (N.D. N.Y.). All four class
actions relate to water contamination in the Hoosick Falls area.

The Court directed the clerk of court to open a new civil action
and list as Plaintiffs "Michele Baker, Angela Corbett, Daniel
Shuttig, Lisa Tifft, Marilyn Peckham, Michael Hickey,
individually, and as parent and natural guardian of O.H., infant,
Bryan Schrom, and Kary Schrom, all individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated," and list as Defendants "Saint-
Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. and Honeywell International
Inc., f/k/a Allied-Signal Inc."

Judge Stewart ordered Law Firms of Weitz & Luxenberg and Faraci
Lang, LLP as Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel and Law Firm of Powers
& Santola as Liaison Counsel, and denied the alternate proposals
of the parties adopting a four-firm management group, which the
Court believed to likely lead to dissension and delay. The
appointed Interim Liason Counsel shall provide assistance to Co-
Lead Interim Class Counsel and will be the designated contact
person regarding communications with the Court on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and putative class.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 27, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/AV4fhbfrom Leagle.com.

Lisa Tifft, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas G.
Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP &
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &
Garber LLP.

Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Defendant, represented by
Douglas E. Fleming -- douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn,
Emanuel Law Firm - NYC Office, Mark S. Cheffo --
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn, Emanuel Law Firm - NYC
Office, Patrick D. Curran -- patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn, Emanuel Law Firm - NYC Office, Sheila L. Birnbaum --
sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn, Emanuel Law Firm -- NYC
Office, Christopher V. Fenlon -- cfenlon@hinckleyallen.com --
Hinckley, Allen Law Firm - Albany Office & Michael L. Koenig --
mkoenig@hinckleyallen.com -- Hinckley, Allen Law Firm - Albany
Office.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Allyson
Himelfarb -- allyson.himelfarb@aporter.com -- Arnold, Porter Law
Firm - DC Office, pro hac vice, Dale A. Desnoyers, Allen,
Desnoyers Law Firm, Elissa J. Preheim --
elissa.preheim@aporter.com -- Arnold, Porter Law Firm - DC Office,
pro hac vice, Michael D. Daneker -- michael.daneker@aporter.com --
Arnold, Porter Law Firm - DC Office, Anthony D. Boccanfuso, Arnold
Porter Law Firm - NY Office, Gregory J. Allen, Allen, Desnoyers
Law Firm, Patrick L. Kehoe -- patrick@allendesnoyers.com -- Allen,
Desnoyers Law Firm & Tal R. Machnes -- tal.machnes@aporter.com --
Arnold, Porter Law Firm - NY Office.


SAN DIEGO, CA: Leon Dismissed from "Jones" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Larry Alan Burns granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case captioned
MAURICE JONES AND LEONEL R. LEON, Plaintiffs, v. SAN DIEGO
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
1778-LAB-KSC (S.D. Cal.).

Maurice Jones and Leonel R. Leon filed a putative collective and
class action against San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS)
and San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI), alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor laws.  The
defendants moved for summary judgment on res judicata grounds.

Judge Burns dismissed Leon from the suit.  The judge also
dismissed Jones' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief,
although Jones may proceed on his remaining claims.  The
plaintiffs may not substitute a new class representative.

A full-text copy of Judge Burns' July 22, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/xXSTPv from Leagle.com.

Maurice Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick,
The Tidrick Law Firm.

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, San Diego Trolley, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by J. Rod Betts -- rbetts@paulplevin.com
-- Paul Plevin Sullivan and Connaughton & Matthew Wroblewski --
mwroblewski@paulplevin.com -- Paul Plevin Sullivan & Connaughton
LLP.


SANTORINI REST: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Danilo Perez Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Santorini Rest. Corp. d/b/a Alpine
Garden Restaurant and Theodore Delis, Case No. 2:16-cv-04078-SJF-
ARL (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Alpine Garden restaurant in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      Puja Sharman, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hulls, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


SANTORINI REST: Faces "Ramirez" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Danilo Perez Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Santorini Rest. Corp. d/b/a Alpine
Garden Restaurant and Theodore Delis, Case No. cv-16-4078
(E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Alpine Garden Restaurant located at
11 Franklin Avenue, Franklin Square, NY 1101-Q.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
      THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
      11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
      Alpharetta, GA 30022
      Telephone: (678) 242-5297
      Facsimile: (678) 802-2129
      E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com


STERICYCLE: Pension Funds File Fraud Class Action in Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a pair
of Florida firefighter pension funds, which hold shares in the
suburban Chicago-based international hazardous waste disposal
company Stericycle, are seeking a class-action suit in Chicago
federal court, asserting Stericycle cost investors millions of
dollars by not divulging that much of its business was based on
allegedly defrauding customers.

On July 11 in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois, the St.
Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund and
the Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund filed suit against
Stericycle Inc., which is headquartered in Lake Forest. Stericycle
operates in 21 countries as a waste disposal company, specializing
in the disposal of medical, pharmaceutical and hazardous
industrial waste, as well as the disposal of confidential
documents.

Charles A. Alutto is president and chief executive officer.  In
February 2016, the company said it brought in almost $3 billion in
2015.

The five-count suit alleged Stericycle violated the U.S.
Securities Act and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.  Besides the
company itself, the suit also targets several officers and
directors of Stericycle, as well as a number of investment houses
that served as underwriters to Stericycle.

The lawsuit said the two firefighter pension funds bought more
than 3,000 shares of common stock between them in the second half
of 2015.  However, in October that year the value of Stericycle's
stock fell 19 percent and in April 2016, plunged another 22
percent.  Shareholders lost millions of dollars.

Stericycle blamed the decline on market conditions, but plaintiffs
allege the real reason was Stericycle was hemorrhaging customers,
because of "fraudulent billing practices."

The lawsuit said Stericycle derives 63 percent of its revenue from
what it terms "small quantity" customers, as the company pursues
such accounts because they garner more profits.  However,
plaintiffs alleged Stericycle "engaged in a systematic and
deliberate scheme" to regularly raise rates "without justification
or notice to its (small quantity) customers."

Plaintiffs alleged Stericycle would "simply increase" a customer's
bill, hoping the customer would either not catch it, or if the
customer did, still pay without squawking.  The increases varied
by customer, but in some cases were jacked up by as much as 18
percent every six months, according to the suit.

Many customers paid the increases, with Stericycle subjecting
those who complained to such threats as saying the company would
bill "large liquidated damage charges" if they canceled their
contracts, plaintiffs alleged.  Other times, Stericycle would go
the other way, offering "price reductions," but which would leave
customers still allegedly paying more than they agreed to pay in
the original contracts.

Nonetheless, the company's billing practices spurred a number of
customers to walk away, which began taking a toll on revenue by
the third quarter of 2015, leading to the drop in stock value,
plaintiffs alleged.

Plaintiffs contended Stericycle misled investors into believing
the company was above board in its dealings, which served to
artificially buttress the price of Stericycle securities by making
it appear the company's relations with customers were solid.

The firefighter pension funds have asked for the class action to
cover investors who bought stock between Feb. 7, 2013 and
April 28, 2016.  They seek compensatory damages in an amount to be
proved at trial.

The pension funds are represented by the firm of Bernstein,
Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, which has offices in New York,
Chicago, San Diego and New Orleans.


STRATASYS LTD: Macomb Employees Appeal Ruling in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Macomb County Employees Retirement System and
Mineworkers' Pension Scheme filed an appeal from an order and
judgment entered on June 30, 2016, in the consolidated putative
class action styled In re: Stratasys Ltd. Shareholder Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:15-cv-00455-PJS, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.

The appellate case is captioned as Macomb County Employees, et al.
v. Stratasys Ltd., et al., Case No. 16-3264, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

In these consolidated putative class actions, the Plaintiffs bring
claims of securities fraud under both Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities and Exchange
Commission's implementing regulation, Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, as well as claims of controlling-person liability under
Section 20 of the 1934 Act.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Macomb County Employees Retirement System
and Mineworkers' Pension Scheme are represented by:

          Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE & MICHAUD
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Reise, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq.
          Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809
          Telephone: (561) 961-2234
          E-mail: JReise@rgrdlaw.com
                  RRobbins@rgrdlaw.com
                  eshonson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 S. Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747-0000
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  SRudman@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Stratasys Ltd., David Reis, Erez Simha, Bre
Pettis and Jennifer Lawton are represented by:

          Ryan Edward Blair, Esq.
          Koji F. Fukumura, Esq.
          Craig E. TenBroeck, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          E-mail: rblair@cooley.com
                  kfukumura@cooley.com
                  ctenbroeck@cooley.com

               - and -

          John C. Dwyer, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
          E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com

               - and -

          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 S. Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com


SUFFOLK BANCORP: Faces Thaler Suit in New York Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Suffolk Bancorp. The case is
captioned THALER/HOWELL FOUNDATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK BANCORP,
JOSEPH A. GAVIOLA, JAMES E. DANOWSKI, EDGAR F. GOODALE, TERENCE X.
MEYER, JOHN D. STARK JR., HOWARD C. BLUVER, BRIAN K. FINNERAN,
DAVID A. KANDELL, RAMESH N. SHAH AND PEOPLE'S UNITED FINANCIAL,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 609834/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July
29, 2016).

Suffolk Bancorp is a one-bank holding company that provides
commercial banking and financial services though Suffolk County
National Bank (SCNB), its wholly owned subsidiary.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500

The Defendant is represented by:

          WACHTELL LIPTON ROSEN KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403 1000

               - and -

          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954
          Telephone: (212) 455 2000


TARGET CORPORATION: "Garcia" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Garcia, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, a
Minnesota corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-20727, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
(DMN). The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-
cv-02574-MJD-BRT to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon.
Michael J. Davis.

Target Corporation is the second-largest discount retailer in the
United States.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian Melendez, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          4000 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3903
          Telephone: (612) 486 1589
          Facsimile: (866) 637 2804
          E-mail: bmelendez@dykema.com


TENNESSEE: Hepatitis C-Infected Inmates File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dave Boucher, writing for The Tennessean, reports that Tennessee
inmates infected with hepatitis C filed a federal lawsuit against
state prison officials on July 25, asking the court to force the
state to start treating all inmates who have the potentially
deadly disease.

The lawsuit, filed by attorneys with the American Civil Liberties
Union and other advocates in U.S. District Court in Nashville,
says the Tennessee Department of Correction officials knowingly
denying inmates care for their hepatitis C, also known as HCV,
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.  It alleges the
department is denying care because the best available medication
is too expensive.

"In reality, (department officials) ignore the medical needs of
(inmates) and class members in order to save costs. (The
department's) written policies for HCV diagnosis, assessment and
treatment utilize outdated standards of care and normalize the
practice of refusing treatment for unjust and medically unsound
reasons," the lawsuit states.

Inmates Charles Graham, also known as Charles Stevenson, and
Russell L. Davis are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Attorneys
representing the inmates include Thomas Castelli, the ACLU-TN
legal director; Karla Campbell of Nashville-based law firm
Branstetter, Stranch and Jennings; and Elizabeth Logsdon of
advocacy organization Disability Rights Tennessee.  No Exceptions
Prison Collective, an inmate advocacy organization, also helped
compile the lawsuit.

"Incarcerating people under conditions that erode their health,
safety and human dignity amounts to cruel and unusual punishment,
which not only has devastating long-term effects for those
individuals, but which undermines the purported purpose of a
rehabilitative criminal justice system," Mr. Castelli said in a
news release.

They are seeking what's known as class-action status for the case:
If successful, that would mean every inmate infected with
hepatitis C also could be eligible to receive treatment in the
future.  The lawsuit names as defendants new department
Commissioner Tony Parker, department Assistant Commissioner of
Rehabilitative Services Dr. Marina Cadreche and department Medical
Director Dr. Kenneth Williams.

In a statement, department spokeswoman Neysa Taylor defended the
state's medical practices.

"The Tennessee Department of Correction is currently unaware of
the referenced court filing but is confident the department is
providing adequate medical care as determined by medical
protocol," Ms. Taylor said in an email late on July 25.

In the past, the department also has argued that it is adequately
treating all inmates.  But a Tennessean investigation earlier this
year found that, as of March, nearly 3,500 inmates had hepatitis C
while only eight were receiving treatment that could cure them.
As of the end of June, the enormous disparity between those
infected and those receiving treatment remains: There are 2,935
inmates with hepatitis C, while four are receiving the newest
treatment, Ms. Taylor said.  An additional inmate refused
treatment, and three have completed the newest treatment,
Ms. Taylor said.

Although infected inmates routinely leave and enter the Tennessee
prison system, the change in number of inmates infected probably
shows that at least several hundred inmates who remain infected
have returned to their communities in the past few months.  The
department also doesn't test every inmate who enters the prison
system.  But of the 901 inmates tested in 2015, 424 tested
positive for hepatitis C, Taylor previously told The Tennessean.

Advocates -- including Jeannie Alexander, head of No Exceptions
-- say that means there are probably hundreds of other inmates
with the disease who are not diagnosed.

"It is immoral and a violation of human rights and constitutional
rights to knowingly refuse treatment to prisoners suffering from
Hepatitis C when an effective treatment that has become the new
standard of care is available," Ms. Alexander said in an emailed
statement.

Hepatitis C, a chronic disease that slowly destroys the liver, was
difficult to treat until the release of new medications in late
2013.  Before this time, treatment options worked in roughly half
of all cases, with the regimen taking nearly a year and resulting
in debilitating side effects.

The new medications can take 12 weeks, requiring one pill a day,
and result in curing the infection in more than 90 percent of
cases.  But they're very expensive: One pill can cost $1,000. That
cost could be playing a role in the department's deciding how to
treat the illness, according to experts and a former Tennessee
prison employee.

"We started for a while doing a hepatitis panel on everybody. And
we stopped that because we found out there were too many people
who had hepatitis C, and then if you're going to do that, you're
going to have to do something about that," said Donald Willie, a
former nurse practitioner who worked in a West Tennessee prison
for 14 years.

During a legislative hearing that involved a discussion of
hepatitis C after The Tennessean published its investigation,
department officials argued they are treating every inmate.  But
in the vast majority of cases, that involves routinely drawing
blood from inmates to monitor the progression of their hepatitis
C.  That doesn't actually constitute treatment, national hepatitis
C expert Dr. Arthur Kim recently told The Tennessean.

"Without knowing specifics, blood draws may be part of the
evaluation of the condition, but it would not count as treatment
of (hepatitis C), in my view," said Dr. Kim, who works with
Harvard Medical School and a national board that makes hepatitis C
treatment recommendations.

The department's refusal to treat inmates is causing physical and
mental abuse, the lawsuit states.  In addition to seeking class-
action status, the inmates and their attorneys want the department
to implement a plan to start treating all inmates as soon as
possible and to pay for attorneys fees.


TERRAFORM POWER: Lead Plaintiff Named in "Chamblee" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paula Xinis appointed Schlettwein and Spindler as
the lead plaintiffs in the case, JOHN CHAMBLEE, Individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TERRAFORM
POWER, INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. PX 16-981 (D.
Md.). Both lead plaintiffs are putative class members who have the
largest financial interests in the outcome of the litigation.

The Court found that the lead plaintiffs' collective losses of
over $60,000 provide adequate incentive to prosecute this case on
behalf of the class, and no evidence exists that their interests
are antagonistic to the class in any regard.

The Court further noted that (1) on September 26, 2016, lead co-
plaintiffs will file a Consolidated Amended Complaint; (2) on
November 25, 2016, defendants will file their Motion to Dismiss;
(3) on January 24, 2017, lead co-plaintiffs will file their
Response; and (4) on February 23, 2017, defendants will file their
reply.

A copy of the Court's decision dated July 28, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/WX9TLCfrom Leagle.com.

John Chamblee, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stephen Sommers
-- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, J Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomertantz LLP &
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

TerraForm Power, Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard M Shapiro
-- howard.shapiro@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, Joel S Green -- joel.green@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Lucy Heenan Ewins --
lucyheenan.ewins@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, Michael G Bongiorno --
michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP & Timothy Jeffrey Perla --
timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP.

Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Defendant, represented by Kevin Joseph O
Connor -- koconnor@hinckleyallen.com -- Hinckley Allen & Tonya
Kelly Cronin -- tkelly@birankelly.com -- Biran Kelly LLC.

Alejandro Hernandez, Defendant, represented by Shannon Barrett --
sbarrett@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP, Daniel H Bookin --
dbookin@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP & Matthew Gill --
mgill@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP.


THOMA BRAVO: Faces "Garagarza" Suit Over Qlik Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------
Jorge F. Garagarza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Thoma Bravo, LLC, Project Alpha Holding,
LLC, Project Alpha Merger Corp., Elliott Associates, L.P., Lars
Bjork, Bruce Golden, John Gavin, Jr., Deborah Hopkins, Alex Ott,
Steffan Tomlinson and Paul Wahl, Case No. 12586 (Del. Ch. Ct.,
July 22, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of
Qlik Technologies Inc. to enjoin the proposed sale of Qlik to
Thoma Bravo, LLC, through an unfair and improper process.

Qlik Technologies Inc. is in the field of visual analytics
delivering solutions for self-service data visualization and
guided analytics.

Thoma Bravo, LLC is an equity and growth capital firm based in
Chicago and San Francisco.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce McNew, Esq.
      Samuel L. Moultrie, Esq.
      WILKS, LUKOFF& BRACEGIRDLE, LLC
      1300 North Grant Avenue, Suite 100
      Wilmington, DE  19806
      Telephone: (302) 225-0850
      Facsimile: (302) 225-0024
      E-mail: mcnew@wlblaw.com
              smoultrie@wlblaw.com

         - and -

      Randall J. Baron, Esq.
      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA  92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
              DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA  92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com

           - and -

      Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP W.
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY  10016
      Telephone: (212) 802-1486
      Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
      E-mail: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com


TOBIKO RESTAURANT: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan S. Galicia, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Tobiko Restaurant, Inc. and Jimmy H. Lin,
Case No. 2:16-cv-04074-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Tobiko restaurant located at 209
West Merrick Road, Valley Stream, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


TROTT & TROTT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Wilson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David M. Lawson entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled EARL D. WILSON v. TROTT & TROTT, P.C., also known as
TROTT LAW, P.C., Case No. 2:16-cv-10335-DML-APP (E.D. Mich.),
dismissing, without prejudice, the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class and striking the image from the CM/ECF system.

"The Court finds after reviewing the motion that the plaintiff has
failed to comply with the mandate of Eastern District of Michigan
Local Rule 7.1(a), which requires that, prior to filing any motion
in this Court, "[t]he movant must ascertain whether the
contemplated motion . . . will be opposed," Judge Lawson stated.
"The Court therefore will dismiss the motion to certify class and
strike the motion," he added.

Judge Lawson further directed the Plaintiff to file a class
certification motion on or before August 8, 2016.  If no motion is
filed by then, the Court will deem the class claims abandoned.

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


TYCOON CONSTRUCTION: "Lituma" Sues Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Lituma and Marcelo Largo, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated who were employed by
Tycoon Construction Corp. with respect to certain Public
Works Projects, Plaintiffs, v. Tycoon Construction Corp., Nick
Massuridis and Darwin National Assurance Company, Defendants, Case
No. 653828/2016 (N.Y. Sup., July 21, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits and damages
resulting from breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust
enrichment and suretyship under N.Y. Labor Laws and N.Y. State
Finance Laws.

Tycoon Construction Corp. is a business incorporated in the State
of New York, with its principal place of business at 1452 28th
Ave, Astoria, NY 11102, with Nick Massuridis as owner/director.
Plaintiffs performed various types of construction-related work at
various public works project sites.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven Arenson, Esq.
     ARENSON, DITTMAR AND KARBAN
     200 Park A venue, Suite 1700
     New York, NY 100166
     Tel: (212) 490-3600
     Email: steve@adklawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: CEO Can't Use PI Info in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
has enjoined Uber and CEO Travis Kalanick from using information
gathered by a private investigator he hired to dig into the
backgrounds of the plaintiff and lawyer in a class action lawsuit.

Citing "fraudulent and arguably criminal" conduct by private
investigation firm Global Precision Research, doing business as
Ergo, Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff also enjoined Uber from
conducting further research into litigants in Meyer v. Kalanick,
15-cv-9796, through the use of false pretenses, illegally recorded
conversations and other unlawful means.

"It is a sad day when, in response to the filing of a commercial
lawsuit, a corporate defendant feels compelled to hire unlicensed
private investigators to conduct secret personal background
investigations of both the plaintiff and his counsel," Rakoff
said.

It is "sadder yet," the judge added, when the investigators
"flagrantly lie" to friends and acquaintances of the plaintiff and
his counsel to obtain derogatory information about them.

The plaintiff, Spencer Meyer, alleges in a suit filed last year
that Mr. Kalanick uses Uber's pricing algorithm to restrict price
competition.  If not for Mr. Kalanick's conspiracy to fix fares
charged by Uber drivers, Mr. Meyer alleges, fares could be lower
because drivers could compete on prices.

Shortly after the suit was filed, Judge Rakoff's order stated,
Uber officials reached out to Ergo to investigate Mr. Meyer.  In a
proposal to Uber, Ergo said it also would look into Mr. Meyer's
relationship with his counsel, Andrew Schmidt, a Portland, Maine,
attorney, to determine if Mr. Schmidt is "actually the driving
force" behind the lawsuit.

The task of completing the investigation was handed off to Ergo
investigator Miguel Santos-Neves, who, according to the order,
contacted acquaintances and colleagues of Messrs. Meyer and
Schmidt and made materially false statements as to why he was
doing so.

After learning that Mr. Meyer was a conservationist associated
with Yale University, Mr. Santos-Neves told sources that he was
contacting them as part of a research project involving "up-and-
coming researchers in environmental conservation."

Mr. Santos-Neves told other sources that he was conducting
research into "up-and-coming labor lawyers" or that he was
conducting real estate market research.  He then reported his
misrepresentations to officials at Ergo, saying that his sources
believed that he was profiling Mr. Meyer for a report on leading
figures in conservation, which he said could provide him cover
from suspicion if he asked sources about Mr. Meyer's lawsuit.

Mr. Meyer brought the investigation to Rakoff's attention in May,
and the judge authorized Mr. Meyer to depose Uber and Ergo
officials and to serve document subpoenas on the two companies.
In response to the subpoenas, Uber and Ergo claimed attorney-
client and work-product protection over some of the documents and
voice recordings.

Judge Rakoff conducted an in camera review of the materials and,
on June 9, denied all of Ergo's privilege and work-product
protection claims.  He found that Uber and Ergo may not escape the
application of the "crime-fraud" exception to the privilege and
work-product protection claims and that the materials they sought
to protect "are not to be covered with the cloak of privilege."

The crime-fraud exception applies when it is determined the client
communication or the work product itself furthers the crime or
fraud or is intended to facilitate or conceal criminal activity
(see In re Richard Roe, 169 F. 3d 69, 71 (2nd Cir. 1999)).

The judge said Messrs. Meyer and Schmidt had both become the
targets of an "intrusive and clandestine investigation" and, when
they sought more information about the investigation, they were
faced with false denials, followed by efforts by the defendants to
limit their access to that information.

Thus, Judge Rakoff said, any potential work-product protections
attached to Ergo's communications had been overcome.

Judge Rakoff also said that Mr. Santos-Neves was not acting as a
"rogue investigator" and that his misrepresentations were condoned
by Ergo's leadership.

The judge noted that Ergo is not licensed to do business in
New York and that Mr. Santos-Neves recorded phone conversations
with sources with phone numbers traceable to Connecticut and New
Hampshire, which are both two-party consent states where it is
illegal to record conversations without the consent of both
parties to the call.

Recording those conversations, Judge Rakoff said, is at worst
illegal and, at best, "reckless disregard of the risk of failing
to comply with the law."

In addition to Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Meyer is represented by McKool
Smith principals John Briody -- jbriody@mckoolsmith.com --
Lewis LeClair -- lleclair@mckoolsmith.com -- and James Smith;
Constantine Cannon partner Matthew Cantor --
mcantor@constantinecannon.com -- and associate David Scupp;
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel partners Bryan Clobes and
Ellen Meriwether; and Harter Secrest & Emery partners
Brian Feldman -- bfeldman@hselaw.com -- Edwin Larkin III and
Jeffrey Wadsworth.

"Even though the deceptive investigation only highlighted Mr.
Meyer's sterling personal and professional reputation, we are
pleased with the court's opinion," Mr. Schmidt said in an email.

Mr. Kalanick is represented by Boies, Schiller & Flexner partners
Peter Skinner -- pskinner@bsfllp.com -- Karen Dunn --
kdunn@bsfllp.com -- William Isaacson and Alanna Rutherford and
associate Ryan Park.

Reed Brodsky -- rbrodsky@gibsondunn.com -- a partner at Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, appeared for Uber.

Uber declined to comment on the decision.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Arbitration Bid in Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for Law.com, reports that lawyers for Uber
Technologies Inc. have lost a bid to force a federal antitrust
suit challenging the company's pricing algorithms into
arbitration.

Uber and company CEO Travis Kalanick cannot enforce an arbitration
clause that was buried in its terms of service and never directly
presented to the passenger when signing up for the Uber app, U.S.
District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York
ruled on July 29.

The judge, while lamenting the degree to which modern consumers
are forced into waiving their access to the courts, said there was
nonetheless a limit to the enforceability of company-backed
arbitration clauses.

Denying a motion to compel arbitration, Judge Rakoff said "a
fundamental principle of contract formation" in the electronic era
"will be left in the dust" if consumers can so easily sign away
their rights.

The effort to push the putative class action into arbitration was
backed by Mr. Kalanick's attorneys at Boies, Schiller & Flexner
and Uber's legal team at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.  The company
declined to comment on the ruling.

Judge Rakoff said it's well established that consumers can see
claims steered into arbitration where they have "voluntarily
agreed to do so in response to endless, turgid and often
impenetrable sets of terms of conditions."

"But what about situations where the consumer is not even asked to
affirmatively indicate her consent?" Judge Rakoff wrote in Meyer
v. Kalanick, 15-cv-09796.  "What about situations in which the
consumer, by the mere act of accessing a service, is allegedly
consenting to an entire lengthy set of terms and conditions?

"And," he added, "what about the situation where the only
indication to the consumer that she is so consenting appears in
print so small that an ordinary consumer, if she could read it at
all, would hardly notice it?"

Lawyers for Uber-user Spencer Meyer, led by attorneys with Harter
Secrest & Emery and Constantine Cannon, contend that the company's
pricing algorithm amounts to price-fixing that violates federal
antitrust laws.

Judge Rakoff denied Mr. Kalanick's motion to dismiss in April and
imposed sanctions on the company for unethical tactics used by a
private investigator who was hired to dig into the backgrounds of
Mr. Meyer and his lawyers.  Judge Rakoff barred Uber from using
the fruits of the investigator's work.

On the motion to compel arbitration, the question for Judge Rakoff
was whether Mr. Meyer had made a knowing and voluntary waiver of
his right to a jury trial when he signed up for the ride-hailing
service.

Attorneys for Mr. Meyer claimed he lacked adequate notice of the
existence of an arbitration agreement when he clicked through to
sign up for the Uber app on his Samsung Galaxy S5 phone on
Oct. 14, 2014.

Judge Rakoff said users would be notified of the ADR provision
only by clicking a hyperlink and then the button to access the
terms and conditions and privacy policy -- "neither of which,"
Judge Rakoff wrote, "is remotely required to register with Uber
and begin accessing its services. "

And even if the user reaches the terms and conditions, he said,
"these terms . . . consist of nine pages of highly legalistic
language that no ordinary consumer could be expected to
understand."


VISA INC: B&R Supermarket Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned B & R SUPERMARKET, INC., d/b/a MILAM'S MARKET,
a Florida corporation, and GROVE LIQUORS LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VISA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; VISA USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; MASTERCARD
INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED; a Delaware corporation, AMERICAN
EXPRESS COMPANY, a New York corporation; DISCOVER FINANCIAL
SERVICES, an Illinois corporation; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a
national banking association; BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, a Delaware
corporation; CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national
banking association; CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., a South Dakota
bank; CITIBANK, N.A., a national banking association; PNC BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association; USAA SAVINGS
BANK, a Nevada corporation; U.S. BANCORP NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a
national banking association; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national
banking association; EMVCo, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; JCB CO. LTD, a Japanese company; and UNIONPAY, a Chinese
bank association, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-05338-AT (N.D. Cal.,
March 8, 2016), has been transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that the Networks, the Issuing Banks through
EMVCo conspired to shift billions of dollars in liability for
fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected consumer credit card
transactions in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and
California's Cartwright Act.

Visa Inc. is a California-based payments technology company, which
operates a retail electronic payments network in the United
States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Patrick J. Coughlin
     David W. Mitchell
     Alexandra S. Bernay
     Carmen A. Medici
     Patrick J. Coughlin
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Phone: 619/231-1058
     Fax: 619/231-7423

        - and -

     John W. Devine, Esq.
     Lawrence D. Goodman, Esq.
     Robert J. Kuntz, Jr., Esq.
     DEVINE GOODMAN RASCO & WATTS-FITZGERALD, LLP
     2800 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1400
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: 305/374-8200
     Fax: 305/374-8208


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Jefferson County May Join Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Ball, writing for Port Arthur News, reports that the
Jefferson County Commissioners Court cleared the first hurdle in
hiring special counsel to join a class action lawsuit against
Volkswagen.

They made the decision on July 25 at their regular meeting at the
Jefferson County Courthouse.

County Judge Jeff Branick said an analysis was completed on the
number of defective vehicles sold in each county in Texas.  An
agreement was reached to fine each vehicle with the Volkswagen
Corporation.  Jefferson County was invited by Dallas County to
join the suit.

Judge Branick said he authorized County Attorney Kathleen Kennedy
to work with special counsel, Alex Constant, of Corpus Christi.
There will be a contingent fee in the hiring, but no upfront money
will be spent.

It was reported in the February 24 edition of The Wall Street
Journal attorneys filed proposed class-action suits in a U.S.
District Court in California against Volkswagen AG, alleging the
German car maker engaged in widespread fraud in marketing its
vehicles in the U.S., citing federal laws used to curb
racketeering.

The civil filings, on behalf of more than half a million U.S. car
owners and dealers, begins what is likely to be a long and
potentially expensive series of court proceedings against
Volkswagen.  The world's second-largest auto maker has admitted to
using so-called defeat devices to manipulate U.S. emissions tests
of its diesel-powered cars.

"This is the very first step and we will see what the results
are," Judge Branick said.

The commissioners approved donating property at 246 Dallas Ave. in
Port Arthur to the city of Port Arthur.

Judge Branick said they don't have a deed yet and the action will
be done with a diversionary clause.  The building was the former
Jefferson County Health Department that built a new structure down
the street.

Ron Burton, planning and zoning director for the city of Port
Arthur, said this item will be placed on the city council's
agenda.

Everette "Bo" Alfred, Precinct 4 commissioner, asked what the
timeframe would be for the city to put the building into use.

Mr. Burton said some abatement work needs to be done and should be
completed at the end of the year.  Some partitions inside the
building also need to be removed.

Michael "Shane" Sinegal, Precinct 3 commissioner, asked how much
money would the city put into the project.  Mr. Burton said it
would be from $1.2 million to $1.3 million for the building to
create a one-stop shop for contractors.

Mr. Sinegal said he likes to see all of the governmental entities
working together on a project such as this.

The commissioners also approved an amendment to the agreement
between the Department of the Army, Galveston and Jefferson
Counties, and the Sabine-Neches Navigation District for a
shoreline feasibility study from Galveston to Sabine Pass.

Galveston has since dropped out of the study.  The study, however,
will cover Orange County as well as Jefferson County.

"The proposed work will improve dikes and levees," Fred Jackson,
assistant to the county judge said in a prior article.  "The levee
system there (in Orange County) is to protect them from storm
surge."

The three-year study would be a shared cost expense. Jefferson
County's share would be $1.5 million.  The Jefferson County
Waterway and Navigation District, however, stepped up and joined
in the agreement to pay the county's portion because the study
"would benefit them greatly," Mr. Jackson said.  He added that the
navigation district does much for the county.

"They'll do the $1.5 million cost-share this year," he said. "This
is an ongoing system of studies.  It's an overall defense package
against storm surge.  This will protect 100,000 acres of watershed
and wildlife and protect industry with the protective marsh."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Seeks Dismissal of U.S. Investors' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that Volkswagen A.G. and four of its senior
executives have moved to dismiss claims brought by U.S. investors
over the damage its emissions scandal has had on share values.
The shareholder case against Volkswagen was filed as a
consolidated class action on behalf of holders of American
depositary receipts, or ADRs, which are U.S. securities that
represent shares of a foreign company and are traded over the
counter in the United States, from Nov. 19, 2010, to Jan. 4, 2016.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Morrison v. National
Australia Bank held that investors who purchase a foreign
company's stock on a foreign exchange lack standing to sue in U.S.
courts.

In a motion filed on Aug. 1, Volkswagen attorney Robert Giuffra of
Sullivan & Cromwell, citing Morrison, wrote that the case "exceeds
the territorial reach" of U.S. securities laws. Volkswagen does
not file financial reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, and the claims are based on disclosures made in
Germany under German laws, he wrote.

"Volkswagen believes that the consolidated securities class action
complaint is without merit," said Volkswagen spokesman Pietro
Zollino in a prepared statement.  "The plaintiffs do not satisfy
the basic elements of a U.S. securities claim, and, in any event,
this action challenging Volkswagen's investor disclosures, issued
in Germany, does not belong in a U.S. court."
The plaintiffs' response is due Oct. 11.

"Plaintiffs intend to forcefully respond to all of Defendants'
arguments," wrote lead counsel Jim Harrod --
jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- a partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann in New York.  "We remain extremely confident that the
court will agree that defendants made false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose the true facts for years while
knowingly selling cars that massively exceeded applicable
emissions standards.  There is little question that the securities
claims, on behalf of investors who purchased ADRs that are traded
in the U.S., are subject to jurisdiction and should be litigated
in the U.S. courts."

The case is part of the multidistrict litigation in U.S. court
against Volkswagen but was excluded from a $14.7 billion
settlement the automaker reached in June.  If it's not dismissed,
Mr. Giuffra added, the case should be transferred to Germany,
where government investigations are ongoing and about 130 lawsuits
have been filed against Volkswagen by 450 investors, including 90
in the United States, alleging more than $4 billion in damages.

Volkswagen's motion also argued that the case failed to allege
that four of its executives made misstatements to investors or did
so with reckless intent in the company's marketing materials,
financial reports or compliance stickers on diesel vehicles.
Those executives are brand chief executive Herbert Diess, former
Volkswagen Group of America CEO Michael Horn and Mr. Horn's
predecessor, Jonathan Browning, who resigned in 2013.  Tom Kelly,
co-chairman of the white-collar and government-investigations
practice at Dentons, represents Browning, and Mr. Horn is
represented by David Schertler -- dschertler@schertlerlaw.com --
founder of Washington's Schertler & Onorato.  They also include
former Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn, represented by Gregory
Joseph -- gjoseph@jha.com -- a partner at New York's Joseph Hage
Aaronson, who joined in the motion.

In additional motions, Messrs. Diess and Winterkorn said the case
fails to assert U.S. jurisdiction over them or that they had any
control over statements made by Volkswagen's U.S. subsidiaries.


WEWORK: Faces NLRB Complaint Over Arbitration Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------
Nathan McAlone and Avery Hartmans, writing for Business Insider,
report that WeWork, which aims to build "beautiful, shared office
spaces" with a community mindset, is now facing a formal complaint
from the National Labor Relations Board.

The NLRB, which investigates unfair labor practices throughout the
U.S., is asking an adminstrative law judge to order WeWork to
change policies that ban its employees from filing class action
lawsuits.  The complaint is a result of a case brought against
WeWork by a former employee, Tara Zoumer.  Ms. Zoumer alleges that
she was fired after refusing to sign an arbitration agreement.

Ms. Zoumer also filed a lawsuit against WeWork in San Francisco
Superior Court, which was ordered into arbitration in New York.
According to a person with knowledge of the situation, that
arbitration is still ongoing and is a separate process.

WeWork declined to comment on the NLRB's complaint, but a WeWork
spokesperson provided this statement to Business Insider in June:
"This charge has no merit.  Our employees are our lifeblood and we
firmly believe our policies are fair and lawful."

The labor board complaint comes days after WeWork filed a lawsuit
against a former employee who leaked data that showed the firm
falling short of its financial goals.

While the NLRB has brought a formal complaint, WeWork has not yet
had the opportunity to present its case.  A hearing in front of
the judge has been set for September 7 in Oakland, Calif.

The case

Ms. Zoumer worked for WeWork from March to November 2015, as an
associate community manager, during which time she alleged
violations of California's labor code, including a lack of
overtime and meal breaks due to a misclassification.  When she
brought these issues up with her managers at WeWork, she was told
to not talk with her coworkers about them, and then asked if she
wanted to resign, Ms. Zoumer says.

After Ms. Zoumer spoke with her WeWork superiors, she claims they
made all US employees sign new employment documents, which
included what she and her attorney characterize as an "unlawful
mandatory arbitration agreement."

Ms. Zoumer says she was fired by WeWork after refusing to sign
this agreement, which would have waived certain rights, including
her right to a class-action claim.

These kinds of arbitration agreements, especially those that strip
class-action rights, are controversial.  The NLRB considers them
to be in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, but there
have been conflicting rulings from the courts.

A person close to WeWork, who asked not to be identified
discussing a legal matter, said that though the majority of
federal courts were on WeWork's side -- in favor of these
arbitration agreements -- this fight could eventually go to the
Supreme Court because of the differences in lower court rulings.

What does that mean for WeWork?

In June, Ms. Zoumer's attorney, Ramsey Hanafi, said that he
expected an NLRB complaint to be issued.  At the time, the NLRB
responded to Zoumer's charges, notifying her of those they found
to be with and without merit.  These were included in an email to
Ms. Zoumer, from NLRB Field Attorney Lelia M. Gomez:

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating
the Charging Party because of her protected concerted activities,
including her refusal to sign the Employer's Employment Dispute
Resolution Program and Invention, Non-Disclosure, and Non-
Solicitation Agreement. -- MERIT

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating
the Charging Party because of her protected concerted activities,
including her activities attempting to enlist other employees in
pursuing a wage class lawsuit. -- NO MERIT

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, when on October
21, 2015, West Coast Director Chia Donati instructed employees
that they could not discuss their rights, wages, and/or other
terms or conditions of employment. -- MERIT

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an
Employment Dispute Resolution Program that includes a
class/collective action waiver, prohibits access to the National
Labor Relations Board; and includes a confidentiality provision
that precludes employees from discussing their wages, hours, and
or other terms/conditions of employment. -- MERIT

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by implementing
an Employment Dispute Resolution Program in retaliation for the
Charging Party's protected concerted activities. -- NO MERIT

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an
Invention, Non-Disclosure, and Non-Solicitation Agreement that
includes a confidentiality provision that classifies personnel
data as proprietary information. -- MERIT.

Those charges with merit are included in the latest NLRB
complaint.  Now that the complaint has been filed, WeWork has 10
days to file an answer.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Motion to Quash Denied in "Chambers" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, Plaintiff, No. 4:16-MC-
421 RLW (E.D. Mo.), District Judge Ronnie L. White denied Jonathan
Fortman's motion to quash the subpoenas directed to him, as
counsel of the absent class members who objected to a proposed
class action settlement and award of attorneys' fees in the suit,
entitled, "Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp.", Case No. 8:11cv1733 (C.D.
Ca.).

A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 27, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/QH5RYhfrom Leagle.com.

The Court ordered Fortman to produce the requested documents,
along with a privilege log (if necessary), or provide a
declaration under oath listing the information sought in the
document requests.

Steve Chambers, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Rosemergy,
CAREY AND DANIS & Steven A. Schwartz --
SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP.

Jonathan Fortman, Movant, represented by Jonathan E. Fortman, LAW
OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC.


WILLIS TOWERS: Resolution on Fee Bid Pending in Del. Chancery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
26, 2016, that the resolution of the fee petition in the Towers
Watson & Co. Merger Litigation for $250,000 has not been approved
or ruled upon by the Court of Chancery of Delaware.

Between July 9, 2015 and August 24, 2015, five stockholders of
Towers Watson & Co. ("Towers Watson") filed putative class action
lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of Delaware against Towers
Watson's board members, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty,
and against Willis Group Holdings plc ("Willis") and Willis'
subsidiary Citadel Merger Sub, Inc. ("Citadel"), for aiding and
abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On July 28, 2015,
one of the putative class action lawsuits was voluntarily
dismissed. The claimed breaches of fiduciary duty originated from
the execution of the merger agreement dated June 29, 2015 among
Towers Watson, Willis, and Citadel, which was alleged to offer
unfair and inadequate consideration for Towers Watson stock. The
original complaints in the lawsuits sought to enjoin the merger
and monetary damages for the putative class.

On August 27, 2015, Willis filed a Registration Statement and
Preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus relating to the
proposed merger. On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs in four of
the putative class action lawsuits filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, which, in addition to seeking to enjoin the merger and
monetary damages for the putative class, sought disclosure of
additional facts relating to the merger in connection with the
stockholder vote thereupon. On September 17, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings and a Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction.

On October 13, 2015, Willis filed Amendment No. 1 ("Amendment No.
1") to the Registration Statement that included an amended
Preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which mooted (i)
Plaintiffs' disclosure claims in the Consolidated Amended
Complaint pertaining to the compensation of Towers Watson's
financial advisor for work unrelated to the proposed merger and
the valuation analyses of the financial advisor; and (ii)
Plaintiffs' contention in an October 8, 2015 letter that the proxy
statement should disclose sales of 106,933 shares of Towers Watson
stock by Towers Watson's CEO, John Haley, that Mr. Haley had
previously disclosed in a Form 4 filed with the SEC on March 3,
2015. On October 19, 2015, Plaintiffs withdrew their Motion for
Expedited Proceedings and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

On November 18, 2015, Towers Watson, Willis, and Citadel entered
into an amendment to the merger agreement which increased the pre-
merger special dividend payable to holders of Towers Watson common
stock prior to the closing date from $4.87 per share to $10.00 per
share. On December 11, 2015, a majority of all outstanding shares
of Towers Watson common stock were cast in favor of the proposed
merger. On January 4, 2016, the merger was consummated.

On April 18, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered an order
dismissing the stockholder action with prejudice as to Plaintiffs
New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund, New Jersey
Building Laborers' Statewide Pension Fund, The City of Atlanta
Firefighters' Pension Fund, Cyndy Cordell, and Peter Mills, and
without prejudice as to all other plaintiffs and any absent
members of the putative class. Pursuant to the order, the Court of
Chancery retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
determining the Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses.

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a petition for fees
and reimbursement of expenses in view of the supplemental
disclosures contained in Amendment No. 1 and the increase in the
pre-merger special dividend. The petition sought an award of $1.7
million in fees and reimbursement of expenses. On June 8, 2016,
Defendants filed their opposition to the petition. After
negotiations, the parties have agreed to resolve the petition for
a payment of $250,000 to Plaintiffs' counsel by Willis Towers
Watson Public Limited Company. The resolution of the fee petition
for $250,000 has not been approved or ruled upon by the Court of
Chancery of Delaware.


WILSON COUNTY, KS: Class Certification in "Ogden" Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled RUSSELL K. OGDEN, BEATRICE
HAMMER and JOHN SMITH, on behalf of themselves and a class of
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PETE FIGGINS, in
his official capacity as Sheriff for Wilson County, Kansas, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02268-JAR-KGG (D. Kas.), the Hon.
Julie A. Robinson granted class certification to:

     "all current and future outside correspondents who wish to
      write letters to, and/or receive letters from, inmates in
      the Wilson County Correctional Facility and who are subject
      to or affected by the Postcard-Only Mail Policy."

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


WORK OUT WORLD: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Susinno" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Noreen Susinno filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Noreen Susinno v. Work Out World Inc., Case
No. 3-15-cv-05881, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Noreen
Susinno filed the Case on July 30, 2015, alleging violations of
the Communications Act of 1934.

The appellate case is captioned as Noreen Susinno v. Work Out
World Inc., Case No. 16-3277, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Noreen Susinno is represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee Work Out World Inc. is represented by:

          Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq.
          ANSELL GRIMM & AARON PC
          365 Rifle Camp Road
          West Paterson, NJ 07424
          Telephone: (973) 413-8047
          Facsimile: (973) 247-9199
          E-mail: jb@ansellgrimm.com


* Federal Securities Class Action Filings Up 17% in 1st Half 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed 119 new federal securities class action cases in
the first half of 2016, a 17 percent increase over the last half
of 2015, according to Securities Class Action Filings -- 2016
Midyear Assessment, a new report released on July 26 by
Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse.

The total represents an increase of 17 cases from the second half
of 2015, and 32 more than the first half of 2015.  The 119 filings
were 27 percent higher than the semiannual average of 94 filings
observed between 1997 and 2015.

Federal filings of class actions involving mergers and
acquisitions increased to 24 in the first half of 2016 -- 167
percent above the second half of 2015, and significantly higher
than the semiannual range of five to nine filings from 2012 to
2015.

"At the current pace, M&A-related filings in federal courts will
double the annual numbers we have observed in the last four years.
The January 2016 Delaware Court of Chancery decision in Trulia,
which makes disclosure-only settlements more difficult to obtain,
may have increased the likelihood that plaintiffs will again seek
federal jurisdiction for M&A-related class actions," said Dr. John
Gould, a senior vice president of Cornerstone Research.  "We are
releasing a report that looks in greater detail at M&A-related
shareholder actions in both federal and state venues."

"The data also show an interesting shift in Section 11 litigation
from federal to state court, an issue that could soon wind up
before the U.S. Supreme Court," according to Professor Joseph A.
Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse and former SEC Commissioner.  "Plaintiffs
have obviously calculated that they are likely to achieve more
plaintiff-friendly outcomes in state court than in federal court,
and are using a range of jurisdictional maneuvers to try to steer
an increasing number of cases away from the federal forum. One
defendant who has been shut out of federal court has petitioned
the Supreme Court for a hearing, and if the Court grants the
petition its ruling could have a major effect on the future
evolution of Section 11 litigation."

In the first half of 2016, filings against S&P 500 companies were
more frequent than the historical average.  If the current pace
continues, one in 16 companies (6 percent) would be the target of
a lawsuit by year end, the highest annual rate since 2008.

The Consumer Non-Cyclical sector again had the most filings with
43.  The sector predominantly comprises biotechnology,
pharmaceutical, and healthcare companies.  There were 32 filings
against companies in these subsectors.

Key Trends:

Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL), a measure of market capitalization
losses at the end of the class period, declined in contrast to the
increase in the number of class action filings.  Total DDL was $43
billion in the first half of 2016, 39 percent below the second
half of 2015 and 28 percent below the historical semiannual
average of $60 billion.

Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL), a measure of market capitalization
losses during the class period, was $331 billion, 11 percent above
the historical semiannual average MDL of $297 billion.  For the
first time in the last 12 semiannual periods, MDL exceeded the
historical average.

In the first half of 2016, two mega filings made up 27 percent of
DDL and 10 mega filings made up 58 percent of MDL, respectively.
(Filings with a DDL of at least $5 billion or an MDL of at least
$10 billion are considered mega filings.)

On an annualized basis, filings against foreign issuers increased
from 2015 levels in spite of an absence of filings against Chinese
issuers, the most common foreign companies targeted by class
actions in recent years.

The Ninth and Second Circuits made up 62 percent of filings in the
first six months of 2016.  There were 38 filings in the Ninth
Circuit and 36 in the Second Circuit.

Dismissal rates for 2013, 2014, and 2015 filing cohorts increased
over the first six months of 2016 compared to 2015 year-end.  The
2014 filing cohorts showed the most substantial increase, from 14
percent at the end of 2015 to 34 percent currently.

Dr. Gould and Professor Grundfest are available to speak with the
media about Securities Class Action Filings -- 2016 Midyear
Assessment.  The report can be downloaded from the Cornerstone
Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse websites.

                  About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings.  The firm
works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry
practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each
assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for
consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous,
state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years.  The firm has 600
staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New
York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington.

            About the Stanford Law School
         Securities Class Action Clearinghouse

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is an
authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and
economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation.  The SCAC maintains a database of more than 4,200
securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database
also contains copies of more than 45,000 complaints, briefs,
filings, and other litigation-related materials filed in these
cases.


* New York Governor Signs Bill Against Tampon Sales Tax
-------------------------------------------------------
Mary Bowerman, writing for USA TODAY, reports that if lip balm and
dandruff shampoo fall under medical product tax-exemptions in
N.Y., shouldn't feminine hygiene products too?

Now they do.

On July 21, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law that
will eliminate sales tax on feminine hygiene products.

The move makes New York one of the few states that does not tax
products likes pads, tampons and other feminine hygiene products.

Here's a rundown on the so-called "tampon tax" and how it affects
you:

Is there a specific law that taxes feminine products?

There isn't an actual "tampon tax" which specifically targets
feminine products, but in many U.S. states, tampons are not exempt
from state sales tax.

Why are people upset over the "tampon tax"?

Proponents of ending the "tampon tax" allege that the law creates
a double standard, with some states taxing tampons, while offering
tax exemptions for medical goods.  Shouldn't a woman's menstrual
cycle fall under medical goods?

Which states do not have a 'tampon tax'?

Eleven states do not have a tax on feminine products, according to
Newsweek.  Minnesota, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania do not tax menstrual products, and five other states
(Oregon, Montana, Delaware New Hampshire, and Alaska) do not have
a sales tax, Newsweek reported.

Are other states moving towards ending the "tampon tax"?

Yes. Earlier in July, a Tampa woman filed a class-action lawsuit
designed to repeal Florida's sales tax on tampons and refund
millions of dollars to customers who have paid it.

Carlee Wendell filed the lawsuit against several state agencies,
including the Department of Revenue, and major retailers including
CVS, Publix, Target, Walgreens and Walmart.

In California, lawmakers voted in June to get rid of its state's
tax on tampons and feminine napkins.

How much money will consumers save if tampons are exempt from
state sales tax?

A lot. In New York, the state estimated that eliminating the tax
would save consumers about $10 million a year.  In California, the
tax generates some $20 million a year.


* Volkswagen Case Prompts Call for US-Style Class Action in Korea
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Choi He-suk, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that opposition
parties are seeking the introduction of US-style class action in
South Korea prompted by Volkswagen's emissions scandal.

On July 26, progressive heavyweight Rep. Park Young-sun of the
main opposition The Minjoo Party of Korea submitted a proposal for
the introduction of "class action act."

"Like the Volkswagen case, (cases in which) it is difficult to
prove damages due to an imbalance in information is increasing.
However, the current civil suit (regulations) are focused on
resolving disputes individually," Rep. Park said.

"This proposal is to introduce legal means to ensure sufficient
compensations and swift recovery of rights for Koreans."

Rep. Park, who proposed an act that will introduce "punitive
compensations" in June," is not alone in seeking to give consumers
an edge in legal battles against corporations.  The act Park
proposed states that a party that allows others to sustain damages
has the duty to make compensations.

The Minjoo's floor leader Rep. Woo Sang-ho backed Rep. Park's
proposals, saying that incidences of Korean consumers being harmed
by multinational firms were on the rise, while the minor
opposition People's Party has voiced support for Rep. Park's idea
of punitive compensation.


                            *********

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  * * *