CAR_Public/160815.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 162




                            Headlines


ACE HOMECARE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
ALL MY SONS: Faces "Rich" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ALLFAST INT'L: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Chavez" Suit Alleges
ALLIED NEVADA: Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
ALTORESTAURANTS INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit by Non-Exempt Employees

ALTRIA GROUP: Health Care Cost Recovery Suits Pending in Canada
ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Sept. 30
ALTRIA GROUP: Retrial in Alaska Case to Begin October 17
ALTRIA GROUP: 2,800 State Court Engle Progeny Cases Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Seven Class Actions Pending in Canada

ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Medical Monitoring Class Suit Pending v. PM USA
ALTRIA GROUP: Updates on "Lights" Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: "Aspinall" Case Settlement Awaits Final Approval
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Begins in "Miner" Class Action
ALTRIA GROUP: "Pearson" Parties Settle Individual Claims

AMAZON.COM LLC: Settlement with Warehouse Workers Has Initial OK
AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Sued in N.J. Over Forced Annual Membership
AMERITIES WEST: Treatment Plant Emits Toxic Gas, Suit Says
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit Over Treatment for Eating Disorders
AVVO: Suit Over Misappropriation of Names and Likeness Dismissed

BACK ON THE BEACH: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Get Meal Break Premiums
BANNER HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over June Data Breach
BATON ROUGE: Faces Class Suit by Black Lives Matter Members
BAYADA HOME: "Reed" Class Suit Seeks Relief Under Pa. Wage Acts
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Barney" Suit Over Pradaxa Promotion

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Carreira" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bedsole" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Boro" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bellah" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BRIAN LEE: Sued for Not Complying With Property Management Laws

C. R. BARD: Class Action Over Composix(R) Kugel(R) Pending
C. R. BARD: Claims by 11,390 Plaintiffs Pending
C. R. BARD: Settled 2,235 Health Product Claims During 2016
C. R. BARD: Filter Product Claims by 770 Plaintiffs Pending
CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Desalinated Water Subsidy

CEDARS BUSINESS: Illegally Records Telephone Dialogue, Suit Says
CLIENT FIRST: "Mogavero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
COASTLINE METAL: Faces "Castro" Suit Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code
COCO NAIL: "Zabala" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss N.J. Class Suit Pending

CORELOGIC INC: Brief in "Stevens" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Nov. 7
CREA ENTERPRISE: Faces "Me Ae Song" Suit Over Labor Code Breach
CREA ENTERPRISE: "Kim" Suit Alleges Violations of Labor Code
CVS HEALTH: Court Dismissed Most State Law Claims in "Corcoran"
CYTRX CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

DALLAS CENTRAL: LPF Coppell Files Suit Over Property Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: "Mushir" Seeks Trial De Novo
DAVID DALEIDEN: 7 Women File Privacy Suit
DIRECTV: Faces RICO Class Action by Beauty Salon Owner
DIVERSIFIED MACHINE: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Claims

DO PRODUCTIONS: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
EAGLE MARINE: "O'Neal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
EMCARE OF CALIFORNIA: Violates Labor Code, "Norris" Suit Asserts
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Underwood" Class Suit in Illinois
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Sued in Mo. Over Alleged Prescription Slamming

FACEBOOK INC: Class C Reclassification Litig. Remains Pending
FLORIS CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FRESHPOINT INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GATEWAYS ENERGY: Sued Over Natural Gas Supply Contract Breach
GIOVANNI'S ITALIAN: "Estrada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

GLOBAL PAYMENTS: MOU Reached in Suit Over Heartland Deal
HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Faces St. Paul Teachers' Suit in N.Y.
HONDA MOTOR: Hands-Free Car Phones Defective, Suit Says
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Watkins" Suit in N.D. Ohio
HYUNDAI: Settlement in Suit Over Santa Fe SUVs Has Initial OK

IBEX CONSTRUCTION: Sued by React Industries Over $42K+ Debt
IMAGE LINE: Faces "Thomas" Suit in District of Utah
INDEPENDENT BANK: Defending Class Suits by SIBL Depositors
INGRAM MICRO: Scheiner Refiled Complaint in Del. Chancery Court
ITC HOLDINGS: Court Eyes March 2017 Completion of Discovery

J&R SCHUGEL: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Claims
JDK MANAGEMENT: "Sexton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Sold Defective Microcool Medical Gowns, Suit Says
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Parties in EoTech Suits Agreed to Mediation
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Motion Pending in Securities Suit

L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: 401(k) Plan Class Action Filed
LAGOON LINENS: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
LIVE NATION: Accrued $16.6MM for Remaining Settlement Costs
MARTHA STEWART: Sells Subscribers Data, Class Suit Says
MASTERCARD INC: Aug. 2016 Status Conference in Interchange Suit

MASTERCARD INC: Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta Suits Suspended
MASTERCARD INC: Supreme Court to Hear ATM Case Arguments in Oct.
MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Dismiss Liability Shift Case Due August
MDL 1917: Court Approves $158 Million in Legal Fees
METHODIST HOSPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Nurses

MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Tsisin" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
MORAN TOWING: "Turnage" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MV TRANSPORTATION: Violates FLSA OT Provision, "Jordan" Suit Says
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Declines to Dismiss Scholarship Case
NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces "Furniss" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

NATURAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Securities Action Remains Pending
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Park Rangers' Class Suit
NINTENDO: Homeowners Sue Over "Pokemon Go" Game
NORTHERN TRUST: $46.5MM Charge Recorded Over ERISA Suit Deal
NPAS INC: Faces "Riezes" Suit in Eastern District New York

NPC INTERNATIONAL: "Gregorius" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
OKLAHOMA: "Dennis" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to N.D. Oklahoma
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Court Permits Filing of Wage Class, PAGA Claims
PANERA BREAD: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Opposed Motion for New Trial in "Larsen" Case

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "O'Brien" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
PSCU INC: "Davis" Labor Suit Transferred from Mich. to Fla. Court
QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders Sue in Pennsylvania Over Merger
QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders Sue in Delaware Over Merger
QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Jeweltex Stockholder Suit

QUAKER OATS: Consumer Class Suits Moved to California
RAVAGH PERSIAN: "Rivera-Raymundo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
RIAL DE MINAS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RIT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Criminal Report Can't Be Used in Class Suit

SEAWORLD PARKS: Court Narrows Claims in "Anderson" Suit
SEI INVESTMENTS: Asks Court to Clarify Class Definition
SOLARCITY CORP: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended Complaint
SONS ELECTRICAL: Faces Suit by Foremen, Apprentices Under NYLL
SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Class Suit v. IOS et al. Stayed

SUPERVALU INC: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Suit Over C&S Deal
SUPERVALU INC: Cross-Appeal Filed in Customer Data Breach Suit
SUTTLES LOGGING: "Hinson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TD BANK: "Carberry" Suit in N.J. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Faces Canyon Capital Suit Over IPO

TEXAS: Faces Inmates' Suit Over Mental Health Service
TIVO: Shareholders Sue Over Sale to Rovi
TOWN SPORTS: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Labbe" Suit
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Bid for Access to Deposition Tapes Denied
TWO MEN: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

U.S. SMOKELESS: Paid $240,000 to Settle Claims
UBER TECH: Arbitration Clause Invalid, Judge Says
UNITED CEREBRAL: "Ponce" Suit Alleges Labor Laws Violations
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaiting Court Approval of Settlement
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Sumpter Filed Appeal in 6th Circuit

WELLS LAND: Faces "Williamson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WEST BANCORPORATION: June 2017 Trial Date Set in Class Action
WORLD WRESTLING: Provides Update on Brain Injuries-Related Suits


                            *********


ACE HOMECARE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Molina, Erica Tovar, Tara Ward, Ly Nguyen, and Consuelo
Powell, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Ace Homecare LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-02214-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla.,
August 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
provide at least 60 days' advance notice of termination in
violation of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.

Ace Homecare LLC operates a home health care agency with several
locations in the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chad A. Justice, Esq.
      BLACK ROCK TRIAL LAWYERS
      201 S. Westland Avenue
      Tampa, FL 33606
      Telephone: (813) 254-1777
      Facsimile: (813) 254-3999
      E-mail: chadjustice@blackrocklaw.com


ALL MY SONS: Faces "Rich" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dwight Rich, Keith Matyasovszky, Terrance Durant, Joshua Smith,
and Jason Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. All My Sons Moving & Storage of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01284 (D. Conn., July 28, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

All My Sons Moving & Storage of Connecticut, Inc. owns and
operates a moving company located in Waterbury, CT 06708.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Phelan, Esq.
      MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, P.C.
      80 Ferry Blvd., Suite 216
      Stratford, CT 06615
      Telephone: (203) 873-0240
      E-mail: gphelan@mitchellandsheahan.com


ALLFAST INT'L: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Chavez" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA CHAVEZ as an individual and on behalf all others
similarly situated v. ALLFAST INTERNATIONAL SALES CORP., a
California Corporation; ALLFAST FASTENING SYSTEMS, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES I through 100, Case No. BC629494
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2016), accuses the
Defendants of failure to pay all overtime wages, minimum wage
violations, meal period violations, and other violations.

The Defendants manufacture solid & blind rivets, blind bolts, and
provide tooling for the aerospace industry.  The Plaintiff does
not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Ave.
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com


ALLIED NEVADA: Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Falling gold prices and other factors, not fraud, caused Allied
Nevada Gold Corp. shares prices to fall, a federal judge in Las
Vegas ruled August 8, dismissing without prejudice a shareholder
class action.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of investors
who purchased stock in Defendant Allied Nevada Gold Corporation
("Allied") between January 18, 2013, and August 5, 2013.  One of
Allied Nevada's central operations recovers gold and silver from
oxide ores using a technique ("heap leaching") that extracts ore
from an open pit, crushes it, and places it on impermeable leach
pads where the ore is doused with a weak cyanide solution that
dissolves the gold from the ore.  One of the company's three leach
pads, the Lewis leach pad, was beset with operational difficulties
between January 18, 2013, and August 5, 2013, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Allied issued a variety of press releases and
financial information2 during the Class Period and also conducted
several conference calls from January to May that Plaintiffs
allege contained a number of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the operations of the Lewis leach pad,
Allied's cash position and access to capital, the expansion of the
Hycroft mine, and Allied's favorable financial guidance.

Plaintiffs then allege that the truth was slowly revealed from May
until August, beginning with Allied's April 30, 2013 press
release; Form 10-Q; and May 1, 2013 conference call, which
announced Allied's planned secondary public offering ("SPO"). On
May 2, 2013, Allied filed an automatic shelf registration
statement on Form S-3 with the Securities Exchange Commission
("SEC"). On May 9, 2013, Allied filed an amendment to the
registration statement, offering to sell fourteen million shares
of Allied stock in a SPO. On May 17, 2013, Allied announced the
closing of its sale of fourteen million shares in the SPO at
$10.75 per share. On July 8 and 22, 2013, Allied released two
further press releases which Plaintiffs contend further exposed
the truth. On August 6, 2013, Allied issued a press release and
held a conference call in which Plaintiffs contend the truth was
finally completely exposed. Allied announced that its production
costs had increased dramatically and would continue to rise
because of the operating defects at the Lewis leach pad. Allied
also stated that it would indefinitely suspend its planned
expansion as a result of the Lewis leach pad deficiencies.
Following this announcement, Allied's stock dropped significantly,
from $5.90 per share at the close of trading on August 5, to $3.73
per share at the close of trading on August 7.

A consolidated complaint alleged two causes of action: (1)
Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and
(2) Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On September
29, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a request for
judicial notice.  On December 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a response
to the motion to dismiss.  On February 1, 2016, Defendants filed a
reply.

A copy of the Court's Aug. 8 Order is available at
http://goo.gl/kLrSm1from Leagle.com.

The case is captioned, IN RE ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP., SECURITIES
LITIGATION, 3:14-CV-00175-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.).


ALTORESTAURANTS INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit by Non-Exempt Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOELIA GARCIA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALTORESTAURANTS, INC. dba VALENTINO'S PIZZA,
BASSO, INC. dba VALENTINO'S PIZZA, a California Corporation;
VALENTINO LUBRANO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 30;
inclusive, CASE No. BC 629540 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles,
August 4, 2016), was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
individuals who hold or held positions as non-exempt employees who
are employed by, or were formerly employed by any of the
Defendants within the State of California in the four years prior
to the filing of the Complaint.

Defendants operate Valentino's Pizza, a pizza restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas N. Silverstein, Esq.
     Michael G. Jacob, Esq.
     KESLUK SILVERSTEIN & JACOB, P.C.
     9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411
     Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309
     Phone: (310) 273-3180
     Fax: (310) 273-6137
     E-mail: dsilverstein@califomialaborlawattorney.com
             mjacob@californialaborlawattorney.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Health Care Cost Recovery Suits Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of July 22, 2016,
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") is a named defendant in 10
health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also
name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc. are also named defendants in seven smoking and health class
actions filed in various Canadian provinces.


ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of July 22, 2016,
seven Engle progeny cases are set for trial through September 30,
2016. There is one "Lights/Ultra Lights" class action and no
medical monitoring cases or individual smoking and health cases
against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") set for trial during
this period. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry
are scheduled for trial during this period. Trial dates are
subject to change.


ALTRIA GROUP: Retrial in Alaska Case to Begin October 17
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a retrial in a lawsuit
in Alaska is scheduled to begin October 17, 2016.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 61 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which Philip Morris USA
Inc. ("PM USA") was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and
other defendants were returned in 41 of the 61 cases. These 41
cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (7), Florida (10),
Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (2), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4),
New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2),
Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West
Virginia (2).

A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in
Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter),
the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's
motion for reconsideration. In December 2015, the Alaska Supreme
Court reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case with
directions for the trial court to reassess whether to grant a new
trial. In March 2016, the trial court granted a new trial and PM
USA filed a petition for review of that order with the Alaska
Supreme Court, which the court denied in July 2016. The retrial
currently is scheduled to begin October 17, 2016.

Of the 20 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 17 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against
defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois
(Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in
December 2006.

As of July 22, 2016, 100 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 56 verdicts were
returned in favor of plaintiffs; 42 verdicts were returned in
favor of PM USA. Two verdicts that were initially returned in
favor of plaintiff were reversed on appeal. One was remanded for a
new trial; the other is now subject to en banc review in the
appellate court.


ALTRIA GROUP: 2,800 State Court Engle Progeny Cases Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the deadline for filing
Engle progeny cases, as required by the Florida Supreme Court's
Engle decision, expired in January 2008. As of July 22, 2016,
approximately 2,800 state court cases were pending against Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") or Altria Group, Inc. asserting
individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 3,600 state
court plaintiffs.  Because of a number of factors, including, but
not limited to, docketing delays, duplicated filings and
overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers are estimates.

While the Federal Engle Agreement resolved nearly all Engle
progeny cases pending in federal court, as of July 22, 2016,
approximately 14 cases were pending against PM USA in federal
court representing the cases excluded from that agreement.


ALTRIA GROUP: Seven Class Actions Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of July 22, 2016,
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and Altria Group, Inc. are named
as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 60
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto
Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of July 22, 2016, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Medical Monitoring Class Suit Pending v. PM USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that one medical monitoring
class action is currently pending against Philip Morris USA Inc.

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost
for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs
for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose
liability under various product-based causes of action and the
creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the
purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify
and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek
punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan sought permission
from the court to seek to treble any damages awarded, which the
court denied. The future defense of these cases may be negatively
impacted by evolving medical standards and practice.

One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). In Donovan, filed in December
2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
plaintiffs purportedly brought the action on behalf of the state's
residents who are: age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand
for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with
lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for
suspected lung cancer. The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the
district court, held in October 2009 that under certain
circumstances state law recognizes a claim by individual smokers
for medical monitoring despite the absence of an actual injury.
The court also ruled that whether or not the case is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations is a factual issue to be
determined at trial. The case was remanded to federal court for
further proceedings. In June 2010, the district court granted in
part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying
the class as to plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty
and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but
denying certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July
2010, PM USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit for appellate review of the class certification decision.
The petition was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs
have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with a cost in
excess of $190 million. In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for
class decertification, which motion was denied in March 2012. In
February 2013, the district court amended the class definition to
extend to individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria
through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was
not a Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013.

In July 2015, both parties filed various motions, including
motions for partial summary judgment and to exclude certain
evidence. In October 2015, the district court granted PM USA's
motion for partial summary judgment holding that e-vapor products
may not be deemed an alternative design for ordinary cigarettes.
In February 2016, the trial court jury returned a verdict in favor
of PM USA on the warranty claim. In March 2016, PM USA filed a
motion for judgment on plaintiffs' Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act claim based on the jury's verdict, which the court
denied in April 2016, ruling that it will function as the finder
of fact with respect to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.


ALTRIA GROUP: Updates on "Lights" Cases
---------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of July 22, 2016, 20
courts in 21 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions,
dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA").

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have
refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs'
class action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case
in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either
affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or
reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs.

In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by
a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The
Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme
Court of Illinois overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a
certified class in the Price case. See The Price Case below for
further discussion. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action
(Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted
by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that
granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class
of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United
States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights."

In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case
with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed both cases without prejudice in August 2009,
but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case. The Supreme
Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed
by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an
order by the trial court that refused to certify a class.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with
prejudice.

In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of
"Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In
Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment
in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October
2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: "Aspinall" Case Settlement Awaits Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement in the
Aspinall action is subject to further hearings and final approval
of the court.

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court
denied Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for summary
judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment
on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to
Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the
parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to
deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed
further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review.

In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the
plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral
estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department
of Justice.

In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In
February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties,
dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria
Group, Inc.

PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In September 2013,
the case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the
Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in September 2013, plaintiffs
filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the scope of
remedies available in the case, which the Massachusetts Superior
Court denied in February 2014, concluding that plaintiffs cannot
obtain disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy and that
their recovery is limited to actual damages or $25 per class
member if they cannot prove actual damages greater than $25.

Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its
February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for
review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs
petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the
ruling, which the appellate court denied.

In August 2015, the trial court denied various pre-trial motions
filed by PM USA, including a motion for summary judgment on the
ground that plaintiffs have no proof of injury. Trial began in
October 2015 and concluded in November 2015.

In December 2015, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. In
February 2016, the trial court issued its "Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law," finding that (1) PM USA violated
Massachusetts consumer protection laws in marketing Marlboro
"Lights" and (2) plaintiffs proved that class members were
economically injured, but did not prove a specific measure of
damages. As a result, the court awarded statutory damages of $25
per class member, for a total of $4.9 million, plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

In April 2016, the parties agreed to settle all claims for
approximately $32 million. The agreement is subject to approval by
the court. In the first quarter of 2016, PM USA recorded a
provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of
approximately $32 million for the judgment plus interest and
associated costs.

In May 2016, PM USA paid approximately $32 million to plaintiffs'
escrow agent. The settlement is subject to further hearings and
final approval of the court.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Begins in "Miner" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that trial was scheduled
to begin on August 2, 2016, in the "Miner" class action lawsuit.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied
plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed
to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants'
contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the
"federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed
again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL
proceeding.

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding
remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria
Group, Inc. without prejudice.

In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In
November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The
certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1,
1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights and Marlboro
Ultra Lights for personal consumption in Arkansas.

Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a notice of appeal of the
class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court in
December 2013. In February 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court
affirmed the trial court's class certification order.

In May 2015, PM USA filed a motion for partial summary judgment
seeking to foreclose any recovery for cigarette purchases prior to
1999, when a private right of action was added to the consumer
protection statute under which plaintiffs are suing. The trial
court denied the motion in July 2015.

In June 2016, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial
summary judgment to limit any damages claimed by the plaintiffs'
class to purchases made prior to May 2003.  Trial was scheduled
to begin on August 2, 2016.


ALTRIA GROUP: "Pearson" Parties Settle Individual Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
Pearson lawsuit have agreed to settle plaintiffs' individual
claims for an aggregate amount of $30,000 and, pursuant to that
settlement, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary
dismissal.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiffs' motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class.  In February 2007, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed
a motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption and the
Oregon statutory exemption. In September 2007, the district court
granted PM USA's motion based on express preemption under the
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA"), and
plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and the class certification
denial to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

In June 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's denial of class certification and remanded to the trial
court for further consideration of class certification. In July
2013, PM USA filed a petition for reconsideration with the Oregon
Court of Appeals, which was denied in August 2013. PM USA filed
its petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court in October
2013, which the court accepted in January 2014.

In October 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's order denying class certification, thereby reversing the
decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals. In November 2015,
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the Oregon
Supreme Court, which the court denied. In December 2015, the
Oregon Supreme Court entered its judgment denying class
certification and remanding the claims of the individual
plaintiffs for further proceedings.

In April 2016, the parties agreed to settle plaintiffs' individual
claims for an aggregate amount of $30,000 and, pursuant to that
settlement, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal
with prejudice with the Circuit Court of Multnomah County.


AMAZON.COM LLC: Settlement with Warehouse Workers Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco preliminarily approved a $600,000 settlement of
warehouse workers' class action employment complaint against
Amazon.com.

The case is captioned, SANTIAGO RAYA on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
AMAZON.COM, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; GOLDEN
STATE FC, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and, DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants., CASE NO. 15-CV-02005 MMC (N.D.
Cal.).


AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Sued in N.J. Over Forced Annual Membership
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Talone, D.O., Craig Wax, D.O., Richard Renza,D.O., and Roy
Stroller, D.O., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The American Osteopathic Association, Case No. 1:16-
cv-04644-NLH-JS (D.N.J., August 1, 2016), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged illegal tying arrangement practices,
specifically by forcing American Osteopathic Association board
certified osteopathic physicians to purchase annual membership in
the AOA.

The American Osteopathic Association is an organization for
osteopathic physicians in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne A. Mack, Esq.
      Seth A. Goldberg, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS, LLP
      30 South 17th Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 979-100
      Facsimile: (215) 979-1020
      E-mail: WAMack@duanemorris.com
              SAGoldberg@duanemorris.com

         - and -

      James Greenberg, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS, LLP
      1940 Route 70 East, Suite 200
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
      Telephone: (856) 874-4208
      Facsimile: (856) 424-4446
      E-mail: JGreenberg@duanemorris.com


AMERITIES WEST: Treatment Plant Emits Toxic Gas, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
residents of a small town in the Columbia River Gorge say a wood-
treatment plant emits toxic gases that threaten their health and
envelop their homes with the smell of creosote.

Carmen Kontour-Gonquist et al. filed a $20 million class action in
Oregon for trespass against AmeriTies West on August 8. Kontour-
Gonquist says more than 100 households in the area have contacted
her attorney about the overwhelming smell emitted by the plant,
which makes railroad ties.  She does not want the plant shut down.
AmeriTies is an important employer for The Dalles and its 15,000
residents, according to the complaint. But the process AmeriTies
uses to treat railroad ties doesn't have to be so toxic, Kontour-
Gonquist says.

She says AmeriTies ignored years of complaints from residents who
say the terrible fumes make them nauseous and give them headaches.
The company could have taken steps to reduce the odor, used
alternate treatments that emit less gas, or at least properly
monitor the noxious fumes it emits, but it did none of those
things, Kontour-Gonquist says.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality released monitoring
results on Aug. 2, finding that levels of the toxic chemical
naphthalene in the air near the plant "exceed long-term health
benchmarks," though they are not high enough to cause immediate
health problems.

That means the plant is emitting enough toxic gas to "increase
lifetime cancer risk with prolonged exposure," the DEQ said in a
statement.

The DEQ recorded 130 complaints about the plant between 2009 and
2014, the plaintiffs say, 51 of them in 2014 alone.

One family reported to the DEQ: "We have lived in The Dalles,
Oregon and Dallesport, Washington for the last 33 years. The odor
from the creosote plant has continually been very nauseating and
unpleasant over the years. . . . There are days that we can't open
our windows, or go outside to do yard work due to the smell. . . .
Please do something to stop the smell," according to the
complaint.

In April, AmeriTies signed an agreement and final order from the
DEQ acknowledging the problem and promising to switch to a new
formula for preserving railroad ties that contains less
naphthalene by Nov. 30.

The company's president, John McGinley, said the plant is on track
to make that switch by the end of the year.

"We conscientiously comply with all state and federal
environmental and safety regulations," McGinley said in a
statement. "The state is currently raising issues that have not
been raised before. We have demonstrated our commitment to health
and safety and will continue to maintain this commitment to our
workers, to our neighbors and to our community."

Nicholas Kahl, the Portland attorney representing the plaintiffs,
said residents of The Dalles tried for years to get AmeriTies to
stop polluting their town, but the company seemed short on
commitment until it faced a lawsuit.

Kahl said the purpose of the class action is partly to get
compensation for damage the fumes have caused to residents' homes,
but most of all, to find a permanent solution, enforceable in
court.

"After all the residents' complaints over the many years, and
quite a lot of time working with residents in The Dalles and
representatives of AmeriTies and trying to reach a solution
without seeing any changes, that AmeriTies has voluntarily offered
up any solutions contemporaneously with us filing a lawsuit is
interesting," Kahl said.


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit Over Treatment for Eating Disorders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Anthem Blue Cross wrongfully
denies coverage of treatment for eating disorders, a class action
claims in San Francisco Federal Court.


AVVO: Suit Over Misappropriation of Names and Likeness Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a San Francisco attorney who accused legal marketplace Avvo
of misappropriating attorneys' names and likenesses agreed to
dismiss his case to avoid paying Avvo's attorney's fees, after a
judge indicated his claims couldn't hold up.

Tenant-rights lawyer Aaron Darsky, who sued Avvo in a federal
class action in December for allegedly publishing his information
online without his consent and charging other attorneys to
advertise on his profile, agreed to dismiss the lawsuit after U.S.
District Judge Haywood Gilliam made "very, very clear" that he
would rule in Avvo's favor, making Darsky liable for the company's
attorney's fees under California's anti-SLAAP statute, Avvo
attorney Josh King said in an interview.

In February, Seattle-based Avvo filed a motion to strike the class
action under the statute, which is aimed at preventing lawsuits
intended to maliciously burden a party with the cost of a legal
defense.

"They agreed to dismiss the case to avoid that ruling, which would
have been a judgment against them for all of our attorney's fees,"
King said.

In exchange for agreeing to dismiss his claims, Darsky will only
pay a portion of Avvo's fees. That sum is confidential, according
to King.

Avvo creates profile pages for attorneys, listing their location,
areas of practice, years of experience and client reviews, and
assigns them an "Avvo rating." It then charges other lawyers to
advertise on those profiles.

Avvo claims on its website that it has rated 97 percent of
attorneys in the United States.

Founded in 2006 by former Expedia.com general counsel Mark Briton,
Avvo was valued at $650 million last year, according to a
Bloomberg News report cited in the complaint.

King called the lawsuit "ludicrous," saying that under the theory
of the case, Avvo is violating attorneys' right of publicity, the
right of an individual to control their name, image and likeness.

"If that theory was correct, Donald Trump could sue the Washington
Post for writing an article about him," King said.

This isn't the first time dissatisfied attorneys have sued Avvo. A
similar class action is pending in Illinois, and a Florida
attorney sued the company in 2010 for defamation.

King said lawyers regularly object to Avvo's profiles because the
company provides a forum for client feedback and publishes
information about their misconduct.

But King said Avvo isn't beholden to them.

"We're publishing for the benefit of consumers, so we're not going
to be in a position where [content] is based on the consent of the
lawyers," he said.

At the dismissal hearing in March, plaintiff's counsel Roy Katriel
argued that Avvo's content is commercial speech and is therefore
not constitutionally protected, because any attorney who
advertises on the site is subject to having their advertisement
regulated by the California State Bar.

And while acknowledging in his complaint that an online legal
directory is protected speech under the First Amendment, Darsky
alleged that Avvo's directory in particular is not protected
because the company uses it to make money.

"Instead of merely compiling and posting a list of licensed
attorneys, Avvo goes further and, without the consent of the very
attorneys whose names and/or likeness-identifying information Avvo
has compiled, Avvo uses those attorneys' names and/or likenesses
to sell advertising or marketing programs to other attorneys,"
Darsky claimed.

Avvo counsel Bruce Johnson countered at the March hearing that the
company's legal directory is protected.

"Mere proximity to advertising does not transform a fully
protected statement into advertising," he said.

Johnson is with Davis Wright Tremaine in Seattle. Katriel
practices in La Jolla.

Neither Katriel nor Darsky could be reached for comment on
August 5.


BACK ON THE BEACH: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Get Meal Break Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RENE GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. BACK ON THE BEACH COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1
thru 50, inclusive, Case No. BC629398 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., August 3, 2016), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all "hourly employees," seeking meal break premiums,
rest break premiums, reporting time pay, other penalties,
injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.

Back on the Beach Food Company, Inc., is a California corporation
operating within the state of California.  The Defendant's
corporate address is believed to be at 2024 Broadway, in Santa
Monica, California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com


BANNER HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over June Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Court House News Service reported that Banner Health exposed the
personal information of 3.7 million patients, customers and
employees in a June data breach, a class action claims in Maricopa
County Court.


BATON ROUGE: Faces Class Suit by Black Lives Matter Members
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson is lead plaintiff
in a class action against the city of Baton Rouge over arrests
during peaceful protests following the shooting death of Alton
Sterling, a black man, by white police officers.

The federal class action targets the "unlawful mass arrests and
prosecutions under constitutionally dubious statues, regulations,
policies and practices" made by Baton Rouge police and others, the
lawsuit said.

McKesson, a Baltimore resident, says that he was arrested by Baton
Rouge police on July 9 while peacefully protesting. He was
released the following day and the charges against him were later
dropped by Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore.

Kira Marrero, a Louisiana resident, and La Riva, a filmmaker from
San Francisco, along with McKesson, say that although they have
received pro bono legal representation, they still had to post
substantial bail and pay administrative fees to clear their
criminal arrest records before charges against them were dropped.

"Defendants deprived plaintiffs and class members of their civil
rights and selectively interpreted and enforced the laws, based
upon the facts that plaintiffs and class members were protesting
Defendants' conduct and were seeking changes to Defendants'
policies, practices and procedures," the lawsuit says.

Plaintiffs say that despite the peaceful nature of the protests,
"defendants responded in a militarized and aggressive manner.
Police advanced against protestors dressed in military gear, with
gas masks, shin guards, face shields, brandishing assault weapons
alongside heavy military vehicles."

Further, they say, "Baton Rouge Police Department, Louisiana State
Police and East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Officers threatened
non-violent protestors by pointing their weapons directly at
them."

The police officers "ordered class members to walk on the
sidewalks, and to not walk in the street," the lawsuit says, going
to contend "this order was unreasonable and placed citizens
walking along Airline Highway and other streets in danger, because
those streets do not have sidewalks and the adjacent areas were
uneven or not mowed and contained hazards that could not be seen."

They also argue the "defendants arrested class members after
defendants had closed the public highway, such that there was no
through traffic to obstruct, and therefore there could be no
practical violation of" any ordinance.

Also, "defendants detained, arrested, and charged plaintiffs and
class members with state misdemeanor violations, when municipal
citations, traffic citations, or other less harsh enforcement was
available."

Plaintiffs say defendants used "excessive force in attacking,
battering, beating, and assaulting plaintiffs and class members
without provocation or the need for defense."

Defendants also violated the First Amendment right of freedom of
the press by arresting press members, who were journalists, photo
journalists, camera persons and reporters and throwing them in
jail

Named defendants are the City of Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Parish Mayor Melvin "Kip" Holden, Baton Rouge Chief of
Police Carl Dabadie Jr., Baton Rouge Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux III
and Col. Michael Edmonson, Superintendent of Louisiana State
Police.

Officials from the Baton Rouge Police Department and the sheriff's
office did not immediately reply to phoned requests for comment
August 5.

On July 15 the office for East Baton Rouge District Attorney
Hillar Moore announced in a pair of releases that his office will
not prosecute 100 of the 185 activists arrested during protests.

"These particular cases only involve facts where the person
arrested failed to comply with an officer's direction to leave the
roadway or public passage," the release from the district
attorney's office said. "While all citizens have the right to
assemble and protest, they do not have the right to block streets
and impede the flow of traffic. Under Louisiana law, first-time
offenders, should they avoid further arrests and convictions, may
have their misdemeanor arrests expunged from the criminal history
records of the State of Louisiana at no cost."

Plaintiffs are asking the court to nullify their arrests and
expunge their records. They also seek an order that bars
defendants from mentioning the arrests to prospective employers,
and finally, the return of all bond payments made.

A representative from the Parish attorney's office August 5, said
in a phone interview that the Louisiana law on waived fees for
expungement is clear, and that if the district attorney agrees,
protesters who were arrested should have no problem having their
records expunged free of charge.

The individual, who did not want to be named, said also that in
situations where protestors were charged with federal or state
rather than local offenses, as the lawsuit stated, it was probably
because the protestors in those cases were arrested by police
officers working under federal or state and not local
jurisdictions, since dozens of police came in from outlying areas
during the protests.

The lawsuit was filed by John Etter of Rodney & Etter in New
Orleans.

Attorneys for Rodney & Etter were not immediately reached by
phoned and emailed requests for comment August 5.


BAYADA HOME: "Reed" Class Suit Seeks Relief Under Pa. Wage Acts
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATISHA REED and NADEEM PIERRE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Case
No. 160800491 (Pa. Comm. Pleas, August 3, 2016), seeks all
available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation
headquartered in Moorestown, New Jersey.  Bayada provides in-home
healthcare services throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and the United States.  Bayada maintains over 300 offices
throughout the United States and many in the Commonwealth.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Shaffer, Esq.
          Michael Gaier, Esq.
          SHAFFER & GAIER, LLC
          8 Perm Center, Suite 400
          1628 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215)751-0100
          Facsimile: (215)751-0723
          E-mail: mshaffer@shaffergaier.com

               - and -

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
                  ishah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Barney" Suit Over Pradaxa Promotion
----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY BARNEY, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH (Conn. Super. Ct., August
4, 2016), was filed over the Defendants' promotion of Pradaxa(R)
as a novel medicine for patients with non-valvular atrial
fibrillation.

Manufacturer Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R),
throughout the State of Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: 203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
     MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
     3 North Second Street, Suite 300
     St. Charles, IL 60174
     Phone: 630-232-6333
     Fax: 630-845-8982
     E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Carreira" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA CARREIRA v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, (Conn. Super.,
Judicial District of Hartford, August 4, 2016), was filed over the
Defendants' promotion of Pradaxa(R) as a novel medicine for
patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Manufacturer Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R),
throughout the State of Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: 203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
     MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
     3 North Second Street, Suite 300
     St. Charles, IL 60174
     Phone: 630-232-6333
     Fax: 630-845-8982
     E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bedsole" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BEDSOLE, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH; (Conn. Super.,
Judicial District of Hartford, August 4, 2016),  was filed over
the Defendants' promotion of Pradaxa(R) as a novel medicine for
patients with non- valvular atrial fibrillation.

Manufacturer Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R),
throughout the State of Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: 203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
     MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
     3 North Second Street, Suite 300
     St. Charles, IL 60174
     Phone: 630-232-6333
     Fax: 630-845-8982
     E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Boro" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
-------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY BORO, INDIVIDUALLY, AS NEXT OF KIN AND AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH BORO, DECEASED, v.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
INTERNATIONAL GMBH; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM ROXANE, INC.; and
MCKESSON CORPORATION, (Conn. Super., Judicial District of
Hartford, August 4, 2016), was filed over the Defendants'
promotion of Pradaxa(R) as a novel medicine for patients with non-
valvular atrial fibrillation.

Manufacturer Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R),
throughout the State of Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone:  203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bellah" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BELLAH v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH; (Conn. Super., Judicial
District of Hartford, August 4, 2016), was filed over the
Defendants' promotion of Pradaxa(R) as a novel medicine for
patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Manufacturer Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R),
throughout the State of Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: 203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
     MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
     3 North Second Street, Suite 300
     St. Charles, IL 60174
     Phone: 630-232-6333
     Fax: 630-845-8982
     E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BRIAN LEE: Sued for Not Complying With Property Management Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN JAMES and MICHELLE JAMES v. BRIAN LEE, MICHAEL LEE and DOES
1-30, Case No. RG16825773 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 3,
2016), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs, all persons
similarly situated, and the People of the state of California
arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to comply with state
and local law for the management of real property.

On February 1, 2011, the Plaintiffs, as tenants, and the
Defendants, as owner, agent or lessor, entered into a written
agreement to rent the premises located at 117 Sycamore Street, in
Fremont, California, to the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs allege
that at the time of the making of the written rental agreement,
the Defendants represented to the Plaintiffs that the Subject
Premises was a legally constructed premises permitted by the City
Fremont and in safe and habitable condition.

The Plaintiffs argue that these representations were false, and
were known to be false by the Defendants at the time they made
these representations to Plaintiffs.  Said defective conditions
included no heat; water leaks and water intrusion; mold and mildew
contamination and defective plumbing.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Wolff, Esq.
          Chris Beatty, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
          1956 Webster Street, Suite 275
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 834-3300
          Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
          E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
                  chris@awolfflaw.com


C. R. BARD: Class Action Over Composix(R) Kugel(R) Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016,
approximately 30 federal and 70 state lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 100 plaintiffs, as well as one
putative class action in the United States, are currently pending
against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and
certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the
"Hernia Product Claims"). The company voluntarily recalled certain
sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in
December 2005.

In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently,
other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL stopped
accepting new cases in the second quarter of 2014.

As of June 30, 2016, all but one of the putative class actions
pending against the company were dismissed. The remaining putative
class action pending against the company has not been certified
and seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages;
(iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and
causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees.

In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to the three
putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded
by the company. Approximately 50 of the state lawsuits, involving
individual claims by approximately 50 plaintiffs, are pending in
the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the
remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product
Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the products.

The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia
Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in
principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their
respective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving the
settlement of a firm's inventory of claims was subject to certain
conditions, including requirements for participation in the
proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In
addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation. The company expects additional trials of Hernia
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. The company
cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia
Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not
have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Claims by 11,390 Plaintiffs Pending
-----------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016,
product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 11,390 plaintiffs are currently pending against the
company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the
company's surgical continence products for women. With respect to
a majority of these lawsuits, the company believes that two
subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to
Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company, have
an obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to
any product defect liability.

In July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic
regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation. In addition, five putative class actions in the United
States and five putative class actions in Canada have been filed
against the company, and a limited number of other claims have
been filed or asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions. The
foregoing lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class
actions and other claims, together with claims that have settled
or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to
settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health
Product Claims". The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek
damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products.
The putative class actions, none of which has been certified,
seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii)
punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation;
and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in one Canadian putative class action. In March
2016, the company reached an agreement in principle to resolve all
Canadian putative class actions, with the exception of a Quebec
class action, within amounts previously recorded by the company.
The company expects administration of those settlements to take
place over the next several quarters.

In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving
solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide
were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "WV District
Court"), the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits
involving all women's surgical continence products that are
manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a
state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted
in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million.
On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in
November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the
California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on
February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest
and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts
previously recorded by the company. The first trial in the MDL
commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the
company of approximately $2 million, which was upheld by the
Fourth Circuit on January 14, 2016. The company does not believe
that any verdicts entered to date are representative of potential
outcomes of all Women's Health Product Claims. On January 16, 2014
and July 31, 2014, the WV District Court ordered that the company
prepare 200 and then an additional 300 individual cases,
respectively, for trial (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders") (the timing
for which is currently unknown). The WHP Pre-Trial Orders resulted
in significant additional litigation-related defense costs
beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and continuing through the
second quarter of 2015. In February 2015, the WV District Court
appointed a Special Master to assist with settlement resolution.
In June 2015, the WV District Court issued an order staying the
requirement to prepare a significant portion of the cases covered
by the WHP Pre-Trial Orders, which stay could be modified at the
court's discretion. The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in
material additional cost in future periods in defending Women's
Health Product Claims. The WV District Court may also order that
the company prepare additional cases for trial, which could result
in material additional costs in future periods.


C. R. BARD: Settled 2,235 Health Product Claims During 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016,
the company reached agreements or agreements in principle with
various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their respective
inventories of cases totaling approximately 9,080 Women's Health
Product Claims, including approximately: 560 during 2014, 6,285
during 2015 and 2,235 during 2016. The company believes that these
Women's Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's
indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and
agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown
claims held by various plaintiffs' law firms, which have not been
included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the
first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to
certain conditions, including requirements for participation in
the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of
plaintiffs. The company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Women's Health Product Claims, which may include
additional inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement
efforts, the company anticipates additional trials over the next
12 months. In addition, one or more possible consolidated trials
may occur in the future.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement noted, Medtronic agreed to
take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the
Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed
by the company under supply agreements with Medtronic and the
company has paid Medtronic $121 million towards these potential
settlements. The company also may, in its sole discretion,
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's
Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreement
does not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic
with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle,
if any. As part of the agreement, Medtronic and the company agreed
to dismiss without prejudice their previously filed litigation
with respect to Medtronic's obligation to defend and indemnify the
company.

The approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first
paragraph of this section does not include approximately 655
generic complaints involving women's health products where the
company cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints,
determine whether any of those cases involve the company's women's
health products.

In addition, the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the
first paragraph of this section does not include approximately
1,010 claims that have been threatened against the company but for
which complaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company
has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of these
and other unfiled or unknown claims. During the course of engaging
in settlement discussions with plaintiffs' law firms, the company
has learned, and may in future periods learn, additional
information regarding these and other unfiled or unknown claims,
or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the company's
estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the company.

While the company continues to engage in discussions with other
plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled
Women's Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously defend the
Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, including
through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the
resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect
on the company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Filter Product Claims by 770 Plaintiffs Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016,
product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 770 plaintiffs are currently pending against the
company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena
cava filter products.

In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation
("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for
all federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in the
District of Arizona. There are approximately 660 Filter Product
Claims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC
Filter MDL. The remaining approximately 110 Filter Product Claims
are pending in various state courts.

In March 2016, a Canadian class action was filed against the
company in Quebec.

In April 2016 and May 2016, Canadian class actions were filed in
Ontario and British Columbia, respectively. The first Filter
Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted in a
judgment for the company.

During the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized
settlement agreements with respect to more than 30 Filter Product
Claims and made payments with respect to such claims within the
amounts previously recorded by the company. The approximate number
of lawsuits set forth above do not include approximately 40 claims
that have been threatened against the company but for which
complaints have not yet been filed.

In addition, the company has limited information regarding the
nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims.
The company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in
future periods learn additional information regarding other
unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could
materially impact the company's estimate of the number of claims
or lawsuits against the company.

The company expects that additional trials of Filter Product
Claims may take place over the next 12 months. While the company
intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any
assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a
material adverse effect on the company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Desalinated Water Subsidy
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a Superior Court class
action claims Santa Barbara makes some customers who do not get
desalinated water subsidize the cost of providing it to others who
do.


CEDARS BUSINESS: Illegally Records Telephone Dialogue, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen S. Chang, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Cedars Business Services, LLC d/b/a Cedar Financial,
and Does 1-25, Case No. BC628781 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 28, 2016),
arises out of the Defendant's unlawful recording of confidential
telephone conversations without the consent of individuals.

Cedars Business Services, LLC provides recovery and collection
services for international and domestic debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth A. Goldman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. GOLDMAN, PC
      15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1650
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 287-7689
      Facsimile: (818) 287-7816
      E-mail: ken@kengoldmanlaw.com

         - and -

      James T. Ryan, Esq.
      JAMES T. RYAN, PC
      1110 Glenville Drive #307
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 990-2889
      E-mail: jr@jamestryan.com


CLIENT FIRST: "Mogavero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Mogavero, Dawn Bossaller, Marc Cohen, Justin Metz, Enrique
Rodriguez and Brenda Vance, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Client First Settlement Funding, LLC and
Burt Kroner, Case No. 9:16-cv-81362-WPD (S.D. Fla., August 1,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a financial services company
located at 301 Yamato Rd #3200, Boca Raton, FL 33431.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam S. Chotiner, Esq.
      Robin I. Frank, Esq.
      SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN, P.A.
      7777 Glades Rd., Suite 400
      Boca Raton, FL  33434
      Telephone: (561) 477-7800
      Facsimile: (561) 477-7722
      E-mail: aschotiner@sbwlawfirm.com
              rifrank@sbwlawfirm.com


COASTLINE METAL: Faces "Castro" Suit Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CASTRO, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. COASTLINE METAL FINISHING CORPORATION, a
California Corporation, and DOES I through 100, inclusive, Case
No. BC 629449 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, August 4,
2016), was filed over alleged failure by the Defendants to provide
meal and rest periods, unpaid overtime and double time wages, as
well as waiting time penalties, and penalties or damages for
failure to keep accurate records, and penalties under the
California Labor Code.

COASTLINE METAL FINISHING CORPORATION is a metal finisher and a
full service metal plating company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Howard L. Magee, Esq.
     Larry W. Lee, Esq.
     DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
     515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 488-6555
     Fax: (213) 488-6554
     E-mail: Iwlee@diversitylaw.com

        - and -

     Edward W. Choi, Esq.
     Paul M. Yi, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, PC
     515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 381-1515
     Fax: (213) 465-4885
     E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com


COCO NAIL: "Zabala" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lilia Zabala, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Coco Nail & Spa Si, Inc. d/b/a  Coco Nails & Spa and
Dae Seok Kim and Jane Doe and  John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:16-cv-
04197 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Coco Nails salon located at 2456
Richmond Ave., Staten Island, NY 10314.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss N.J. Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Defendants' motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit remains pending.

On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In re Commvault
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv-
05628-MAS-LHG). The suit alleges that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
facts, regarding the Company's financial results, business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class period from May
7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during that
period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as
well as equitable or other relief.

Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was
appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. On December 17, 2015, the
defendant motion to dismiss the case was granted and the case
dismissed; however, the plaintiffs were permitted to re-file their
claim, which they did on February 5, 2016.

Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on April 5, 2016, which
remains pending with the court. Due to the inherent uncertainties
of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate
outcome of this matter.

The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the
outcome of the litigation will have a material impact on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. As of
June 30, 2016 the Company has not recorded a reserve for this
matter.


CORELOGIC INC: Brief in "Stevens" 9th Cir. Appeal Due Nov. 7
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STEVENS and STEVEN VANDEL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs - Appellants, v.
CORELOGIC, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant - Appellee,
Case No. 16-56089 (9th Cir., August 1, 2016), is an appeal filed
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
from a lower court decision in Case No. 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB
(S.D. Cal., May 7, 2014).

Appellants Robert Stevens and Steven Vandel's opening brief is due
November 7, 2016. Appellee Corelogic, Inc.'s answering brief is
due December 06, 2016. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14
days after service of the answering brief.

The Plaintiffs - Appellants are represented by:

          Kirk B. Hulett, Esq.
          HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1133

               - and -

          Darren Quinn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          DARREN J. QUINN
          12702 Via Cortina, Suite 105
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (858) 509 9401

The Defendant - Appellee is represented by:

          Daralyn Jeannine Durie, Esq.
          DURIE TANGRI LLP
          217 Leidesdorff Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 362 6666

               - and -

          Joseph Gratz, Esq.
          DURIE TANGRI LLP
          217 Leidesdorff Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 430 8223


CREA ENTERPRISE: Faces "Me Ae Song" Suit Over Labor Code Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
ME AE SONG, an individual, v. CREA ENTERPRISE CORP., a
Corporation, JOSHUA PARK, an individual, and DOES 1 through 30,
inclusive, Case No: BC 629531 (Cal. Super. County of Los Angeles,
August 4, 2016), alleges failure by Defendants to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Labor Code, failure to provide meal and
rest periods in violation of Labor Code, violation of Labor Code
for failure to keep accurate records, and unfair business
practices.

CREA ENTERPRISE CORP. operates a beauty salon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward W. Choi, Esq.
     Paul M. Yi, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
     515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 381-1515
     Fax: (213)465-4885


CREA ENTERPRISE: "Kim" Suit Alleges Violations of Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
ANAIS JUNGHA KIM, an individual, v. CREA ENTERPRISE CORP., a
Corporation, JOSHUA PARK an individual and DOES 1 through 30
inclusive, Case No. BC 629530 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles
Central District, August 4, 2016), seeks damages as a result of
Plaintiff's employment by Defendants, from on or about August 2008
to April 2016.

CREA ENTERPRISE CORP. operates a beauty salon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward W. Choi, Esq.
     Paul M. Yi, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
     515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 381-1515
     Fax: (213)465-4885


CVS HEALTH: Court Dismissed Most State Law Claims in "Corcoran"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that customers who claim CVS overcharges for generic drugs need
plaintiffs from 38 more states to proceed as a nationwide class
action, a federal judge in Oakland, Calif ruled.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on July 29, dismissed
without prejudice most state law claims in the lawsuit filed by
lead plaintiff Christopher Corcoran in August 2015.

Corcoran claimed that CVS charged insured customers and their
insurers up to four times as much for generic drugs than it
charged uninsured patients. Though CVS called it a Health Savings
Pass, the pharmacy chain demanded higher co-pays from insured
customers and submitted inflated prices to insurers, according to
the original complaint.

Judge Rogers rejected CVS' attempt to dismiss the case in March.

But on July 29, Rogers found the named plaintiffs resided in and
alleged injuries in only 12 states and Washington, D.C., and so
could not allege injuries in 38 other jurisdictions.

"In these circumstances, plaintiffs should be required to have
named plaintiffs with standing to prosecute claims under the laws
of those thirty-eight states," Rogers wrote. "Further, it remains
to be seen the extent to which a nationwide class could be
certified given the allegations."

Rogers rejected CVS's motion to dismiss Texas state law claims,
finding two new plaintiffs from Texas adequately alleged that CVS
duped them into paying higher prices, in violation of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

With 7,866 U.S. outlets, CVS is the nation's largest purchaser of
drugs. It fills or manages more than 1 billion prescriptions a
year, nearly a third of the nation's prescriptions, according to
the original complaint.

CVS reported net revenue of $139.4 billion in 2014, with $67
billion coming from its retail pharmacy business.

The plaintiffs seek an injunction, disgorgement and damages.

Class attorney Elizabeth Pritzker of Pritzker Levine in Oakland
did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment August 1.

CVS attorney Ashley Hardin of Williams & Connolly in Washington,
D.C., declined to comment.

The case captioned, CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, INC., Defendant., Case No. 15-CV-504
YGR (N.D. Cal.).


CYTRX CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greguy Dorce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cytrx Corporation, Steven A. Kriegsman, and John Y.
Caloz, Case No. 2:16-cv-05666 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2016), alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Cytrx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development
company specializing in oncology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

         - and -

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: LPF Coppell Files Suit Over Property Appraisal
--------------------------------------------------------------
LPF COPPELL TRADE CENTER LP v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
Case no: DC-16-09450 (D. Tex., Dallas County, August 4, 2016),
seeks monetary relief of US$100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and
non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it
pertaining to Plaintiffs property).

Discovery in the case is intended to be conducted in accordance
with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190, Level 2.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. Pernai, Esq.
     FLANAGAN BILTON, LLC
     500 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 400
     Chicago, Illinois 60604
     Phone: (312) 782-5000
     Fax: (312) 565-0821
     E-mail: Bob.Pernai@flanaganbilton.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: "Mushir" Seeks Trial De Novo
--------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in MOHAMED MUSHIR AND SALMA MUSHIR, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT Case No: DC-16-09411 (D. Tex., Dallas County,
August 4, 2016), seeks a trial de novo of the Dallas Appraisal
Review Board's order determining the appraised value of the
Plaintiff's property.

On May 1, 2016, plaintiffs were notified by Defendant that the
value of the Property had been appraised for 2016 at $907,950.
The complaint asserts that the determination of the appraised
value was excessive and unequal in comparison with other similar
properties in the appraisal district, and that the correct
appraised value of the property as of January l, 2016 is
substantially below the value determined by the Dallas Appraisal
Review Board.

Moreover, all conditions precedent to a trial de novo before the
court have been performed or have occurred. All administrative
remedies have been exhausted and the agency decision is final and
appealable, Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to a trial de novo
of the Board's order.

Plaintiffs are the owners, lessees, or operators of real property
located in Dallas County, Texas and listed on the Dallas Central
Appraisal District's appraisal roll.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua E. Estes, Esq.
     ESTES & GANDHI P.C.
     1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (214) 272-8030
     Fax: (214) 390-3303
     E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com


DAVID DALEIDEN: 7 Women File Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------
June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Planned Parenthood scourge David Daleiden should not be given
personal information from the University of Washington's Birth
Defects Research Laboratory because it could endanger people's
privacy and safety, seven women say in a federal class action in
Seattle.

Seven Jane Does and a John Doe on August 3, sued Daleiden, an
anti-abortion activist who became famous for releasing videos
accusing Planned Parenthood of trying to sell fetal tissue.  They
also sued Zachary Freeman, another anti-abortion activist and
Planned Parenthood opponent, and the University of Washington,
from whom the men seek documents "relate(d) to the donation and
transfer of fetal tissue involving the University of Washington's
Birth Defects Research Laboratory."

The Does say they "do not object to disclosure of the substantive
records themselves, but merely seek to have their personal
identifying information withheld to protect their safety and
privacy."

The plaintiffs include three employees of the University of
Washington, employees of three Washington hospitals, a Planned
Parenthood employee and a former Planned Parenthood employee.

The UW lab "collects, identifies, processes, and distributes fetal
tissue for research purposes to nonprofit and academic facilities
across the country," according to the complaint.

Some plaintiffs say they already have been harassed by anti-
abortion activists due to their participation in the lab.

"The current political climate has heightened attention and
awareness of fetal tissue donation and research, including the
role played by providers of medical services who facilitate tissue
donation by patients who consent to donating, as well as the work
of researchers who use fetal tissue in their research," the
complaint states.

"Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress played a direct role
in creating that political climate, which has resulted in
investigations by numerous state attorneys general and federal
congressional committees. So far, none of the investigations have
found any evidence of wrongdoing. Also as a result of the same
climate and attention, employees of such medical providers across
the country, including in Washington State and including several
individual Doe plaintiffs, have been harassed, threatened, or
witnessed incidents of violence due to their possible affiliation
with fetal tissue donations."

Freeman is director of communications for the Family Policy
Institute of Washington, which wants Planned Parenthood defunded.

Daleiden, founder of the anti-abortion Center for Medical
Progress, made headlines in 2015 by releasing undercover videos
filmed while posing as a potential buyer of fetal tissue at a
Planned Parenthood in Houston.

Planned Parenthood sued Daleiden over the video, claiming it was
deceptively edited.

Texas prosecutors in July dismissed felony charges against
Daleiden for tampering with a government record: using fake
drivers' licenses to gain access to the Planned Parenthood
facility.

A misdemeanor charge relating to the ban on purchasing human organ
was dismissed against Daleiden in June.

Daleiden responded to the new lawsuit with a statement: "Planned
Parenthood and their allies have yet again stormed into federal
court, this time demanding the suppression of public records about
Planned Parenthood's supply of aborted baby parts to the taxpayer-
sponsored, NIH-funded fetal harvesting service at the University
of Washington."

One of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Janet Chung, said in a
statement: "We know all too well the importance of protecting the
privacy and safety of clinicians and researchers involved in
controversial issues, such as fetal tissue donation."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory judgment that
releasing their names and other personal information would violate
their privacy and rights of association, and an injunction
ordering that all such personal information be redacted if the
records are released.

Attorney Chung is with Legal Voice; co-counsel include Vanessa
Soriano Power with Stoel Rives, and David Edwards with Corr Cronin
Michelson Baumgardner & Preece, all of Seattle.


DIRECTV: Faces RICO Class Action by Beauty Salon Owner
------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
DirecTV defrauds small businesses by selling them residential,
rather than business, satellite TV, then threatening to prosecute
them for theft of service, to extort an unconscionable
"settlement" from them, a beauty salon owner says in a RICO class
action.

Doneyda Perez, owner of Oneida's Beauty and Barber Salon in Garden
Grove, claims DirecTV conspired with New York attorney Julie Cohen
Lonstein and her Lonstein Law Office "to extort an unreasonable
and unconscionable 'settlement' . . . for the purported theft of
the satellite cable television services."

A nearly identical RICO class action was filed against DirecTV and
Cohen Lonstein in Middlesex, N.J., Superior Court on Oct. 16,
2015, and removed to Federal Court on Nov. 20. That lead
plaintiff, Angela Joaquin, like Perez, is a Latina who runs a
beauty salon. Both Joaquin and Perez say DirecTV target minority-
owned businesses.

Perez says the defendants "do not confine themselves to minority
small business owners, however they target minority small business
owners with the belief that such owners are less likely to dispute
or challenge the allegations." Virtually all of Perez's claims
track the allegations in Joaquin's lawsuit.

"Defendants do not provide the owners with any written contracts,
agreements, notices or other documents regarding the satellite
cable television services which they have purchased," Perez says.

"The business owners do not solicit, request or direct that the
satellite cable television services which they have purchased be
provided under a residential account," Perez says. In her case, a
DirecTV salesman entered her salon, unsolicited, in 2014 and
offered her "a promotional deal" of satellite TV for $27.50 a
month for two years.

Perez says she agreed to the deal, but DirecTV never told her the
account would be processed as a residential account rather than a
business account, nor did she ask for a residential account.

"Without the business owners being made aware, defendants
designate the accounts as 'residential,' despite the fact that
defendants solicited Ms. Perez and those similarly situated
because they were small business owners," she says in the
complaint.

After service is installed, the defendants "send 'independent'
auditors to the businesses where they clandestinely obtain
photographs and/or video recordings which purport to show that the
businesses are using the satellite cable television services in an
unauthorized manner as those services are provided under a
residential, rather than commercial, account," Perez says.

"Using the results of these audits, defendants then send legal
correspondence to the business owners alleging that they have
'pirated' or stolen satellite cable television services, and
threaten legal action unless the owners agree to pay thousands of
dollars and/or become business subscribers.'"

Perez says the defendants have made thousands of dollars like this
from "the small business owners who have been their victims."

Perez says she received a letter from the Lonstein law firm dated
June 26, 2015, "with an attached proposed settlement agreement,"
accusing her of receiving unauthorized DirecTV programming and
threatening to prosecute or sue unless she paid a $5,000
settlement.

Perez says she was "misled and fraudulently induced" into settling
and began paying $500 per month.

Perez claims Lonstein is not licensed to practice law in
California, and her law firm and DirecTV "willfully and unlawfully
conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in a pattern of
racketeering activity."

The proposed class is small business owners in the United States
who DirecTV solicited for satellite television services in the
past four years and who later were threatened with criminal
prosecution or a civil lawsuit for theft of services.

Perez seeks class certification, disgorgement of unjust profits
plus interest, an accounting and treble damages for RICO
violations and unfair competition.  She is represented by Kevin
Mahoney of Long Beach, who could not be reached for comment over
the weekend. Nor could Lonstein and her law office or DirecTV.

In the New Jersey case, lead plaintiff Joaquin is represented by
Andrew Li with The Wolf Law Firm in North Brunswick, N.J. She also
alleged consumer fraud and common law fraud and also sued Verizon,
which she said offered her bundled services with DirecTV. Joaquin
also sued "Installation Company 1-10" and "Auditing Company 1-10."

Newspapers across the country have reported complaints from small
business owners who feel they were preyed upon by DirecTV.

The Dallas Morning News, for example, reported such complaints
from Texas, California, Maine, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, in
November 2013. That article refers to the Lonstein Law Office, of
Ellenville, N.Y., as DirecTV's "collections law firm."

DirecTV uses third-party installers, the Morning News reported,
and "In 2010, DirecTV signed an agreement with the Texas attorney
general that the company would closely monitor its third-party
installers to make sure they engage in truthful business
practices."

The Ogden, Utah Standard Examiner last year published a similar
report, with complaints against DirecTV and the Lonstein Law
Office from small business owners in the same states, plus Utah
and Ohio.


DIVERSIFIED MACHINE: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don McKinney and Sonya Brantley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Diversified Machine Bristol, LLC,
Chassix, Inc., and XYZ Entities 1-10, Case No. 3:16-cv-00504 (N.D.
Ind., August 1, 2016), is brought on behalf of all former
employees of the Defendants who were terminated without cause in
violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.

The Defendants operate a company that supplies chassis, brake, and
powertrain components to major automobile manufacturers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Misch, Esq.
      ANDERSON, AGOSTINO & KELLER
      131 South Taylor Street
      South Bend, IN 46601
      Telephone: (574) 288-1510
      Facsimile: (574) 288-1650
      E-mail: lawyers@aaklaw.com

         - and -

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
      Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      E-mail: ek@zlk.com
              ckupka@zlk.com
              mershowsky@zlk.com


DO PRODUCTIONS: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hermes Bustamante, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. D.O. Productions, LLC ("D.O.") and McCain
Foods USA, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-04618-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., July 29,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay its
employees all wages due.

The Defendants own and operate a frozen food production facility
at 11 Gregg Street, Lodi, New Jersey 07644.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell Schley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
      197 Route 18 South Tower, Suite 3000
      East Brunswick, NJ 08816
      Telephone: (732) 325-0318
      E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com

         - and -

      Craig Livingston, Esq.
      LIVINGSTON DIMARZIO, LLP
      661 Franklin Avenue
      Nutley, NJ 07110
      Telephone: (973) 661-4545
      E-mail: clivingston@workplacelawyers.com


EAGLE MARINE: "O'Neal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan O'Neal, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
persons v. Eagle Marine Contracting, LLC d/b/a EM Contracting and
d/b/a EM Contracting, LLC, and Raphael G. Burchfield, Case No.
1:16-cv-00401-KD-B (S.D. Ala., August 1, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a marine construction company in
Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ian D. Rosenthal, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL PARKS LLP
      P.O. Box 1924
      Mobile, AL 36633
      Telephone: (251) 338-0949
      Facsimile: (251) 206-6760
      E-mail: idr@rosenthalparks.com

         - and -

      Richard W. Fuquay, Esq.
      DIAMOND FUQUAY, LLC
      P.O. Box 40633
      Mobile, AL 36640
      Telephone: (251) 473-4443
      Facsimile: (251) 473-4486
      E-mail: rwf@diamondfuquay.com


EMCARE OF CALIFORNIA: Violates Labor Code, "Norris" Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA NORRIS and LISA STEBBINS, as individuals and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EMCARE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. BC629485 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2016),
accuses the Defendants of systematic violations of the California
Labor Code, the California Business & Professions Code, and
applicable Wage Orders promulgated by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

EmCare California, Inc. is a California corporation.  EmCare
provides health care management services to hospitals and
healthcare organizations.  EmCare operates throughout the State of
California, including in Los Angeles County.  The Plaintiffs do
not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Tina Mehr, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 9130 I
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
                  kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
                  tmehr@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Cifarelli, Esq.
          CIFARELLI LAW FIRM
          7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 502-8600
          Facsimile: (949) 502-8603
          E-mail: realdele@aol.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Underwood" Class Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH D. UNDERWOOD, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION,
LLC, and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-07829
(N.D. Ill., August 3, 2016), is an action for damages brought
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, following months of accurate reporting
on his credit reports, and without explanation, in September 2015,
the Defendants began reporting errant delinquencies for the
Plaintiff's child support account with the Texas Attorney
General's Office.  The Plaintiff contends that his disputes to the
Defendants remain unresolved, and despite having fully satisfied
all child support obligations to date, his credit standing has
been negatively affected by the Defendants' numerous incorrect
"late" designations on his OAG account, resulting in difficult
financial choices for his family.

Experian is a for-profit corporation, with headquarters in
Schaumburg, Illinois.  Trans Union is a for-profit limited
liability company, with corporate headquarters in Chicago,
Illinois.  Equifax is a for-profit limited liability company that
maintains offices in Lombard, Illinois.  The Defendants are
engaged in the business of assembling or evaluating consumer
credit information or other information on consumers for the
purpose of reporting or furnishing consumer reports to third
parties, and are consumer reporting agencies as defined by the
FCRA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 E. Sixth Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 322-3912
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Sued in Mo. Over Alleged Prescription Slamming
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trone Health Services, Inc., Reddish Pharmacy, Inc., Jabos
Pharmacy, Inc., Oak Tree Pharmacy, and Amrut Jal, LLC, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. Express Scripts
Holding Company, Express Scripts, Inc., Express Scripts Mail Order
Processing, Inc., Express Scripts Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc., and
Does 1-20, Case No. 4:16-cv-01250-RLW (E.D. Mo., August 1, 2016),
seeks to end the Defendants' prescription "slamming" practices of
wrongly appropriating the Plaintiffs' (retail pharmacies) customer
information and prescription data and using it to divert the
Plaintiffs' customers to the Defendants' own mail order pharmacy
business.

The Defendants operate a pharmacy benefit management organization
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP
      7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 226-1015
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Bowse, Esq.
      BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
      2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 274-7100
      Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
      E-mail: mbowse@bgrfirm.com


FACEBOOK INC: Class C Reclassification Litig. Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, In re Facebook, Inc. Class C
Reclassification Litig., C.A. No. 12286-VCL.

The company said, "On April 27, 2016, we announced a proposal to
create a new class of non-voting capital stock (Class C capital
stock) and our intention to declare and pay a dividend of two
shares of Class C capital stock for each outstanding share of
Class A and Class B common stock (the Reclassification). Following
our announcement of the Reclassification, beginning on April 29,
2016, multiple purported class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of our stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against us, certain of our board of directors, and Mark
Zuckerberg. The lawsuits have been consolidated under the caption
In re Facebook, Inc. Class C Reclassification Litig., C.A. No.
12286-VCL, and the consolidated complaint generally alleges that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Reclassification. Among other remedies, these lawsuits seek to
enjoin the Reclassification as well as unspecified money damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees. We believe that the lawsuits are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted."


FLORIS CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Wuilson Romero, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Floris Construction, Inc. and Stamatis Kostikidis,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04282 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a construction company located at 31-30
41st St, Astoria, NY 11103.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
      PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
      3510 Broadway, Suite 201
      Astoria, NY 11106
      Telephone: (718) 777-0400
      Facsimile: (718) 777-0599
      E-mail: contact@pnlawyers.com


FRESHPOINT INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Rodriguez Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public v. Freshpoint Inc.,
Freshpoint San Francisco, Inc., and Does l-100, Case No.
RG16825142 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 28, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

The Defendants are engaged in the distribution of fresh produce in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GATEWAYS ENERGY: Sued Over Natural Gas Supply Contract Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Eisig, individually and on behalf of all Similarly situated
persons v. Gateways Energy Services Corporation, f/k/a EConnergy
Energy Company Inc. and Direct Energy Services, LLC., Case No.
605739/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 28, 2016), is brought on behalf
of all members of three separate classes of residential natural
gas customers of the Defendants who were over-charged in direct
violation and breach of a variable rate natural gas supply
contract entered into with the Defendants.

Gateways Energy Services Corporation operates an energy services
company in New York.

Direct Energy Services, LLC is a residential energy retailer in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul M. Sod, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAUL M. SOD
      337 R Central Avenue
      Lawrence, NT 11559
      Telephone: (516) 295-0707
      Facsimile: (516) 295-0722


GIOVANNI'S ITALIAN: "Estrada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
FLORIBERTO VILLALVA ESTRADA, individually and in behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. GIOVANNI'S ITALIAN EATERY,
INC., and HANNA BOJAJ, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06162 (S.D.N.Y., August 3, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and are liable to the
Plaintiff and class plaintiffs for unpaid or underpaid minimum
wages and overtime compensation.

Giovanni's Italian Eatery, Inc., is a New York business
corporation with its office in New York County.  The Defendants'
business is a limited-service restaurant doing business as
Giovanni's Pizza and located at 1011 Columbus Avenue, in New York
City.  Hanna Bojaj is an owner, shareholder, officer, or manager
of the Defendants' business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: MOU Reached in Suit Over Heartland Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2016, that the settlement of a class
action lawsuit remains pending.

Heartland, Heartland's board of directors, Global Payments, Data
Merger Sub One, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Global
Payments) and Data Merger Sub Two, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary
of Global Payments) were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger with Heartland. The
suit was filed on January 8, 2016 in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Mercer County, Civil Division, and is captioned Kevin
Merchant v. Heartland Payment Systems, et al, L-45-16.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Heartland breached their fiduciary duties to Heartland
stockholders by agreeing to sell Heartland for inadequate
consideration, agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the
merger agreement, failing to properly value Heartland, and filing
a materially incomplete registration statement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. In addition, the complaint alleges that
Heartland, Global Payments, Merger Sub One, and Merger Sub Two
aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

On April 12, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the
validity of any allegations made by the plaintiff, Heartland and
Global Payments reached an agreement to settle the suit and
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to document the terms
and conditions for settlement of the suit.

The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. If the
proposed settlement is approved by the court, it will release all
claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect
of the merger with Heartland or the merger agreement related
thereto and any disclosure made in connection therewith, under
terms that will be disclosed to stockholders before final approval
of the proposed settlement. The settlement, if approved, is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, liquidity, results of operations or cash flows.


HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Faces St. Paul Teachers' Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heartware International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on January 22,
2016, the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association filed a
putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company from June
10, 2014 through January 11, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The
Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims the Company and
one of our executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements about, among other things, the Company's response to
the June 2014 FDA warning letter, the development of the MVAD
System and the acquisition of Valtech. The Complaint seeks to
recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of the
Company's stock during the Class Period.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may
arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this
point. As a result we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
for this action and accordingly have not accrued any liability
associated with this action.


HONDA MOTOR: Hands-Free Car Phones Defective, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that for years, Honda has made
Acuras with defective hands-free phone units that drain the
battery when the car is off, according to a federal class action
filed in San Francisco, August 3.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Watkins" Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Honeywell International Inc. The
case is captioned Ann Watkins, for herself and others similarly-
situate, James Ulicny, for himself and others similarly-situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Honeywell International Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01925-JGC (N.D. Ohio, August 1, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. James G. Carr.

Honeywell International is an American multinational conglomerate
company that produces a variety of commercial and consumer
products, engineering services and aerospace systems for a wide
variety of customers, from private consumers to major corporations
and governments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart M. Israel, Esq.
          John G. Adam, Esq.
          MARTENS, ICE, KLASS,
          LEGGHIO, ISRAEL & GORCHOW
          306 South Washington, Ste. 600
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398 5900
          Facsimile: (248) 398 2662
          E-mail: israel@legghioisrael.com
                  jga@legghioisrael.com


HYUNDAI: Settlement in Suit Over Santa Fe SUVs Has Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Hyundai has agreed to fix cars for 10 years and offer rebates
toward buying or leasing replacement cars to settle claims that it
deceived buyers about a stalling defect in one of its SUVs.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on August 2, preliminarily
approved the settlement and certified the settlement class of
which named plaintiffs Julia Reniger and Greg Battaglia accused
the automaker in 2014 of failing to tell buyers that its 2010-2012
Hyundai Santa Fe SUVs stall and even completely lose power.

The stalling endangers pedestrians because drivers can't brake or
steer once the car shuts off, the plaintiffs said in their class
action. Hyundai has denied that the Santa Fe is defective, that
the stalling risks driver and pedestrian safety, or that it broke
the law by not telling consumers about the problems, according to
the plaintiffs' settlement motion.

Despite granting preliminary approval, Wilken expressed concerns
about certifying a settlement class that could sue under the laws
of several states. Hyundai attorney Eric Kizirian waylaid those
concerns, however, noting that several similar class actions have
recently been certified on a nationwide basis.

"I'm not sure there would be an entitlement to more under the laws
of various states," Kizirian added. "I don't know what more
Hyundai could give in this instance."

Under the terms of the settlement, Hyundai will reimburse more
than 77,000 class members up to the maximum for the money they've
spent fixing their cars, and fix those cars for free for 10 years
after they were put on the market. The fix entails a software
update to the vehicles' electronic throttle control.

"That has a significant value," Kizirian said.

Plaintiffs' counsel Mark Greenstone indicated to the court that
the settlement is fair.

Hyundai's service campaign to fix the defect has reduced the
number of stalling complaints from about 70 per month nationwide
when the campaign was launched in April 2015 to a little less than
one per month, Kizirian told the court. That indicates that the
defect has been resolved, he said.

Hyundai will also give class members who experienced a stall
rebates ranging between $250 and $1,000 toward buying or leasing
certain new Hyundai vehicles. If class members experience another
stall after Hyundai fixes the defect, the automaker will provide
them with an enhanced rebate of between $500 and $2,000.

However, Hyundai can contest enhanced rebate claims if it finds
that the second stall occurred because the software update wasn't
installed correctly.

"Would you characterize this as a coupon settlement?" Wilken asked
on hearing about the rebate.

In a "coupon settlement," defendants give coupons to class
members. In the past, class members were often induced into buying
additional products to redeem the coupons -- essentially rewarding
defendants for their wrongdoing -- and any settlement cash was
gobbled up by attorneys' fees. As a result, coupon settlements
came to be regarded as a payday for class counsel that bilked
class members.

In response, Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005
requiring in-depth review of coupon settlements and allowing more
class actions to be heard in Federal Court. The law also required
that the U.S. attorney general and the attorneys general of states
where class members reside be given the opportunity to review
proposed settlements and to intervene if they deem them to be
unfair.

Kizirian assured the court that this is not a coupon settlement.
"The campaign was made available for the life of the cars," he
said. "The reason we're asking for a rebate certificate is for
people who still want to get rid of their cars."

Plaintiffs' counsel is applying for $745,000 in attorneys' fees
and expenses. In preliminarily certifying the settlement, Wilken
signaled that the requested attorney's fees are reasonable.

Kizirian is with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith in Los Angeles.
Greenstone is with Glancy Prongay & Murray, also in Los Angeles.


IBEX CONSTRUCTION: Sued by React Industries Over $42K+ Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------
REACT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND BLAKE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CO., INC.,
on behalf of itself and all other persons similarly situated as
trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law Trusts of which IBEX
CONSTRUCTION INC, is a trustee v. IBEX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC
and ANDY FRANKL, and JOHN DOES "1" THROUGH "10", Case No.
156458/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 3, 2016), alleges that IBEX
owes React $42,350 with interest from January 1, 2016.

IBEX is a foreign limited liability company, authorized to do
business within the state of New York, and having a principal
place of business in New York City.  IBEX is in the business of
performing general construction work and mechanical work.  Andy
Frankl is a member of IBEX.  The true identities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown.

Commencing in 2015, React and IBEX entered into a series of
Agreements wherein and whereby it was agreed that React would
furnish and install the materials and labor necessary to install
the required heating, ventilation and air conditioning ("HVAC")
systems on various projects, including New York Downtown Hospital
for monetary consideration exceeding $179,440 including certain
extras, according to the complaint.  From 2015 and thereafter,
React provided the labor and materials to IBEX at the Projects.
The work was completed by React and approved and accepted by IBEX
and the owners of the various projects without objection.  React
alleges that the Defendants have not paid for the labor and
materials installed and supplied and there is a balance due and
owing of $42,350 from IBEX to React.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael M. Rabinowitz, Esq.
          RABINOWITZ, GALINA & ROSEN
          94 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 739-8222
          E-mail: mrabinowitz@randglaw.net


IMAGE LINE: Faces "Thomas" Suit in District of Utah
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Image Line. The case is captioned
Joshua Thomas, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Image Line, Wind River Trucking, and Rain Chief
Resource Management, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00845-DBP
(D. Utah, August 1, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon.
Dustin B. Pead.

Wind River provides trucking of fresh water, flowback and
production water.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Paige Benjamin, Esq.
          PAIGE BENJAMIN ATTORNEY AT LAW PC
          470 N University Ave Ste 100
          Po Box 1464
          Provo, UT 84603
          Telephone: (801) 822 9210
          E-mail: paigebenjamin@mac.com


INDEPENDENT BANK: Defending Class Suits by SIBL Depositors
----------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend class action lawsuits by individuals who had
purchased certificates of deposit from Stanford International
Bank, Ltd., or SIBL.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of
BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH,
that was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to
R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford
International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH.

Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging, among other things,
that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other
Stanford Entities and seeking to recover damages and alleged
fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this
case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended
Class Action Complaint asserted previously unasserted claims,
including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent
scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford
Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH
officers.

Given the new allegations, Independent Bank notified its insurance
carriers of the claims made in the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially indicated that a
"loss" has not yet occurred or that the claims are not covered by
the policies. However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue
insurance coverage for these claims, as well as for the
reimbursement of defense costs, through the initiation of
litigation and other means.

Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are
without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. This is
complex litigation involving a number of procedural matters and
issues. As such, Independent Bank is unable to predict when this
matter may be resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation,
the ultimate outcome of, or potential costs or damages arising
from, this case.


INGRAM MICRO: Scheiner Refiled Complaint in Del. Chancery Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingram Micro Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that plaintiff Scheiner
refiled the same complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, Scheiner v.
Ingram Micro Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12380.

On March 8, 2016, a putative stockholder class action suit
captioned Scheiner v. Ingram Micro Inc. et al., 30-2016-00839447-
CU-SL-CXC CXC, was filed in the Superior Court in Orange County,
California. The complaint names as defendants Ingram Micro, its
directors, Tianjin Tianhai and Merger Subsidiary. The complaint
asserts that Ingram Micro's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in negotiating and
approving the merger agreement, by agreeing to supposedly unfair
deal protection devices and by allegedly acting in a self-
interested manner. The complaint also generally alleges that
Tianjin Tianhai, Ingram Micro and Merger Subsidiary aided and
abetted such purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, class certification and injunctive
relief blocking consummation of the merger. Ingram Micro and the
other defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.

On May 17, 2016, the plaintiff requested that his California
lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice. On May 25, 2016, plaintiff
Scheiner refiled essentially the same complaint in Delaware
Chancery Court, Scheiner v. Ingram Micro Inc., et al., C.A. No.
12380. Ingram Micro believes this action is without merit.


ITC HOLDINGS: Court Eyes March 2017 Completion of Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITC Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Poland state court
issued a scheduling order, which, among other things, requires the
parties to complete discovery by March 10, 2017, and sets a trial
date for June 5, 2017.

On February 9, 2016, Fortis, FortisUS, Merger Sub and ITC Holdings
entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into
ITC Holdings, as a result of which ITC Holdings will become a
subsidiary of FortisUS (the "Merger").  During the second quarter
of 2016, the shareholders of Fortis and the shareholders of ITC
Holdings approved and adopted the Merger Agreement at separately
held special meetings.

Following the announcement of the Merger with Fortis, Inc., four
putative state class action lawsuits have been filed by purported
shareholders of ITC Holdings on behalf of a purported class of ITC
Holdings shareholders. Initially, the four actions (Paolo Guerra
v. Albert Ernst, et al., Harvey Siegelman v. Joseph L. Welch, et
al., Alan Poland v. Fortis Inc., et al., Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph
L. Welch, et al.) were filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court
of the State of Michigan. The complaints name as defendants a
combination of ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC
Holdings board of directors, Fortis Inc. ("Fortis"), FortisUS Inc.
("FortisUS") and Element Acquisition Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"). The
complaints generally allege, among other things, that (1) ITC
Holdings' directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger Agreement (defined below in Note 12), (including,
but not limited to, various alleged breaches of duties of good
faith, loyalty, care and independence), (2) ITC Holdings'
directors failed to take appropriate steps to maximize shareholder
value and claims that the Merger Agreement contains several deal
protection provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive and (3) a
combination of ITC Holdings, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints seek class action certification and a variety of relief
including, among other things, enjoining defendants from
completing the proposed Merger, unspecified rescissory and
compensatory damages, and costs, including attorneys' fees and
expenses.

The Siegelman case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
March 22, 2016.

On March 23, 2016, the state court entered an order directing that
the related cases be consolidated under the caption In re ITC
Holdings Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On April 8, 2016,
Poland filed an amended complaint to add derivative claims on
behalf of ITC Holdings.

On March 14, 2016, the Guerra state court action was dismissed by
the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, as Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et
al. The federal complaint names the same defendants (plus
FortisUS), asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same
types of relief as in the state court cases.

On March 25, 2016, Guerra amended his federal complaint. The
amended complaint dropped Fortis US, Fortis and Merger Sub as
defendants and added claims alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, filed with the SEC in
connection with the special meeting of shareholders to approve the
Merger Agreement, is allegedly materially misleading and allegedly
omits material facts that are necessary to render it non-
misleading.

Another lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2016 in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan captioned Harold
Severance v. Joseph L. Welch et al. against the individual members
of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and
Merger Sub, asserting the same general allegations and seeking the
same type of relief as Guerra.

On April 22, 2016, the Mehrotra state court action was dismissed
by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, as Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L.
Welch, et al. With the exception of Fortis, the federal complaint
names the same defendants and asserts the same general allegations
as the other federal complaints.

On June 8, 2016, the state court denied a motion for summary
disposition filed by ITC Holdings and the individual members of
the ITC Holdings board of directors. ITC Holdings voluntarily made
supplemental disclosures related to the Merger in response to
certain allegations, which are set forth in a Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on June 13, 2016. Nothing in those supplemental
disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set
forth therein.

On July 6, 2016, the federal actions were voluntarily dismissed by
the federal plaintiffs. The federal plaintiffs reserved the right
to make certain other claims, and ITC Holdings and the individual
members of the ITC Holdings board of directors reserved the right
to oppose any such claim.

On July 8, 2016, the plaintiffs in Poland filed a motion for class
certification. On July 13, 2016, ITC Holdings and the individual
members of the ITC Holdings board of directors filed their
respective answers to the amended complaint in Poland. On July 19,
2016, the Poland state court issued a scheduling order, which,
among other things, requires the parties to complete discovery by
March 10, 2017, and sets a trial date for June 5, 2017. On July
25, 2016, the Poland state court issued an order allowing a new
plaintiff, Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System, to
intervene in the Poland case.

"We believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of
or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in
the future," the Company said.


J&R SCHUGEL: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Ratliff Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. J&R Schugel Trucking, Inc., Case No. 20 16-
CH-09931 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 28, 2016), asserts that the
Defendants failed to provide required disclosures prior to
procuring background reports on applicants and employees.

J&R Schugel Trucking, Inc. owns and operates a trucking and
transportation located at 2026 North Broadway Street, New Ulm,
Minnesota 56073.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
              nlarry@edelson.com

         - and -

      Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
      KAMBER LAW LLC
      100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 920-3072
      Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
      E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

         - and -

      Jennifer L. Duffy, Esq.
      KAMBERLA W LLP
      425 15th Street, Suite 3459
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 714-9779
      Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
      E-mail: jduffy@kamberlaw.com


JDK MANAGEMENT: "Sexton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Liana Sexton, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. JDK Management Company, L.P. and JDK Management
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01594-JEJ (M.D. Penn., August 1,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate Quaker Steak & Lube restaurants in
Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
              asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
              mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Sold Defective Microcool Medical Gowns, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Kleenex parent company Kimberly-Clark Corp. aggressively marketed
defective medical gowns during the 2014 U.S. Ebola crisis, a
shareholder claims in Manhattan court.

The lawsuit alleges that board members and executive officers of
the corporation lied to shareholders during the 2014 Ebola crisis,
concealing the fact the company was selling defective Microcool
medical gowns when the virus had drastically increased demand.

The derivative complaint was filed August 2, by Margaret C.
Richardson, trustee of the Survivors Trust Dated 6/12/84 for the
benefit of the H&M Richardson Revocable Trust.

Kimberly-Clark Corp. owns the health and hygiene brands Kleenex,
Scott, Huggies, Pull-Ups, Kotex and Depend, occupying the number
one and number two product-share positions in 80 countries.
Kimberly-Clark entered into a spin-off agreement in 2014 with
Halyard Health Inc., under which Halyard is obligated to indemnify
Kimberly-Clark in legal proceedings and other liabilities.

In August 2014, the World Health Organization designated the
outbreak of the Ebola virus as a public health emergency of
international concern.

Growing awareness of the epidemic sparked increased demand for
personal protective equipment such as eye shields, face masks and
disposable gowns.

On May 1 of this year, "60 Minutes" reported that Kimberly-Clark
and Halyard had knowingly provided defective surgical gowns to
U.S. workers at the height of the Ebola crisis.

Anderson Cooper interviewed Bernard Vezeau, Microcool's global
strategic marketing director, who said that "the company went into
high gear to sell the product" despite knowing that "the gowns
were not consistently meeting industry standards."

Vezeau described the Ebola-period marketing as "a full court press
to drive Microcool sales" that encouraged customers "to have at
least 8 to 12 weeks of product on hand," the complaint states.

In the interview, according to Tuesday's lawsuit, Vezeau described
the Microcool gowns that were being recommended for use as having
issues with Ebola leaking, sleeves falling off and ties falling
off.

"They didn't tell the public. They didn't tell the FDA. They
didn't tell physicians. They told no one," California attorney
Michael Avenatti reportedly said in the "60 Minutes" interview.
"They kept selling the gown to the tune of millions of dollars
every month."

Avenatti is the lead attorney in a California class action suit
against Kimberly-Clark and Halyard that seeks $500 million in
damages.

August 2, lawsuit alleges that Kimberly-Clark "willfully ignored
the obvious and pervasive problems being experienced with
Kimberly-Clark's internal controls practices and procedures," and
the company's failure to remedy those problems "ultimately led to
the company becoming the subject of the governmental
investigations and subpoenas" described in the suit.

A June 2016 shareholder class action suit claimed that after the
"60 Minutes" episode, Halyard stock fell $1.21, or 4.3 percent to
close at $26.95.

Bob Brand, a spokesperson for Kimberly-Clark, declined to comment
on the ongoing litigation, but said "the company does stand behind
the safety and efficacy of its products.

"With more than 58 million sold over the past several years, the
Microcool gowns have a strong track record of performance and
safety with no indication of harm or injury caused to users of the
product," Brand said. "At no time would Kimberly-Clark sell a
product it believed would put consumers at risk."

August 2, derivative complaint, which does not seek specific
damages, includes counts of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff Richardson is represented by Curtis V.
Trinko in New York City.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Parties in EoTech Suits Agreed to Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 24, 2016, that the parties in the
EoTech Class Actions have agreed to voluntary mediation in August
2016.

In December 2015 and February 2016, three putative class action
complaints against the Company were filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri and the United
States District Court of the District of Oregon. The complaints
allege that the Company's EoTech business unit knowingly sold
defective holographic weapons sights, and seek monetary damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses based on
claims including breach of warranty, fraud, violation of state
consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment. These cases
have been consolidated into a single, putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

In March 2016, two additional putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, which assert similar claims against the
Company. The Michigan complaints were voluntarily dismissed and
subsequently re-filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri in May 2016.

The Company believes it has valid defenses with respect to these
actions and intends to defend against them vigorously. A voluntary
mediation between the parties is currently scheduled in August
2016. This mediation may not result in a settlement.

The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range
of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with these
matters because the proceedings are in their early stages.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Motion Pending in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 24, 2016, that plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in a consolidated securities class action in
New York is pending.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended
and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting
errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment,
and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
fees and expenses.

On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all
claims against the Company's officers and allowed the claim
against the Company to proceed to discovery. Discovery has
commenced.

On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which is pending before the District Court.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate
any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in
connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their
early stages.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: 401(k) Plan Class Action Filed
--------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 24, 2016, that a putative class action
was filed on June 24, 2016, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company on
behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of a Company-sponsored
401(k) plan.

The complaint alleges that the Company breached fiduciary duties
owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by making
the Company's stock available as an investment alternative under
the plan during a period prior to the disclosure of misconduct and
accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace
Systems segment. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
damages, equitable relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and
expenses.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate
any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in
connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their
early stages.


LAGOON LINENS: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL ROSENBERG, as a Shareholder of Lagoon Linens, Inc.,
Plaintiff, v. RISA MEHL, STUART MEHL, JEREMY MEHL, JACLYN MEHL,
SAM MOSKOWITZ, JAY MOSKOWITZ, ELIZABETH MOSKOWITZ, IRV SCHAULEWICZ
and LAGOON LINENS INC., 604983/2016 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau County,
August 4, 2016), was filed by the Plaintiff as a stockholder of
Lagoon Linens, Inc.

LAGOON LINENS INC. sells fine linens for the bedroom, bath, and
table.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Claude Castro, Esq.
     CLAUDE CASTRO & ASSC.
     545 Fifth Ave. 8th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 810-2710


LIVE NATION: Accrued $16.6MM for Remaining Settlement Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, the
Company had accrued $16.6 million, its best estimate of the
probable remaining costs associated with the settlement in the
Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation.

On March 18, 2016, all appeals relating to a settlement agreement
reached by the plaintiffs and Ticketmaster in respect of a
ticketing fees consumer class action litigation matter originally
filed in October 2003 against Ticketmaster were dismissed, thus
resolving this matter and allowing the implementation of the terms
of the settlement. On March 30, 2016, the Company funded a portion
of the settlement primarily related to the plaintiffs' attorney
fees. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not
acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with
the matter.

As of June 30, 2016, the Company had accrued $16.6 million, its
best estimate of the probable remaining costs associated with the
settlement, which was recorded in prior years. The calculation of
this liability is based in part upon an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and
the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.


MARTHA STEWART: Sells Subscribers Data, Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia makes millions by selling the names and addresses of
subscribers to data miners, Michiganders claim in a federal class
action.


MASTERCARD INC: Aug. 2016 Status Conference in Interchange Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a district court has
scheduled a status conference with all parties to the U.S.
Interchange litigation for August 2016.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in
the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard,
Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the
price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules
(including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws
and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and
services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to
assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard
would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the
event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards,
MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement.

MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge
Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants
and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections
included a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain
of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action
certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case
back to the district court for further proceedings. The court of
appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were
adequately represented by counsel in the settlement.

The district court has scheduled a status conference with all
parties to the litigation for August 2016.

Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants
representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard and Visa
purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the
class settlement. MasterCard had anticipated that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement would initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions. MasterCard has executed settlement
agreements with a number of opt-out merchants. MasterCard believes
these settlement agreements are not impacted by the ruling of the
court of appeals. The defendants have consolidated all of these
matters (except for one state court action in New Mexico and a
federal court action in Georgia) in front of the same federal
district court that approved the merchant class settlement.

In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a
claim. At this time, it is not clear what actions the remaining
opt-out merchants will take following the reversal of the
settlement approval.

As of June 30, 2016, MasterCard had accrued a liability of $705
million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and
the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. As of June 30,
2016 and December 31, 2015, MasterCard had $542 million and $541
million, respectively, in a qualified cash settlement fund related
to the merchant class litigation and classified as restricted cash
on its balance sheet. MasterCard believes the reserve for both the
merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out
merchants represents its best estimate of its probable liabilities
in these matters at June 30, 2016. The portion of the accrued
liability relating to both the opt-out merchants and the merchant
class litigation settlement does not represent an estimate of a
loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a final outcome.
MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to
occur.

Separately, the objectors filed a motion with the district court
in July 2015 to set aside the approval order, contending that the
merchant class was inadequately represented and the settlement was
insufficient because a counsel for several individual merchant
plaintiffs improperly exchanged communications with a defense
counsel who at the time was representing MasterCard. That motion
is still pending.


MASTERCARD INC: Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta Suits Suspended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Ontario,
Saskatchewan and Alberta Interchange suits are temporarily
suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in MasterCard's
favor) concerning certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules. The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In
the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits
were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against MasterCard,
Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The
British Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified
amounts, and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5
billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and various alleged
breaches of the Canadian Competition Act. The British Columbia and
Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in unspecified amounts,
as well as injunctive relief, interest and legal costs. The Quebec
suit was later amended to include the same defendants and similar
claims as in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. Additional
purported class action complaints have been commenced in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec suits.

With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1) several of the
merchants' claims in the British Columbia case have been allowed
to proceed on a class basis, and a trial date has been set for
September 2018 (2) the Quebec suit was stayed, but the the parties
must provide a timetable for class certification by September 2016
and (3) the Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta suits are
temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds.


MASTERCARD INC: Supreme Court to Hear ATM Case Arguments in Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the ATM Non-
Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints, MasterCard expects the
U.S. Supreme Court to hear oral arguments from MasterCard and its
co-defendants during its next term beginning in October 2016.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine
the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate.
Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa have violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to
charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions
processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective networks that
are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other
networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek both
injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they
claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and
their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have
not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect
damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although
these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM
services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-
bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and
sent the case back for further proceedings.

In March 2016, certain of the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators
Complaint filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction
enjoining the enforcement of the nondiscrimination rules pending
the outcome of the litigation. In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme
Court agreed to hear oral arguments from MasterCard and its co-
defendants in both cases, which MasterCard expects will occur
during its next term beginning in October 2016.


MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Dismiss Liability Shift Case Due August
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that defendants in the U.S.
Liability Shift Litigation have until early August to file a
motion to dismiss.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that EMVCo,
MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover, JCB, China Union Pay
and a number of issuing banks engaged in a conspiracy to shift
fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks
to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip
cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in
violation of the Sherman Act and California law.  Plaintiffs
allege the damages would be the value of all chargebacks for which
class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift
on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's
fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of
governing law. Following a June 2016 hearing, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint and the defendants have until early August
2016 to file a motion to dismiss.


MDL 1917: Court Approves $158 Million in Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco, August 3, awarded $158
million to attorneys representing indirect buyers in a 9-year-long
class action on cathode ray tube price-fixing.

A long list of plaintiffs sued Toshiba, Samsung, Panasonic and
others in 2007 for a 12-year conspiracy to corner the market for
cathode ray tubes, used in TVs and other electronics.

The attorneys requested $193 million: 33.3 percent of the $577
million settlement approved in July.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar found that several factors justified
reducing the award to $158 million: 27.5 percent of the
settlement.  Tigar also awarded $7.6 million in expenses to
attorneys and $450,000 in incentives for named plaintiffs.

The result achieved for the class is the most important factor in
determining attorneys' fees, Tigar wrote in his 20-page ruling.

While $577 million is "a large sum of money," Tigar said, it is
only 20 percent of the $2.78 billion plaintiffs claimed to have
been overcharged for products containing price-fixed tubes.

Considering the complexity of the case, the performance of counsel
and the risky nature of litigating a major class action, Tigar
found it justified to approve slightly more than the Ninth
Circuit's benchmark of 25 percent of the settlement fund.

Tigar used the lodestar method, a two-step process that involves
multiplying billable hours by hourly rates and adjusting it based
on case-specific factors.

The class attorneys recorded 183,000 billable hours through May
2015, when the settlement was reached.

Martin Quinn, special master to help oversee the settlement, found
the class attorneys' hourly rates of $350 to $875 were reasonable.

Under the settlement, Chunghwa had to pay $10 million; LG
Electronics $25 million; Philips electronics $175 million;
Panasonic $70 million; Hitachi $28 million; Toshiba $30 million;
Samsung $225 million; and Thomson $13.75 million.

Two groups of class members who objected to the settlement
appealed the settlement approval and attorneys' fees to the Ninth
Circuit on August 4.

Lead class counsel Mario Alioto, with Trump, Alioto, Trump and
Prescott in San Francisco, did not return a phone call seeking
comment August 4.

In January, Tigar approved a $38 million award for lawyers
representing a class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in the
antitrust case. That award was 30 percent of a $127 million
settlement.

The case captioned, IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, This Order Relates To: ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
Case No. C-07-5944 JST (N.D. Cal.).


METHODIST HOSPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Nurses
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Straka, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Methodist Hospital d/b/a Methodist Dallas
Medical Center, Methodist Charlton Medical Center, Methodist
Mansfield Medical Center, Methodist Richardson Medical Center,
Methodist Rehabilitation Hospital, and Methodist Hospitals of
Dallas, Case No. 3:16-cv-02192-B (N.D. Tex., July 28, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to properly compensate
non-exempt nurses for work performed during meal periods.

The Defendants operate a chain of hospitals that provide
healthcare services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@KennedyHodges.com

         - and -

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Tsisin" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery Management, Inc.
The case is titled Ilya Tsisin, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04281-FB-RER
(E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Frederic
Block.

Monarch Recovery is a premier accounts receivable management
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MORAN TOWING: "Turnage" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Turnage v. Moran Towing Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02714-JKB (D. Md., July 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Moran Towing Corporation is engaged in the business of ship
docking, marine transportation, and offshore contract towing.

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


MV TRANSPORTATION: Violates FLSA OT Provision, "Jordan" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVORN JORDAN, on behalf of himself, individually, and all others
similarly-situated v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., and MV CONTRACT
TRANSPORTATION, INC., and MICHELAIRE PHANOR, an individual, Case
No. 513422/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 3, 2016), is a civil action
for damages and equitable relief based upon the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

MV Transportation is a California corporation operating in the
state of New York as a foreign business corporation, with its
principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas.  The
Defendants own and operate a business providing transportation
services for elderly and disabled individuals in the New York City
area, among other regions in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Declines to Dismiss Scholarship Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. refused on August 5, to
dismiss an antitrust class action challenging the National
Collegiate Athletic Association's cap on scholarship money to
college athletes.

Under the cap, Division I college football and basketball players
may receive cash compensation up to the cost of attendance,
"untethered" to educational expenses.

The athletes say the NCAA and its conferences violate federal
antitrust law by imposing the cap and that schools would offer
more generous scholarships to attract players without it.  The cap
also unfairly bars them from earning money playing sports, from
which the NCAA receives multibillion-dollar payments from TV
networks and advertisers, they say.

At oral argument, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken for the
Northern District of California indicated that she would dismiss
the suit based on O'Bannon v. NCAA, in which the Ninth Circuit
held last September that member schools need not compensate
athletes above the cost of attendance.

"It was tried and it's the law," Wilken said at the hearing. "If I
were to rule as I think I probably will have to, an injunction
couldn't include payment higher than the cost of attendance
untethered to educational expenses."

But plaintiffs' counsel Jeffrey Kessler told Wilken that the
players were also challenging rules prohibiting compensation for
education-related expenses in addition to the cap on cash
compensation. Kessler argued the students are seeking education-
related compensation like tuition reimbursement for graduate
school and work-study payments, which they had not addressed in
their complaint.

Kessler told Wilken the plaintiffs would amend their complaint to
include the new claims.

"As long as you provide for [compensation] tethered to educational
objectives, it will not dispose our case," Kessler said.

That seemed to sway Wilken, who said in her 6-page ruling on
August 5, that "the Ninth Circuit's decision in O'Bannon limits
the types of relief plaintiffs may seek but it does not provide a
basis upon which a judgment on the merits can be rendered."

"O'Bannon simply forecloses one type of relief plaintiffs
previously sought: cash compensation untethered to educational
expenses," she added.

"We are very pleased with this ruling by the court, which permits
the case to move forward at full speed," Kessler said in an email.
"The next steps are the completion of discovery and then a trial,
where we hope to empower the schools and conferences to provide
the increased benefits that these great athletes deserve."

NCAA attorney Jeffrey Mishkin criticized the plaintiffs' claims
for education-related compensation as "micromanaging" in an area
where the Ninth Circuit had given the NCAA flexibility.

"This isn't about small issues of what is and isn't an appropriate
educational expense," Mishkin told Wilken. "These small
incremental issues are not for an antitrust court to decide."

Kessler is with Winston & Strawn, and Mishkin is with Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, both of New York.

Mishkin could not be reached for comment late August 5.

The case captioned, IN RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION ATHLETIC GRANT-IN-AID CAP ANTITRUST
LITIGATION,  MARTIN JENKINS, et al., PlaintiffS, v. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.,
No. 14-md-2541 CW (N.D. Cal.).


NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces "Furniss" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC FURNISS 16426 Mesa Point Dr. Houston, Texas 77095, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ATIONAL OILWELL
VARCO, L.P. c/o C T Corporation System 1999 Bryan Street, STE. 900
Dallas, Texas 75201, (S.D. Ohio, July 14, 2016), alleges violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

National Oilwell Varco, L.P. is an oilfield services company,
providing drilling fluid products and services to oil wells
throughout the United States and the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: (216) 696-5000
     Fax: (216) 696-7005
     E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com

        - and -

     Todd Slobin, Esq.
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Fax: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net


NATURAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Securities Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss a securities class action remains pending.

In January 2016, two purported securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company and its top executives. On March
29, 2016, the court consolidated the purported securities class
actions, appointed two Lead Plaintiffs, Messrs. Dao and Juan, and
appointed the Rosen Law Firm and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as co-Lead
Counsel for the purported class in the consolidated action.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 29, 2016.

The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of
certain of our stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris T. Sharng, and Timothy S.
Davidson, and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Chris T. Sharng, Timothy
S. Davidson, and George K. Broady. The consolidated complaint
alleges, inter alia, that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the legality of its business
operations in China, including running an allegedly illegal multi-
level marketing business. The consolidated complaint seeks an
indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest and costs.

On June 15, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. The Company believes that these claims are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations in the consolidated complaint.


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Park Rangers' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Second Circuit revived a
class action in Manhattan, August 2, by New York City park rangers
who want to be paid for the time spent getting into and out of
their uniforms.

Current and former Assistant Urban Park Rangers employed by New
York City's Department of Parks & Recreation filed a collective
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, including the Department's refusal to compensate
them for time spent putting on and taking off required
uniforms.  The district court (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge) granted
partial summary judgment for the defendants and, without further
proceedings, closed the case.

"We conclude that the district court erred both in granting
partial summary judgment and in closing the case while several
claims remained unresolved.  The judgment of the district court is
therefore vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings,"
the Second Circuit said.

The case is, Henry Perez, Baselice Ralph, Juan Bayron, Jerry
Cordero, Ronald Eason, Donald Koonce, Joseph Oro, Ruben Rios, Jr.,
Pedro Rosado, and Derek G. Walther, on 10 behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The City of
New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio, The New York City Department of
Parks & Recreation, and Mitchell J. Silver, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Parks & Recreation,
Defendants-Appellees, Docket No. 15-315 (2nd Cir.).


NINTENDO: Homeowners Sue Over "Pokemon Go" Game
-----------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that makers of the popular "Pokemon Go" game plop virtual
creatures on private property without permission and encourage
players to trespass on private land, property owners claim in a
federal class action.

After taking the world by storm in the 1990s, the Japanese video
game is back with a vengeance for a new generation and nostalgic
millenials.

Now an application for smartphones and other mobile devices, the
"augmented reality" game uses GPS and camera functions, setting
goals for players to catch virtual characters in the real world.

San Francisco-based software developer Niantic released "Pokemon
Go" on July 6, and Jeffery Marder claims in a July 29 complaint
that he had five people knock on the door of his West Orange, New
Jersey, home in the first week, asking for permission to "catch"
Pokemon in his backyard.

"Pokemon Go" designates GPS coordinates on private properties as
"Pokestops" and "Pokemon Gyms" where players can pick up in-game
items, according to the complaint.

But Marder says the game makers failed to consider the
consequences of "populating the real world with virtual Pokemon
characters" without obtaining consent from property owners.

The 16-page filing cites reports about of people inappropriately
playing the game at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington,
D.C., and at a cemetery in Alabama, prompting complaints.

Earlier this month, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Poland
banned people from playing "Pokemon Go" on its grounds, calling
the behavior "disrespectful" at a site memorializing the deaths of
more than 1 million Jews killed in extermination camps during the
Holocaust.

Marder's complaint notes that the exceedingly popular "Pokemon Go"
was downloaded more than 23 million times and earned more than $35
million in revenue as of July 23.  He says the game makers profit
from the unauthorized use of people's private properties and
encourage millions of players to make "unwanted incursions" onto
private land.  The complaint accuses the game makers of nuisance
and unjust enrichment.

Marder seeks to certify a class of all property owners or abutting
property owners in the United States who had "Pokemon Go"
designate GPS coordinates on their land or abutting land without
consent.  Aside from class certification, Marder also seeks an
injunction and damages, disgorgement or other monetary relief.

He is represented Jennifer Pafti of Pomerantz in Beverly Hills.
Pafti has not returned a phone call seeking comment on the
lawsuit.

In addition to Niantic, Marder's federal class action also names
as defendants Nintendo and The Pokemon Co.

Representatives for Nintendo and Niantic Inc. have not returned
emails seeking comment.

Niantic also faces opposition in New York where Gov. Andrew Cuomo
on August 1, directed state authorities to prevent nearly 3,000
registered sex offenders from playing "Pokemon Go" while on
parole.

In addition to requiring sex offenders to divulge their home
addresses and internet identifiers, including email addresses and
screen names, the New York Department of Corrections and Community
Services is avoidance of "Pokemon Go" a condition of supervised
release from state prison.

According to a report by the Associated Press, "the division has
sent about 52,000 records related to 18,544 sex offenders since
2008 that have been used to remove names from social media sites."


NORTHERN TRUST: $46.5MM Charge Recorded Over ERISA Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the second quarter
of 2016, the Company recorded a $46.5 million charge in connection
with the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

A number of participants in Northern Trust's securities lending
program, which is associated with its asset servicing business,
have commenced either individual lawsuits or purported class
actions in which they claim, among other things, that Northern
Trust failed to exercise prudence in the investment management of
the collateral received from the borrowers of the securities,
resulting in losses associated with the 2008 financial crisis that
they seek to recover. The cases assert various contractual,
statutory and common law claims, including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty under common law and under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

In 2013, Northern Trust recorded a $19.2 million charge in
connection with a settlement to resolve certain claims related to
two of these lawsuits.

In the second quarter of 2016, Northern Trust recorded a $46.5
million charge in connection with a settlement to resolve
substantially all of the remaining claims.

This settlement is not final as it requires further documentation,
signed agreements and court approval.

One individual lawsuit related to this matter is not subject to
the settlement and remains pending.


NPAS INC: Faces "Riezes" Suit in Eastern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against NPAS, Inc. The case is captioned
Esti Riezes, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. NPAS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-04277 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016).

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NPC INTERNATIONAL: "Gregorius" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Gregorius, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NPC International, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00593-UA-MRM
(M.D. Fla., July 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

NPC International, Inc. operates as a franchisee of Pizza Hut and
Wendy's restaurants in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      4423 Del Prado Boulevard S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


OKLAHOMA: "Dennis" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to N.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
LaMarr Raymondo Dennis, And Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Mary Fallin, Oklahoma Governor, the Defendant, Case
No. CF-01-02301, was removed from Tulsa Cty. Dist. Ct., to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00507-TCK-TLW
to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Terence Kern.

Oklahoma is a midwestern U.S. state whose diverse landscape
includes the Great Plains, mountains, lakes and forests.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Court Permits Filing of Wage Class, PAGA Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware temporarily allowed the class
claim in the amount of $5,000,000 and the PAGA claim in the amount
of $100,000 for purposes of voting on Pacific Sunwear of
California, Inc.'s plan.

Tamaree Beeney and Charles Pfeiffer sought to file claims against
the PacSun estates for alleged violations of California wage and
hour laws, which had been asserted prepetition in separate (but
subsequently consolidated) lawsuits.

Judge Silverstein has previously permitted the filing of a class
proof of claim covering a period of 8 years and 7 months -- from
March 18, 2007, through October 10, 2016.  The judge will not
permit the filing of a class proof of claim for the period after
October 10, 2016.

Judge Silverstein, however, ordered that a second bar date notice
must go to employees who worked in PacSun's California retail
locations from October 11, 2016 through February 26, 2016.

A full-text copy of Judge Silverstein's August 8, 2016 order is
available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb16-10882-713.pdf

Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Debtor, represented by Joseph
M. Barry, Esq. -- jbarry@ycst.com -- Young, Conaway, Stargatt &
Taylor, David M. Guess, Esq. -- dguess@ktbslaw.com -- Klee Tuchin
Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Sasha M. Gurvitz, Esq. --
SGurvitz@ktbslaw.com -- Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Maris
J. Kandestin, Esq. -- mkandestin@ycst.com -- Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Laura Monroe, Perdue, Brandon, Fielder,
Collins & Mott, Michael R. Nestor, Esq. -- mnestor@ycst.com --
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, Shane M. Reil, Esq. --
sreil@ycst.com -- Young Conaway, David M. Stern, Esq. --
dstern@ktbslaw.com -- Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Michael
L. Tuchin, Esq. -- mtuchin@ktbslaw.com -- Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff
& Stern, LLP, Jonathan M. Weiss, Esq. -- JWeiss@ktbslaw.com --
Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP.

U.S. Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Juliet M. Sarkessian,
U.S. Trustee's Office.

Prime Clerk, Claims Agent, represented by Benjamin Joseph Steele,
Prime Clerk LLC.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Creditor Committee,
represented by Justin R. Alberto, Esq. -- jalberto@bayardlaw.com -
- Bayard, P.A., Gregory Joseph Flasser, Esq. --
gflasser@bayardlaw.com -- Bayard, P.A., Cathy Hershcopf, Esq. --
chershcopf@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jay R. Indyke, Esq. --
jindyke@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Seth Van Aalten, Esq. --
svanaalten@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

                         About Pacific Sunwear

Founded in 1982 in Newport Beach, California as a surf shop,
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. operates in the teen and young
adult retail sector, selling men's and womens apparel,
accessories, and footwear. The Company went public in 1993
(NASDAQ: PSUN), and peaked with 965 stores in 2006. At present,
the Company has approximately 593 retail locations nationwide
under the names "Pacific Sunwear" and "PacSun," which stores are
principally in mall locations. The Company has 2,000 full-time
workers. Through its ecommerce business, the Company operates an
e-commerce site at http://www.pacsun.com/

Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., and two affiliated debtors
each filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 16-10882) on
April 7, 2016.  The cases are pending before the Honorable Laurie
Selber Silverstein.

The Debtors sought Chapter 11 protection with a Chapter 11 plan
that would convert debt into equity.

The Debtors tapped Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, and Klee,
Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP as attorneys; FTI Consulting, Inc.,
as financial advisor; Guggenheim Securities, LLC, as investment
banker; and Prime Clerk LLC as claims and noticing agent.

Andrew Vara, acting U.S. trustee for Region 3, on April 19
appointed seven creditors of Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.,
to serve on the official committee of unsecured creditors.  The
official committee of unsecured creditors retained Cooley LLP and
Bayard, P.A. as counsel; and Province Inc. as its financial
advisor.


PANERA BREAD: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2016, that the settlement of four
class action cases remains pending.

On May 6, 2016, the parties of all four pending cases reached a
Memorandum of Understanding For Three Settlement Classes regarding
the class action lawsuits. Under the terms of the agreement, the
Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount to purported class
members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, Private Attorney General Act
payments, and costs of administering the settlement. The

On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a
former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit
was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside.
The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.

In addition, several other purported class action lawsuits based
on similar claims and seeking similar damages were filed against
the subsidiary: on October 30, 2015 in the California Superior
Court, County of San Bernardino by Jazmin Dabney, a former
subsidiary employee; on November 3, 2015 in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of California by Clara
Manchester, a former subsidiary employee; and on November 30, 2015
in the California Superior Court, County of Yolo by Tanner
Maginnis, a current subsidiary assistant manager.

On May 6, 2016, the parties of all four pending cases reached a
Memorandum of Understanding For Three Settlement Classes regarding
the class action lawsuits. Under the terms of the agreement, the
Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount to purported class
members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, Private Attorney General Act
payments, and costs of administering the settlement. The
Memorandum of Understanding contains no admission of wrongdoing.
The terms and conditions of a definitive settlement agreement are
under negotiation and such agreement is subject to the final
approval by two California Superior Courts. The Company maintained
an appropriate reserve in accrued expenses in the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 28, 2016.


PHILIP MORRIS: Opposed Motion for New Trial in "Larsen" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Philip Morris USA Inc.
("PM USA") has opposed plaintiffs' motion for a new trial in the
Larsen class action case.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995-2003.

In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment
regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In
April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an
element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel
from the findings in the case brought by the Department of
Justice.  The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions.

Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011,
the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a
verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior
ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim.

In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and
for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous"
claim, which the court denied in June 2015. Upon retrial, in April
2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA. In May 2016,
plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which PM USA opposed in
June 2016.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "O'Brien" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates,
LLC. The case is captioned MICHAEL O'BRIEN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-04634-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., August 1, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. Susan D. Wigenton.

Portfolio Recovery is an American debt buyer based in Norfolk,
Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen H. Chulsky, Esq.
          375 Passaic Avenue
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          E-mail: g.chulsky@att.net

               - and -

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


PSCU INC: "Davis" Labor Suit Transferred from Mich. to Fla. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Case LARRY DAVIS, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. PSCU INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation,
Case 8:16-cv-02079-CEH-JSS, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on July 20, 2016.  The
case alleges willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides financial services to credit unions including
operating four call centers in the United States.

PSCU is a Credit Union Service Organization (CUSO) --
https://pscu.com/about/our-difference.html -- that was formed by
credit unions to provide services to credit unions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 746-4044
     Fax: (248) 746-4001
     E-mail: npioch@sommerspc.com
             jyoung@sommerspc.com


QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders Sue in Pennsylvania Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qlik Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on June 9, 2016 and
June 15, 2016, two putative class action lawsuits were filed by
purported stockholders of Qlik against Qlik, its directors, Parent
and Merger Sub in Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Delaware
County, captioned Solak v. Golden, et al, Case No. 2016-005036
(the "Solak Action"), and Willems v. Qlik Technologies Inc., et
al, Case No. 2016-005249 (the "Willems Action"). The Willems
Action was also filed against Thoma Bravo.

Both lawsuits generally allege that the members of the Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed Merger by, among other things, failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Qlik to its stockholders and agreeing to
unfair terms. They further allege that Qlik, Parent and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. The Willems Action also alleges aiding and abetting by
Thoma Bravo. Plaintiffs in both actions seek, among other things,
equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the Merger, and
attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, the Solak Action seeks
rescission of the Merger and/or rescissory damages.

On June 2, 2016, Qlik entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Project Alpha Holding, LLC ("Parent") and Project Alpha
Merger Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"),
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company
(the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by
an affiliate of private equity investment firm Thoma Bravo, LLC
("Thoma Bravo").

The Company is not able to estimate the amount or range of any
loss for certain contingencies related to this matter, if any, at
this time.


QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholders Sue in Delaware Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Qlik Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on July 12, 2016, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder
of Qlik against the Board of Directors in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, captioned Charles v. Golden, et al, Case No. 12552-VCS.
The action generally alleges that the members of the Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed Merger by failing to disclose material information in the
Definitive Proxy Statement. Plaintiff seeks, among other things,
equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the Merger and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 2, 2016, Qlik entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Project Alpha Holding, LLC ("Parent") and Project Alpha
Merger Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"),
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company
(the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by
an affiliate of private equity investment firm Thoma Bravo, LLC
("Thoma Bravo").

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite
proceedings. The Court scheduled a hearing on Plaintiff's motion
for July 25, 2016.

On July 22, 2016, Qlik filed with the SEC supplemental disclosures
in a Proxy Supplement to the Definitive Proxy Statement. The same
day, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to
expedite. That afternoon, Plaintiff informed the Court that his
claims had been mooted and that the hearing on Plaintiff's motion
to expedite may be removed from the Court's calendar.

On July 22, 2016 and July 26, 2016, two more putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by purported
stockholders of Qlik against the Board of Directors, Thoma Bravo,
LLC, Project Alpha Holding, LLC, Project Alpha Merger Corp., and
Elliott Associates, L.P., captioned Garagarza v. Thoma Bravo, LLC,
et al., C.A. No. 12586-VCS, and Laborers Pension Fund v. Thoma
Bravo, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 12597- .

Both actions generally allege that the members of the Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed Merger by, among other things, failing to maximize the
value of Qlik to its stockholders, failing to ensure a fair
process, and failing to disclose all material information in the
Definitive Proxy Statement. Both actions further allege that Thoma
Bravo, LLC, Project Alpha Holding, LLC, Project Alpha Merger
Corp., and Elliott Associates, L.P. aided and abetted the
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs in
these actions seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin
the consummation of the Merger, rescissory damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Company is not able to estimate the amount or range of any
loss for certain contingencies related to this matter, if any, at
this time.


QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Jeweltex Stockholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Qlik Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on July 13, 2016 and
July 20, 2016, two putative class action lawsuits were filed by
purported stockholders of Qlik against Qlik and the Board of
Directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, captioned Jeweltex Manufacturing Inc.
Retirement Plan, et al v. Qlik Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No.
16-3800 (the "Jeweltex Action"), and Walker v. Qlik Technologies,
Inc., et al, Case No. 16-3903 (the "Walker Action"). The Walker
Action additionally names Thoma Bravo, Parent and Merger Sub as
defendants.

On June 2, 2016, Qlik entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Project Alpha Holding, LLC ("Parent") and Project Alpha
Merger Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"),
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company
(the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by
an affiliate of private equity investment firm Thoma Bravo, LLC
("Thoma Bravo").

Both lawsuits generally allege that Qlik and members of the Board
of Directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that members of
the Board of Directors violated 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed Merger by failing to
disclose material information in the Definitive Proxy Statement.
The Walker Action further alleges that Thoma Bravo violated 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
proposed Merger by failing to disclose material information in the
Definitive Proxy Statement. Plaintiffs in both actions seek, among
other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the
Merger, rescission of the Merger and/or rescissory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company is not able to estimate the amount or range of any
loss for certain contingencies related to this matter, if any, at
this time.


QUAKER OATS: Consumer Class Suits Moved to California
-----------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Quaker Oats may battle in California claims that it
overcharges consumers and hurts maple syrup makers by falsely
claiming that its oatmeal contains maple syrup, a federal judge
ruled.

Since March, plaintiffs across several states, starting in
California, have sued the Quaker Oats Co. in four federal putative
class actions, alleging the company prints misinformation on its
Maple & Brown Sugar oatmeal packaging.

Barbara Gates filed one such suit in Newark, N.J. on April 7,
similarly claiming that the oatmeal actually does not contain the
"premium ingredients" maple syrup or maple sugar.

"Maple syrup contains an abundant amount of naturally occurring
minerals such as calcium, manganese, potassium, and magnesium,"
the complaint states. "It is also a source of beneficial
antioxidants that have shown to help prevent cancer, support the
immune system, lower blood pressure and slow the effects of
aging."

Though the oatmeal "prominently displays the words 'Maple & Brown
Sugar' on its packaging along with images of a pitcher of maple
syrup," it does not contain the premium ingredients, according to
the complaint.

The plaintiffs say they have thus had to pay premium prices for
sub-par products.  Plus, the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers'
Association and over ten other industry groups have allegedly said
the misbranding harms real maple syrup manufacturers by letting
"cheaper products" compete with those actually containing premium
maple syrup.

The products at issue include these Quaker maple & brown sugar
instant oatmeal varieties: High Fiber, Gluten Free, Lower Sugar,
Weight Control, and Organic.

Gates' five-count complaint alleges violations of the federal
Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act; as well as that of Illinois; New
Jersey, D.C., Illinois, and other states' consumer fraud laws; and
breach of express warranty under New Jersey law.

After the Chicago class moved to transfer and consolidate all the
lawsuits in their court, Gates followed suit, calling the cases
"nearly identical."

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the Chicago
plaintiffs' motion, but suggested that the parties seek "transfer
of the later-filed cases under the 'first-to-file rule.'"

The Chicago-based Quaker Oats, in turn, moved to transfer the
suits to California.

U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman granted Quaker's motion August 3.

"Plaintiff's claims involve the same parties -- the putative class
members and defendant Quaker," Hillman wrote. "Plaintiff's claims
involve the same issues of law, including whether certain claims
are preempted by federal law. Moreover, plaintiff previously
supported the transfer of her case as part of a [multidistrict
litigation] MDL because 'centralization is necessary in order to
avoid duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel
and the judiciary.' Those considerations have not disappeared
simply because the request for an MDL was denied. Finally,
plaintiff has not opposed Quaker's motion to transfer, which
evidences a tacit concession to all of these points."

Finding that "the public and private factors for transfer of
venue, together with the principles of the first-filed rule, all
warrant the transfer of this action to the Central District of
California," the judge transferred the suits.

Attorneys with Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga in Newark, N.J. for
Quaker, and Gates' attorney, Stephen Denittis with Denittis
Osefchen in Marlton, N.J., did not return requests for comment
emailed August 4.

The case captioned, BARBARA GATES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY,
Defendant., 1:16-cv-01944-NLH-JS (D. N.J.).

Counsel to Plaintiff:

     Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq.
     Denittis Osefchen, PC
     5 Greentree Centre
     525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
     Marlton, NJ 08053

Counsel to Defendant:

     Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
     Selina Miriam Ellis, Esq.
     Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP
     One Riverfront Plaza
     1037 Raymond Blvd., 6th Floor
     Newark, NJ 07102

          - and -

     Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq.
     Jason R. Meltzer
     Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
     1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20036

          - and -

     Matthew A. Hoffman, Esq.
     Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
     333 South Grand Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197


RAVAGH PERSIAN: "Rivera-Raymundo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Rivera-Raymundo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Ravagh Persian Grill, Inc., Ravagh Restaurant Corp.,
Masoud Tehrani, Soheil Tazari, and Monireh Tehrani, Case No. 1:16-
cv-06032-VSB (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 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 11E 30th
Street New York, NY 10016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yesy Sanchez, Esq.
      PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
      3510 Broadway, Suite 201
      Astoria, NY 11106
      Telephone: (718) 777-0400
      Facsimile: (718) 777-0599
      E-mail: contact@pnlawyers.com


RIAL DE MINAS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Idaly Martinez on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rial De Minas, Inc., Rial De Minas III,
Inc., Rial De Minas IV, Inc., Juan Luevanos, Maria Luevanos, and
Melissa Luevanos, Case No. 1:16-cv-01947 (D. Col., August 1,
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 Mexican restaurants in Denver,
Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Milstein, Esq.
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      595 Canyon Boulevard
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 440-8780
      Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
      E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


RIT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Padgett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RIT Technologies Ltd., Amit Mantsur, Yossi
Ben Harosh, Eran Erov, and Motti Hania, Case No. 2:16-cv-04579
(D.N.J., July 28, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

RIT Technologies Ltd. provides intelligent infrastructure
management ("IIM") and indoor optical wireless technology
solutions worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Telephone: (973) 313-1887
      Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Criminal Report Can't Be Used in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a report filed in a criminal case against Scotts Miracle-Gro
for selling poisonous bird feed cannot be used against the company
in a consumer class action, the Sixth Circuit ruled.

"Scotts failed to disclose that its bird seed contained pesticides
that were known to be highly toxic to birds," the 2012 class-
action lawsuit states. "Instead, defendant knowingly sold millions
of units of its defective and toxic bird feed products, knowing
the products would be widely used to feed birds at purchasers'
homes, in back yards and in wild and natural environments across
the United States."

The products in question were marketed under names including
Country Pride, Morning Song, Scotts Songbird Selections and Scotts
Wild Bird Food, according to the complaint.

The class claims that Scotts started adding the insecticides
Storcide II and Actellic 5E to its bird feed in November 2005 to
prevent insect infestation of feed grains during storage. They
claim those insecticides were not authorized for use by the
Environmental Protection Agency and that the EPA specifically
warns that Storcide II is extremely toxic to birds, fish and other
wildlife.

The government filed a criminal action against Scotts Miracle-Gro
in 2012 for treating 73 million units of wild bird food with
insecticide that is actually toxic to birds.

Scotts pleaded guilty to pesticide misuse, and agreed to pay a
penalty of $4 million and make a charitable donation of $500,000.

However, the plaintiffs in the consumer class action cannot have
access to a presentence report from Scotts' criminal case, the
Sixth Circuit ruled August 4, after grilling attorneys at oral
arguments in April.

Scotts inadvertently produced unredacted copies of its objections
to the report from the criminal case in the course of discovery,
and requested that the plaintiffs destroy the unredacted
documents.

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich, writing for the three-judge panel,
agreed with Scotts that the consumers showed they have no "special
need" for this disclosure.

"Disclosure of objection letters could thus, in some
circumstances, threaten government informants and undermine
criminal investigations," the 24-page opinion states. "Routine
disclosure of objections could very well stifle parties'
willingness to object to the contents of the [presentence report]
at all."

The consumers have not shown that their need for this information
overrides the policy concerns that advocate for keeping
presentence reports and objections thereto confidential, the
Cincinnati-based panel ruled.

"The information plaintiffs seek is available from multiple other
sources in addition to the sentencing transcript. Plaintiffs may
retain their own experts to comment on the toxicity of the bird
seed, depose Scotts's experts and employees on this subject, or
acquire the underlying documents that the government and Scotts
relied upon to reach the conclusions contained in their
objections," Suhrheinrich said.

The case is, In re: MORNING SONG BIRD FOOD LITIGATION, No. 15-3943
(6th Cir.).


SEAWORLD PARKS: Court Narrows Claims in "Anderson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Franciso, August 1, dismissed only some claims in a putative class
action against SeaWorld's treatment of orcas, gave plaintiffs
until Aug. 22 to amend them, and set a case management conference
for Oct. 7.

The case captioned, MARC ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant.,
Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW (N.D. Cal.).


SEI INVESTMENTS: Asks Court to Clarify Class Definition
-------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that SEI has asked the Court
to clarify the class definition because the one remaining claim in
the action -- secondary liability under the Louisiana Securities
Law -- requires proof that Stanford Trust Company sold or offered
to sell securities.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports to
set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a
defendant. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.
All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and,
in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of
action against SEI and/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act.
Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.

In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the
23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension against
SEI and SPTC and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence,
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the
uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana
Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in
all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing
back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions
allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise
participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by
Stanford International Bank.

The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court
and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet
been established.

The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have
granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the
petitions.

In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI
and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part,
dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and
SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court
deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that the motion
would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on class
certification.

After the Court held a hearing on class certification, it
certified a class composed of persons who purchased or renewed any
Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009 or any
person for whom the Stanford Trust Company purchased SIB CDs in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009.

SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the class certification
judgments. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for
Leave to File a First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition
in which they asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition
and add claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers.

On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for
appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 28, 2013,
SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action
Petition by seeking dismissal of the action. On March 11, 2013,
the newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to
the Middle District of Louisiana.

SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
of this case as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the action to state court. On March 25, 2013, SEI
filed a motion requesting that the federal court decline to adopt
the state court's order regarding class certification, which the
court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of
the jurisdictional issue. On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel
transferred the matter against SEI to the Northern District of
Texas.

On October 1, 2014, SEI filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the
Northern District of Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. On June 17, 2015, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss, and on June 24, 2015 set a
briefing schedule for SEI and SPTC's motion challenging the
Louisiana court's decision to certify a class, which motion was
filed on July 15, 2015.

SEI and SPTC filed their answer on July 1, 2015, and this case is
now pending in the Northern District of Texas. On July 15, 2015,
SEI and SPTC also filed motions seeking reconsideration of the
District Court's June 17 denial of the motion to dismiss or, in
the alternative, seeking leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal
of certain elements of the denial, as well as a motion seeking
partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c) with respect to claims brought under Section
712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion for reconsideration of the June 17 denial of the motion to
dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(A) of
the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss, or certify
for interlocutory appeal, plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(B)
of the Louisiana Securities Law. On November 4, 2015, the District
Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims
under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law.
Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs still pending before
the District Court are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability
against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana
Securities Law.

On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being
"all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed
Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". SEI has
asked the Court to clarify the class definition because the one
remaining claim in the action -- secondary liability under the
Louisiana Securities Law -- requires proof that Stanford Trust
Company sold or offered to sell securities.

In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the
same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that
court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of
the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on
February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no
material activity has taken place since that date.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.


SOLARCITY CORP: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Jose
dismissed with prejudice Tai Jan Bao's amended shareholder class
action against SolarCity Corp.

Lead Plaintiff James Webb and Plaintiff Tai Jan Bao seek to
represent a putative class of investors who purchased SolarCity
securities between December 12, 2012 and March 18, 2014 ("Class
Period").  Plaintiffs allege that, during this time, Defendants
manipulated an accounting formula to "portray the illusion of
profitability" by shifting overhead costs from sales, where they
would be recognized immediately, to leases, where they amortized
over a 20-year period.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants inflated a ratio used to allocate overhead costs to
leases ("burden ratio") by including the prior period's overhead
costs in the numerator, but excluding the prior period's direct
costs from the denominator.  This formula change did not affect
the company's allocation of direct costs between sales and leases,
but did cause an inflated portion of overhead costs to go to
leases.

A copy of the Court's Aug. 9 Order is available at
http://goo.gl/YHg1S5from Leagle.com.

The case captioned, TAI JAN BAO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOLARCITY
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants., Case No. 14-cv-01435-BLF (N.D.
Cal.).


SONS ELECTRICAL: Faces Suit by Foremen, Apprentices Under NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BAEZ, DELCTER BERNAL and LUIS FORTUNA, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SALVA TORE CAMPISI &
SONS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, INC., JOSEPH CAMPISI, PETER CAMPISI,
SALVATORE CAMPISI and SALVATORE CAMPISI JR., INDEX NO. 513561/2016
(N.Y. Super., County of Kings, August 4, 2016), alleges violation
of the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs are former foremen and apprentices who worked for
Defendants on various commercial and residential construction
projects in the State of New York.

SONS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, INC. is an electrical contracting
company that provides electrical installation and repair services
on various commercial and residential construction projects in the
State of New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew P. Madzelan, Esq.
     SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
     445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: (631) 420-9300


SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Class Suit v. IOS et al. Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that all proceedings in a
class action lawsuit have been stayed pending the result of the
criminal prosecution of certain former officers of International
Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS").

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.;
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The
plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company
that allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and
the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for
coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were
part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit;
however, all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the
result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of
IOS.


SUPERVALU INC: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Suit Over C&S Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the class action
lawsuit related to a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S
Wholesale Grocers, Inc., the hearing on class certification
occurred on July 19, 2016.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S that were located in New
England.

Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding
in the United States District Court in Minnesota.

The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities
that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are
seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs.

On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and remanded to the District Court. On October 30, 2013,
the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation,
which was not successful in resolving the matter.

On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the
District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of
the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision
denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers
located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery
products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September
13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider
whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from
the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center and
potentially other distribution centers.

On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an
order that decided a number of matters including granting
plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain
Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to
add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs'
request to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers.

On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's order. In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the
8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New
England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of
New England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit
occurred on May 17, 2016.

On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class certification
motion seeking to certify five District Court classes of retailers
in the Midwest and the Company filed its response on May 6, 2016.
The hearing on class certification occurred on July 19, 2016.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


SUPERVALU INC: Cross-Appeal Filed in Customer Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, In Re:
Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, the
Company has filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional
arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into
its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the
"Criminal Intrusion"). The cases were centralized in the Federal
District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In
Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.

On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3,
2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their
burden of showing any compensable damages.

On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative
to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and the
Company filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016.

On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to
amend the complaint.

On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May
31, 2016, the Company filed a cross-appeal to preserve its
additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.


SUTTLES LOGGING: "Hinson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HINSON, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated,
v. SUTTLES LOGGING, INC., Case No. 7:16-cv-00287 (W.D. Tex.,
August 3, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and other
damages owed to workers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Headquartered in Midland, Texas, Suttles provides a variety of
geological services, including computerized mud logging,
digital/electronic well data acquisition, computerized gas
monitoring, digital mud sample pictures, Web site data delivery,
and geological consulting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


TD BANK: "Carberry" Suit in N.J. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie J. Carberry, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. T.D. Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-04600
(D.N.J., July 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

T.D. Bank, N.A. is one of the ten largest banks in the United
States with well over $130 billion in assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com

         - and -

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      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


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Faces Canyon Capital Suit Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Terraform Global raised $675
million through a deceptive initial public offering, but shares
sank to $7.38 from $15 apiece when the truth came out, investors
claim, echoing existing class actions in San Mateo County Superior
Court.  The case is, Canyon Capital Advisors v. TerraForm Global;
JPMorgan Securities; Barclays Capital.


TEXAS: Faces Inmates' Suit Over Mental Health Service
-----------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action says that the state of Texas forces mentally ill
suspects deemed incompetent for trial to wait in county jails
instead of being placed in mental health facilities for proper
treatment.

Disability Rights Texas along with three individuals representing
a class of approximately 280 incompetent detainees sued Texas
Department of State Health Services commissioner Dr. John
Hellerstedt in Federal Court on July 29.

The group pursues "legal, administrative, and other appropriate
remedies" for Texans with disabilities, including those with
mental illness.

According to the complaint, "When an individual charged with a
crime is found to be incompetent to stand trial, Texas law
requires that the Texas Department of State Health Services
provide the incompetent detainee with treatment aimed at restoring
the individual to competency."

This specialized competency-restoration treatment can only be
provided in a state mental health facility or in a community-based
outpatient program, under certain circumstances and with proper
supervision.

But the department "routinely fails or refuses to provide
competency-restoration treatment within a reasonable period of
time from the date of the state criminal-court order requiring
such treatment," the group says in its complaint.

This means that criminal defendants found incompetent are put on a
waiting list until a bed at a mental health facility becomes
available. Such individuals may wait in jail for weeks or even
months until the department accepts custody.

"These incompetent detainees -- despite being presumed innocent --
end up being confined in jail prior to adjudication and pending
treatment longer than if they had been found guilty of the alleged
crime," the group says in its complaint.

"As a result of the delays caused by the department, individuals
with mental illness languish in county jails without appropriate
mental health treatment until a bed becomes available at a
department mental health facility.

"Defendant has a duty to accept and treat mentally incompetent
detainees within a reasonable period of time, which must be
measured in days, not weeks or months," the group says.

The complaint describes the experiences of the three named
individual plaintiffs who were each found incompetent to stand
trial for their criminal cases.

On Feb. 17, Joseph Ward was found incompetent to stand trial in
Harris County and ordered to be committed to a mental health
facility to attain competency. But the department did not allow
the county to transfer Ward to a state mental health facility, so
he remained in the county jail. Ward has been waiting to be
transferred to a mental health facility for competency treatment
for over 22 weeks, the complaint says.

Plaintiffs Isaac Lemelle and Michael Anderson were similarly found
incompetent to stand trial for their respective criminal cases in
Travis County. The department would not allow the county to
transfer either one to a state mental health facility, resulting
in their continued confinement in the county jail before they
could receive competency treatment. This amounted to a 21-week
wait for Lemelle and a 13-week wait for Anderson, according to the
complaint.

And county jails are unable to provide competency-restoration
services to those found incompetent to stand trial, the class
argues.

"Jails are not designed to be therapeutic -- they are inherently
punitive, and as such are not appropriate settings in which to
provide treatment aimed at restoring a person to competency.
Correctional facilities, particularly facilities designed for
short-term detention, do not have the staffing, funding, or
capabilities to provide proper care and treatment for individuals
with significant mental health needs," the group says in the
complaint.

"Because county jails are often unable to provide even basic
mental health treatment, incompetent detainees frequently end up
between a rock and a hard place: either they are housed in the
general jail population -- often with convicted offenders -- or
they are placed in solitary confinement, which causes their mental
health to further deteriorate. This deterioration conflicts with
the state's interest in prompt evaluation and treatment so that
such persons may be brought to trial.

"In contrast, state mental health facilities are specifically
designed to provide inpatient treatment to restore incompetent
detainees to competence, thereby enabling them to stand trial,"
the group says.

They cite a 2014 Joint Report by the National Sheriff's
Association and the Treatment Advocacy Center which states, "Texas
is among the states with the lowest number of public psychiatric
beds and among the stingiest states in per capita mental health
spending."

In February 2016, incompetent detainees were waiting an average of
41 days in local jails before transfer to a state mental health
facility. As of April 1, the longest wait time for a non-maximum
security bed was 275 days, the complaint notes.

The class says their due process rights under the 14th Amendment
are violated when they are confined in county jails for protracted
periods.

"No legitimate state interest justifies the confinement of
mentally incompetent criminal defendants in county jails for
months on end. The nature and duration of their incarceration bear
no reasonable relation to the restorative purpose for which the
court has committed those individuals to treatment," the group
says in the complaint.

They seek class certification and injunctive relief against the
department, which did not reply to an email request for comment.

The class is represented by Beth Mitchell with Disability Rights
Texas.

In July, Washington state federal judge Marsha Pechman ruled in
favor of mentally ill inmates in their 2014 class action claiming
that the state violated their civil rights by delaying their
competency evaluations.

"The people of Washington deserve to have their mental health
needs and the needs of their spouses, parents, children, and
friends attended to with the same urgency and dignity our society
expects hospitals to respond with when presented with a broken
bone or a cancerous tumor," Pechman said in the contempt order.


TIVO: Shareholders Sue Over Sale to Rovi
----------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling TiVo
too cheaply through an unfair process to Rovi Corp. in a cash and
stock deal valuing TiVo at $10.70 a share, shareholders say in a
federal class action in San Jose, Calif.


TOWN SPORTS: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Labbe" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company awaits approval of the settlement in the class action by
James Labbe.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations.

The Company completed settlement negotiations, pursuant to which
TSI, LLC will pay its trainers the aggregate sum of $165,000 in
exchange for full releases. The settlement agreement has been
executed by the parties, which will become effective upon approval
of the court and the class.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Bid for Access to Deposition Tapes Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
after a media scramble to get a hold of Donald Trump's deposition
videos taken for the class action lawsuit against the now-defunct
Trump University, a federal judge in San Diego on August 2,
declined to release hours of tapes to the handful of national
media outlets that requested public access to them.

Multiple media outlets, led by The Washington Post, requested to
intervene in the case Cohen v. Trump to get access to deposition
videos taken of the GOP nominee on two separate occasions in late
2015 and early this year.

The videos were originally lodged with hundreds of other documents
by Cohen's attorney Jason Forge as part of their response to
Trump's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case. But
because Forge did not follow court procedure for filing the
electronic files and seek leave of court, U.S. District Judge
Gonzalo Curiel blocked their release in June.

The transcripts of Trump's depositions have been made available in
their entirety, however, which Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli
pointed to in arguing that the presidential nominee "has nothing
to hide."

Curiel also granted Trump's motion to amend the protective order,
making it even stricter. Now, videotaped depositions are not
allowed to be filed in the case unless under seal and any
videotaped deposition related to the case is barred from media
dissemination.

The protective order applies to both class actions out of San
Diego, Cohen v. Trump and Low v. Trump University.

Curiel was tasked with deciding if particularized harm would
result from the public release of the tapes, and balancing the
public and private interests at stake if harm was found. He found
Trump's argument that releasing the deposition tapes would cause a
"media frenzy" and could potentially "taint the jury pool" had
some merit, pointing out courts have found audio and video tapes
"were subject to a higher degree of potential abuse" than
transcripts.

"Given the context of the case and the timing of media
interveners' request, it is nigh-inevitable that 'cut' and
'spliced' segments of defendant's deposition videos would appear
in both media reports and in political advertisements aired
nationwide prior to the trial date in November, increasing the
likelihood that prospective jurors would be exposed to information
about the case, as well as to evidence that could be introduced at
trial to impeach defendant's testimony," Curiel wrote in the
order.

But Curiel did find several factors weighed in favor of
disclosure, including legitimate public interest in the content of
the videos, the media's desire to provide the electorate with
insight into Trump's demeanor and Trump's public celebrity as an
"experienced public figure."

Since the videos have not been filed as evidence, however, "the
presumption of public access is substantially weaker," Curiel
wrote.

"There is every reason to believe that release of the deposition
videos would contribute to an ongoing 'media frenzy' that would
increase the difficulty of seating an impartial jury," Curiel
reiterated.

Trump is being sued by former students of the shuttered real
estate school who claim he defrauded them with a "get rich quick"
scheme to cash in on the foreclosure crisis. Some students paid
upwards of $35,000 for advice they claim was little more than an
infomercial.

Curiel heard from the media outlets and Trump's lawyer at a
hearing on the motion to intervene on July 13. The judge was also
tasked with deciding whether to make the protective order in Cohen
and Low even stricter, per a request by Trump.

Petrocelli argued at the hearing that removing the protective
order would threaten the "integrity and fairness of the trial" by
making it more difficult to pick a fair and impartial jury.  He
also pointed out that in most cases deposition videos are not
released prior to a trial, if at all.

When Dan Laidman -- the media outlets' attorney -- addressed the
court, he said the potential harms or prejudices Trump claimed
would happen if the videos were released were "abstract" and could
"really apply to any case."

He said Trump cannot specifically show how he would be prejudiced
if his videotaped deposition were released to the public,
something Forge reiterated by saying that "arguing this matter
elevates this motion to a level it doesn't deserve."

Trump needed to prove "good cause" for keeping the deposition
tapes out of the public's hands. The threshold for keeping
documents under wraps is difficult to meet, however, with
precedence leaning toward transparency.

In an expected move, Curiel also denied Trump's motion for summary
judgment in the Cohen case Tuesday, finding Art Cohen and the
other plaintiffs have presented enough evidence for their claims
Trump violated the Racketeering or Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) to go forward.

The former students claim Trump violated RICO when he claimed to
have "handpicked" Trump University mentors and teachers, which was
reflected in marketing materials and advertisements aimed at
capturing potential students. They also claim the use of the word
"university" lent the program an air of credibility which led
students to believe Trump University was accredited.

The trial in Low v. Trump University has been set for late
November, after the presidential election.

The case captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company, and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants.,
No. 3:10-cv-0940-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.).


TWO MEN: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis and Leonard Wesselman, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Two Men and A Truck International,
Inc. and Integrity Moving Services, Inc., Case No. 9:16-cv-81354-
KAM (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a moving company located at 3400 Belle
Chase Way Lansing, MI 48911.

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: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
              lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
              shelley@theFLlawfirm.com


U.S. SMOKELESS: Paid $240,000 to Settle Claims
----------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that U.S. Smokeless Tobacco
Company LLC ("USSTC") has paid $240,000 to settle plaintiff's
claims against it and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

First, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in
certain actions in West Virginia brought by or on behalf of
individual plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless
tobacco manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and
other relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products.
Included among the plaintiffs are three individuals alleging use
of USSTC's smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of
injuries claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless
tobacco products. USSTC, along with other non-cigarette
manufacturers, has remained severed from such proceedings since
December 2001.

Second, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a
number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict
liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to
warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer
protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief,
including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable
relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised
in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk,
comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of
limitations. USSTC was named in one such action in Florida
(Vassallo).

In February 2016, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint to add fraud and conspiracy claims.

In July 2016, USSTC paid $240,000 to settle plaintiff's claims
against it and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Also in July 2016, USSTC and Altria Group, Inc. were named as
defendants, along with other named defendants, in another such
case in California (Gwynn).


UBER TECH: Arbitration Clause Invalid, Judge Says
-------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
consumers who want to hail rides on Uber cannot do so without
first agreeing to extensive terms of service, forfeiting their
rights to a jury trial, but a federal judge denounced this
practice and ruled this arbitration clause invalid July 29.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff's scathing opinion means Uber must
face class action over surge pricing, and it strikes a blow
against an increasingly ubiquitous corporate playbook used to deny
customers their day in court.

"Since the late eighteenth century, the Constitution of the United
States and the constitutions or laws of the several states have
guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to a jury trial," the
introduction to Rakoff's ruling begins.

"This most precious and fundamental right can be waived only if
the waiver is knowing and voluntary, with the courts 'indulg[ing]
every reasonable presumption against waiver,'" Rakoff continues.
"But in the world of the internet, ordinary consumers are deemed
to have regularly waived this right, and, indeed, to have given up
their access to the courts altogether, because they supposedly
agreed to lengthy 'terms and conditions' that they had no
realistic power to negotiate or contest and often were not even
aware of."

The lead plaintiff in the case at hand, Connecticut resident
Spencer Meyer, said he did not even notice the hyperlink with the
phrase "Terms of Service & Privacy Policy," written in 6-point
font, when he downloaded Uber to his Samsung Galaxy S5 phone.

Rakoff said the key phrase, "By creating an Uber account, you
agree to," was "barely legible."

On the seventh page of Uber's terms, the "Dispute Resolution"
provision states: "You acknowledge and agree that you and company
are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate as
a plaintiff or class User in any purported class action or
representative proceeding," according to the ruling.

Uber seized upon this clause to fend off Meyer's federal antitrust
lawsuit against the company and its CEO Travis Kalanick.

Invoking a dystopic novel, Rakoff noted that Congress could never
have imagined online terms of service when passing Federal
Arbitration Act in 1925.

"Nevertheless, in this brave new world, consumers are routinely
forced to waive their constitutional right to a jury and their
very access to courts, and to submit instead to arbitration, on
the theory that they have voluntarily agreed to do so in response
to endless, turgid, often impenetrable sets of terms and
conditions, to which, by pressing a button, they have indicated
their agreement," he wrote.

The New York Times exposed how credit card companies, Internet
service providers, big banks and other businesses use such clauses
in an investigation late last year titled "Arbitration Everywhere,
Stacking the Deck of Justice."

In the wake of the series, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau proposed banning such clauses in May.

A year earlier, the bureau found that fewer than 7 percent of
consumers realized that the clause prevented them from filing
lawsuits.

In Uber's case, Rakoff noted dryly: "The reasonable user might be
forgiven for assuming that 'Terms of Service' refers to a
description of the types of services that Uber intends to provide,
not to the user's waiver of his constitutional right to a jury
trial or his right to pursue legal redress in court should Uber
violate the law."

Uber did not respond to an email seeking comment.

The July 29 ruling ended a rough week in court for the San
Francisco-based ride-sharing giant, which Rakoff roasted only days
earlier for hiring CIA-linked private detectives to dig up dirt on
the lawsuit's lead plaintiff.

Rakoff said Uber's hiring investigators at Ergo marked "a sad day"
for justice.

"It is sadder yet when these investigators flagrantly lie to
friends and acquaintances of the plaintiff and his counsel in an
(ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to obtain derogatory information
about them," the judge continued, blasting Ergo's "blatantly
fraudulent and arguably criminal conduct."

In rejecting Uber's arbitration bid days later, Rakoff found: "At
bottom, what is at stake is the 'integrity and credibility' of
'electronic bargaining.'"

"When contractual terms as significant as the relinquishment of
one's right to a jury trial or even of the right to sue in court
are accessible only via a small and distant hyperlink titled
'Terms of Service & Privacy Policy,' with text about agreement
thereto presented even more obscurely, there is a genuine risk
that a fundamental principle of contract formation will be left in
the dust: the requirement for 'a manifestation of mutual assent,'"
he wrote.

Meyer's attorney did not immediately respond to a phone call
seeking comment.

The case captioned, SPENCER MEYER, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- TRAVIS
KALANICK and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants., 15 Civ. 9796
(S.D.N.Y.).


UNITED CEREBRAL: "Ponce" Suit Alleges Labor Laws Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANGELINA PONCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY/SPASTIC CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION
OF LOS ANGELES AND VENTURA COUNTIES, a California Corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No: BC 629634 (Cal. Super., County of
Los Angeles, August 4, 2016),  seeks recovery for Defendants'
alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the California
Business and Professions Code, and applicable Wage Orders issued
by the California Industrial Welfare Commission.

United Cerebral Palsy is an international nonprofit charitable
organization consisting of a network of affiliates. It is a
service provider and advocate for adults and children with
disabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     Gregory Mauro, Esq.
     AMES HAWKINS APLC
     9880 Research Drive, Suite 800
     Irvme, CA 92618
     Phone: (949) 387-7200
     Fax: (949) 387-6676
     E-mail: James@jameshawkinsapl.com
             greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaiting Court Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is awaiting
preliminary court approval of a class action settlement in Kansas.

On March 26, 2015, the Company acquired Deffenbaugh Disposal Inc.
("Deffenbaugh"). In May 2012 and December 2013, Deffenbaugh was
named as a defendant in purported class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas. These
cases pertained to fuel, environmental and base rate charges
included on invoices, generally alleging that such charges were
not properly disclosed, were unfair or were contrary to the
customer service contracts.

"We have agreed on settlement terms for both cases," the Company
said.  "We submitted a request for preliminary court approval
during the fourth quarter of 2015 and are awaiting action on our
request. The anticipated settlements will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Sumpter Filed Appeal in 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------
AMANDA SUMPTER, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
female inmates of the Wayne County Jail, the Plaintiff -
Appellant, v. WAYNE COUNTY; SHERIFF BENNY NAPOLEAN, in his
Official Capacity as Wayne County Sheriff; and OFFICER TERRY
GRAHAM, in her Individual Capacity, jointly and severally, the
Defendants - Appellees, Case No. 16-2102 (6th Cir., August 1,
2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, from a lower court decision in Case
No. 5:14-cv-14769 (E.D. Mich., December 17, 2014).

Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of
Michigan.

The Plaintiff - Appellant is represented by:

          Michael R. Dezsi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE
          615 Griswold Street, Suite 1600
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Business: (313) 879 1206
          Personal: (313) 879 1206

The Defendants - Appelles are represented by:

          Davidde A. Stella, Esq.
          WAYNE COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL
          500 Griswold, 11th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 234 5030

               - and -

          James M. Surowiec, Esq.
          Aaron C. Thomas, Esq.
          ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL
          DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
          500 Griswold, 30th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Personal: (313) 224 6682


WELLS LAND: Faces "Williamson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elster Williamson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Wells Land Development, Inc. and William D. Wells,
Case No. 8:16-cv-02215-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., August 1, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants owns and operates a construction company located at
12838 62nd St #300, Largo, FL 33773.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
      300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 617-6017
      Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
      E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


WEST BANCORPORATION: June 2017 Trial Date Set in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a trial date of June
19, 2017, has been set in a class action lawsuit against the
Company.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action
lawsuit filed in the Iowa District Court for Polk County.
Plaintiffs, Darla and Jason T. Legg, asserted nonsufficient funds
fees charged by West Bank on debit card transactions were usurious
under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code and that the sequence West
Bank formerly used to post debit card transactions for payment
violated various alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care.
Plaintiffs sought alternative remedies including injunctive
relief, damages (including treble damages), punitive damages,
refund of bank fees, and attorney fees.

The trial court entered orders on preliminary motions on March 4,
2014. It dismissed one of Plaintiffs' claims and found that
factual disputes precluded summary judgment in West Bank's favor
on the remaining claims.

In addition, the court certified two classes for further
proceedings. West Bank appealed the adverse rulings to the Iowa
Supreme Court.

On January 22, 2016, the Iowa Supreme Court filed two opinions
that affirmed and reversed parts of the trial court rulings. The
court reversed the trial court by holding the Iowa Consumer Credit
Code usury claim and an unjust enrichment claim should be
dismissed. Certification of classes on those claims was also
reversed.

The court affirmed the trial court by holding that the Plaintiffs
can proceed with a breach of express contract claim based on a
2006 change in debit card payment sequencing coupled with the
alleged lack of notice concerning that change.

West Bank believes it has additional defenses to this claim and
intends to continue vigorously defending the action. The case has
been remanded to the district court. Discovery is continuing, and
a trial date of June 19, 2017, has been set.

The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot now be reasonably
estimated due to significant additional unresolved factual and
legal issues that must be determined through further proceedings.


WORLD WRESTLING: Provides Update on Brain Injuries-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, provided updates on
lawsuits related to brain injuries.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  This complaint was amended on
January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed,
and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic
brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers.

On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not
dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut.  Without addressing the merits of the
Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to
Connecticut on June 25, 2015.

The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was
denied on July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.

On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-
selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs
and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a
scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to
cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on June 15, 2015.

On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint in its entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes.  The Company again moved
to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection
clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the
California court granted on July 10, 2015.

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring.  The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class
actions.

On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier,
individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson
Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of
Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc.

A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a
minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that
the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.

WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-
selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts.

On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and
Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015
and December 21, 2015, respectively.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action
in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham,
Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and
Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers
that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred.

On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which the Company opposed.  The Court previously
ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the
motions to dismiss.

On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and
permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving
Singleton and LoGrasso.  Such discovery was completed by June 1,
2016 and dispositive motions in that case were to be filed by
August 1, 2016.

On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions to
dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits.
The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and
McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's
motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit
except for the claim of fraud by omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the
Windham lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the
motions to dismiss.

On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss the fraud by
omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5,
2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect
to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit, and on July 21,
2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's
motion in the Windham lawsuit.

On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the
Haynes and McCullough lawsuits.  On April 27, 2016, the Company
moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M.
Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and
Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain
trusts.  This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the
other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further
alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees
denying them, among other things, rights and benefits under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),
federal tax law, and various state Worker's Compensation laws.
This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are
unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the
plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of
their intellectual property.

The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the
Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same
plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit.  The Company intends to
continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.


                            *********

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  * * *