CAR_Public/160818.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 18, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 165




                            Headlines


20 20 COMMUNICATIONS: Response in "Richmond" Suit Due by Sept. 6
331 50TH: Faces "Sarmiento" Suit in Southern District of New York
3M COMPANY: Nov. 30 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in St. John Case
3M COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss West Morgan-East Suit Pending
3M COMPANY: 437 Product Liability Suits Pending

3M COMPANY: Faces Ontario Suit Over Bair Hugger(TM)
ADVANCED ROOFING: Class Certification Bid in Pentiuk Suit Denied
AFNI INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Blueford" Suit
AIRON FOODS: Faces "Zabala" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
ALTAGRACIA DELI: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in S.D. of New York

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Filed Petition for Writ of Mandate
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Caremark Settlement Hearing in 3rd Qtr
AMERICAN HONDA: "Alul" Sues Over Defective HandsFreeLink Device
AMERICAN JEWISH: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Deadline to File Class Certification Bid Moved

AMERICAN SCREENING: Podiatry Seeks Certification of Classes
ANTHEM BLUE: Court Wants Hepatitis C Cure Lawsuit Amended
APPLE INC: Palmer Drops Class Suit over Data Use
APPLE INC: "Gray" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Cal.
ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Defending Against Special Products' Case

BAKER HUGHES: Suit Over Halliburton Merger Dismisssed
BAKER HUGHES: Evaluating Background Facts in "Williams" Action
BATON ROUGE, LA: "McKesson" Sues Over False Arrest
BIOLASE INC: "Shulruff" Class Action in Early Stages
BLUE SHIELD: "Morris" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Garretson" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOK FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit over Bank Fees
BURGER KING: Faces "Badger" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
CARCOL ENTERPRISES: "Mendes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CAREFIRST INC: Policyholders' Class Suit Dismissed

CARMIKE CINEMAS: Court Denied Injunction Bid in Merger Suit
CBRE GROUP: Faces "Thoma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CETIS INC: Certification of Class Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
CHESAPEAKE PLYWOOD: Faces Wendell Suit in District of Maryland
CIRCLE K: Faces "Badger" Suit in Western District of Pennsylvania

CITIGROUP INC: Court Denied Motion to Stay NYPL Suit
CITIGROUP INC: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Allen" Action
CITIGROUP INC: 2nd Circuit Remanded "Efficient Enforcer" Issues
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Frontpoint Asian Event Class Action
CITIGROUP INC: Seeks to Dismiss Oceanografia Bondholders Case

CITIGROUP INC: Interest Rate Swaps Cases Still Pending
CITIZENS BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Discriminatory Practices
COLORADO DOC: Exec. Dir. Faces "Chrisco" Class Action
COMMERCIAL LIGHTING: Gorss Motels Seeks Certification of Class
CONTEXTMEDIA INC: Class Certification Hearing Continues on Oct. 7

COSTCO: Faces Consumer Suit over Kirkland Chicken
CVS HEALTH: Awaits Approval of Caremark Class Action Settlement
CVS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Pharmacy Benefit Case Pending
CVS HEALTH: Partial Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Suit Pending
CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of Sheet Metal Workers' Action Sought

CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of ERISA Class Action Sought
CYTRX CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Crihfield" Class Suit
DEE GEE REST: "Caravantes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
DONOHUE CAFE: "Padilla" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages
DPCH LLC: "Agama" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Bid for Class Certification in "Pole" Granted
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ziglar" Suit Says
FCA US: Faces "Lynd" Suit in Northern District of New York
FCA US: Looper et al. Seek Certification of Three Classes
FEDERAL CLEANING: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages

FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: No Settlement Discussions in Class Suit
GEMINI DINER: "Donato" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Aug. 31 Oral Argument in 5th Cir. Appeal
HAT TRICK: Faces "De Los Santos" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HEALTH AND HUMAN: Class Certification Bid in "Burwell" Granted

HEALTH EXAMS: "Saeteurn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Nichols Case
HONEST COMPANY: "Smith" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2719
HUB GROUP: Settling Plaintiffs Dismissed from "Robles" Suit
HUB GROUP: Aug. 25 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Adame" Suit

HUB GROUP: "Lubinski" Suits in Federal and State Courts Pending
IC SYSTEM: Serafin Seeks Certification of Class
INSPERITY INC: Worksite Employee Retirement Plan Action Underway
INTEL CORPORATION: California Class Action Settled and Dismissed
INTEL CORPORATION: McAfee Shareholder Litigation Remains Pending

IRON MOUNTAIN: Faces "Ghobriel" Suit in S.D. of New York
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Paid $350,000 in Gallien Settlement
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Miner" Suit in California Superior Court
JEFFERSON COUNTY: Cochran et al. Seek Certification of Class
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Lawyer Object to Talc MDL Motion

JRH RESTAURANT: "Liu" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay
JS & COMPANY: Podiatry Seeks Certification of Three Classes
K&G MEN'S: Faces "Halfon" Suit in Eastern District of New York
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: "Erickson" Sues Over Overpriced Shares
KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Seeks Prelim. OK of Deal to Settle 3 FDCPA Cases

LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Jansky" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sandusky Wellness Case Remains Pending
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Still Defends "Davis" Class Suit
LEGEND 72: "Li" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay
LTF CLUB: Class Certification Bid in "Bartell" Granted in Part

MDL 2159: Court Grants AutoZone Bid to Decertify in Wage Suit
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in "Devera" Suit
MICHAEL WALTER: "Ortega" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
MICHIGAN, USA: Salem Seeks to Certify Class of Female Prisoners
MILLENNIUM PARTNERS: "Eng" Sues Over Sinking and Tilting of Tower

MOJO MEDIA: Faces "Miller" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
MOLSON COORS: Still Defends Ontario Class Action
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Cancellation of Hall of Fame Game Prompts Suit
NCI GROUP: "Jordan" Suit Moved to Central District of California

NEW YORK TIMES: Unsuccessful Mediation in Worcester Telegram Case
NEWPARK RESOURCES: To Fund Settlement in 3rd & 4th Quarter 2016
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "David" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued
OMNICARE INC: Aug. 23 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Pension Fund Suit

OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Vaccaro Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint
OSRAM SYLVANIA: August 31 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PARK PLUS: "Dorie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PETERSAN LEGAL TEMPS: "Hoffman" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
PHH CORP: Faces "Munoz" Suit in Eastern Dist. of North Carolina

PHILADELPHIA, PA: "Yaqoob" Seeks Damages for Loss of Earnings
PORSCHE FINANCIAL: Faces "Cox" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
PORTER MCGUIRE: Faces "Brown" Suit in District of Hawaii
QUALITY DINING: "Cicero" Suit to Recover Minimum Wage
QUALITY SYSTEMS: No Oral Argument Yet in Securities Case Appeal

RAWLINGS COMPANY: Perez Seeks Certification of Class
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Wins Final Judgment in Stockholders Suit
RED GRANITE: Owner Misappropriated Money, Suit Claims
REVLON INC: 5 Class Suits Filed over Elizabeth Arden Merger
RICHARD SOKOLOFF: Faces "Ozone" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

RUSHMORE LOAN: Bovin et al. Seek Certification of Class
RUSSAW TRANSPORT: "Mendenhall" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SABRE CORPORATION: NY Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Suit
SANDBOX LOGISTICS: "Power" Suit to Recover Backpay, Damages
SELECT COMFORT: Azimpour Seeks Leave to File Amended Complaint

SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bacardi" Suit in S.D. Fla.
SHIVA ESTATE: Class Certification Sought in "Jaffer" Class Suit
SOUTHERN COPPER: Denies Allegations in Lacey-Siegried Action
SPRING LIVING: "Thomas" Wants to Recover Withheld Compensation
ST LOUIS COUNTY: 13 Cities Sued Over De Facto Debtors' Prisons

STAR GAS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Underway
STARZ LLC: 6 Class Actions Commenced in Delaware Chancery Court
STONE & TILE: Faces "Cohetero" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
SUBWAY 39077: "Aguiar" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
TED BAKER: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida

TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Registered Nurses' Suit
TEXTPLUS INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sloatman" Suit Says
THACATTACK INC: "King" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
TNJ ENTERPRISES: Faces "Gomez" Suit in District of New Jersey
TORN & GLASSER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, "Rodriguez" Suit Says

TOTAL MERCHANT: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn in "Shulruff" Suit
TROTT LAW: Court Tossed Class Certification Bid in "Martin" Suit
TURNER OIL: Stanley et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces "Wandel" Action in New Jersey
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces "Laufer" Action in Wisconsin

UNILEVER UNITED: Fleming's Class Cert. Bid Is Moot, Court Says
VALVE CORP: "McLeod" Sues Over Unregulated Video Gaming
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Mass. Class Action
VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Mierov" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Groups File Complaints Over Emissions Settlement

WALGREEN CO: Class Atty Not Getting $370,000 Fees, 7th Cir. Says
WARREN RESOURCES: "Speiser" Sues Officers Over Misleading Reports
WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Sought in "Eggers" Suit
WELLS FARGO: Bid for Class Certification in "Perez" Suit Denied
WELLS FARGO: Williams et al. Seek Certification of Two Classes

WESTAR ENERGY: 2 Class Suits Filed Related to Merger
WESTERN EXPRESS: Smith Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses
WORLD WRESTLING: Faces "Bagwell" Suit over Royalties
XPO LAST: Carter et al. Seek to Certify Overtime Claim under FLSA
YALE UNIVERSITY: Vellali Sues Over Losses in Retirement Plan

YOUR MARKETING: Alan et al. Seek Certification of Class


                            *********


20 20 COMMUNICATIONS: Response in "Richmond" Suit Due by Sept. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John W. Darrah entered an order in the lawsuit titled
JAMES RICHMOND v. 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-
06051 (N.D. Ill.), stating that:

   -- the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective
      action is entered and briefed as follows:

      * response is due by September 6, 2016; and

      * reply is by September 27, 2016;

   -- status hearing/ruling is set for October 27, 2016, at
      9:30 a.m.; and

   -- all other dates remain as scheduled.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RUvT4hWj


331 50TH: Faces "Sarmiento" Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against 331 50th St. Parking Corporation.
The case is captioned Marco Sarmiento, On behalf of himself and On
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 331 50th
St. Parking Corporation; Wall Street Garage Parking Corp.; John
Street Parking Corp.; Park on 44th Street Corp.; JK Improvements
Inc.; Joseph Vassallo, In his individual capacity; Joseph
Vassallo, In his professional capacity; Michelle Vassallo, In her
individual capacity; and Michelle Vassallo, In her professional
capacity; the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06266 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
8, 2016).

331 50th offers parking and garage services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


3M COMPANY: Nov. 30 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in St. John Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing on class certification
in the St. John case is scheduled for November 2016.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the St. John
case), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs
suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property
damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the
Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in
2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's
personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are
barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended
complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage
claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property
owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of
Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City
of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities
Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur
Utilities.

In September 2015, the court issued a scheduling order staying
discovery pending mediation which occurred in January 2016, but
did not resolve the case and the parties continue their
negotiations. A hearing on class certification is scheduled for
November 2016.


3M COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss West Morgan-East Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit by West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority
remains pending.

In October 2015, West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority
(Water Authority) filed an individual complaint against 3M
Company, Dyneon, L.L.C, and Daikin America, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint
also includes representative plaintiffs who brought the complaint
on behalf of themselves, and a class of all owners and possessors
of property who use water provided by the Water Authority and five
local water works to which the Water Authority supplies water
(collectively, the "Water Utilities"). The complaint seeks
compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief based on
allegations that the defendants' chemicals, including PFOA and
PFOS from their manufacturing processes in Decatur, have
contaminated the water in the Tennessee River at the water intake,
and that the chemicals cannot be removed by the water treatment
processes utilized by the Water Authority. 3M has moved to dismiss
the case on legal grounds. That motion is pending.


3M COMPANY: 437 Product Liability Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016, the Company
is a named defendant in approximately 437 lawsuits (compared to
approximately 122 lawsuits at December 31, 2015), most of which
are pending in federal or state court in Minnesota, in which the
plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty,
cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical
site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient
warming system. The complaints seek damages and other relief based
on theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and
implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing
defect, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment,
unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud,
deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising
acts.

One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action. The U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the plaintiffs'
motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal
courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to
be managed in a multi-district proceeding during the pre-trial
phase of the litigation.


3M COMPANY: Faces Ontario Suit Over Bair Hugger(TM)
---------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company was served in June
2016 with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various
joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later
developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system. The representative plaintiff
seeks relief (including punitive damages) under Canadian law based
on theories similar to those asserted in the MDL The Bair
Hugger(TM) product line was acquired by 3M as part of the 2010
acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading manufacturer of patient
warming solutions designed to prevent hypothermia and maintain
normal body temperature in surgical settings. No liability has
been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that
any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time.


ADVANCED ROOFING: Class Certification Bid in Pentiuk Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Denise Page Hood denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Motion to certify a class in the lawsuit styled PENTIUK, COUVREUR
& KOBILJAK, P.C., the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED ROOFING, INC. d/b/a
ADVANCED ROOFING - MIDWEST, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-12863-
DPH-EAS (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiff may refile its motion after Defendant has been
served and has had the opportunity to respond to the Complaint and
the class allegations.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GmC6bGqT


AFNI INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Blueford" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Blueford respectfully moves the Court to certify the class
described in the lawsuit titled NICOLE BLUEFORD, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AFNI, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-01067-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court both stay the Motion and
to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local
Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs
and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff says.  The Plaintiff contends that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

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

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint the Plaintiff as
class representative and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XbN4kJdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIRON FOODS: Faces "Zabala" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Airon Foods Market Inc. The case
is captioned Daniel Zabala, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Airon Foods Market
Inc., Vicente Melo, Airon Melo, and Margarita Baez, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04423 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2016).

Airon Foods operates grocery store located in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ALTAGRACIA DELI: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Altagracia Deli and grocery Store
No.2 Inc. The case is captioned Jesus Alvarez on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Daniel
Pimentel and Altagracia Deli and grocery Store No.2 Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06329 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2016).

Altagracia Deli is a grocery store located at 269 E 188th St., New
York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Filed Petition for Writ of Mandate
----------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that AIG has
filed a petition for writ of mandate in appellate court of the
court's decision overruling AIG's demurrer.

Between November 18, 2011 and February 9, 2015, eleven separate,
though similar, securities actions (Individual Securities
Litigations) were filed asserting claims substantially similar to
those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against AIG
and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP. Two of the
actions were voluntarily dismissed.

On September 10, 2015, the Southern District of New York granted
AIG's motion to dismiss some of the claims in the Individual
Securities Litigations in whole or in part. AIG has settled eight
of the nine remaining actions.

On March 27, 2015, an additional securities action was filed in
state court in Orange County, California asserting a claim against
AIG pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act (the California
Action) that is substantially similar to those in the Consolidated
2008 Securities Litigation and the remaining Individual Securities
Litigation pending in the Southern District of New York.

On July 10, 2015, AIG filed a motion to stay the California
Action. On September 18, 2015, the court denied AIG's motion to
stay the California Action. On October 23, 2015, AIG filed an
appeal of the court's denial.

On January 28, 2016, the California appellate court summarily
denied AIG's appeal. On February 8, 2016, AIG filed a petition for
review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on March
30, 2016.

On April 11, 2016, AIG filed a demurrer to dismiss all of the
claims asserted in the California Action. On May 31, 2016, the
court overruled AIG's demurrer in the California Action. On June
24, 2016, AIG filed a petition for writ of mandate in appellate
court of the court's decision overruling AIG's demurrer.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Caremark Settlement Hearing in 3rd Qtr
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
hearing to consider final approval of the settlement agreement in
the class action lawsuits related to Caremark is expected in the
third quarter.

The Company said, "AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been
named defendants in two putative class actions in state court in
Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and
derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The
plaintiffs in the second-filed action intervened in the first-
filed action, and the second-filed action was dismissed."

"An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to
the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of
liability. In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the
judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of
available insurance coverage and would not have approved the
settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature
of the excess policy. They further allege that AIG, its
subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression
for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of
coverage.

"The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors
request compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of
$3.2 billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny
the allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

"On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12,
2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the
other defendants' petition for rehearing of that decision was
denied on February 27, 2015. The matter was remanded to the trial
court for general discovery and adjudication of the merits.

"On November 24, 2015, the trial court ruled that the defendants
had a duty to disclose the amount of insurance available at the
settlement approval hearings and that the defendants breached that
duty. The parties have settled this matter in principle, subject
to formal documentation and court approval. Preliminary approval
of the settlement was entered by the trial court on June 1, 2016.
The hearing on final approval is expected in the third quarter.

"We have accrued our current estimate of loss with respect to this
litigation."


AMERICAN HONDA: "Alul" Sues Over Defective HandsFreeLink Device
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Alul, Mark Gerstle, William Kenar, Yun-Fei Lou, Arpan
Srivastava and Melissa Yeung, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor
Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-04384 (N.D. Tex.,
August 3, 2016), seeks restitution and damages, including enhanced
damages, punitive damages, costs, and disgorgement; injunctive
relief in the form of a recall or free replacement; pre- and post-
judgment interest on any amounts awarded; award of costs and
attorneys' fees and such other or further relief resulting from
fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment and violation of the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Honda developed the HandsFreeLink (TM) for its vehicles. It
allegedly failed to switch off when not in use, thus draining the
battery.

Acura is the luxury vehicle marque of Japanese automaker Honda,
which operates in the United States as American Honda Motor
Company, Inc. Plaintiff Gerstle purchased his 2004 Acura TL with
"Hands Free Link."

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS LLP
     77 Water Street, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 584-0700
     Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
     Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

            - and -

     Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
     Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com

            - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

            - and -

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Telephone: (973) 994-1700
     Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
     Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

            - and -

     Roland K. Tellis, Esq.
     Mark P. Pifko, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     15910 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1600
     Encino, CA 91436
     Telephone: (818) 839-2320
     Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
     Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com
            mpifko@baronbudd.com


AMERICAN JEWISH: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Delgado, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. American Jewish University and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC630346 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 11, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide all
timely meal and rest period, failure to pay for all hours worked,
including minimum wage, straight time, and overtime pay, failure
to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and failure to
furnish accurate statements and maintain required records, in
accordance with California Labor Code.

American Jewish University is a Jewish, non-denominational
educational institution in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
      RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
      22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
      Torrance, CA 90505
      Telephone: (310) 961-9600
      Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
      E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Deadline to File Class Certification Bid Moved
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Armando Caldera, the Plaintiff, v. American
Medical Collection Agency, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00381-
CBM-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall granted
Plaintiff's motion to extend the class action certification
deadline to allow Plaintiff to refile his class action motion
after discovery has been conducted.

Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for August 23, 2016 is vacated.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1lvpN0de


AMERICAN SCREENING: Podiatry Seeks Certification of Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify classes in the lawsuit
styled PODIATRY IN MOTION, INC., on behalf of plaintiff and the
class members, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN SCREENING, L.L.C.,
formerly known as AMERICAN SCREENING CORPORATION, and JOHN DOES 1-
10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07938 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiff defines the classes as follows:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

     "a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after
     a date four years prior to the filing of this action, (c)
     were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant American
     Screening, promoting its goods or services for sale (d)
     which did not contain a compliant opt out notice";

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act:

     "a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax
     numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the
     filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf
     of defendant American Screening, promoting its goods or
     services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt
     out notice"; and

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging
nuisance, and Count V alleging trespass to chattels:

     "a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax
     numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the
     filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf
     of defendant American Screening, promoting its goods or
     services for sale (d) which did not contain a complaint opt
     out notice."

The Plaintiff further requests that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER
          & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


ANTHEM BLUE: Court Wants Hepatitis C Cure Lawsuit Amended
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino,writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
patients must amend their class action accusing Blue Shield of
California of unjustly denying coverage for Harvoni, a
revolutionary, and expensive, cure for hepatitis C, a federal
judge in San Francisco said August 10.

Lead plaintiff Aram Homampour sued Blue Shield of California in
October 2015 for refusing to cover Harvoni, a one-a-day pill that
can cure hepatitis C in as little as eight weeks with little to no
harmful side effects.

Although Blue Shield has twice changed its policies to expand
coverage of the drug since the lawsuit was filed, Homampour says
the company "hedged its bets" on delaying coverage to increase
profits.

At a cost of $99,000, the 12-week treatment approved by the FDA in
2014 was shown to cure hepatitis C in 95 to 99 percent of patients
during clinical trials.

During a August 10 hearing, U.S. District Judge William Orrick
said he was inclined to dismiss claims for injunctive relief
because the insurer has changed its policies to expand coverage of
the drug.

But Orrick found it too early to dismiss claims for recovery of
ill-gotten profits Blue Shield allegedly obtained by denying
coverage in the past.

"I think it's premature to foreclose it," Orrick said.

Blue Shield attorney John LeBlanc argued that the plaintiffs
cannot sue one of two named defendants -- Blue Shield Life and
Health Insurance Co. -- because the actual insurer is California
Physicians Service dba Blue Shield of California, an HMO benefit
plan.

"They are totally separate companies," LeBlanc said. "One's a
health plan covered by the Health and Safety Code. The other is an
insurance company covered by the Insurance Code."

But plaintiffs' attorney Timothy Rozelle said his clients have
shown a clear connection between the two corporate entities
because they shared the same guidelines and process "to
categorically deny" coverage for Harvoni.

LeBlanc claimed that a January ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court,
Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the Nat'l Elevator Industry
Health Benefit Plan, prohibits the plaintiffs from masking their
claim for damages as a claim for equitable relief.

"That might be a strong argument on summary judgment," Orrick
replied. "I'm not sure this is the time to foreclose plaintiffs'
claim. I understand what you're arguing, but I think it's a little
early."

Lead plaintiff Marina Sheynberg filed a similar class action
against Anthem Blue Cross and its affiliated insurance companies
in the same court in July 2015.


APPLE INC: Palmer Drops Class Suit over Data Use
------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
an iPhone user on August 10, dropped his federal class action
accusing Apple of concealing a defect that jacked up data use.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte dismissed Thomas Palmer's case
with prejudice, and ordered each side to pay its own legal costs.

Whyte granted Apple's motion to dismiss in May, but gave Palmer
time to amend the complaint to address its deficiencies, including
what misrepresentations Apple made to consumers, who made them,
and how the consumers relied upon them.

"The complaint is not adequate in my view, although I think it is
pretty easily correctable," Whyte said during the May hearing.

Palmer's attorney Christopher Pitoun said after the hearing that
he was "looking forward to amending the complaint" but apparently
did not.

Palmer claimed the iPhone 5 had a defect which caused consumers to
rack up large amounts of data use on their cellphone plans even
when connected to Wi-Fi.  He says Apple knew about the problem but
hid it from consumers for the two years it took resolve the issue.

"Through this entire time period, Apple materially omitted and
failed to disclose the defect to consumers," he said in the
complaint. "By omitting this material information, consumers were
charged hefty fees for data they did not intend to use and had
sought not to use, because they had initiated the connections
through their Wi-Fi networks to avoid such charges."

Whyte told Pitoun he had to specify how Palmer relied upon certain
assertions which turned out to be either misleading or false, a
key test under the California Consumer Protection Act.

Emails to Palmer's legal team were not returned.

The case captioned, THOMAS PALMER, Individually and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., a California
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-05808-RMW (N.D. Cal.).


APPLE INC: "Gray" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
TERELL GRAY, the Plaintiff, v. Apple Incorporated, also known as
Apple, Inc.; APPLE STORE, doing business as APPLE; KELLEY DORGAN;
GREG HOPSON; City of Berkeley; Berkeley Police Department; TIMOTHY
KAPLAN; ABC PARTNERSHIP (1-X names fictitious); XYZ Corporation
(1-X names Fictitious); JANE DOE (1-X names Fictitious); John Doe
(1-X names Fictitious), the Defendants, and Target, the Movant,
Case No. 2:13-cv-07798, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-04421-LB
to the proceeding. The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Laurel
Beeler.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California that designs, develops, and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Javonna C. Baker, Esq.
          Tracey S. Cosby, Esq.
          134 Evergreen Place, Suite 301
          East Orange, NJ 07018
          Telephone: (973) 977 0007
          E-mail: javonnabakeresq@gmail.com
          traceysimone@aol.com

               - and -

          Karimu F. Hill-Harvey
          P.O. Box 764
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 417 9963
          E-mail: karimuhillharvey@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill Leigh Berry, Esq.
          Thomas M. Crispi, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          666 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10024
          Telephone: (212) 753 5000
          E-mail: jberry@schiffhardin.com
          tcrispi@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Christopher Eugene Mcintyre, Esq.
          FISHMAN MCINTYRE P.C.
          120 Eagle Rock Avenue
          East Hanover, NJ 07936-3158
          Telephone: (973) 560 9000
          E-mail: Chris@FishmanMcIntyre.com


ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Defending Against Special Products' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atkore International Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 24, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against a class action lawsuit by Special
Products Claim, Wind Condominium Association, Inc., et al.

On November 16, 2015, the Company was served with a Special
Products Claim, Wind Condominium Association, Inc., et al. v.
Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, et al., a putative class action
claim filed on November 16, 2015 in the Southern District of
Florida which defines a "National Class" and a "Florida Subclass"
consisting of all condominium associations and building owners who
had ABF and/or ABF II installed in combination with CPVC from
January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2010 nationwide and in
Florida, respectively. The plaintiffs seek to recover monetary
damages for the replacement and repair of fire suppression systems
and any damaged real property or personal property, as well as
consequential and incidental damages.

At this time, the Company does not expect the outcome of the
Special Products Claims proceedings, or any other proceeding,
either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows, and the Company believes that its
reserves are adequate for all claims, including for Special
Products Claims contingencies. However, it is possible that
additional reserves could be required in the future that could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. This
additional loss or range of losses cannot be recorded at this
time, as it is not reasonably estimable.

Atkore International Group Inc. is a manufacturer of Electrical
Raceway products primarily for the non-residential construction
and renovation markets and Mechanical Products & Solutions
("MP&S") for the construction and industrial markets.


BAKER HUGHES: Suit Over Halliburton Merger Dismisssed
-----------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a consolidated class
action lawsuit related to the Company's merger with Halliburton
have been dismissed, save and except for plaintiffs counsel's Fee
and Expense Application to the Delaware Chancery Court.

The following lawsuits were filed in Delaware in connection with
the Company's Merger with Halliburton. Subsequent to the filing of
the lawsuits, on April 30, 2016, the Merger Agreement with
Halliburton was terminated/

The lawsuits are:

     * On November 24, 2014, Gary Molenda, a purported shareholder
of the Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court")
against Baker Hughes, the Company's Board of Directors,
Halliburton, and Red Tiger LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Halliburton ("Red Tiger" and together with all defendants,
"Defendants") styled Gary R. Molenda v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10390-CB.

     * On November 26, 2014, a second purported shareholder of the
Company, Booth Family Trust, filed a substantially similar class
action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court.

     * On December 1, 2014, New Jersey Building Laborers Annuity
Fund and James Rice, two additional purported shareholders of the
Company, filed substantially similar class action lawsuits in
Delaware Chancery Court.

     * On December 10, 2014, a fifth purported shareholder of the
Company, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, filed another
substantially similar class action lawsuit in the Delaware
Chancery Court.

     * On December 24, 2014, a sixth purported shareholder of the
Company, Annette Shipp, filed another substantially similar class
action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court.

The Company said, "All of the lawsuits make substantially similar
claims.  The plaintiffs generally allege that the members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
our shareholders in connection with the Merger negotiations by
entering into the Merger Agreement and by approving the Merger,
and that the Company, Halliburton, and Red Tiger aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duties."

"More specifically, the lawsuits allege that the Merger Agreement
provides inadequate consideration to our shareholders, that the
process resulting in the Merger Agreement was flawed, that the
Company's directors engaged in self-dealing, and that certain
provisions of the Merger Agreement improperly favor Halliburton
and Red Tiger, precluding or impeding third parties from
submitting potentially superior proposals, among other things.
The lawsuit filed by Annette Shipp also alleges that our Board of
Directors failed to disclose material information concerning the
proposed Merger in the preliminary registration statement on Form
S-4.

"On January 7, 2015, James Rice amended his complaint, adding
similar allegations regarding the disclosures in the preliminary
registration statement on Form S-4.  The lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, and rescission of
the Merger Agreement, among other relief.  On January 23, 2015,
the Delaware lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re
Baker Hughes Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
10390-CB (the "Consolidated Case").

"Pursuant to the Court's consolidation order, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on February 4, 2015, which alleges
substantially similar claims and seeks substantially similar
relief to that raised in the six individual complaints, except
that while Baker Hughes is named as a defendant, no claims are
asserted against the Company.

"On March 18, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Consolidated Case in exchange for the Company making
certain additional disclosures. Those disclosures were contained
in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 18, 2015. The settlement
was made subject to certain conditions, including consummation of
the Merger, final documentation, and court approval. With the
termination of the Merger Agreement with Halliburton, the March
18, 2015 settlement agreement is rendered null and void.

"On May 31, 2016, the Consolidated Case and the claims asserted
therein were dismissed, save and except for plaintiffs counsel's
Fee and Expense Application to the Delaware Chancery Court."

Baker Hughes is a supplier of oilfield services, products,
technology and systems used in the worldwide oil and natural gas
industry.


BAKER HUGHES: Evaluating Background Facts in "Williams" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
evaluating the background facts in the "Williams" class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "On April 30, 2015, a class and collective
action lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class
of workers overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act and North Dakota law was filed titled Williams et al. v. Baker
Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the District of North Dakota."

"On February 8, 2016, the Court conditionally certified certain
subclasses of employees for collective action treatment. We are
evaluating the background facts and at this time cannot predict
the outcome of this lawsuit and are not able to reasonably
estimate the potential impact, if any, such outcome would have on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

Baker Hughes is a supplier of oilfield services, products,
technology and systems used in the worldwide oil and natural gas
industry.


BATON ROUGE, LA: "McKesson" Sues Over False Arrest
--------------------------------------------------
DeRay McKesson, Kira Marrero, and Gloria La Riva, Plaintiffs, v.
City of Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Melvin Holden, Mayor
- Parish President, Carl Dabadie, Jr., Chief of Police, Baton
Rouge, and Sid J. Gautreaux, III, Sheriff, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Col. Michael Edmonson, Superintendent, Louisiana State
Police, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00520 (M.D. La., August 4,
2016), seeks lost wages, past, present, and future, expenses
incurred to post bond, administrative fees and expenses paid to
Defendants, court costs and fees, attorneys' fees and such other
damages as may be proven at trial resulting from Deprivation of
Civil Rights under Color of Law, conspiracy, use of excessive
force, arrest without probable cause, violation of First Amendment
Rights, retaliation against exercise of freedom of speech and
assembly, inadequate prison conditions, excessive bond, false
imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery,
intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence
and vicarious liability under Louisiana Law.

McKesson and Marrero were arrested by the Baton Rouge Police while
protesting for Simple Obstruction of a Highway of Commerce and
were incarcerated in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. La Riva
was filming the protests when she was arrested and charged with
Simple Obstruction of a Highway of Commerce and was incarcerated
in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison.

Holden is the Mayor of the City of Baton Rouge and the President
of East Baton Rouge Parish.

Carl Dabadie, Jr. is the Chief of Police of the City of Baton
Rouge.

Sid J. Gautreaux III is the Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish.

Michael Edmondson is the Superintendent of the Louisiana State
Police.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John K. Etter, Esq.
     Roy J. Rodney, Jr.
     RODNEY & ETTER, LLC
     365 Canal Street, Suite 2690
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Tel: (504) 483-3224
     Fax: (504) 483-2259
     E-Mail: rjr@rodneylaw.com
             jke@rodneylaw.com


BIOLASE INC: "Shulruff" Class Action in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------
Biolase, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a purported class
action lawsuit entitled Dr. Charles Shulruff v. Biolase, Inc.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02533, was filed on February 24, 2016, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The case alleges that the Company violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and other related
Illinois state statutes, by sending unsolicited marketing
communications via fax machine to a Chicago dentist, Dr. Shulruff.
The plaintiff and his counsel seek to certify a nation-wide class
of comprised of other dentists who received the same or similar
faxes from BIOLASE.  BIOLASE responded to the case on April 14,
2016 and denied liability on all claims.  BIOLASE also denies that
class certification is appropriate.  The case is still in its
early stages and no discovery or substantive motion practice has
yet been conducted.


BLUE SHIELD: "Morris" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Morris and Becky Ebenkamp, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Blue Shield of
California and California Physicians' Service doing business as
Blue Shield of California, Case No. BC625804, was removed from the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-Cv-05914
to the proceeding.

Blue Shield of California is a health plan provider founded in
1939 and based in San Francisco, California. The organization
serves over four million health plan members and nearly 65,000
physicians across the state.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Garretson" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
------------------------------------------------------------
Lester Garretson, Jr. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No.___
(Conn. Super. Ct., August 11, 2016), is an action for damages
suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOK FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Suit over Bank Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in
a class action lawsuit.

On March 3, 2015, the Bank and the Company were named as
defendants in a putative class action alleging (1) that the manner
in which the Bank posted charges to its consumer deposit accounts
was improper from September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the
period after which the Bank and BOK Financial had settled a class
action respecting a similar claim, and before it made changes to
its posting order and (2) that the manner in which the Bank posted
charges to its small business deposit accounts was improper from
July 9, 2009 through July 8, 2014. The Court has denied the Bank's
motion to dismiss the claims as pre-empted by federal law, but
limited the plaintiffs' claim to a only breach of contract action
involving Oklahoma customers.  Discovery is on-going. Based on
currently available information, management has established an
accrual within a reasonable range of probable losses and
anticipates the claims will be resolved without material loss to
the Company.


BURGER KING: Faces "Badger" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against BURGER KING CORPORATION. The case
is captioned JOSIE BADGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BURGER KING
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01183-RCM (S.D. Fla.,
Aug. 5, 2016). The assigned Magistrate is Hon. Judge Robert C.
Mitchell.

Burger King, often abbreviated as BK, is an American global chain
of hamburger fast food restaurants headquartered in unincorporated
Miami-Dade County, Florida, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARCOL ENTERPRISES: "Mendes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Maria Mendes, Plaintiff, v. Carcol Enterprises, LLC, Maria C.
Franco, individually, German Ortega, individually, and Paola A.
Ospina, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04705 (D.N.J.,
August 3, 2016) seeks payment of compensation for all hours and
overtime due, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs of suit and all other appropriate relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a limousine company in Elizabeth, Union County,
New Jersey where Mendes was employed by Defendants as an office
assistant and a dispatcher.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAREFIRST INC: Policyholders' Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that dismissing a class action
against health insurer CareFirst over a 2014 data breach, a
federal judge in Washington D.C. said affected policyholders lack
standing to sue without showing a substantial risk that the
hackers have or will misuse their data in a harmful manner.

The case captioned, CHANTAL ATTIAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CAREFIRST, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 15-cv-00882
(CRC)(D. D.C.).  A copy of the Court's decision is available at
http://goo.gl/HN8YdSfrom Leagle.com.


CARMIKE CINEMAS: Court Denied Injunction Bid in Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carmike Cinemas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the consolidated
shareholder litigation, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request for
an order temporarily restraining the merger and for expedited
discovery in support of a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
merger.

On April 25, 2016 and May 10, 2016, two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division (the "Court"),
against Carmike's directors, AMC, and Merger Sub arising from the
merger: Solak v. Passman, et al., C.A. No. 4:16-cv-154 (CDL)
("Solak Action") and Baskette v. Fleming, et al., C.A. No. 4:16-
cv-170 (CDL) ("Baskette Action" and, together with the Solak
Action, the "Actions"). The plaintiffs in the Actions, certain
purported holders of Carmike's common stock (which we refer to as
"Plaintiffs"), allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed
by Carmike on March 31, 2016 with the SEC in connection with the
merger contained false and misleading statements and omitted
material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that
the director defendants are personally liable for those alleged
misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Plaintiffs also allege that the director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of Carmike
in connection with the merger and that AMC and Merger Sub aided
and abetted those breaches. The Actions seek, among other things,
to enjoin the merger until the alleged Exchange Act violations and
breaches of fiduciary duties are remedied, to rescind the merger
agreement or any terms thereof to the extent such agreement or
terms have already been implemented, and an award of attorneys'
and experts' fees and costs. In addition, the Baskette Action
seeks an accounting and award of damages.

On June 10, 2016, the Court consoldiated the Actions into a single
action: In re Carmike Cinemas, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 4:16-cv-154 (CDL) (the "Consolidated
Action"). On June 14, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request
for an order temporarily restraining the merger and for expedited
discovery in support of a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
merger.

Following that ruling, all proceedings in the Consolidated Action
were temporarily stayed pending the close of the merger. Although
it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation matters
with certainty, Carmike believes that the claims raised in the
Consolidated Action are without merit and intends to defend
against them vigorously.


CBRE GROUP: Faces "Thoma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Thoma v. CBRE Group, Inc., CBRE, Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase
National Corporate Services, Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA, and
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Case No. 2:16-cv-06040 (C.D. Cal., August
11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate retail banks and other businesses across
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris Baker, Esq.
      Mike Curtis, Esq.
      BAKER & SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-1064
      Facsimile: (415) 520-0446
      E-mail: cbaker@bakerlp.com
              mcurtis@bakerlp.com


CETIS INC: Certification of Class Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GORSS MOTELS, INC. a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. CETIS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:16-cv-01368-RNC (D.
Conn.), moves the Court for an order:

   (a) taking this motion under submission and deferring further
       activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
       set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or
       alternatively;

   (b) granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
       pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
       Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rN1ipvIC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

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


CHESAPEAKE PLYWOOD: Faces Wendell Suit in District of Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Chesapeake Plywood, LLC. The case
is styled Wendell H. Stone Company, Inc., doing business as Stone
& Company Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Chesapeake Plywood, LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02821-
MJG (D. Md., Aug. 10, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Marvin J.
Garbis.

Chesapeake supplies hard wood plywood.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTS.
          102 W Pennsylvania Ave Ste 402
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825 2300
          Facsimile: (410) 825 0066
          E-mail: mwolf@GWCfirm.com


CIRCLE K: Faces "Badger" Suit in Western District of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Circle K. Stores, Inc. The case
is captioned JOSIE BADGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CIRCLE K. STORES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01185-RCM (W.D. Pa., Aug. 8,
2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Robert C. Mitchell.

Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, founded
in 1951 in El Paso, Texas, United States. It is owned and operated
by the Canadian-based Alimentation Couche-Tard.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CITIGROUP INC: Court Denied Motion to Stay NYPL Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in NYPL v. JPMORGAN
CHASE & CO., ET AL., the court on June 8, 2016, denied defendants'
motion to stay and granted defendants' motion to consolidate the
case for discovery purposes with the consolidated proceeding
captioned IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. Additional information concerning this action is
publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13
Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.) and 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Allen" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in ALLEN v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL., the settling defendants in IN RE
FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION on April 15,
2016, moved to enjoin the ALLEN action pending final settlement
approval in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. On June 1, 2016, the court granted the motion in part
as to claims based on collusive conduct and directed plaintiffs to
file a separate pleading for claims based exclusively on non-
collusive conduct. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
on July 15, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is
publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13
Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.) and 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: 2nd Circuit Remanded "Efficient Enforcer" Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 23, 2016, reversed the
district court's dismissal of antitrust claims in the action
captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION and remanded "efficient enforcer" issues to the
district court. Additional information concerning these actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket number 11 MD
2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Frontpoint Asian Event Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative class action
captioned FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, LTD. ET AL v.
CITIBANK, N.A. ET AL. was filed on July 1, 2016, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Citibank, Citigroup and various other banks. Plaintiffs
assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act and
RICO Act, as well as state law claims for alleged manipulation of
the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore Swap Offer
Rate. Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 05263
(S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Seeks to Dismiss Oceanografia Bondholders Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Citigroup filed on May
9, 2016, a motion to dismiss the complaint brought by 39
plaintiffs alleging that Citigroup conspired with Oceanografia,
S.A. de C.V. (OSA) and others with respect to receivable
financings and other financing arrangements related to OSA in a
manner that injured bondholders and other creditors of OSA.
Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 16-20725 (S.D.
Fla.) (Gayles, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Interest Rate Swaps Cases Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend lawsuits related to interest rate swaps.

Numerous interest rate swap (IRS) market participants, including
Citigroup, Citibank, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and CGML, were
named as defendants in industry-wide putative class actions filed
in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of
New York and the Northern District of Illinois. These actions have
been consolidated before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants colluded to
prevent the development of exchange-like trading for IRS, thereby
causing the putative classes to suffer losses in connection with
their IRS investments. Plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
and claims for unjust enrichment.

Also consolidated under the same caption are two individual
actions filed by swap execution facilities, asserting federal and
state antitrust claims as well as claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs in all
of these actions seek treble damages, fees, costs and injunctive
relief.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 16-MD-2704
(S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 15-cv-09319 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer,
J.), 16-cv-02858 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-03542
(S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-04005 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer,
J.), 16-cv-04089 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-04239
(S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-02382 (Lefkow, J.) (N.D. Ill.),
16-cv-04561 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-04950 (N.D. Ill.)
(Dow, J.); 16-cv-04566 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.), 16-cv-05409
(N.D. Ill.) (Ellis, J.) and 16-cv-04563 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer,
J.).


CITIZENS BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Discriminatory Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Oti v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania
Co., Joseph Rumpf, Anthony Tionise, and John Does 1-5 and 6-10,
Case No. L-2945-16 (N.Y. Super. Ct., August 11, 2016), alleges
sexual harassment, racial harassment, and unlawful retaliation in
violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

The Defendants operate a company that provides banking services to
individuals and businesses in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
      COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
      18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
      Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
      Telephone: (856) 727-9700


COLORADO DOC: Exec. Dir. Faces "Chrisco" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Richard F. Raemisch, Exec Dir. of
Colorado D.O.C. The case is captioned Luke Irvin Chrisco,
Individually and on behalf of all individuals similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Richard F. Raemisch, Exec Dir. of Colorado
D.O.C.; Jeffery P. Colwell, Clerk of the US District Court for the
District of Colorado; and Postmaster General of The United States,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01995 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (D.
Colo., Aug. 5, 2016).

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado is a
federal court in the Tenth Circuit (except for patent claims and
claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act, which are
appealed to the Federal Circuit). The District was established on
June 26, 1876, pending Colorado statehood on August 1, 1876.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COMMERCIAL LIGHTING: Gorss Motels Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC. a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. COMMERCIAL LIGHTING
INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01362-MPS (D. Conn.), moves the Court for an
order:

   (a) taking this motion under submission and deferring further
       activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
       set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or
       alternatively;

   (b) granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
       pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
       Procedure.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

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


CONTEXTMEDIA INC: Class Certification Hearing Continues on Oct. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo entered an order in the lawsuit
styled Christy Griffith, the Plaintiff, v. ContextMedia, Inc. the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02900 (N.D. Ill), continuing hearing
on Plaintiff's motion to certify class to Oct. 7 2016 at 9:30 am.

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


COSTCO: Faces Consumer Suit over Kirkland Chicken
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Costco's house brand
Kirkland Signature Premium Chunk Chicken Breast is more than 40
percent water, a hungry man says in a consumer fraud class action
in Trenton, N.J. Federal Court.


CVS HEALTH: Awaits Approval of Caremark Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is awaiting
approval of the settlement of the Caremark class action lawsuit.

Caremark (the term "Caremark" being used herein to generally refer
to any one or more PBM subsidiaries of the Company, as applicable)
was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003
in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of
participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class
action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other
defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to
Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits.

The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in
compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others,
Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999
settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action,
but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the
Lauriello action.

The parties have entered into an agreement to resolve the matter.
In connection with this agreement, the Company has agreed to
contribute a total of $80 million to the settlement fund and
agreed to forego its right to have its insurer continue to
reimburse its related legal fees. The Company has established
reserves related to this matter to fully cover such payments. The
settlement has received preliminary approval by the court and
remains subject to final court approval. The Company denies any
wrongdoing, and agreed to a settlement to avoid the burden,
uncertainty and distraction of litigation.


CVS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Pharmacy Benefit Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation, a motion for class certification
filed by the North Jackson Pharmacy plaintiffs against the
Caremark defendants is currently pending.

Beginning in August 2003, various lawsuits were filed by
pharmacies alleging that Caremark and other PBMs were violating
certain antitrust laws.

In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs
#4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community
Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against
Caremark in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, seeking treble damages and injunctive
relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the
contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark, but later
returned to federal court, where it currently remains.

In addition, in October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North
Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs,
Inc., filed three separate putative class action complaints in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
all seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. One complaint
named three Caremark entities as defendants, and the other two
complaints named PBM competitors. The North Jackson Pharmacy case
against two of the Caremark entities was transferred to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the
case against the third Caremark entity was sent to arbitration
based on contract terms between the pharmacies and that entity.
The arbitration was stayed at the parties' request and later
closed by the American Arbitration Association.

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring all related PBM antitrust cases,
including the North Jackson Pharmacy cases, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated and consolidated proceedings with the cases originally
filed in that court, including the Bellevue matter.

The consolidated action is now known as In re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation. A motion for class certification
filed by the North Jackson Pharmacy plaintiffs against the
Caremark defendants in August 2015 is currently pending.

In the Bellevue matter, the parties reached an agreement to settle
the case, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice on May
20, 2016. The terms of the settlement are confidential and not
material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. The
settlement has been fully reserved in the Company's consolidated
financial statements. The Company denies any wrongdoing, and
agreed to a settlement to avoid the burden, uncertainty and
distraction of litigation.


CVS HEALTH: Partial Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's partial
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint remains pending.

In July and September 2015, two related putative class actions,
Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corp., and Podgorny et al. v. CVS
Health Corp., were filed against the Company in the United States
District Court in the Northern District of California and the
Northern District of Illinois, respectively. The two cases have
been consolidated in United States District Court in the Northern
District of California.

In March 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss. The Company's partial motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint remains pending. Discovery is
proceeding on the remaining allegations in the third amended
complaint, which alleges that the plaintiffs overpaid for
prescriptions for generic drugs filled at CVS pharmacies. The
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer
protection statutes and common laws of certain states.


CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of Sheet Metal Workers' Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in February 2016, two
third-party payors filed a similar putative class action, Sheet
Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health
Corp., against the Company in the United States District Court for
the District of Rhode Island. The Company has moved to dismiss
this complaint.


CVS HEALTH: Dismissal of ERISA Class Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in February 2016, an
ERISA class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, the
Benefit Plans Committee of the Company, and Galliard Capital
Management, Inc., in the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island by Mary Barchock, Thomas Wasecko, and
Stacy Weller, purportedly on behalf of the 401(k) Plan and the
Employee Stock Ownership Plan of the Company (the "Plan"), and
participants in the Plan. The complaint alleges that the
defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and
the Plan by investing too much of the Plan's Stable Value Fund in
short-term money market funds and cash management accounts. The
Company has moved to dismiss the complaint.


CYTRX CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Crihfield" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action
complaint was filed on July 25, 2016, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, titled Crihfield v. CytRx
Corp. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05519, claiming that the Company
and certain of its officers violated the Exchange Act by allegedly
making materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or
failing to disclose material adverse facts to the effect that the
clinical hold placed on the Phase 3 trial of aldoxorubicin for STS
would prevent sufficient follow-up for patients involved in the
study, thus requiring further analysis, which could cause the
trial's results and/or FDA approval to be materially adversely
affected or delayed.

The plaintiff asserts that such wrongful acts and omissions caused
significant losses and damages to a class of persons and entities
that acquired the Company's securities between November 18, 2014
and July 11, 2016, and seeks an award of compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, and such
other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend against the
foregoing complaints.

"We have directors' and officers' liability insurance, which will
be utilized in the defense of these matters. The liability
insurance may not cover all of the future liabilities we may incur
in connection with the foregoing matters. These claims are subject
to inherent uncertainties, and management's view of these matters
may change in the future."

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


DEE GEE REST: "Caravantes" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Caravantes, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Dee Gee Rest LLC d/b/a
Ristorante Degrezia, Joseph Daprile and Bibi Daprile, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06177, (S.D. N.Y., August 4, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime premium, unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, tips unlawfully misappropriated,
unlawfully withheld gratuities, statutory penalties and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law as well as compensatory damages for discrimination
based on race and national origin pursuant to the New York State
Human Rights.

Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant doing business
under the trade name "Ristorante DeGrezia" located at 231 East
50th Street, New York, NY 10022 with Joseph and Bibi Daprile as
owners. Caravantes was hired by Defendants to work as a busboy and
delivery person.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DONOHUE CAFE: "Padilla" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Padilla, on behalf of himself, Plaintiffs, v.
Donohue's Cafe, Inc. d/b/a Donohue's Steak House and Maureen
Donohue-Peters, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06141 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and
the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Donohue's Cafe, Inc. operates as Donohue's Steak House, a domestic
business corporation located at 845 Lexington Ave, New York, New
York 10065 with Maureen Donohue-Peters as owner. Padilla was
employed as a dishwasher.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DPCH LLC: "Agama" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
Oda Agama, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DPCH, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02836 (N.D. Ga., August 4, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant operates a series of homes which provide residential
care, support and supervision for individuals with developmental
disabilities. Plaintiff worked as a house manager and care giver.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Bid for Class Certification in "Pole" Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHARON POLE, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the putative class, and on behalf of aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), the
Plaintiff, v. ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07196-DDP-E (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson granted Plaintiff's motion for
class certification:

     "All current and former California-based salaried Fleet
     Managers, or persons who held similar job titles and/or
     performed similar job duties, who worked for Estenson within
     the State of California from September 6, 2010 to final
     judgment."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Pr2l6piU


EXPRESS MESSENGER: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ziglar" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christerphor Ziglar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., d/b/a
Ontrac, ABC Entities 1-20, and John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No.
2:16-cv-02726-BSB (D. Ariz., August 11, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides package and
parcel delivery services to businesses and individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan Martin, Esq.
      Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
      Jennifer L. Kroll, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC
      1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Telephone: (602) 240-6900
      E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
              dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
              jkroll@amrtinbonnett.com


FCA US: Faces "Lynd" Suit in Northern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case is styled
John Lynd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-00984-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2016). The assigned Judge
is Hon. Brenda K. Sannes.

FCA, also known as Fiat Chrysler or simply Chrysler, is the
American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian
controlled automobile manufacturer registered in the Netherlands
with headquarters in London, U.K. for tax purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas G. Blankinship, Esq.
          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824 1561
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com


FCA US: Looper et al. Seek Certification of Three Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEFF LOOPER, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. FCA
US LLC, f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
5:14-cv-00700-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
to certify three classes consisting of:

     "CLRA Class: all persons who bought or leased a Class
     Vehicle in California between July 1, 2009, and November 6,
     2013";

     "UCL / Song Beverly Class: all persons and entities who
     bought or leased a new Class Vehicle in California between
     July 1, 2009, and November 6, 2013"; and

     "Texas DTPA Class: all persons and entities who bought or
     leased a Class Vehicle in Texas between July 1, 2009, and
     November 6, 2013."

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs'
attorneys, Gibbs Law Group LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, to serve as class counsel; appoint Mr. Scott Johnson
as class representative for Texas DTPA Class; and appoint Mr. Jeff
Looper and Mr. Michael Bright as class representative for
CLRA Class and UCL / Song Beverly Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HvM2DcyN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350 9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350 9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  dsh@classlawgroup.com
                  ds@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Mark Dearman, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq.
          Janine D. Arno, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750 3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750 3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  eshonson@rgrdlaw.com
                  jarno@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Marchbanks, Esq.
          PREMIER LEGAL CENTER, A.P.C.
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1095
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235 3200
          Facsimile: (619) 235 3300
          E-mail: steve@premierlegalcenter.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Loewy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C.
          101 Enterprise, Suite 350
          Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
          Telephone: (949) 442 7103
          Facsimile: (949) 242-5105
          E-mail: rloewy@rloewy.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 247 0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


FEDERAL CLEANING: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Hernandez and Elvia Patoni, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Federal Cleaning
Contractors of Texas, Inc., Federal Cleaning Contractors, Inc., &
FCC Enterprises, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-783 (W.D.
Tex., August 3, 2016), seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated
damages, unpaid compensation, attorney's fees and costs, post-
judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a janitorial service company headquartered in
Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Plaintiffs were employed as janitors at
San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Colleen Mulholland, Esq.
      Philip J. Moss
      EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
      8301 Broadway St., Ste. 309
      San Antonio, TX 78209
      Tel: (210) 308-6222, Ext. 101
      Fax: (210) 308-6223
      Email: cmulholland@equaljusticecenter.org
             pmoss@equaljusticecenter.org


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: No Settlement Discussions in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Financial Services Corporation said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2016, that the Company has not engaged in meaningful
settlement discussions with the parties in a class action lawsuit
and discovery is in early stages.

In March 2015, a lawsuit (Kalan et al. v. Farmers and Merchants
Trust Company of Chambersburg, et al. (Case No. 2:15-CV-01435-WB))
was filed against F&M Trust, the banking subsidiary of Franklin
Financial Services Corporation, as successor in interest to
Community Trust Company, and several other Defendants in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  This lawsuit was brought as a class action.  The
named putative class representatives are participants,
fiduciaries, or owner/employees of employee health and welfare
benefit plans or sponsoring employers of such plans, whose assets
are held by trusts known as the Regional Employers Assurance
League Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association ("REAL VEBA")
and the Single Employer Welfare Benefit Plan ("SEWBP").  The
putative class includes all participants and beneficiaries of
benefit plans, and the benefit plans themselves, whose assets are
held by the REAL VEBA and the SEWBP trusts.  The Defendants are
fiduciaries, co-fiduciaries, or recipients of commissions or other
monies from the REAL VEBA and SEWBP trusts.  F&M Trust, as
successor to Community Trust Company, which F&M Trust acquired by
merger in November, 2008, and in its own capacity, is alleged to
have served as the trustee of the REAL VEBA and SEWBP trusts from
2002 until January 15, 2010, when F&M Trust was discharged from
its role as trustee pursuant to the court's order in the case of
Perez v. John J. Koresko, IV. et. al., Case No.  2:09-cv-00988, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the "Perez Action").

Plaintiffs allege that between 2004 and the end of 2013, John
Koresko and affiliated individuals in the course of operating
multiple-employer welfare arrangements known as REAL VEBA and
SEWBP, converted and misused assets of the trusts in an amount in
excess of $35 million, as set forth more fully in the Perez
Action.  The Court, however, entered judgment against the Koresko
defendants in the Perez Action in the amount of approximately $19
million, the shortfall in trust assets as found by the Court.
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are either co-fiduciaries
who failed to take appropriate steps to prevent the conversions,
co-fiduciaries or parties-in-interest who improperly benefited
from transactions involving the trusts, recipients of the
improperly spent funds, or parties who otherwise knowingly
participated in such breaches.  As to F&M Trust, Plaintiffs allege
that the F&M Trust failed to perform its fiduciary duties in
accordance with the prudent man standard  of care, knowingly
participated in and facilitated misconduct by its co-fiduciaries,
and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or remedy any
fiduciary breaches of co-fiduciaries.  Plaintiffs purport to state
claims against F&M Trust under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and common law.

F&M Trust filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on August 28,
2015 on the basis that it was barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.  On November 25, 2015, the Court denied F&M Trust's
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to raising anew the statute of
limitations defenses following discovery of the relevant facts.

On January 5, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, adding
and removing parties and raising additional allegations.  On
January 19, 2016, the F&M Trust filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint on the basis that Court IV thereof, a claim for
aiding and abetting a fiduciary breach, failed to state a viable
claim against the Bank.  On April 11, 2016, the Court dismissed
with prejudice Count IV of the Complaint on the basis of the
statute of limitations.

On April 26, 2016, F&M Trust filed an Answer to the Complaint,
asserting crossclaims for contribution and indemnification against
certain Defendants.  On May 9, 2016, F&M Trust filed a Third Party
Complaint asserting claims for, among others, contribution and
indemnification against certain third parties.

The Company said, "We establish accruals for legal proceedings
when information related to the loss contingencies represented by
those matters indicates both that a loss is probable and that the
amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.  When we are able to
do so, we also determine estimates of possible losses or ranges of
possible losses, whether in excess of any related accrued
liability or where there is no accrued liability."

"At this early stage of the proceedings, we are unable to provide
an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an
estimate of the amount or range of potential loss and,
accordingly, have not yet established any specific accrual for
this matter.  The damages sought by the Plaintiffs against F&M
Trust are as yet unspecified and uncertain.  It is as yet unclear
as to whether the case will be allowed to proceed as a class
action and, if so, how the class would be defined.  The case
presents a number of legal uncertainties yet to be resolved
including, whether Plaintiffs' claims as to F&M Trust are timely
and whether, as a directed trustee, F&M Trust could be liable for
the Plaintiffs' claims.  There are significant facts in dispute
and discovery is in early stages.  We have not engaged in
meaningful settlement discussions.

"These assessments are based upon our analysis of currently
available information and are subject to significant judgment and
a variety of assumptions and uncertainties.  As new information is
obtained, we may change our assessments and, as a result take or
adjust the amounts of our accruals and change our estimates of
possible losses or ranges of possible losses.  Due to the inherent
subjectivity of the assessments and unpredictability of outcomes
of legal proceedings, any amounts that may be accrued or included
in estimates of possible losses or ranges of possible losses may
not represent the actual loss to F&M Trust from this lawsuit.  Our
exposure and ultimate losses may be higher, possibly significantly
higher, than amounts we may accrue or amounts we may estimate.

"While we have included certain quantitative information related
to the Plaintiffs claims against F&M Trust obtained from other
public filings which may provide insight into the potential
magnitude of the matter, such information does not represent our
estimate of reasonably possible loss or our judgment as to any
currently appropriate accrual.  We also have not considered the
possible availability and unavailability of insurance coverage in
determining the amounts of any accruals or in determining any
estimates of possible losses or ranges of possible losses.

"We expect to incur additional legal expenses in connection with
our vigorous defense of this matter."


GEMINI DINER: "Donato" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosales Medina Donato, Osman Abimael Perez, and Selvin Herminio
Ramos (A.K.A. WILSON) individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gemini Diner Inc. (d/b/a Gemini
Diner), Constantinos Kassimis and Christos Argyros, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06207, (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
spread of hours, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, New York Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

Defendants jointly operate a restaurant called "Gemini Diner"
located at 641 2nd Avenue #1, New York, New York 10016 where
Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers but performed kitchen
work most often.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Aug. 31 Oral Argument in 5th Cir. Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has set a class action appeal for
oral argument on August 31, 2016.

The Company said, "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed
against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
initiated an investigation in connection with our change in
accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and
related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately
twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of
those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or
former officers and directors. The class action cases were later
consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint,
styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was
filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.
AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).
We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004."

"In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by
the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the
resulting asbestos liability exposure.

"In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to
dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August
2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior
to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims
to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006,
the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed
a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been
re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in
March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all
individual defendants other than our Chief Executive Officer
(CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and
us.

"In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The
district court issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion
for class certification. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court's order denying class certification.
In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth
Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in
order to obtain class certification and the case was returned to
the lower courts for further consideration.

"In January 2012, the district court issued an order certifying
the class. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order
affirming the district court's order.

"Our writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court was
granted and in June 2014 the Supreme Court issued its decision,
maintaining the presumption of class member reliance through the
"fraud on the market" theory, but holding that we are entitled to
rebut that presumption by presenting evidence that there was no
impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentation.
Because the district court and the Fifth Circuit denied us that
opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's
decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the
Supreme Court decision.

"In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider
whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged
misrepresentations. On July 27, 2015, the district court denied
certification for the plaintiff class with respect to five of the
six dates upon which the plaintiffs claimed that disclosures
correcting previously misleading statements had been made that
resulted in an impact to the stock price. However, the district
court certified the class with respect to a disclosure made on
December 7, 2001 regarding an adverse jury verdict in an asbestos
case that plaintiffs alleged was corrective. The ruling was based
on the district court's conclusion that the court was required to
assume at class certification that a disclosure was actually
corrective.

"We do not agree with that conclusion and have filed a petition
with the Fifth Circuit seeking to appeal the ruling. The Fifth
Circuit accepted our petition. The matter has now been fully
briefed and is before the Fifth Circuit for review. The Fifth
Circuit has set the matter for oral argument on August 31, 2016.
We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which
we intend to vigorously defend."


HAT TRICK: Faces "De Los Santos" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Hat Trick Pizza, Inc. The case is
titled Marcelo De Los Santos, Sandro Mayoral-Climico, and Aaron
Cruz Aguacatitla, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff v. Hat Trick Pizza, Inc.; Cookston
Enterprises, Inc.; Mumbuh Style Pizza, Inc.; Sestwon Pizza, LLC;
117 Mineola Ave., LLC; 1872A Bellmore Ave., LLC; 1017 Jericho Tpke
LLC; 3489 Riverhead Pizza, LLC; 3469 Mastic Pizza, LLC; 3683
Washington Heights Pizza, LLC; 3456 Hamilton Heights Pizza, LLC;
3342 New Windsor Pizza, LLC; 3361 Monroe Pizza, LLC; 3352 Mount
Kisco Pizza, LLC; 3441 Ossining Pizza, LLC; 3616 West Village
Pizza, LLC; 3694 Lower East Side Pizza, LLC; 3551 Yonkers Pizza,
LLC; Team Stamford, LLC; Team East Hartford, LLC; Rolling in the
Dough, LLC; Customers First of Connecticut, LLC; AAR, LLC;
MIRC, LLC; AMS Pizza, LLC; 3488 Cortlandt Manor Pizza, LLC;
Lucky 13, Inc.; AC Pizza, Inc.; Domino's Pizza, Inc.; Domino's
Pizza LLC, and Domino's Pizza Franchising, LLC, all doing business
as Domino's Pizza, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06274
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2016).

Hat Trick is a restaurant located in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Domino's Pizza offers delicious pizzas, chicken and pasta,
appetizers and desserts, and beverages.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HEALTH AND HUMAN: Class Certification Bid in "Burwell" Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RUTH SHERMAN, executor of the Estate of
Bradley Olsen-Ecker, the Plaintiff, v. SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Defendant. Case No.
3:15-cv-01468-JAM (D. Conn.), the Hon. Jeffrey Alker Meyer denied
in large part Defendant's motion to dismiss, and granted
Plaintiff's motion for class certification:

     "all Medicare beneficiaries (1) who have received, are
     receiving, or will receive home health care services, (2)
     whose claims for coverage of those services under Medicare
     Part A or B (a) have been or will be denied at the initial
     determination stage, in whole or part, or who have received
     or will receive a notice of termination of coverage and (b)
     have been or will be denied, in whole or in part, at the two
     levels of review below the Administrative Law Judge level,
     and (3) for whom the initial determination or notice of
     termination of coverage was dated on or after January 1,
     2012."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=w3Df7w5r


HEALTH EXAMS: "Saeteurn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATHY SAETEURN on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HEALTH EXAMS, INC., a California corporation, and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG16826605 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., August 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of a class
comprised of current and former medical examiners employed by
Health Exams in the state of California seeking to recover alleged
unpaid minimum wages and payments for rest periods and
unreimbursed business expenses.

Health Exams, Inc. is a California corporation, located in San
Mateo, California.  The Company operates a business providing
mobile medical diagnostic screening throughout California.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hunter Pyle, Esq.
          Chad Saunders, Esq.
          SUNDEEN SALINAS & PYLE
          428 Thirteenth Street, Eighth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (51 0) 663-9240
          Facsimile: (510) 663-9241
          E-mail: hpyle@ssrplaw.com
                  csaunders@ssrplaw.com


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Nichols Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiffs in the
Nichols Litigation have appealed the dismissal of the case to the
Supreme Court of Alabama.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v.
HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our
former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8,
2005."

"The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to
which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22,
2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us.

"Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint
to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth
and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12,
2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request
certification as a class action.

"One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove
the case to federal district court, most recently on December 11,
2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state
court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal
court remanded the case back to state court.

"On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended
complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time period of
1997 to 2002. On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss
on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims
are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the
statute of limitations.

"On May 26, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss. The
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Supreme Court
of Alabama on June 28, 2016. The supreme court has not yet
scheduled a hearing on the appeal.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on
the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and
circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying
claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and
scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an
adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it
is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or
range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment
or settlement of this case."


HONEST COMPANY: "Smith" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2719
-----------------------------------------------------
Margo Smith, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly-
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. The Honest Company, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00406, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court assigned Case
No. 2:16-Cv-05857-Ab-Rao to the proceeding.

The "Margo" case is being consolidated with MDL 2719 in re: The
Honest Company, Inc., Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) Marketing And
Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On August
5, 2016. These cases share factual issues arising from allegations
that Honest labeled and marketed certain of its household cleaning
products -- namely, its laundry detergent, dish soap, and multi-
surface cleaner -- in a false and misleading manner. Specifically,
the Plaintiffs contend that Honest advertises the products as free
of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), even though the products'
ingredients include sodium coco sulfate (SCS). According to
plaintiffs, SCS necessarily contains SLS. In its August 5, 2016
order, the MDL panel found that that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. The Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Andre Birotte Jr., United States District Judge. The
lead case is 2:16-ml-02719-AB-RAO.

Honest Company is an American consumer goods company, co-founded
by actress Jessica Alba that emphasizes non-toxic household
products to supply the marketplace for ethical consumerism.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq.
          KEANE LAW LLC
          9666 Olive Blvd., Suite 690
          St. Louis, MO 63132
          Telephone: (314) 240 5278
          E-mail: alex@keanelawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Roman P. Wuller, Esq.
          William R. Bay, Esq.
          Brian A. Lamping, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552 6121
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7121
          E-mail: wbay@thompsoncoburn.com
                  blamping@thompsoncoburn.com


HUB GROUP: Settling Plaintiffs Dismissed from "Robles" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to
dismiss an amended complaint in the Robles class action lawsuit
has been granted in part, and denied in part.

The Company said, "On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary,
Comtrak Logistics, Inc., now known as Hub Group Trucking, Inc.
Mr. Robles drove a truck for Hub Group Trucking in California,
first as an independent contractor and then as an employee.  The
action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and
former California-based truck drivers for Hub Group Trucking who
were classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to
August 2014.  The complaint alleges Hub Group Trucking has
misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that
such drivers were employees.  The complaint asserts various
violations of the California Labor Code and claims that Hub Group
Trucking has engaged in unfair competition practices.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief, compensatory damages and attorney's fees.  In May 2013,
the complaint was amended to add similar claims based on Mr.
Robles' status as an employed company driver.  These additional
claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class."

The Company believes that the California independent contractor
truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors
at all times.  Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive, time-
consuming and could interrupt our business operations, Hub Group
Trucking decided to make settlement offers to individual drivers
with respect to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, without
admitting liability.  As of June 30, 2016, 93% of the California
drivers have accepted the settlement offers.

In late 2014, Hub Group Trucking decided to convert its model from
independent contractors to employee drivers in California.  In
early 2016, Hub Group Trucking closed its operations in Southern
California.

On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western
Division) in Memphis.  In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles
case filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which names 334
current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as "interested
putative class members."  In addition to reasserting their
existing claims, the SAC includes claims post-conversion, added
two new plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the
settlement agreements are unenforceable.  In June 2015, Hub Group
Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the SAC.  On July 19, 2016, Hub
Group Trucking's motion to dismiss was granted in part, and denied
in part, by the District Court.  The motion to dismiss was granted
for the claims of all purported class members who have signed
settlement agreements and on plaintiffs' claims based on quantum
merit.


HUB GROUP: Aug. 25 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Adame" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing is scheduled
for August 25, 2016, in the Adame class action lawsuit to consider
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case or, in the alternative,
order the action stayed pending the outcome in Robles.

On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs' law firm in the Robles case
filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County,
California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group
Trucking and five Company employees.  The lawsuit alleges claims
similar to those being made in Robles and seeks monetary penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act.  Of the 63 named
Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted the settlement
offers.

On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of removal to
remove the case from state court in San Bernardino to federal
court in the Central District of California. On November 19, 2015,
Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to federal court in
Memphis, Tennessee and also filed a motion to dismiss the case
pursuant to a clause in the independent contractor agreement
stating that Tennessee law applies.  Also on November 19, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court,
claiming that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the case.
The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand to the state court
in San Bernardino County on April 7, 2016, mooting Defendants'
motions to transfer and dismiss.

On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed dismissal papers in state
court, asking the court to dismiss Plaintiffs' suit because the
agreement between HGT and its former California owner operators
requires that this action be brought in Memphis, Tennessee or, in
the alternative, order the action stayed pending the outcome in
Robles.  Briefing will now take place and a hearing currently is
scheduled for August 25, 2016.


HUB GROUP: "Lubinski" Suits in Federal and State Courts Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Christian Lubinski has
filed a second putative class action complaint in Illinois state
court while his federal district court case remains pending.

On September 12, 2014, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) by
Christian Lubinski against Hub Group Trucking.  The action was
brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former
owner-operators providing delivery services in Illinois for Hub
Group Trucking.  The complaint alleged Hub Group Trucking
misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that
such drivers were employees.  The complaint also alleged that Hub
Group Trucking made illegal deductions from the drivers' pay and
failed to properly compensate the drivers for all hours worked,
reimburse business expenses, pay employment taxes, and provide
workers' compensation and other employment benefits.  The
complaint asserted various violations of the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collections Act and claimed that Hub Group Trucking was
unjustly enriched.  The complaint sought, among other things,
monetary damages for the relevant statutory period and attorneys'
fees.

On October 24, 2014, the Lubinski case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western
Division), in Memphis.  On September 22, 2015, the court granted
Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss Lubinski's Illinois law
claims with prejudice based on the contractual choice of law
provision, which provided that Tennessee law governed.  The court
denied as moot Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss based on
federal preemption.  On October 2, 2015, Lubinski appealed this
order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
in Cincinnati.

On December 17, 2015, Lubinski filed his brief in support of his
appeal of the motion to dismiss, asserting for the first time that
the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case due to a
lack of diversity of citizenship.  Hub Group Trucking filed its
response brief on January 19, 2016, in part arguing that Lubinski
had himself alleged diversity of citizenship in his complaint.
Lubinski filed his reply brief on February 5, 2016.  On April 1,
2016, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court --
without ruling on the merits -- for the district court "to
consider the argument and admit the evidence necessary to
determine the question of federal subject-matter jurisdiction."

On July 11, 2016, with his federal district court case still
pending, Lubinski filed an additional putative class action
Complaint, with the same claims, in Illinois state court.  On the
same day, HGT filed a declaratory judgment complaint in Tennessee
state court, seeking a declaration that Lubinski's claims must be
heard in Tennessee (based on the contractual choice-of-forum
provision) and that the claims must be dismissed because Tennessee
law controls and Lubinski's claims are preempted by federal law.


IC SYSTEM: Serafin Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ZYGMUNT SERAFIN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. I.C. SYSTEM,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-1340 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:

     "(a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin (b) who
     Were sent a collection letter to the complaint in the
     action, (c) seeking to collect a debt for personal, family
     or household purposes, (d) whose account information was not
     subsequently reported to a national credit reporting agency
     (e) on or after November 10, 2014, (f) that was not returned
     by the postal service."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint himself as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INSPERITY INC: Worksite Employee Retirement Plan Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the Worksite Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan
Class Action Litigation.

The Company said, "In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was
filed against us and our third party discretionary trustee of the
Insperity 401(k) retirement plan available to eligible worksite
employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on behalf of Plan
participants. This suit generally alleges that the Company's
third-party discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting
an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan,
by causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping
fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other
fiduciaries and by making imprudent investment choices. We believe
we have meritorious defenses and we intend to vigorously defend
this litigation. As a result of uncertainty regarding the outcome
of this matter, no provision has been made in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements."


INTEL CORPORATION: California Class Action Settled and Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the parties have agreed
to settle a class action lawsuit in California, and the lawsuit
was dismissed in July 2016.

The Company said, "At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
California, Southern District of California, District of Idaho,
District of Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine,
and District of Delaware, as well as in various California,
Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. These actions generally repeat
the allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against us by
AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware (AMD litigation). Like the AMD litigation, these class-
action lawsuits allege that we engaged in various actions in
violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by, among other
things: providing discounts and rebates to our manufacturer and
distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive
dealing that allegedly unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to
sell its microprocessors; interfering with certain AMD product
launches; and interfering with AMD's participation in certain
industry standards-setting groups. The class actions allege
various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various
states have been injured by paying higher prices for computers
containing our microprocessors."

"All of the federal and state class actions other than the
California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict
Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all
pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The
Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address
issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In July
2010, the Special Master denied the MDL plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of members who purchased certain personal
computers containing products sold by us. In July 2014, the
district court affirmed the Special Master's ruling and issued an
order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory
appeal of the district court's decision with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Third Circuit denied in
October 2014. In December 2014, we filed a motion for summary
judgment on the claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs. We
subsequently negotiated a settlement of the claims and the case
was dismissed in September 2015.

"All California class actions were consolidated in the Superior
Court of California in Santa Clara County. In March 2008, the
plaintiffs in the California actions moved for class
certification, which we opposed. In February 2015, the court
granted plaintiffs' request for leave to retain a new expert and
to amend their previous motion for class certification. In March
2016, the court denied plaintiffs' amended class certification
motion, and plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. The
parties subsequently agreed to settle the case, and the lawsuit
was dismissed in July 2016."


INTEL CORPORATION: McAfee Shareholder Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the Company disputes the
McAfee, Inc. shareholder class-action claims and intend to
continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The Company said, "On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had
agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee)
for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative
class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior
Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel
as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached
their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted
those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the
merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may
deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In
June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value
of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be
$62.08."

"In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class
action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the
class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January
2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the
class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012.
In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench
trial.

"In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California
Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which
the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court
granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment
in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed
the final judgment. Intel, McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors
filed an opposition to plaintiff's appeal in December 2014.

"Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the
scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims
and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously."


IRON MOUNTAIN: Faces "Ghobriel" Suit in S.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Iron Mountain Incorporated. The
case is captioned Hend Ghobriel, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Iron Mountain
Incorporated and Iron Mountain Information Management, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-06367 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2016).

Iron Mountain is an enterprise information management services
company founded in 1951 and headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Paid $350,000 in Gallien Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has
made a payment of $350,000 in accordance with the terms of the
Gallien Settlement.

The Company said, "On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed
against us in a purported class action in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the
following caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James
Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation").
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under
California law, we:

     * failed to pay wages owed;

     * failed to pay overtime compensation;

     * failed to provide meal and rest periods;

     * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

     * engaged in unlawful business practices; and

     * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private
       Attorney General Act.

"The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17,
2013. The amended complaint seeks:

     * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other
       losses;

     * general damages;

     * pay for missed meal and rest periods;

     * restitution;

     * liquidated damages;

     * statutory penalties;

     * interest;

     * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

     * civil and statutory penalties;

     * injunctive relief; and

     * such other and further relief as the court may deem
       equitable and appropriate.

"Following a mediation that began in the third quarter of 2015,
the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the
Gallien Litigation on a class-wide basis for $400,000. On October
28, 2015, the parties executed a Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement (the "Gallien Settlement") to document the terms and
conditions of the settlement. In connection with the Gallien
Settlement and subject to court approval, the settlement is based
on claims made with a specific reversion of funds paid back to us,
depending on the number of claims made by settlement class members
for individual settlement payments. Under the terms specified in
the Gallien Settlement, 55% of a net settlement amount of
approximately $204,000 must be paid to settlement class members in
the form of individual settlement payments. In the event the
settlement is not approved by the court or otherwise does not
become effective, we intend to continue to defend ourselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint.

"On March 11, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Gallien Settlement and scheduled a hearing for June
23, 2016 to consider final approval of the Gallien Settlement. On
June 30, 2016, the court entered a final judgment and order
approving the Gallien Settlement, which required a payment of
$350,000 from us. On July 8, 2016, we made a payment of $350,000
in accordance with the terms of the Gallien Settlement."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Miner" Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a complaint was
filed on July 20, 2016, against the Company in a purported class
action in the Superior Court for the State of California County of
Alameda under the following caption: Sean Miner, David Heumann,
and Shawna Admire, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. (the "Miner
Litigation").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that under California
law, the Company:

     * failed to pay wages for all hours worked;

     * failed to provide paid rest periods and failed to pay
       missed rest break premiums;

     * failed to pay compensation due upon discharge from
       employment;

     * failed to issue accurate wage statements;

     * failed to reimburse for business-related cellphone usage;

     * engaged in unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business
       practices; and

     * are liable for civil penalties under the California Labor
       Code Private Attorney General Act.

The purported class includes adjunct instructors employed by us
during the period of January 12, 2012 through the trial date. The
complaint seeks:

     * an order that the action may proceed and be maintained as
       a class action;

     * declaratory judgments;

     * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other
       losses;

     * pay for missed meal and rest periods;

     * restitution;

     * liquidated damages;

     * interest;

     * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

     * civil and statutory penalties;

     * injunctive relief; and

     * all other relief as the court deems proper.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations
made in the complaint."


JEFFERSON COUNTY: Cochran et al. Seek Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JEANNEAN COCHRAN, ET AL., ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND THE CLASS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT, the Plaintiffs,
v. JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00751-GNS-CHL (W.D. Ken.), Jeannean
Cochran, Melinda Diemer, Melissa Shina, and Kelli Thomas move the
Court to certify a class:

     "all union nonmember employees who, at any time since
     September 23, 2014 (and while this action is pending), are
     or were employed in the Job Family 1A classification and
     salary schedule for Jefferson County Public Schools and are,
     were or will be required to pay a compulsory fee to
     Defendants Local 4011, Council 962, and/or AFSCME pursuant
     to a compulsory unionism agreement between [American
     Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
     Indiana-Kentucky Organizing Committee 962 (Council 962),
     Jefferson County Association of Educational Support
     Personnel, American Federation of State, County and
     Municipal Employees Local 4011 (Local 4011), Jefferson
     County Public Schools Board of Education (JCBE), and Donna
     M. Hargens (Hargens)]."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Milton L. Chappell,
Richard L. Masters, and Sarah E. Hartsfield as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=26kmTwnM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
          Sarah E. Hartsfield, Esq.
          C/O NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL
          DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
          8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
          Springfield, VA 22160
          Telephone: (703) 321 8510
          Facsimile: (703) 321 9319
          E-mail: mlc@nrtw.org
                  seh@nrtw.org

               - and -

          Richard L. Masters, Esq.
          MASTERS, MULLINS & ARRINGTON
          1012 S 4th Street
          Louisville, KY 40203
          Telephone: (502) 582 2900
          Facsimile: (502) 587 0931
          E-mail: lawsaver@aol.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Lawyer Object to Talc MDL Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers fearing trials in their cases could be sidelined are
engaging in legal fisticuffs with one another over whether
lawsuits linking Johnson & Johnson's baby powder to ovarian cancer
should be coordinated into multidistrict litigation.

More than 1,700 women and family members of those who died have
sued Johnson & Johnson alleging its talcum powder products caused
their ovarian cancer.  Most are plaintiffs in about 250 cases
sprinkled among state courts in California, Missouri and New
Jersey.  But in a July 15 motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, Mississippi plaintiffs lawyer
Don Barrett -- DBarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- moved to coordinate
the federal cases for discovery purposes.  That prompted several
prominent plaintiffs lawyers to object on the ground that an MDL
would only slow down discovery and halt upcoming trials, the next
of which are scheduled for Sept. 26 in Missouri and Oct. 11 in New
Jersey.

"When we have an MDL, the point of it is all the pretrial
efficiencies, but we've already got that established and trials
are going forward," said Karen Menzies of Oakland, California-
based Gibbs Law Group, who filed an opposition to an MDL on Aug. 5
with Indianapolis-based Cohen & Malad.  "This is one of the unique
instances where a significant portion of the plaintiffs bar would
prefer to litigate these in state court."

Mr. Barrett, of Barrett Law Group in Lexington, Mississippi, did
not respond to a request for comment.  In his motion, he
recommended the MDL go to U.S. District Judge David Herndon in
East St. Louis, Illinois.

Warren Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- a partner at Burns
Charest in Dallas, filed an Aug. 3 motion supporting Mr. Barrett's
proposal.  In an interview, he said that without an MDL, his
clients and others in federal court would go "to the back of the
line" behind trials planned in state courts.

"The injury in this case was not confined to St. Louis, to
New Jersey, or California," he said.  "It's spread across the
country and implicates women in practically every state.  From my
perspective, litigating hundreds of thousands of cases in
individual jurisdictions spread throughout the country is
difficult at best, and probably inefficient."

Johnson & Johnson supported the creation of an MDL in an Aug. 5
filing.  But its attorney, John Beisner --
john.beisner@skadden.com -- leader of the mass torts, insurance
and consumer litigation group at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, asked that the cases be transferred to U.S. District Judge
Freda Wolfson in Trenton, New Jersey, or U.S. District Judge
Timothy DeGiusti in Oklahoma City, who "has not yet had the
opportunity to preside over an MDL proceeding."

So far, three cases have ended in verdicts, with juries issuing
awards of $72 million and $55 million earlier this year.  About 25
individual cases have been filed in federal courts.  But more than
1,400 women are plaintiffs in 20 cases filed in the 22nd Judicial
Circuit Court in St. Louis, Missouri, where this year's verdicts
came out.  There are nearly 200 individual cases in New Jersey
state courts, and 42 lawsuits in California state courts brought
on behalf of about 200 women.

Ms. Menzies said California has a "preference statute" that allows
women facing a shortened life span to get ahead of the line for
trial.

"People are unfortunately frequently having to attend funerals of
their clients," she said.  "If we're able to get trials in state
court jurisdictions, or a place in California, where we get
preference statutes, that's uniquely important."


JRH RESTAURANT: "Liu" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guoliang Liu, Zhansheng Gu, Jian Li, and Changying Zou on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J.R.H.
Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a Kumo Sushi, Jimmy's Sushi Buffet Inc.
d/b/a Kikoo Sushi, Lindsey Buffet Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Kumo
Sushi, Jimmy Chen, Yun Lin Chen, Hui Zhao, Queenie Chen, Jane Doe
and Vera Chen, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06219, (S.D.N.Y.,
August 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and
the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants are a restaurant group owned by Chen and his family,
where Plaintiff worked as delivery personnel.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


JS & COMPANY: Podiatry Seeks Certification of Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order determining that
the action may proceed as a class action against the Defendants,
in the lawsuit styled PODIATRY IN MOTION, INC., on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiff, v. JS & COMPANY
INCORPORATED, PRACTICE DATA SYSTEMS INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07943 (N.D. Ill.),

The Plaintiff defines the classes as follows:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act --

     "(a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years
     prior to the filing of the action, (c) were sent faxes by or
     on behalf of defendants JS & Company or Practice Data
     Systems Inc., promoting either of their goods or services
     for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out
     notice. By "compliant opt out notice" is meant one (i) on
     the first page of the fax (ii) that states that the
     recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any
     future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile
     machine (iii) that states that failure to comply, within the
     shortest reasonable time, as determined by the Federal
     Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides
     instructions on how to submit an opt out request and (v)
     that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile
     machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient
     to transmit such a request to the sender that permit a
     request to be made at any time on any day of the week";

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act --

     "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
     after a date three years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants JSC or
     PDS, promoting any of their goods or services for sale (d)
    which did not contain a compliant opt out notice"; and

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging
nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels --

     "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
     after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants JSC or
     PDS, promoting any of their goods or services for sale (d)
     which did not contain a complaint opt out notice. Plaintiff
     contends that the fax at issue does not even attempt to
     provide a compliant opt out notice".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


K&G MEN'S: Faces "Halfon" Suit in Eastern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against K&G Men's Company, Inc. The case
is captioned Eric Halfon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. K&G Men's Company, Inc.,
D/B/A K&G Fashion Superstore, a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04474 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2016).

K&G operates a superstore for men's and women's clothing,
childrens' clothing, shoes, & accessories.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: "Erickson" Sues Over Overpriced Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Erickson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Gregory P. Madison and Scott A. Holmes, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-06218 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2016), seeks compensatory damages
including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this
action and such other and further relief under the Securities and
Exchange Act.

Plaintiff claims to have purchased Keryx common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  Keryx failed to promptly
disseminate accurate and truthful information with respect to its
financial condition and performance, growth, operations, financial
statements, business, products, markets, management, earnings and
present and future business prospects. Plaintiff claims to have
sustained losses after corrective disclosures.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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


KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Seeks Prelim. OK of Deal to Settle 3 FDCPA Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in three class action lawsuits against Kovitz Shifrin
Nesbit currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois jointly move the Court for an order:

   (1) certifying this proposed Settlement Class for settlement
       purposes only:

       All persons, including Class Plaintiffs and Individual
       Plaintiffs, who from May 27, 2012 through the Preliminary
       Approval Date, were sent a '30-day Notice and Demand' by
       KSN at an Illinois address (or at multiple addresses,
       including an Illinois address);

   (2) preliminarily approving all terms and conditions of the
       proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release;

   (3) directing Notice to the Class Members; and

   (4) setting dates for submitting claims, exclusions,
       objections and a Final Approval Hearing.

The cases, which allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act are: (i) JANICE MCCARTER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT, an
Illinois professional corporation, Case No. 1:13-cv-03909 (N.D.
Ill.), (ii) KRYSTYNA SCEHURA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT, an Illinois
professional corporation, Case No. 1:14-CV-8838 (N.D. Ill.), and
(iii) AMY LILL and CHRISTOPHER WOJDELKO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT, an
Illinois professional corporation, Case No. 1:14-CV-2647 (N.D.
Ill.).

KSN represents that there were approximately 26,383 members in the
class between May 27, 2012, and June 29, 2016.  Based on this
representation and the KSN's representation of its net worth, the
parties agreed to settle their lawsuits, KSN agreed to establish a
settlement fund of $290,000, plus $30,000 for the costs of class
notice and administration, for the total of $320,000 (compared to
the total of $220,000 in the original settlement agreement).
Further, KSN agreed to pay any additional costs of class notice
and administration to ensure that the settlement fund will always
be $290,000.

The Settlement Class will receive a minimum of $150,000
(of the $290,000 settlement fund).  Participating Claimants will
divide the class settlement fund pro rata; provided, however, that
no Class Member will receive payment from the class settlement
fund in an amount to exceed $1,000.

The Plaintiffs request that the Class Representatives Scehura,
Lill, and Wojdelko receive $3,500 each for their individual claims
and as an incentive award for their services as Class
Representatives.  The Plaintiffs also request that the Class
Representative McCarter receive $5,000 for her individual claims
and as an incentive award for her services as Class
Representative.  In addition, under the Settlement Agreement,
Individual Plaintiffs, Woods, Stockman, and Locke, will each
receive $3,500 to resolve their individual lawsuits.  KSN does not
object to these requests.

The Plaintiffs also ask that their counsel receive a total of
$114,000, of which $84,000 will be for the Class Lawsuits and
$30,000 for the Individual Lawsuits.  KSN does not object to this
request.

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

Plaintiffs Janice McCarter and Krystyna Scehura are represented
by:

          Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
          KMD LAW OFFICE
          4001 W. Devon Ave., Suite 332
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 997-5959
          Facsimile: (312) 219-8404
          E-mail: kducduong@kmdlex.com

               - and -

          Mark Lavery, Esq.
          HYSLIP & TAYLOR, LLC LPA
          1100 W. Cermak, Suite B410
          Chicago, IL 60608
          Telephone: (312) 508-5480
          E-mail: mark@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

Plaintiffs Amy Lill, Christopher Wojdelko, Michael Wood,
Alexandria Stockman, and Locke are represented by:

          M. Kris Kasalo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726-6160
          Facsimile: (312) 698-5054
          E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com

Defendant Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, P.C., is represented by:

          Jonathan N. Ledsky, Esq.
          Scott J. Helfand, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 655-1500
          Facsimile: (312) 655-1501
          E-mail: scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com
                  jonathan.ledsky@huschblackwell.com


LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Jansky" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company was served on June 7, 2012, with a putative class action
lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et
al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants
committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and violated
various other state laws by changing screening codes to diagnostic
codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in customers
being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The lawsuit
seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as
recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. In June 2015,
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied. The
Plaintiff has appealed the denial of class certification, and the
trial court has stayed the case pending resolution of the appeal.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sandusky Wellness Case Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company was served on August 24, 2012, with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the Defendants violated the U.S.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The
lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005
for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and
injunctive relief. In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's
Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was
granted. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On May 3, 2016, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its
decision and order reversing the District Court's decision which
denied class certification. The Eighth Circuit remanded the matter
for further proceedings. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Still Defends "Davis" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company was served on August 31, 2015, with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges
that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits
under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks
injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as
recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LEGEND 72: "Li" Suit Seeks OT, Minimum, Spread of Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhen Hui Li, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Legend 72, LLC, Jia Xing Yang, and Sizhi
Li, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06185 (S.D. N.Y., August 4,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid spread of hours, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and the New York
State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants owned and operated a Chinese restaurant in Manhattan
where Li was employed as a kitchen helper.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 563-9884
      Email: stein@samuelandstein.com

             - and -

      Vincent S. Wong, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
      39 East Broadway, Suite 306
      New York, NY 10002
      Tel: (212) 349-6099
      Email: vswlaw@gmail.com


LTF CLUB: Class Certification Bid in "Bartell" Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Laurence Bartell, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00401-MHW-NMK (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Michael H. Watson granted
in part and denied in part Plaintiff's revised motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiff may proceed with a class definition including former
members of Defendant's Ohio gyms who cancelled their GTA from
April 30, 2012 to present.

The Plaintiff claimed in part that Defendant violated the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act by failing to honor membership
cancellation notices and refund members' payments as required
under Ohio Revised Code.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ITEEi4xG


MDL 2159: Court Grants AutoZone Bid to Decertify in Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re: AutoZone, Inc., Wage and Hour Employment
Practices Litigation, Case No. 3:10-md-02159-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Charles R. Breyer entered an order:

     a. denying Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment;

     b. granting Autozone's partial motion for summary judgment
        as to the PAGA claims and the prejudgment interest;

     c. denying Autozone's partial motion for summary judgment;

     d. denying Plaintiffs' motion to strike;

     e. denying as moot Autozone's motion to strike;

     f. granting Autozone's motion to decertify; and

     g. granting Plaintiff Lozacruz's motion to remand his case
        only.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ikPYEmw0


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in "Devera" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cerilina Devera asks that the Court enter an order determining
that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action styled CERILINA
DEVERA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION, INC., Case No.
2:15-cv-01349-LA (E.D. Wisc.), may proceed as a class action
against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff defines the class as (a) all natural persons in the
State of Wisconsin (b) who were sent a collection letter in the
form represented by Exhibit A to the complaint in this action, (c)
seeking to collect a debt for personal, family or household
purposes, (d) on or after November 11, 2014, (e) that was not
returned by the postal service.

The Plaintiff contends that the Case concerns the legality of
standard form collection letters used by the Defendant to collect
consumer debts owed to third parties.  The Plaintiff also asks to
be appointed as class representative, and to appoint Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHAEL WALTER: "Ortega" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Irvin Ortega, Plaintiff, v. Michael Walter Construction Co., Inc.,
and Michael C. Walter, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
04715 (D.N.J., August 3, 2016), seeks payment of compensation for
all hours and overtime due, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage
and Hour Law.

Defendants own a construction company in Haworth, Bergen County,
NJ, where Plaintiff worked as a laborer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHIGAN, USA: Salem Seeks to Certify Class of Female Prisoners
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned AMIRA SALEM and KESHUNA
ACUMBY, On behalf of themselves and a, class of others similarly
situated v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, & MILLICENT
WARREN, Case No. 2:13-cv-14567-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich.), seek
certification of this class of individuals:

     Current and future female prisoners who, since October 2010,
     have been incarcerated at the Women's Valley Correctional
     Facility, and subject to sexual and physical assault and
     abuse, sexual harassment, and degrading sexually humiliating
     and unhygienic treatment at the hands of Huron Valley
     correctional officers and staff.

Should the Court certify the class, the Plaintiffs seek
appointment of their counsel as class counsel, and seek an order
to direct notice to the class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

The Civil Action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, together
with monetary damages against the Defendants for violation of the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq.
          HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C.
          30700 Telegraph Road, Suite 1675
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025
          Telephone: (412) 944-2166
          Facsimile: (412) 315-7386
          E-mail: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net

               - and -

          Racine Miller, Esq.
          RACINE MILLER LAW, PLLC
          17600 Northland Park Court, Suite 210
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 443-9030
          Facsimile: (248) 443-9031

               - and -

          Teresa J. Gorman, Esq.
          TERESA J. GORMAN, PLLC
          Attorney for Plaintiffs
          363 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 215
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 223-9922
          Facsimile: (248) 223-9933
          E-mail: terigorman@aol.com


MILLENNIUM PARTNERS: "Eng" Sues Over Sinking and Tilting of Tower
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ENG, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MILLENNIUM PARTNERS I, INC, a California
corporation; TRANSBAY JOINT WARRANTIES; POWERS AUTHORITY, a joint
powers agency created under California Government Code Section
6500 et seq.; and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. CGC-16-
553574 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., August 9, 2016),
arises from the alleged unprecedented sinking and tilting of the
Millennium Tower in San Francisco, California.

According to the complaint, the 58-floor Millennium is the tallest
residential building in San Francisco.  Since its completion in
2008, the Millennium has sunk 16 inches and tilted up to 6 inches
because of its defective foundation.  The Transbay Joint Powers
Authority has made the problem worse by digging the biggest hole
the City has ever seen in its construction of the Transbay Transit
Center next door to the Millennium, the Plaintiff alleges.

Mr. Eng contends that the Millennium will continue to sink and
tilt, thereby, damaging homes and causing property values to drop
in this building.  The Plaintiff, who owned a home in the
Millennium when it was damaged, brings this action to seek redress
on behalf of the class consisting of all homeowners whose
individual units in the Millennium were damaged by the
construction failures alleged in the complaint.

Millennium Partners 1, Inc., is a California corporation doing
business in the State of California also as "New York SF
Millennium Partners 1, Inc."

Transbay Joint Powers Authority is a joint powers agency and a
government agency created under the California Government Code.
The Plaintiff is currently ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald D. Foreman, Esq.
          FOREMAN & BRASSO
          930 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 433-3475
          Facsimile: (415) 781-8030
          E-mail: foremanandbrasso@foremanandbrasso.com

               - and -

          Patrick Catalano, Esq.
          CATALANO & CATALANO
          640 Davis Street, Suite 35
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-0207
          E-mail: patrick.catalano@legalcat.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Blum, Esq.
          Gary Ho, Esq.
          BLUM COLLINS, LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 572-0400
          E-mail: Blum@BlumCollins.com
                  Ho@BlumCollins.com

               - and -

          Mark M. Garay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK M. GARAY
          11 430 Ridge Road
          Tiburon, CA 94920
          Telephone: (415) 722-0100
          E-mail: garayllc@pacbell.net

                           *     *     *

Dave Tartre, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the tallest residential building in San Francisco, the 58-story
Millennium Tower, is sinking and listing, residents say -- "an
alarming 15-inch tilt at the top of the building" -- and they
blame the developer and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, which
dug "the biggest hole the city has ever seen" right next door.

Since the Millennium Tower was completed in 2008, lead plaintiff
John Eng says, it has sunk 16 inches. In his August 9 class action
in Superior Court, Eng says the developer of the high-end condos
skimped on the foundation, and the building could sink another 15
inches. He estimates it is sinking an inch a year. It's also
listing to the northwest, Eng says.

He sued Millennium Partners 1 and the Transbay Joint Powers
Authority, which he says "has made the problem worse by digging
the biggest hole the city has ever seen in its construction of the
Transbay Transit Center next door to the Millennium."

The giant hole removed lateral support needed to buttress the
Millennium's foundation, Eng says. "The tilt at the base of the
building translates into an alarming 15-inch tilt at the top of
the building," according to the complaint. "Over time the tower
most likely will sink and additional 8 to 15 inches into the
landfill beneath the building. This means the Millennium could
descend a total of 31 inches. The Millennium's tilt also could get
worse over time.

Eng seeks class certification for all the homeowners in the 419-
unit building. He says the developer disclosed potential
foundation problems in June 2015.

Transbay says the Millennium has tilted 6 inches, according to the
complaint.

Millennium Tower spokesman P.J. Johnson told Courthouse News: "We
are focused on working with the homeowners' association to monitor
the situation and take appropriate next steps. We will not comment
on pending litigation."

Compounding the risk posed by the settling foundation, the
building is on what used to be the shore of San Francisco Bay, an
area the residents say is susceptible to shaking and liquefaction
in an earthquake.

"To cut costs, the Millennium was anchored using a concrete slab
and 80-foot piles into dense sand, rather than into bedrock 200
feet deep. Combine this with unstable man-made mud fill
surrounding the building and you get the recipe for disaster," the
complaint states.

Liquefaction can occur in an earthquake when loosely compacted
soil turns, in effect, into a Jello-like mass. Buildings atop
liquefied soil can tear themselves apart by their own weight.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority's 60-foot deep hole, which
will become the foundation for the new transit center, was started
in 2010.

A spokesman for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority did not
respond to a request for comment.

The residents say the problems have reduced the safety and
marketability of their homes and forced them to hire engineers,
geologists and lawyers.

"The Millennium will continue to sink and tilt, thereby damaging
homes and causing property values to drop in this building," the
complaint states.

Eng et al. accuse Millennium Partners I of violating construction
codes, unfair business practices, breach of warranty and strict
liability for the defective foundation.  They sued the Transbay
Joint Powers Authority for inverse condemnation, nuisance and
dangerous condition of public property.

Their lead attorney is Ronald Foreman, with Foreman & Brassom,
assisted by Patrick Catalano, Steven Blum in Los Angeles and Mark
Garay in Tiburon.


MOJO MEDIA: Faces "Miller" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Mojo Media, LLC. The case is
captioned Mitchell Miller, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mojo Media, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01983-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal., Aug. 5,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel.

Mojo Media is a healthcare content specialist.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOLSON COORS: Still Defends Ontario Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

On December 12, 2014, a notice of action captioned David Hughes
and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario,
Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP, Molson Coors
Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV-14-518059-00CP was filed
in Ontario, Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Brewers Retail Inc. ("BRI") and its owners, including Molson Coors
Canada, as well as the Liquor Control Board of Ontario ("LCBO")
are named as defendants in the action. The plaintiffs allege that
The Beer Store (retail outlets owned and operated by BRI) and LCBO
improperly entered into an agreement to fix prices and market
allocation within the Ontario beer market to the detriment of
licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek to have the claim
certified as a class action on behalf of all Ontario beer
consumers and licensees and, among other things, damages in the
amount of Canadian Dollar ("CAD") 1.4 billion.

The Company said, "We note that The Beer Store operates according
to the rules established by the Government of Ontario for
regulation, sale and distribution of beer in the province.
Additionally, prices at The Beer Store are independently set by
each brewer and are approved by the LCBO on a weekly basis.
Accordingly, we intend to vigorously assert and defend our rights
in this lawsuit."


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moneygram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against a Class Action Securities Litigation.

On April 15, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of
New Castle, against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of
its executive officers, Thomas H. Lee Partners, Goldman Sachs &
Co., Inc. and the underwriters of the secondary public offering of
the Company's common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014
Offering"). The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District
Council of New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class
consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference
therein, issued in connection with the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, due to allegedly false and
misleading statements in connection with the 2014 Offering and
seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 19, 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice
of removal to the federal district court of the District of
Delaware.

On June 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
back to Delaware State Court.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, related to this matter.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Cancellation of Hall of Fame Game Prompts Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that The National Football League was hit with a class-action
lawsuit August 11, over the cancellation of this year's Hall of
Fame Game, just four days after the game was called off due to
unsafe field conditions.

Lead plaintiff Alan Biland says he and his wife travelled seven
hours from Wisconsin to Canton, Ohio, see the Green Bay Packers
take on the Indianapolis Colts in the first NFL preseason game of
the year.  He says he paid for tickets, travel expenses and $72
for parking, and also bought concessions, before being told the
Aug. 7 game was canceled.

Biland and three others -- Matthew Crabb, Tiffany Ratcliff and
Carmelo Treviso -- filed a class action against the NFL and the
Pro Football Hall of Fame in Northern Ohio Federal Court.

"Hours before the game was to start, the grounds crew, under the
direction and supervision of defendants, applied paint for the
midfield logo and endzone lettering onto the field. When the
grounds crew determined the paint was not drying quickly enough,
they heated the field to try to speed up the process. Instead of
rectifying the problem, this resulted in the melting of the rubber
pellets that comprise the FieldTurf, creating a large slick,
sticky, and congealed areas within the playing surface," the
complaint states.

Stadium workers tried to apply a substance to fix the problem with
the field, but a Packers employee noticed that the substance's
label warned of "burns upon skin contact," according to the Aug.
11 lawsuit.

"Even though the Colts and Packers were told the game had been
cancelled at around 6:40 p.m., on information and belief,
defendants purposely told the fans nothing. Instead, the
scoreboard continued to tick down to an 8 p.m. kickoff that never
happened," the complaint states. "On information and belief, by
design, defendants allowed and encouraged fans to continue to
purchase food, beverages, and souvenirs at the stadium as they
waited for a game that would never start, and defendants did so in
the interest of money."

The lawsuit alleges the NFL has a history of mismanaging stadiums.

"For example, in 2011 the NFL held Super Bowl XLV and placed
ticketholders in temporary seats with obstructed views. Other
ticketholders were unreasonably delayed, relocated or completely
displaced from their seats as a result of the incomplete
installation of temporary seats, which were deemed unsafe and
unusable by the local fire marshall," the plaintiffs claim.

Biland, Crabb, Ratcliff and Treviso brought the lawsuit on behalf
of two classes: those who bought tickets to the 2016 NFL Hall of
Fame Game, and those who bought tickets "but did not in fact
receive seats."

The plaintiffs seek at least $5 million for breach of contract.
They are represented by Romney Cullers of the Becker Law Firm in
Elyria, Ohio, and by Michael Avenatti of Eagan Avenatti in Newport
Beach, Calif.

The NFL did not immediately respond to a request for comment
emailed August 12.


NCI GROUP: "Jordan" Suit Moved to Central District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Jordan, individually, and on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NCI Group, Inc., a Texas
Corporation, and DOES 1-50, Inclusive the Defendants, Case No.
CIVDS1610804, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-01701 to the proceeding.

NCI manufactures and distributes metal building components, custom
engineered metal building systems, and metal coil coaters.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Malcolm A Heinicke, Esq.
          Munger Tolles and Olson LLP
          560 Mission Street 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512 4000
          Facsimile: (415) 512 4077
          E-mail: malcolm.heinicke@mto.com


NEW YORK TIMES: Unsuccessful Mediation in Worcester Telegram Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2016, that the Company is involved
in class action litigation brought on behalf of individuals who,
from 2006 to 2011, delivered newspapers at the Worcester Telegram
& Gazette Corporation ("Worcester"), a subsidiary of the Company.
The plaintiffs are asserting several claims against Worcester,
including a challenge to their classification as independent
contractors, and seek unspecified damages. In April 2016, the
parties engaged in an unsuccessful mediation process to resolve
the litigation. The Company believes that the claims made by the
plaintiffs are without merit and continues to vigorously defend
its position. The Company is unable to estimate a loss or range of
possible losses at this time.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: To Fund Settlement in 3rd & 4th Quarter 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company expects to
fund the settlement amount in the Wage and Hour Litigation with
installment payments in the third and fourth quarters of 2016.

During the second quarter of 2014, a lawsuit was filed by Jesse
Davida, a former employee, in Federal Court in Texas against
Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties
for the Company's alleged failure to properly classify its field
service employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA and pay them on
an hourly basis (including overtime). The plaintiff seeks recovery
on his own behalf, and seeks certification of a class of similarly
situated employees. The Court conditionally certified a class of
plaintiffs as those working as fluid service technicians for
Newpark Drilling Fluids for the prior three years. Notification
was given to 658 current and former fluid service technician
employees of Newpark regarding this litigation and those
individuals were given the opportunity to "opt-in" to the Davida
litigation. The opt-in period closed in early May of 2015 and a
total of 91 individuals joined the Davida litigation. Counsel for
the plaintiffs moved to add state law class action claims for
current and former fluid service technicians that worked for
Newpark Drilling Fluids in New York, North Dakota, Ohio and
Pennsylvania. The Court granted the motion but gave Newpark the
right to file a motion to dismiss these state law claims, and that
motion is pending. At this point in the litigation, the parties
began settlement discussions, resulting in the settlement
agreement.

A second case was filed by Josh Christensen in the fourth quarter
of 2014 in Federal Court in Texas alleging that individuals
treated as independent contractors should have been classified as
employees and, as such, are entitled to assert claims for alleged
violations of the FLSA (similar to the claims asserted in the
Davida matter). Five additional plaintiffs joined this litigation
after it was filed. In March of 2015, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification. Counsel
for the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling and have now filed
individual cases for each of the original opt-in plaintiffs plus
two new plaintiffs, leaving a total of eight independent
contractor cases pending.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, the same counsel representing the
plaintiffs in the Davida and Christiansen-related cases filed two
additional individual FLSA cases on behalf of former fluid service
technician employees. These cases are similar in nature to the
Davida case.

The Company said, "Beginning in November 2015, we engaged in
settlement discussions with counsel for the plaintiffs in the
pending wage and hour litigation cases. . . .  Following mediation
in January of 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement in
April 2016 to settle all of the pending matters, subject to a
number of conditions, including approval by the Court in the
Davida case, and the dismissal of the other FLSA cases
(Christiansen-related lawsuits and individual FLSA cases). Subject
to these conditions, current and former fluid service technician
employees that are eligible for the settlement will be notified of
the pending resolution and given an opportunity to participate in
the settlement. The amount paid to any eligible individual will
vary based on a formula that takes into account the number of
workweeks and salary for the individual during the time period
covered by the settlement (which can vary based upon several
factors). Any eligible individual that elects to participate in
the settlement will release all wage and hour claims against the
Company."

"As a result of the settlement negotiations, we recognized a $5.0
million charge in the fourth quarter of 2015 related to the
pending resolution of these wage and hour litigation claims. We
expect to fund the settlement amount with installment payments
in the third and fourth quarters of 2016, subject to the
conditions. . . .  The settlement fund will be administered by a
third party who will make payments to eligible individuals that
elect to participate in accordance with a formula incorporated
into the settlement agreement. In addition, under the terms of the
settlement agreement, if settlement funds remain after all
payments are made to eligible individuals that elect to
participate in the settlement, such excess amount will be shared
by the participating individuals and Newpark Drilling Fluids. The
amount of excess funds, if any, is not currently determinable."


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "David" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group, Inc. The case is
styled Fraidy David, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Northland Group, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04383 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2016).

Northland Group is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued
----------------------------------------------------------
According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 8, 2016,
in the lawsuit styled Dennis Ceragioli, the Plaintiff, v.
Northwest Collectors Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07706
(N.D. Ill.), class certification is entered and continued to the
date of the initial status hearing. No appearance required on
August 9, 2016.  The Hon. Sara L. Ellis presides over the case.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lA9rN3mq


OMNICARE INC: Aug. 23 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Pension Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the district court is
scheduled to hear oral argument on Omnicare's motion to dismiss on
August 23, 2016.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26.

The consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of
its officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought
on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock
from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all
purchasers who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in
Omnicare's public offering in December 2005. The complaint alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among other things,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief. After dismissals and
appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, the United States Supreme Court remanded the case to the
district court.

In October 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a
third amended complaint. In December 2015, Omnicare filed a motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint. The district court
is scheduled to hear oral argument on Omnicare's motion to dismiss
on August 23, 2016.


OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Vaccaro Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs in the
Enrico Vaccaro class action lawsuit have filed an amended class
action complaint.

On October 21, 2015, plaintiff Enrico Vaccaro, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of New Source Energy Partners,
L.P. ("NSLP") 11% Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Units
("NSLP Complaint"). Plaintiff named as defendants NSLP, as well as
certain officers and directors of NSLP, and underwriters
Oppenheimer, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Robert W. Baird &
Co. Inc., Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, and Wunderlich Securities,
Inc. Plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act pursuant to and/or traceable to NSLP's
prospectus supplement and accompanying prospectus, filed with the
SEC on May 7, 2015, and the base prospectus and shelf registration
statement filed with the SEC and declared effective on April 21,
2014 ("NSLP Offering Documents"). The NSLP Complaint alleged that
the NSLP Offering Documents failed to disclose certain cash flow
problems facing NSLP and sought damages, equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On or around November 13, 2015, the defendants removed the state
court action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("SDNY"). On or around March 30, 2016, NSLP
filed with the SDNY notice of its March 15, 2016 voluntary
petition for relief under chapter 7 title 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, which operates as an automatic stay of the claims
as to NSLP.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint ("NSLP Amended Complaint"), which seeks unspecified
damages, including interest, punitive and exemplary damages, as
well as rescission.

Underwriter Defendants, including Oppenheimer, believe they have
meritorious defenses to the NSLP Amended Complaint.


OSRAM SYLVANIA: August 31 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
A proposed Canada-wide Settlement has been negotiated in class
actions relating to the marketing and sales of Osram Sylvania
Premium Automotive Lighting.  If approved by the Courts,
this Settlement will provide benefits to purchasers of the
following "Covered Products":

   -- SilverStar ULTRA, SilverStar, XtraVision, or Cool Blue
replacement headlight capsules;

   -- SilverStar, XtraVision, or Cool Blue sealed beam headlights;
or

   -- SilverStar fog or auxiliary lights.

You may be a Class Member if you purchased a Covered Product in
Canada from September 22, 2005 until December 31, 2014.

The lawsuits claim that Osram Sylvania, Inc., Osram Sylvania
Products, Inc. and Osram Sylvania, Ltd. ("Sylvania")
misrepresented that certain replacement automotive lighting is
brighter, provides a wider beam and allows drivers to see farther
down the road than standard halogen lighting.  It also claims that
Sylvania omitted material information regarding the reduced life
of the replacement lighting.  Sylvania denies that it did anything
wrong.  The Courts did not decide which side was right. Instead,
the parties have decided to settle.

A Settlement Amount of not less than CDN $1,150,000 (the
"Settlement Fund Minimum") and not more than CDN $1,750,000 (the
"Settlement Cap Maximum") is intended to pay claims to eligible
Class Members, Notice Costs, Claims Administration Fees and
Expenses, Class Counsel Fees and Expenses, and Honorarium Awards
to the Representative Plaintiffs.  In addition, Sylvania has
also modified certain product(s) packaging. Full details about the
Settlement are available on the Settlement Website at
www.autolightclaims.ca

Individual Class Member may qualify for Compensation for one of
the following, irrespective of how many products have been
purchased:

Covered Products        Initial Amount      Maximum Amount
SilverStar ULTRA,
SilverStar, XtraVision,
or Cool Blue replacement
headlight capsule           $12.00              $24.00

SilverStar, XtraVision,
or Cool Blue sealed
beam headlights             $12.00              $24.00

Pre-Approval Notice
SilverStar fog or
auxiliary lights            $12.00              $24.00

For each Claimant who submits a valid Claim, payment as described
above will be issued, so long as providing such Compensation does
not exceed the Settlement Cap Maximum.  If providing
each Claimant with such Compensation will exceed the Settlement
Cap Maximum, then in such circumstances each Claimant's
Compensation shall be reduced on a pro-rata basis.

To receive Compensation, eligible Class Members must submit a
Claim Form to the Claims Administrator through the Settlement
Website, by email, or by mail.  The Claim Form only takes
3-5 minutes to complete.  No proof of purchase is necessary.

The Claim Form is already available on the Settlement Website at
www.autolightclaims.ca or you can obtain one by contacting the
Claims Administrator at 1-855-745-7374.  You should act as quickly
as possible, ideally you should do so before the date of the
Settlement Approval Hearings, which will further extend the
deadline.  A definite Claim Deadline will be set if and when the
Settlement is approved by the Courts. Please consult the
Settlement Website for an update of the delays that will be set by
the Courts.

If you are a Class Member, you may (1) send in a Claim Form; (2)
object to the settlement; (3) exclude yourself (Opt-Out); or (4)
do nothing.

If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
opt-out.  To do so, you must complete and submit an Opt-Out Form
to the Claims Administrator.  The manner in which you opt-out is
available on the form found on the Settlement Website; the delay
to do so will be set by the Courts.  Residents of Quebec must in
addition give notice to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Quebec.
Anyone who opts out cannot object to the Settlement, will not be
bound by the Settlement
Agreement, and will not be eligible to claim benefits under the
Agreement, but may be eligible to pursue an individual claim.

To object to or to make representations regarding this proposed
Settlement, you must attend one of the Settlement Approval
Hearings.  You should also notify the Claims Administrator in
writing through the website, by email or by mail at least 15-days
before the hearing and provide your reasons summarily.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of
Quebec will hold hearings to consider whether to approve the
Settlement. Each of the Courts must be satisfied that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of Class
Members.

Settlement Approval Hearings have been scheduled as follows:
Ontario Action (for Canadian residents other than Quebec) - August
31, 2016 at 9:30 A.M. at the Courthouse located at 1023 King St.,
L'Orignal, Ontario.

Quebec Action (for Quebec residents) - August 30, 2016 at 9:15
A.M. at the Montreal Courthouse located at 1 Notre-Dame St. East,
Montreal, Quebec.

Please check the Settlement Website to confirm these dates, as
they are subject to change.  You do not have to attend the
hearings but you may do so if you wish.  However, you must do so
if you wish to object or make representations regarding the
Settlement.

Cheques will only begin to be mailed to eligible Class Members for
Compensation at the earliest starting on January 29, 2017,
assuming that the Settlement is approved and that such
order/judgment has become final and binding.

You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement and detailed
information on how to obtain or file a Claim, Opt-Out or Object on
the Settlement Website at www.autolightclaims.ca
For any other information, please contact the Claims Administrator
at:

Bruneau Group Inc.
Nelson P.O. 20187 - 322 Rideau St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 5Y5
Tel: 1-855-745-7374
Email: info@autolightclaims.ca

Class Counsel, or the law firms representing the Plaintiffs, are
the following:

Consumer Law Group P.C.
251 Laurier Ave. West, Suite 900
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J6
jorenstein@clg.org

Consumer Law Group Inc.
1030 rue Berri, Suite 102
Montreal, Quebec H2L 4C3
agrass@clg.org

The Courts will also consider a request from Class Counsel for
counsel fees, disbursements and taxes.  Class Counsel has pursued
this lawsuit wholly on a contingency basis and has agreed that
they would only be paid their legal fees if there was a Settlement
or recovery following a successful outcome.  They will seek
approval from the Courts of $525,000 plus applicable taxes,
which will be paid for from the Settlement Amount.  The Plaintiffs
will also seek honorarium payments of $5,000 each.

To remain updated and to find out the deadlines to file a claim or
opt-out, please consult the Settlement Website.

This Notice has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice and the Superior Court of Quebec.


PARK PLUS: "Dorie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohan Dorie, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Park Plus Valet Service LLC, Case No. 605034/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Park Plus Valet Service LLC owns and operates a valet services
company located at 124-10 S Conduit Ave., South Ozone Park, NY
11420.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


PETERSAN LEGAL TEMPS: "Hoffman" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hoffman, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Petersan Legal Temps, Inc. D/B/A The Petersan Group,
Sandrea Friedman, in her individual capacity, Peter Goldfeder, in
his individual capacity, and Peter Gosule, in his individual
capacity, Defendants., Case No. 1:16-cv-06175 (S.D.N.Y., August 4,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and
the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendant provides recruiting and staffing services for the legal
profession in New York State with principal executive offices as
1450 Broadway #1501, New York, New York, 10018 with Peter
Goldfeder is owner and Chief Executive Officer and Friedman and
Gosule as managing partners. Plaintiff was hired in a sales and
administrative position.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Ledkovsky, Esq.
      CHARNY & ASSOCIATES
      9 West Market Street
      Rhinebeck, NY 12572
      Tel: (845) 876-7500
      Fax: (845) 876-7501
      Email: ncharny@charnyandassociates.com
             eledkovsky@charnyandassociates.com


PHH CORP: Faces "Munoz" Suit in Eastern Dist. of North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against PHH Corp. The case is captioned
Efrain Munoz, Leona Lovette, Stephanie Melani, John Hoffman, and
Daniel Maga, II, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Movants, v. PHH Corp, PHH Mortgage Corp.,
PHH Home Loans, LLC, and Atrium Insurance Corp., the Respondents,
Case No. 5:16-mc-00032-RN (E.D.N.C., Aug. 5, 2016). The assigned
Magistrate Judge is Hon. Robert T. Numbers, II.

PHH Corporation is an American financial services corporation
headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey which provides mortgage
services to some of the world's largest financial services firms.

The Movants appear pro se.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: "Yaqoob" Seeks Damages for Loss of Earnings
-------------------------------------------------------------
RASHID YAQOOB, 2602 Society Place Newtown, PA 18940, v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, 1515 Arch Street, 14 Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102,
the Defendant, Case No. 160701981 (Phil. Cty. Ct., July 20, 2016),
seeks to recover damages including financial expenses, damages
and/or losses, including but not limited to loss of earnings,
earning capacity and/or medical expenses, as well as further non-
economic losses.

On June 23, 2015, at 6:00 P.M., the Plaintiff was sitting in his
car at or near 1379 Pratt Street and 5200 Penn St in Philadelphia,
PA 19124, when a tree located on and of McHvain Playground a/k/a
Frankford Playground fell on his car. Mcllvain is
owned/controlled/possessed/maintained by the City of Philadelphia.
The incident resulted in Plaintiff sustaining severe and permanent
orthopedic and neurological injuries.

As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff will continue to
sustain medical bills, surgical costs, hospital charges for the
remainder of his life, all to his great and continuing detriment
and loss.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter C. Bowers, Esq.
          Alexander J. Ginsburg, Esq.
          PETER BOWERS, P.C.
          441 North 5 Street, Suite 201
          Philadelphia, PA 19123
          Telephone: (215) 440 0300
          Facsimile: (215) 440 8390
          E-mail: peter@peterbowerspc.com
                  alex@peterbowerspc.com
                  civil@peterbowerspc.com


PORSCHE FINANCIAL: Faces "Cox" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Porsche Financial Services, Inc.
The case is captioned Steven Michael Cox, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Porsche
Financial Services, Inc., Porsche Leasing Ltd., and Porsche Cars
North America, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23409-DPG
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 8, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Darrin P.
Gayles.

Porsche Financial provides leasing and financing products for
Porsche in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Peter Weil, Esq.
          Mark A Schweikert, Esq.
          RONALD WEIL PA
          Wachovia Financial Center Suite 900
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372 5352
          Facsimile: (305) 372 5355
          E-mail: RWeil@weilquaranta.net
                  mschweikert@shb.com


PORTER MCGUIRE: Faces "Brown" Suit in District of Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Porter McGuire Kiakona & Chow,
LLP. The case is captioned Benita J. Brown, Kristine Connelly, and
Craig Connelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Porter McGuire Kiakona & Chow, LLP, a
Hawai'i limited liability partnership, as individual entities;
Ekimoto & Morris, LLLC a Hawai'i limited liability law company, as
individual entities; AOAO Terrazza/Corbella/Las Brisas/Tiburon, as
individual entities and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; The Association of Apartment Owners of
Terrazza/Cortbella/Las Brisas/Tiburon; AOAO Ko Olina Kai Golf
Estates and Villas, a Hawai'i corporation, as individual entities
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Association of
Apartment Owners of Ko Olina Kai Golf Estates and Villas; and Doe
Defendants 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00448-KJM-NONE
(D. Haw., Aug. 10, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon.
Kenneth J. Mansfield.

Porter McGuire is a law firm with extensive experience and
knowledge in condominium and community association law, and real
estate, construction, and commercial litigation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chanelle M.C. Fujimotom, Esq.
          Michael L. Iosua, Esq.
          Steven K.S. Chung, Esq.
          IMANAKA ASATO, LLLC
          Amfac Center Hawaii Tower
          745 Fort St 17th Floor
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: 521-9500
          Facsimile: 541-9050
          E-mail: cfujimoto@imanaka-asato.com
                  miosua@imanaka-asato.com
                  Eschung@imanaka-asato.com


QUALITY DINING: "Cicero" Suit to Recover Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Cicero, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Quality Dining, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00512, (N.D. Ind., August 4, 2016), seeks payment of
unpaid minimum wages, prejudgement interest, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and all other
appropriate relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates 46 Chili's Grill and Bar franchise restaurants
all over the U.S. where Plaintiff worked as a server in their
Delran, New Jersey location.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward J. Chester, Esq.
      CHESTER LAW OFFICE
      230 N. Main St., Suite 2
      Elkhart, IN 46516
      Tel: (574) 296-1515
      Fax: (574) 295-9316
      Email: ed@chesterlawoffice.com

             - and -

      Jerry Martin, Esq.
      Seth Hyatt, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN AND GARRISON LLC
      414 Union St., Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219

             - and -

      Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      R. Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      Mark Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Rd #211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Tel: (215) 884-2491
      Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


QUALITY SYSTEMS: No Oral Argument Yet in Securities Case Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that oral argument has not
yet been scheduled in the Plaintiffs' appeal in a federal
securities class action.

The Company said, "On November 19, 2013, a putative class action
complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company
other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California by one of our shareholders. After the court
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and
recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which
is substantially similar to the "Hussein Litigation," generally
alleges that statements made to our shareholders regarding our
financial condition and projected future performance were false
and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that
the individual defendants are liable for such statements because
they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and
attorneys' fees."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20,
2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the
complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order, which the court denied on
January 5, 2015.

"On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In
re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173.

"Plaintiffs filed their opening brief and we answered. Oral
argument is not yet scheduled.

"We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
continue to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are
unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if
any, related to this claim."


RAWLINGS COMPANY: Perez Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------
Ms. Catherine Perez moves the Court to certify a class in the
lawsuit styled CATHERINE PEREZ, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE RAWLINGS COMPANY,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1065 (E.D. Wis.).

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u54ZWlvM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Wins Final Judgment in Stockholders Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2016, that the court
has granted final judgment in favor of the Company and all other
defendants in the stockholder litigation.

On May 4, 2015 the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System vs. Rayonier
Advanced Materials Inc., Paul G. Boynton, Frank A. Ruperto and
Benson K. Woo.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 11, 2015
and, subsequently, the case against Mr. Ruperto was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs. The case is a purported class action
alleging securities laws violations, primarily related to claims
the Company failed to record adequate environmental liabilities
related to disposed operations, which the plaintiffs allege led to
a decrease in the Company's stock price between June 30, 2014 and
January 28, 2015.

The allegations are couched as violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and as violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended
consolidated complaint in its entirety and, at a hearing on April
20, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint, but allowed plaintiffs the opportunity to
file another amended complaint by a deadline set by the court.

The plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint by the court-
imposed deadline and did not appeal the court's April 20 dismissal
of the complaint. Pursuant to a stipulation agreed upon by the
parties, on July 25, 2016 the court granted final judgment in
favor of the Company and all other defendants. No money was paid
to the plaintiffs or their counsel in connection with the
dismissal of the case and final judgment.


RED GRANITE: Owner Misappropriated Money, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that on the heels of a forfeiture
action linked to the 2013 film "The Wolf of Wall Street," Riza
Aziz, owner of Red Granite Pictures and stepson of Malaysian prime
minister Najib Razak, faces a federal class action in Manhattan
saying he misappropriated money from a sovereign wealth fund of
Malaysia.


REVLON INC: 5 Class Suits Filed over Elizabeth Arden Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that following Revlon,
Inc.'s and Products Corporation's announcement of the execution of
the Merger Agreement by and among Revlon, Inc., Products
Corporation, Acquisition Sub and Elizabeth Arden, pursuant to
which, among other things, Acquisition Sub will merge with and
into Elizabeth Arden, five putative shareholder class action
lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit have been filed challenging the
Merger.

On June 24, 2016, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
(Parker v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc. et al., Case No. CACE-16-011781)
(referred to as the "Parker complaint") was filed in the Circuit
Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida against Elizabeth Arden, the members of Elizabeth
Arden's board of directors, Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation.
In general, the Parker complaint alleges that: (i) the members of
Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Elizabeth Arden's shareholders by, among other things,
approving the Merger pursuant to an allegedly unfair process and
at an allegedly inadequate and unfair price; and (ii) Elizabeth
Arden, Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's
board of directors. The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the Merger,
compensatory damages, rescissory damages in the event the Merger
is consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On June 29, 2016, a putative shareholder class action and
derivative lawsuit (Christiansen v. Rh“ne Capital L.L.C. et al.,
Case No. CACE-16-011746) (referred to as the "Christiansen
complaint") was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida against Rh“ne
Capital L.L.C. ("Rh“ne"), Nightingale Onshore Holdings L.P. and
Nightingale Offshore Holdings L.P. (collectively, "Nightingale"),
the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of directors, Revlon, Inc.
and Products Corporation. In general, the Christiansen complaint
alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the holders of
Elizabeth Arden's common stock and to Elizabeth Arden by, among
other things, approving the Merger pursuant to a flawed process
that placed the interests of the holders of Elizabeth Arden's
preferred stock ahead of the interests of Elizabeth Arden and the
holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock; (ii) Rh“ne and
Nightingale, an alleged controlling shareholder of Elizabeth
Arden, breached its alleged fiduciary duties to the holders of
Elizabeth Arden common stock and to Elizabeth Arden by forcing
Elizabeth Arden to agree to the allegedly unfair terms of the
Merger; and (iii) Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth
Arden's board of directors to the holders of Elizabeth Arden
common stock and to Elizabeth Arden. The plaintiff seeks, among
other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the
Merger, a declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into
in breach of the fiduciary duties owed to Elizabeth Arden and
holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock by the members of
Elizabeth Arden's board of directors, Rh“ne, and Nightingale, and
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 19, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit (Ross v.
Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-16-013220) (referred
to as the "Ross complaint") was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida
against Elizabeth Arden, the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of
directors, Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation. In general the
Ross complaint alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Elizabeth
Arden's public shareholders by, among other things, approving the
Merger pursuant to an allegedly inadequate and unfair sale process
and at an allegedly inadequate and unfair price depriving
Elizabeth Arden's public shareholders of the true value of their
investment and diverting consideration to themselves; and (ii)
Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation knowingly assisted, and
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of
Elizabeth Arden's board of directors. The plaintiff seeks, among
other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the
Merger, compensatory damages or rescissory damages in the event
the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On July 25, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit (Stein v. Rh“ne
Capital L.L.C., et al., Case No. CACE-16-013580) (referred to as
the "Stein complaint") was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida
against Rh“ne, Nightingale, the members of Elizabeth Arden's board
of directors, Revlon, Inc. and Products Corporation. In general,
the Stein complaint alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth
Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock by, among other things,
approving the Merger pursuant to an allegedly flawed process and
placing the interests of the holders of Elizabeth Arden's
preferred stock over those of the holders of Elizabeth Arden
common stock; (ii) Rh“ne and Nightingale, an alleged controlling
shareholder of Elizabeth Arden, breached its alleged fiduciary
duties to the holders of Elizabeth Arden common stock by
compelling Elizabeth Arden and the members of Elizabeth Arden's
board of directors to approve the Merger and agree to allegedly
unfavorable terms in the Merger Agreement; and (iii) Revlon, Inc.
and Products Corporation aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of
directors, Rh“ne and Nightingale to the detriment of Elizabeth
Arden's public shareholders. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the Merger,
a declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach
of the fiduciary duties of the members of Elizabeth Arden's board
of directors, Rh“ne and Nightingale, rescission of the Merger
Agreement to the extent already implemented, and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company believes the allegations contained in the Parker
complaint, the Christiansen complaint, the Ross complaint, the
Hutchinson complaint and the Stein complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.


RICHARD SOKOLOFF: Faces "Ozone" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Richard Sokoloff, Attorney at
Law. The case is captioned Raymond Ozone, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Richard Sokoloff,
Attorney at Law, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04410 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 8, 2016).

Richard Sokoloff Attorney At Law is a law firm.

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


RUSHMORE LOAN: Bovin et al. Seek Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven Bovin and Lori Bovin move the Court to certify a class in
the lawsuit styled STEVEN BOVIN and LORI BOVIN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,
v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 16-
cv-1055 (E.D. Wis.).

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MIqc3iNA

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUSSAW TRANSPORT: "Mendenhall" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Donnie Mendenhall, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Russaw Transport, LLC and Steve
Russaw, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-285, (W.D.
Tex., August 3, 2016), seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated
damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, attorneys'
fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such
other and further relief as may be necessary.

Russaw Transport, LLC is a Texas-based corporation owned by Steve
Russaw where Plaintiff worked as a driver. He claims to be
misclassified as an independent contractor thus denied overtime
pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jay Forester, Esq.
     Lee & Braziel, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010


SABRE CORPORATION: NY Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has granted,
in part, the Company's motion to dismiss a consumer class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed against us and two other GDSs, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative class
of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that the
GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines,
resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of
various federal and state laws. The plaintiffs sought an
unspecified amount of damages in connection with their state law
claims, and they requested injunctive relief in connection with
their federal claim."

"In July 2016, the court granted, in part, our motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for
damages. The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking
an injunction under federal antitrust law. The plaintiffs may
appeal the court's dismissal of their state law claims upon a
final judgment. We may incur significant fees, costs and expenses
for as long as this litigation is ongoing. We intend to vigorously
defend against the remaining claims."


SANDBOX LOGISTICS: "Power" Suit to Recover Backpay, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Power and Cody Fruge, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Sandbox Logistics, LLC,
a Texas limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01978 (D. Colo., August 3, 2016), seeks to recover backpay,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
service awards, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, pre-
judgment, post-judgment and moratory interest, liquidated damages
and/or statutory penalties and such other and further relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Sandbox is an oilfield service company delivering sand to drilling
sites at locations in Texas, Colorado, West Virginia and North
Dakota. Plaintiff worked for Sandbox providing inspection, yard
hand and forklift services in Weld County, Colorado. He claims to
be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SELECT COMFORT: Azimpour Seeks Leave to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiff in the
Saeid Azimpour class suit lawsuit has filed a motion seeking leave
to file an amended complaint.

On December 4, 2015, Saeid Azimpour, a consumer, filed a purported
class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota alleging
he was fraudulently induced to purchase a down alternative pillow
at a Sleep Number store based on signage that indicated that the
pillow was 50% off. Plaintiff alleged that the price he paid for
the pillow was not truly 50% off the price at which Sleep Number
previously sold the pillow. Plaintiff asserted 10 causes of action
including consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, deceptive
trade practices under Minnesota law, violation of the Minnesota
false advertising law, unjust enrichment, violation of the
California unfair competition law, violation of the California
false advertising law and violation of the California remedies
act. Plaintiff sought to represent all individuals who "purchased
one or more items from the Company advertised or priced at a
discount from the original retail price at any time between
December 1, 2011 and present." Plaintiff sought injunctive relief,
damages, disgorgement and attorneys' fees.

On June 13, 2016, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice.
On July 13, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file
an amended complaint.

"We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend this case," the Company said.


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bacardi" Suit in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
The case is captioned Kimberly Bacardi, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., doing business as SPS, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-23381-RNS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Robert N. Scola, Jr.

Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as
Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah
and Jacksonville, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Court Edward Keeley, Esq.
          Jacobs Keeley, Esq.
          169 East Flagler Street, Suite 1620
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 7991
          Keeley@Jakelegal.com

               - and -

          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          Jack Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 692 6013
          E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com
                  darren@cloorg.com

               - and -

          James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463 2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463 2103
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


SHIVA ESTATE: Class Certification Sought in "Jaffer" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned FATIMA JAFFER, on her own
behalf and others similarly situated v. SHIVA ESTATE, Inc., Case
No. 8:16-cv-02248-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla.), moves for conditional
certification and facilitation of Court-authorized notice.

The Case is a collective action to enforce the overtime and
minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Ms.
Jaffer contends that she filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself
and all others similarly-situated alleging that she and the other
hourly-paid laborers at the Defendant's Winter Haven, Florida
facility were deprived of proper overtime wages and unpaid wages
by virtue of the Defendant requiring them to work without
compensation for all of the hours worked to the full extent
provide by law.

Shiva Estate is a domestic, for-profit Corporation that operates
hotel(s), including but not limited to operating offices and at
least one location in Winter Haven, Florida.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esg.
          LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, PA
          Bank of America Building
          2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

               - and -

          Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 4476
          Brandon, FL 33509-4476
          Telephone: (813) 343-2813
          E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


SOUTHERN COPPER: Denies Allegations in Lacey-Siegried Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has
filed a response denying allegations in the case, Carla Lacey and
Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and
derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation.

A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in
February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of
MGE by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de
C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM
Capitalization"), the Company's entry into a power purchase
agreement with MGE in 2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"),
and the 2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican
Operations to MGE for the construction of two power plants to
supply power to the Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan
Restructuring"). The action purports to be brought on behalf of
the Company and its common stockholders. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power
Purchase Agreement and the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result
of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company's charter. The
Company has filed a response denying these allegations.


SPRING LIVING: "Thomas" Wants to Recover Withheld Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
OFELIA THOMAS, an individual v. SPRING LIVING, INC., a
corporation; TRINIDAD TRINIDAD, an individual and DOES I through
50, inclusive, Case No. BC630063 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., August 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff,
those similarly situated, and the general public to restore monies
withheld, acquired, or converted by the Company, including wages
earned and unpaid.

The Plaintiff also alleges sex discrimination and harassment.

Spring Living is a corporation with headquarters and principal
place of business located in California.  Trinidad Trinidad is an
adult resident of the County of Los Angeles, in California.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.  The Company's primary business consists of providing
various services, including housing, food, clothing, medical care,
transportation and close supervision for its developmentally
disabled clientele.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen F. Danz, Esq.
          STEPHEN DANZ & ASSOCIATES
          11661 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 207-4568
          Facsimile: (310) 388-0529
          E-mail: sfdanz@aol.com

               - and -

          Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN I. VOGEL
          572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
          Pasadena, CA 911 0 1
          Telephone: (626) 796-7470
          Facsimile: (626) 796-7474
          E-mail: Vogellawfirm@yahoo.com


ST LOUIS COUNTY: 13 Cities Sued Over De Facto Debtors' Prisons
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in St. Louis accuses 13 St. Louis County
cities of putting black people in de facto debtors' prisons
because they can't afford to pay traffic tickets and fines for
other petty offenses.

Quinton Thomas and 12 other named plaintiffs sued St. Ann,
Edmundson, Normandy, Cool Valley, Velda City, Beverly Hills,
Pagedale, Calverton Park, St. John, Bel-Ridge, Wellston, Velda
Village Hills and Bellefontaine Neighbors. All are in north St.
Louis County.

"In 2015 alone, the defendant municipalities issued an average of
1.7 arrest warrants per household and one (1) arrest warrant for
every adult, mostly for allegedly unpaid debt in connection with
tickets supposedly involving traffic violations and other petty
offenses," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs say they were "locked in a cage" solely because
they couldn't afford cash payment for minor violations.

"And each was left to languish in filthy, often overcrowded jail
cells because he or she could not afford to pay the jacked-up
fines, penalties, and other charges that defendants assessed," the
complaint states. "Defendants did not inquire about, much less
accommodate, the hardships their extortionate demands placed on
plaintiffs and their families. Nor did defendants offer to provide
plaintiffs with counsel who could advise them of their rights or
otherwise protect them from defendants' predatory scheme."

The lawsuit mirrors a class action filed in February 2015 against
nearby Ferguson and Jennings. Those class actions spurred reforms
in those cities' courts.

The Ferguson and Jennings class actions were filed by an attorney
with Equal Justice Under Law, in Washington, D.C., in conjunction
with  St. Louis-based ArchCity Defenders, a nonprofit, and by St.
Louis University School of Law. This latest class action was filed
by Thomas Harvey with ArchCity Defenders.

All the class actions stem from the protests after Michael Brown's
death. Brown, an unarmed black man, was shot by Ferguson police
officer Darren Wilson, who is white, on Aug. 9, 2014. Protesters
voiced concerns about policing in black communities and the cities
using the court system as a revenue generator on the backs of poor
black people.

The latest class action says this "extraordinary abuse of
government authority" starts with the over-policing of poor black
communities, which causes excessive citations for traffic and
other municipal violations.

The citations are followed by "arbitrary fines, penalties,
surcharges, and interest charges that pile up like debts to a
loan-shark, arrest warrants auto-generated without good cause or
even a semblance of due process, and imprisonment -- imposed
without assistance of counsel -- in squalid debtors' prisons," the
complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim the system disproportionately targets blacks,
places their jobs at risk and leaves their children without
supervision.  They seek unspecified damages and an injunction.


STAR GAS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Star Gas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Partnership's
motion to dismiss a class action complaint has been fully briefed
and no decision has been issued yet.

On February 18, 2016, a civil action was filed in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey, entitled M. Norman
Donnenfeld v. Petro Home Services, Petro Holdings Inc. and Petro,
Inc., Civil Action Number 2:16-cv-00882 JMV-JBC, against Petro
Home Services which is a brand name, Petro Holdings Inc. and
Petro, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges he did not receive expected contractual benefits
under his protected price plan contract when oil prices fell and
asserts various claims for relief including breach of contract,
violation of the New York General Business Law and fraud. The
Plaintiff also seeks to have a class certified of all customers of
the defendants in the United States who entered into protected
price plan contracts and were denied the same contractual benefits
and to be appointed to represent them. No class has yet been
certified in this action. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory,
punitive and other damages in unspecified amounts.

On May 9, 2016, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim for relief and to strike the class action allegations. The
motion was fully briefed and submitted to the court on July 12,
2016 and no decision has been issued yet.

The Partnership believes the allegations lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend the action; at this time we cannot assess the
potential outcome or materiality of this matter.


STARZ LLC: 6 Class Actions Commenced in Delaware Chancery Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starz LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that six putative class action
complaints were commenced in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on July 19, 2016, July 21, 2016, July 26, 2016, July 27,
2016 and July 29, 2016.

The first complaint was filed on July 19, 2016, by Barbara
Freedman against Starz, Lions Gate, Merger Sub, members of the
board of directors of Starz, and John C. Malone and Robert R.
Bennett, both of whom are alleged to be controlling stockholders
of Starz. The first complaint alleges that (i) the members of
Starz's board of directors and Messrs. Malone and Bennett breached
fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders of Starz Series A
Common Stock in connection with the Merger and the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement and (ii) Lions Gate, Merger
Sub and Messrs. Malone and Bennett aided and abetted such breaches
of fiduciary duties. The first lawsuit seeks, among other things:
(i) certification as a class action; (ii) a judgment declaring
that Starz's board of directors, and Messrs. Malone and Bennett,
breached their fiduciary duties owed to Starz and Starz's Series A
unaffiliated stockholders; (iii) rescission of the proposed
Merger, or any terms thereof, to the extent already implemented,
or granting of rescissory damages; (iv) an accounting by the Starz
board of directors, and Messrs. Malone and Bennett, of the damages
the class suffered as a result of their actions with respect to
the Merger; and (v) an award of the costs and disbursements of the
action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.
The second and third complaints were filed on July 21, 2016 and
July 26, 2016, by the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System
and the City of Cambridge Retirement System, respectively. Both
complaints name the same defendants, make the same allegations,
assert the same legal claims, and seek the same relief. Both
complaints name as defendants Lions Gate, Merger Sub, the members
of the Starz board of directors, Mr. Malone, Leslie Malone, The
Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr. Bennett,
Deborah J. Bennett and Hilltop Investments, LLC ("Hilltop"). Starz
is not a named defendant in either lawsuit. Each complaint alleges
that (i) the members of Starz's board of directors breached
fiduciary duties owed to Starz and its stockholders in connection
with the Merger and the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement; (ii) Mr. Malone, as an alleged controlling stockholder
of Starz, breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz's minority
stockholders in connection with the Merger and by entering into
the Stock Exchange Agreement with Lions Gate, Merger Sub, Ms.
Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A,
Mr. Bennett, Ms. Bennett and Hilltop (the "Exchange Agreement")
and a Voting Agreement among Lions Gate and Messrs. Malone and
Bennett (the "Voting Agreement"); and (iii) Lions Gate, Merger
Sub, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone
Trust A, Deborah J. Bennett and Hilltop aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duties. Each lawsuit seeks, among other
things: (i) certification as a class action; (ii) a judgment
declaring that the board of directors of Starz and Mr. Malone
breached fiduciary duties owed to the class; (iii) a judgment
declaring that Lions Gate and Merger Sub aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duties; (iv) a judgment declaring the
Exchange Agreement is invalid and void; (v) an injunction to
prevent the Merger from proceeding; (v) alternatively, if the
Merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory or other
compensatory damages; and (vi) an award of the costs and
disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and experts' fees.

The fourth complaint was filed on July 26, 2016, by the Firemen's
Retirement System of St. Louis against Lions Gate, Merger Sub, the
members of the Starz board of directors, Mr. Malone, Ms. Malone,
The Tracy L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr.
Bennett, Ms. Bennett and Hilltop. The fourth complaint alleges
that (i) the members of Starz's board of directors breached
fiduciary duties owed to Starz's stockholders in connection with
the Merger, (ii) Mr. Malone, as an alleged controlling stockholder
of Starz, breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz's minority
stockholders by effectuating the Merger; (iii) Lions Gate and
Merger Sub, as parties to the Merger, aided and abetted in such
breaches of fiduciary duties; and (iv) by entering into the
Exchange Agreement and the Voting Agreement, Ms. Malone, The Tracy
L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr. Bennett, Ms.
Bennett and Hilltop aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties of the members of Starz's board of directors. The
fourth lawsuit seeks injunctive relief: (i) declaring that the
action is a proper class action and certifying the Firemen's
Retirement System of St. Louis as the class representative; (ii)
declaring that the members of Starz's board of directors and Mr.
Malone breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the class;
(iii) declaring that Lions Gate and Merger Sub aided and abetted
in the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; (iv) enjoining the
defendants from proceeding with the Merger; (v) directing the
members of Starz's board of directors to exercise their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction that maximizes stockholder value;
(vi) declaring the Exchange Agreement invalid and void; (vii) if
the Merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory or other
compensatory damages; and (viii) an award of the costs and
disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and experts' fees.

The fifth complaint was filed on July 27, 2016 by the Norfolk
County Retirement System against Starz, Lions Gate, Merger Sub,
members of the board of directors of Starz, Mr. Malone, Ms.
Malone, Tracey L. Neal Trust A, Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr.
Bennett, Ms. Bennett, Hilltop, and LionTree Advisors LLC
("LionTree"). The fifth complaint alleges that (i) Mr. Malone, as
an alleged controlling stockholder of Starz, and as a director and
alleged significant stockholder of Lions Gate, violated his
fiduciary duty of loyalty owed to Starz's public stockholders in
connection with the proposed Merger; (ii) Mr. Malone, Starz Chief
Executive Officer Chris Albrecht, and the members of the board of
directors of Starz breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and its
stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger; (iii) Lions
Gate, as a party to the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and Merger Sub, as a party
to the Merger Agreement, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties; (iv) LionTree, by virtue of its position as
financial advisor in connection with the proposed Merger, aided
and abetted in the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; (iv) as
parties to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement,
Ms. Malone, Tracey L. Neal Trust A, Evan D. Malone Trust A, Mr.
Bennett, Ms. Bennett, and Hilltop aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The fifth lawsuit seeks, among other
things: (i) certification as a class action; (ii) an injunction
preventing the Starz board of directors and Mr. Malone from
proceeding with the proposed Merger under its current terms; (iii)
a declaration that the proposed Merger is not entirely fair and
that the Starz board of directors and Mr. Malone have breached
their fiduciary duties and therefore the Merger Agreement and
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are unlawful and
unenforceable; (iv) if the Merger is consummated, rescission of
the transaction or an award of damages to the class; (v) a
requirement that the Starz board of directors and Mr. Malone fully
disclose material information regarding the Merger; (vi) the
establishment of equitable quasi-appraisal rights for dissenting
Starz shareholders; (vii) a requirement that the board of
directors of Starz explore strategic alternatives to the proposed
Merger; (viii) an accounting by the defendants of the damages the
class allegedly suffered as a result of defendants' alleged
unlawful conduct; (ix) an award of the costs and disbursements of
the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
fees.

The sixth complaint was filed on July 29, 2016 by the City of
Providence against Starz, Lions Gate, Merger Sub, members of the
board of directors of Starz, Mr. Malone, Mr. Bennett, and Mark
Rachesky, the Chairman of Lions Gate. The sixth complaint alleges
that (i) Mr. Malone, as an alleged controlling stockholder of
Starz, and the members of the board of Starz, breached fiduciary
duties owed to Starz's shareholders in connection with the
proposed Merger; and (ii) Mr. Bennett, Mr. Rachesky, Lions Gate,
and Merger Sub aided and abetted both Mr. Malone and the Starz
board of directors in breaching their fiduciary duties, while Mr.
Malone aided and abetted the Starz board of directors in breaching
its fiduciary duties. The sixth lawsuit seeks, among other things:
(i) certification as a class action; (ii) a declaration that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted
such breaches; (iii) a declaration that the proposed Merger and
other transactions contemplated by the merger are unlawful and
unenforceable; (iv) an accounting by the defendants of the damages
the class allegedly suffered as a result of defendants' alleged
wrongful actions; (v) compensatory damages; and (vi) an award of
the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

Starz intends to defend the actions vigorously.


STONE & TILE: Faces "Cohetero" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Stone and Tile Inc. The case is
captioned Daniel Cohetero, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Stone and Tile Inc.,
Jointly and Severally; Y & L NY Interiors Inc., Jointly and
Severally; Granite Realty Corp., Jointly and Severally; Lazer
Mechlovitz, Jointly and Severally; and Nachman Mechlovitz, Jointly
and Severally, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04420 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 8, 2016).

Stone and Tile sells natural stone tiles and mosaics.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SUBWAY 39077: "Aguiar" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yirandi Aguiar, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Subway 39077 Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
individually and Timothy E. Johnson, Individually, the Defendant,
Case No. 16-016258-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-
cv-23399-RNS to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Robert
N. Scola, Jr.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 2150
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 808 2100
          Facsimile: (305) 808 2101
          E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com


TED BAKER: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Ted Baker Limited, Inc. The case
is captioned Andres Gomez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ted Baker Limited,
Inc., doing business as Ted Baker, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-23370-KMW (S.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
Kathleen M. Williams.

Ted Baker is a British luxury clothing retail company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos R. Diaz, Esq.
          STEWART, MURRAY &
          ASSOC. LAW GROUP, LLC
          437 Grant Street, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 765 3345
          Facsimile: (412) 765 3346
          E-mail: cdiaz@smalawgroup.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Registered Nurses' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company will
continue to seek to defeat class certification and vigorously
defend against the plaintiffs' allegations in the antitrust class
action lawsuit filed by registered nurses in San Antonio.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a
Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported
class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San
Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems,
including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San
Antonio regional hospitals violated Section Sec.1 of the federal
Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and
exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a
manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to
such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to
trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The case had been stayed since 2008; however, in July 2015, the
court lifted the stay and re-opened discovery.

The Company said, "We will continue to seek to defeat class
certification and vigorously defend ourselves against the
plaintiffs' allegations. Because these proceedings remain at an
early stage, it is impossible at this time to predict their
outcome with any certainty; however, we believe that the ultimate
resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on our
business, financial condition or results of operations."


TEXTPLUS INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sloatman" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Sloatman III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Textplus Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06012-BRO-SK
(C.D. Cal., August 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a
message without prior express consent of the called party.

Textplus Inc. provides cellphone use services for consumers
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


THACATTACK INC: "King" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Chrystal King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chandra Brown d/b/a The Jungle, Brad
Roberts d/b/a The Jungle, Thacattack, Inc., d/b/a The Jungle, and
Randy Preciado d/b/a The Jungle, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-171
(N.D. Tex., August 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage
and overtime compensation owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants employed Plaintiffs as entertainers at an adult
entertainment club in Amarillo known as The Jungle. Plaintiff
claims her only compensation was tips from patrons.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Collin J. Wynne, Esq.
      YOUNG & NEWSOM, PC
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Tel: (806) 331-1800
      Fax: (806) 398-9095
      Email: jyoung@youngfirm.com
             Collin@youngfirm.com


TNJ ENTERPRISES: Faces "Gomez" Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against TNJ Enterprises Inc. The case is
captioned LUINY GOMEZ, EDICKSON GARCIA, JULIAN VASQUEZ, and RAMON
HIDALGO, On behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TNJ ENTERPRISES INC., doing business
as DOMINO'S PIZZA, FRANK LAZAUSKUS, and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04824 (D.N.J., Aug. 8, 2016).

TNJ Enterprise is a bonded freight shipping and trucking company
running a freight hauling business.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


TORN & GLASSER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, "Rodriguez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IRENE RODRIGUEZ an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. TORN & GLASSER, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC630147
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 9, 2016), accuses the
Defendants of failing to provide required meal periods and rest
periods, and to pay overtime and minimum wages, among other
failures.

Torn & Glasser is a California corporation and maintains offices
and facilities in the County of Los Angeles, California.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiff at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
          Braunson C. Virjee, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310)531-1901
          E-mail: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  mgordon@maternlawgroup.com


TOTAL MERCHANT: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn in "Shulruff" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 11, 2016, in the case
styled Dr. Charles Shulruff, D.D.S. v. Total Merchant Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02386 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a
hearing held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that pursuant to a stipulation dated
May 13, 2016, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is withdrawn
without prejudice.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l3kc8NS7


TROTT LAW: Court Tossed Class Certification Bid in "Martin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David M. Lawson entered an order dismissing without
prejudice The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit
entitled BRIAN J. MARTIN, YAHMI NUNDLEY, and KATHLEEN CADEAU v.
TROTT LAW, P.C. and DAVID A. TROTT, Case No. 2:15-cv-12838-DML-DRG
(E.D. Mich.).

According to the Order, "[o]n October 19, 2015, shortly after they
filed their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
class and to set a schedule for delayed briefing on that motion.
However, on December 2, 2015, the Court stayed all discovery in
the case pending its decision on the defendants' motions to
dismiss. The Court granted in part and denied in part those
motions on July 26, 2016. On August 10, 2016, the Court held a
scheduling conference with the parties and advised them that it
would set deadlines for them to complete discovery and for the
plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for class certification, once
they have the information required properly to determine the scope
of the proposed class. The Court advised the plaintiffs that it
therefore would dismiss without prejudice their pre-discovery
class certification motion."

Judge Lawson, accordingly, ordered that the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify is dismissed without prejudice, subject to the Plaintiff's
right to file a renewed motion for class certification on or
before the deadline set by the Court.

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


TURNER OIL: Stanley et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN STANLEY, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs,
v. TURNER OIL & GAS, and PROPERTIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-00386-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for conditional certification of:

     "all current and former Petroleum Land Managers or
     individuals in a Landman position who worked for Turner at
     any location in the United States and, at any time during
     the period three years before each opts-in this action, who
     were suffered or permitted to work more than 40 hours in a
     given workweek and not compensated at a rate of one-and-one-
     half times regular hourly pay for hours worked in excess of
     40."

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs further move the Court, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for:

     (1) expedited discovery of the names and contact information
         for all members of the proposed collective action; and

     (2) authorization to send to those potential opt-in
         Plaintiffs the notice.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward R. Forman, Esq.
          Samuel M. Schlein, Esq.
          John S. Marshall, Esq.
          MARSHALL AND MORROW LLC
          250 Civic Center Dr., Suite 480
          Columbus, OH 43215-5296
          Telephone: (614) 463 9790
          Facsimile: (614) 463 9780
          E-mail: eforman@marshallandmorrow.com
                  jmarshall@marshallandmorrow.com
                   sschlein@marshallandmorrow.com

                - and -

          Matthew A. Schwartz, Esq.
          230 Durand St
          Pickerington, OH 43147
          Telephone: (614) 949 9749
          Facsimile: (614) 321 3964
          E-mail: MSchwartzLaw@Gmail.com

               - and -

          Louis A. Jacobs, Esq.
          E-mail: LAJOhio@aol.com
          177 19th St., Apt. 9C
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (614) 203 1255
          Facsimile: (510) 250 9007


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces "Wandel" Action in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative class action
lawsuit, Wandel v. Tyco International plc, et al., Docket No. C-
000010-16, was filed on March 1, 2016, in the Superior Court of
New Jersey naming Tyco, the individual members of its board of
directors, Johnson Controls and Merger Sub as defendants. The
complaint alleges that Tyco's directors breached their fiduciary
duties and exercised their powers as directors in a manner
oppressive to the public shareholders of Tyco in violation of
Irish law by, among other things, failing to take steps to
maximize shareholder value and failing to protect against
purported conflicts of interest. The complaint further alleges
that Tyco, Johnson Controls and Merger Sub aided and abetted
Tyco's directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the merger. The
Company believes that the claims asserted by the complaint are not
valid.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces "Laufer" Action in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative class action
lawsuit, Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No.
2016CV003859, was filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit Court of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming Johnson Controls, the
individual members of its board of directors, Tyco and Merger Sub
as defendants. The complaint alleges that Johnson Controls'
directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value, seeking to
benefit themselves improperly and failing to disclose material
information in this joint proxy statement/prospectus. The
complaint further alleges that Tyco aided and abetted Johnson
Controls' directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the merger. The
Company believes that the claims asserted by the complaint are not
valid.


UNILEVER UNITED: Fleming's Class Cert. Bid Is Moot, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 11, 2016, in the case
entitled Virgil Fleming, et al. v. Unilever United States, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-06117 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's original motion to
certify class is moot.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dQ2yba6K


VALVE CORP: "McLeod" Sues Over Unregulated Video Gaming
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael John McLeod, Peter Kamenkovich, Andrew Punzak, Justin
Chandler, Michael Alphin, TimothyWoelper, Daniel Kim, Ryan Ford,
Jacob Williard, Ryan Klimt, Mitchell Gunter, Jacob Phillips,
Dakota Barney, Nicholas Mora, Vincent Cianfaglione, Dylan Latvis,
Levi Ledbetter, Daniel Spann, Jake Bohl, Rahul Malhotra, Bradford
Daniels, Scott Hallman, Jared Conley, Kevin Ryan, Isaac Lynn, Sam
Keller, Dominic Allen, Samuel Joines, Nicholas Crain, Christopher
Calvi, J.J., L.O., L.L., K.M., S.S., G.G., G.L., A.D., G.M., P.L.,
P.S., A.L., N.M., and K.M. individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Valve Corporation, a
Washington corporation, CSGOLOTTO Inc., a Florida corporation,
Opskins Group, Inc., a Canadian corporation, James Varga, A Nevada
individual, Phantomlord Inc., A Nevada Corporation, CSGO Shuffle,
A European Company, Trevor A. Martin, a Florida individual, and
Thomas Cassell, California individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01227 (W.D. Wash., August 4, 2016), seeks damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, retrospective and
prospective injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of state
gambling statutes and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

Plaintiffs are parents of minors who raised concerns about the
unregulated video gaming industry of which the Defendants are into
and allege that such are bordering in illegal gambling.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
     Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
     Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
     TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
     1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 682-5600
     Fax: (206) 682-2992
     Email: KStephens@tousley.com
            jdennett@tousley.com

            - and -

     Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
     Alex C. Davis, Esq.
     Patrick Walsh, Esq.
     JONES WARD PLC
     Marion E. Taylor Building
     312 S. Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Tel. (502) 882-6000
     Fax (502) 587-2007
     Email: jasper@jonesward.com
            alex@jonesward.com
            patrick@jonesward.com

            - and -

     Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
     LAWOFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
     768 Plandome Road
     Manhasset, NY 11030
     Tel. (516) 426-6870
     Fax (212) 658-9685
     Email: pcwhalen@gmail.com

            - and -

     D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
     GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
     156 N. Main St.
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Tel. (618) 659-9833
     Fax. (618) 659-9834
     Email: todd@gorijulianlaw.com

            - and -

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, L.L.C.
     883 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Telephone (203) 610-6393
     Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
     Email: neal@urymoskow.com

            - and -

     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

            - and -

     Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
     THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
     1641 Downing Street
     Denver, CO 80218
     Tel: (303) 861-8800
     Email: khannon@hannonlaw.com
     Website: www.hannonlaw.com

            - and -

     Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
     Patrick K. Slyne, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     6 East 45th Street
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel. (212) 687-7230
     Fax. (212) 490-2022
     Email: memert@ssbny.com
            pkslyne@ssbny.com

            - and -

     Corey D. Sullivan, Esq.
     SULLIVAN LAW LLC
     1814 E Eagle Bay Drive
     Bloomington, IN 47401
     Email: corey@druginjurylegal.com
     Phone: (314) 971-9353

            - and -

     Casey Flynn, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
     6220 West Third Street, #415
     Los Angeles, CA 90036
     Email: francisflynn@gmail.com

            - and -

     Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
     Alfred M. Anthony, Esq.
     James A. Barry, Esq.
     LOCKS LAWFIRM LLC
     801 N. Kings Highway
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Tel: (856)663-8200
     Fax: (856)661-8400
     Email: abell@lockslaw.com
            aanthony@lockslaw.com
            jbarry@lockslaw.com

            - and -

     Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
     2018 Eastwood Road Suite 225
     Wilmington, NC 28403
     Telephone: (910) 292-6676
     Email: jean@jsmlawoffice.com

            - and -

     Diandra Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq.
     ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR DEBROSSE
     2332 2nd Avenue North
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Telephone: (205) 983-7985
     Email: fuli@zarzaur.com
     Website: www.zarzaur.com

            - and -

     Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
     Ryan Bruning, Esq.
     THE BRUNING LAW FIRM
     555 Washington Ave, Suite 600
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Tel: (314) 735-8100
     Fax: (314) 735-8020
     Email: tony@bruninglegal.com
            aj@bruninglegal.com
            ryan@bruninglegal.com

            - and -

     Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
     LAWOFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD
     1010 Market Street, Suite 1720
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Tel: (314) 241-5799
     Fax: (314) 241-5788
     Email: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

            - and -

     Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     1016 Palm Avenue
     West Hollywood, CA 90069
     Tel: (310) 474-9111
     Fax: (310) 474-8585
     Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
            twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Mass. Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that oral
argument took place on July 26, 2016, in a class action appeal.

On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8
IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors as
defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding
defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May
7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the
proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the
Company's stock.

On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement
Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel
for the plaintiff and the putative class.

On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs'
opposition to its motion to dismiss.  The court heard oral
argument on the motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the
motion under advisement.

On September 30, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss. On October 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a scheduling order on
December 24, 2015. On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed their
opening brief and the Company filed its opposition brief on March
7, 2016. On March 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed their reply brief.
Oral argument on the appeal took place on July 26, 2016.

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the litigation. As of June 30, 2016, the Company
has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action.


VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Mierov" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery Services, LLC. The
case is entitled Avi Mierov, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Vital Recovery
Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04421 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 8, 2016).

Vital Recovery is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791 4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791 4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Groups File Complaints Over Emissions Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that at least 11
advocacy groups have lodged complaints with the U.S. Department of
Justice over aspects of the Volkswagen A.G. emissions settlement,
with one calling it "impermissible lawmaking" by the Obama
administration.

The $14.7 billion consent decree, reached last month, includes $2
billion in investments that Volkswagen expects to spend on zero-
emissions technology and a $2.7 billion environmental mitigation
trust designed to reduce the pollution caused by about 500,000
vehicles installed with a device to cheat emissions tests.  The
public comments made to the DOJ are separate from objections filed
in court over the settlement, which also includes $10 billion in
buybacks and other payments to Volkswagen customers.

Aug. 5 was the deadline to file a complaint with the DOJ.

In one filing, 10 groups led by the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, a libertarian think tank that includes prominent class-
action critic Ted Frank, criticized the zero-emissions technology
investments as having no "nexus" to the Clean Water Act violations
at issue in the case.  They specifically targeted $1.2 billion of
the investments that are set to go to states other than
California.

They also said the settlement raised concerns about the separation
of powers.

"President Obama in 2011 made a promise to put 1 million electric
vehicles on the road," said William Yeatman, a senior fellow at
the Institute.  But Congress failed to pass legislation twice, he
said.  "We now have executive lawmaking through consent decree,
which raises questions regarding limits to apparent or attempted
presidential authority."

In a separate complaint, the Diesel Technology Forum, a nonprofit
organization that advocates for clean diesel technologies, said
the trust, which would provide funds for certain environmental
projects, fails to adequately reduce the nitrogen oxides emitted
by Volkswagen's vehicles.  Allen Schaeffer, the group's executive
director, said the deal prioritizes other technologies, like
electronic freight trains, over clean diesel, and gives more money
to government fleet operators, rather than commercial fleets.

"The basis for this settlement is to mitigate the excess [nitrogen
oxides] emissions from the vehicles in question regarding
Volkswagen," he said.  "We believe that the new generation of
clean diesel technology is the most effective way to do that."

The DOJ and Volkswagen did not respond to requests for comment.


WALGREEN CO: Class Atty Not Getting $370,000 Fees, 7th Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that attorneys in a shareholder action against Walgreens have no
business asking for $370,000 in fees when they won "nothing of
value" for class members and the litigation only served to enrich
class counsel, the Seventh Circuit in Chicago ruled.

In 2012, Walgreens acquired a 45 percent stake in Swiss pharmacy
Alliance Boots GmbH, with an option to acquire the rest of
Alliance's equity, which Walgreen exercised in 2014.  It then
filed a proxy statement seeking shareholder approval to reorganize
the combined company, with Walgreens becoming a wholly owned
subsidiary of a new Delaware Corporation called Walgreens Boots
Alliance.

A shareholder class action swiftly followed seeking additional
disclosures to shareholders, and the parties agreed to settle the
suit less than a month into litigation.

The settlement required Walgreens to issue several disclosures to
shareholders, and the pharmacy agreed not to oppose a $370,000
attorney's fees request.

A federal judge granted the entire fee request, but the Seventh
Circuit reversed August 10, citing the paltry benefit of the
settlement to class members.

"The disclosures agreed to in the settlement represented only a
trivial addition to the extensive disclosures already made in the
proxy statement: fewer than 800 new words - resulting in less than
a 1 percent increase - spread over six disclosures," U.S. Circuit
Judge Richard Posner said, writing for the three-judge panel.

The most significant new disclosure regarded the proposed
nomination of Barry Rosenstein to the board of directors, a man
involved in a hedge fund that had a 1.5 percent interest in
Walgreens stock.

Posner called this disclosure "worthless" because it revealed
nothing about Rosenstein's nomination except the timing of pre-
nomination consultations.

"The value of the disclosures in this case appears to have been
nil. The $370,000 paid class counsel - pennies to Walgreens,
amounting to 0.039 cents per share at the time of the merger -
bought nothing of value for the shareholders, though it spared the
new company having to defend itself against a meritless suit to
void the shareholder vote," Posner said.

The panel found it "inconceivable" that the new disclosures
increased support for the reorganization, especially when it was
approved by an overwhelming margin of 97 percent in favor.

"The district judge was handicapped by lack of guidance for
judging the significance of the disclosures to which the parties
had agreed in order to settle the class action at nominal cost to
the defendant (because class counsel's fees were small potatoes to
the giant new company and the disclosures irrelevant to the
shareholders and thus incapable of preventing the reorganization)
and sweet fees for class counsel, who devoted less than a month to
the litigation, a month's activity that produced no value," Posner
said.

He further noted that no class members have challenged the
reorganization that created Walgreens Boots Alliance.

"The only concrete interest suggested by this litigation is an
interest in attorneys' fees, which of course accrue solely to
class counsel and not to any class members," the 12-page opinion
continues.

Posner urged the lower court on remand to consider appointing new
class counsel since current counsel "can't be trusted to represent
the interests of the class."


WARREN RESOURCES: "Speiser" Sues Officers Over Misleading Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Speiser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Philip A. Epstein, Lance Peterson, and James A. Watt,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02037-CBS (D. Col. August 11, 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.

Warren Resources, Inc. is an energy company that develops and
produces onshore crude oil and natural gas reserves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian K. Matise, Esq.
      BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C.
      40 Inverness Drive
      East Englewood, CO 80112
      Telephone: (303) 792-5595
      Facsimile: (303) 708-0527
      E-mail: bmatise@burgsimpson.com

         - and -

      Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
      James S. Notis, Esq.
      Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      Tower 56 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 905-0509
      Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
      E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
              jnotis@gardylaw.com
              jsarnelli@gardylaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Sought in "Eggers" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Richard Eggers, individually and on behalf
of a putative class of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 4:14-
cv-00394-CRW-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
conditional certification of:

     "all Wells Fargo employees and conditional hires who were 40
     years of age or older at the time when Wells Fargo
     terminated them pursuant to its policy of refusing to
     sponsor Section 19 waivers and/or its policy of refusing to
     provide pre-screening notice of the opportunity to obtain a
     Section 19 waiver from November 3, 2011 to the present."

The Plaintiff further moves the Court:

     a. requiring the expedited issuance of the notice form to
        those class members and the issuance of a reminder notice
        in substantially the same from 45 days after the first
        notice is sent;

     b. setting a deadline of 90 days after the date the first
        notice is sent for which putative class members can join
        this matter;

     c. requiring Wells Fargo to provide to Plaintiff's counsel a
        list both electronically (in an Excel spreadsheet with
        each item of the employee's name and address designated
        as a separate field) and by hard copy, of all individuals
        who meet the above class description, including their
        current or last known address, e-mail address, and phone
        numbers within 15 days of the issuance of the order;

     d. tolling the statute of limitations period for the
        putative class members from the date of filing of
        Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification
        until the close of the opt-in period;

     e. designating Plaintiff Richard Eggers as class
        representative for the collective class;

     f. approving Plaintiffs' counsel to act as class counsel in
        this matter; and

     g. granting such other relief as this Court deems just and
        proper.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Newkirk, Esq.
          Leonard Bates, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C.
          515 E. Locust Street, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: 515 883 2000
          Facsimile: 515 883 2004
          E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com
                  lbates@newkirklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Giudicessi, Esq.
          Emily S. Hildebrand Pontius, Esq.
          Britt L. Teply, Esq.
          Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
          801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 447 4701
          Facsimile: (515) 248 9010
          E-mail: Michael.giudicessi@faegrebd.com
                  Emily.pontius@faegrebd.com
                  Britt.teply@faegrebd.com


WELLS FARGO: Bid for Class Certification in "Perez" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MONIQUE PEREZ, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00989-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an
order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff defines the class as:

     "All persons who at any time in the 6 years preceding the
     filing of this lawsuit through the date of disposition or
     judgment in this action who are/were employed by defendants
     (one or more of them) as a non-exempt employee in the State
     of New York and who recorded breaks of 20 minutes or less in
     duration (in workweeks in which he/she recorded at least 40
     hours of work time), but was not paid overtime compensation
     for the recorded breaks."

The Court further granted Defendants' request for leave to file
the surreply; and sustained Defendants' objections to the
admissibility to the Wills Declaration.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aqO0H4Vp


WELLS FARGO: Williams et al. Seek Certification of Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify two classes in the lawsuit
styled CARA WILLIAMS, JOHNITA SLAUGHTER, MANDRE MILLER, JAMES
COLLIER, TERESA JONES, CHANCE KENYON, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, DWANN
JONES, and LEROY FIELDS-CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs,
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00038-
CRW-SBJ (S.D. Iowa).

The Plaintiffs define the classes as:

     "Injunctive/declaratory relief class: All African American
     and Latino incumbent employees and conditional hires Wells
     Fargo has identified or will identify as those it did or
     will summarily exclude from employment due to Wells Fargo's
     Section 19 background screen policy"; and

     "Damages class: All African American and Latino incumbent
     employees and conditional hires who have been excluded from
     employment due to Wells Fargo's Section 19 background screen
     policy since November 5, 2011".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Cara Williams,
Johnita Slaughter, Mandre Miller, James Collier, Teresa Jones,
Chance Kenyon, Anthony Williams, Dwann Jones, and Leroy Fields-
Campbell as class representatives; appoint Plaintiffs' counsel as
class counsel; and approve and authorize distribution of a class
notice to class, with an opportunity to opt out.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=roklLkF3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura Ho, Esq.
          James L. Kan, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN,
          DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835 1417
          E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  jkan@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Newkirk, Esq.
          Leonard Bates, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C.
          515 E. Locust Street, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 883 2000
          Facsimile: (515) 883 2004
          E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com
                  lbates@newkirklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Giudicessi, Esq.
          Emily S. Hildebrand Pontius, Esq.
          Britt L. Teply, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 248 9000


WESTAR ENERGY: 2 Class Suits Filed Related to Merger
----------------------------------------------------
Westar Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that following the
announcement of the merger agreement with Great Plains Energy
Incorporated, two putative class action complaints and one
putative derivative action complaint challenging the merger were
filed on behalf of purported Westar Energy shareholders in the
District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas.

The Company said, "The first complaint, filed on June 13, 2016, is
captioned Smith v. Westar Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 2016-CV-
000457. This complaint names as defendants Westar Energy, the
members of our board of directors and Great Plains Energy. The
complaint asserts that the members of our board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection
with the proposed merger, and that we and Great Plains Energy
aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the merger consideration
undervalues Westar Energy, that the merger agreement contains deal
protection provisions that unfairly favor Great Plains Energy and
discourages third parties from submitting potentially superior
proposals, and that if the proposed transaction is consummated,
our CEO will reap significant personal financial gain. The
complaint seeks, among other remedies, a declaration that the
action may be maintained as a class action, injunctive relief
enjoining the merger, rescission of the merger agreement (to the
extent already implemented), a directive to the members of our
board of directors to account for all damages caused by them as a
result of their breaches of their fiduciary duties, and award for
costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and further
equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper."

"The second complaint, filed on June 14, 2016, is captioned Miller
v. Westar Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 2016-CV-000458. This
complaint names as defendants Westar Energy, the members of our
board of directors and Great Plains Energy. The complaint asserts
that the members of our board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection with the
proposed merger, and that Westar Energy and Great Plains Energy
aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the merger consideration
deprives our shareholders of fair consideration for their shares,
that the merger agreement contains deal protection provisions that
unfairly favor Great Plains Energy and discourage third parties
from submitting potentially superior proposals, and that if the
proposed transaction is consummated, certain of our directors and
officers stand to receive significant benefits. The complaint
seeks, among other remedies, an order to permit the action to be
maintained as a class action, injunctive relief enjoining the
merger, rescission of the merger agreement, a directive to
defendants to account for all damages caused by them as a result
of their breaches of their fiduciary duties, and award for costs,
including attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and further equitable
relief as the court may deem just and proper.

"Counsel for plaintiffs in the Smith matter and the Miller matter
have filed an unopposed motion for consolidation and appointment
of lead counsel. The defendants believe that the claims asserted
against them in both class action lawsuits are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against such claims.

"The third complaint, filed on July 5, 2016, is captioned
Braunstein v. Chandler et al., Case No. 2016-CV-000502. This
putative derivative action is brought on behalf of our
shareholders and names as defendants the members of our board of
directors, Great Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great Plains
Energy, with Westar Energy named as the nominal defendant. The
complaint asserts that the members of our board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection
with the proposed merger, and that Great Plains Energy and a
subsidiary of Great Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches
of fiduciary duties.

"The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of
our board of directors failed to obtain the best possible price
for our shareholders because of a flawed process that discouraged
third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals. The
complaint seeks, among other remedies, an order to permit the
action to be maintained as a derivative action, enjoining
direction that the director defendants exercise their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of
us and our shareholders, a declaration that the proposed
transaction was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of
the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable,
rescission of the merger agreement (to the extent already
implemented), imposing a constructive trust in favor of the
plaintiff, on behalf of us, upon any benefits improperly received
by the named defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct, and
award for costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and
further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper.
The defendants intend to seek dismissal of this complaint at the
appropriate time."


WESTERN EXPRESS: Smith Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WILLIAM SMITH on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiffs,
v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01238-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), Mr. William Smith moves
the Court to certify Plaintiff class and subclasses:

Plaintiff Class:

     "all persons who performed work for Defendant, Western
     Express, Inc., as non-exempt employed truck drivers within
     the State of California at any time from May 12, 2011 to the
     present (or the date established by the Class Certification
     Order) as demonstrated by Defendant's corporate and payroll
     records";

The Minimum Wage Subclass:

     "all members of the Plaintiff Class who were not paid at
     least California's Minimum Wage for all "hours worked"
     during the Class Period for work performed in California, as
     required by California Labor Code";

The Meal Period Subclass:

     "all members of the Plaintiff Class who (1) were not
     provided with 30-minute, off-duty meal periods in the manner
     provided by California Labor Code and/or Industrial Welfare
     Commission Wage Order 9-2001, Sec. 11 for work performed in
     the State of California during the Class Period for
     qualifying shifts; and (2) were not paid a "premium wage"
     of one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay in lieu of
     the meal period as shown by Defendant's corporate business
     and payroll records";

The Rest Period Subclass:

     "all members of the Plaintiff Class who (1) were not
     provided with 10-minute, paid rest periods for every four
     hours worked (or major fraction thereof) in the manner
     provided by California Labor Code and/or Industrial Welfare
     Commission Wage Order, for work performed in the State of
     California during the Class Period; and (2) were not paid a
     "premium wage" of one hour of pay at their regular rate of
     pay in lieu of the rest period as shown by Defendant's
     corporate business and payroll records.

The Wage Statement Subclass:

     "all members of the Plaintiff Class who (1) were provided
     wage statements that failed to state the actual number of
     chours worked" and the applicable rates of pay for work
     performed in the State of California as required by
     California Labor Code, during the applicable limitations
     period (i.e., from May 12, 2014 to the present, and/or the
     date established by the Certification Order)";

The Expense Reimbursement Subclass:

     "all members of the Plaintiff Class who were not reimbursed
     for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred while
     performing work in the State of California during the Class
     Period as required by California Labor Code and/or IWC Wage
     Order";

The Termination Pay Subclass:

     "all members of the Plaintiff Class who (1) voluntarily or
     involuntarily separated from their employment with the
     Defendant during the applicable limitations period (i.e.,
     from May 12, 2012 to the present and/or the date established
     by the Certification Order); and (2) were not timely paid
     all wages due for all "hours worked" for work performed in
     the State of California as required by California Labor
     Code"; and

The California UCL Subclass:

     "all members of the Plaintiff Class during the Class Period
     who were subjected to Defendant's business acts or
     practices regarding minimum wages, meal and rest periods and
     expense reimbursements, and whom, if said business acts or
     practices are found to be unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive,
     are owed restitution".

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595 3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595 3000
          E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
          FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP
          4590 Allstate Drive
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 320 1444
          Facsimile: (951) 320 144
          E-mail: bjm@fernandezlauby.com


WORLD WRESTLING: Faces "Bagwell" Suit over Royalties
----------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
pro wrestler Marcus "Buff" Bagwell slammed the WWE with a class-
action lawsuit, seeking royalties for footage of his matches on
the wrestling company's streaming network.

The former World Championship Wrestling grappler sued Vince
McMahon's empire in Connecticut Federal Court on August 9,
alleging claims of failure to pay royalties, breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment and unfair trade practices.

Bagwell added that the value of the class's matches, which are
available on the WWE Network, exceeds $5 million.

"Defendant breached its early contract release with plaintiff by
selling WCW video products (streaming videos on the WWE Network)
of PPVs and non-PPVs without paying any royalties to plaintiff,"
Bagwell's lawsuit states.

Bagwell claims WWE denied his accountant's request to audit the
WWE's financial records to determine his client's royalties.

"Because your client is not paid any such royalties (WWE Network),
there is nothing to audit," Bagwell quoted the WWE letter as
stating.

Bagwell, who lives in Woodstock, Ga., began wrestling for WCW in
1991 as a fresh-faced hero before turning "heel" and joining the
New World Order stable in 1996. Sporting a top hat and striking
exaggerated muscle poses, Bagwell reinvented himself with the
catchphrase, "I'm Buff, and I'm the stuff!"

Bagwell worked for WCW until just before WWE bought the company in
March 2001. When McMahon asked his fans whether they wanted
Bagwell to wrestle in WWE, they cheered, but his WWE career only
consisted of one match.

The wrestler took on Booker T in a critically panned match on
Monday Night Raw in July 2001. He was released from his contract
the following month.

In the last 15 years, Bagwell has wrestled occasionally on the
independent circuit. He also appeared on the "Gigolos" series on
Showtime.

Bagwell's WCW matches are currently available on demand on the WWE
Network. The grappler claims that his 2001 contract calls for him
to receive royalties for "video cassettes, video discs, CD-ROM or
other technology, including technology not yet created."

The WWE Network launched in 2014, charging $9.99 per month for
current and former pay-per-view events, along with other wrestling
and talk shows.

Bagwell's lawsuit alleges that the streaming network reached an
average of 1.29 million subscribers in the first quarter of 2016.

"In 2015, WWE Network purchasers watched an estimated total of 256
million hours of content, representing an average of 188 hours per
household," the complaint states.

He also cited language in his contract that called for 5 percent
of receipts from WCW video profits to "a talent royalty pool, from
which WCW shall pay plaintiff and all other talent appearing in
such WCW video products pro-rata among plaintiff and all other
talent so featured."

Bagwell seeks restitution, compensatory damages, and punitive
damages, as well as an injunction to keep the WCW pay-per-views
off the WWE Network until the royalties are paid.

During his career, Bagwell won five WCW tag team championships.
His mother, Judy, also won that title with Rick Steiner and was
featured in a "Judy Bagwell on a Pole" match between Bagwell and
his rival, Kanyon. Mrs. Bagwell was actually placed on a forklift
during the match.

Bagwell is represented by Brenden Leydon of the Tooher, Wohl and
Leydon law firm. Leydon also represented several former WWE
wrestlers in a lawsuit last month regarding post-concussion
syndrome.

The WWE called that lawsuit "ridiculous" at the time, adding that
"a federal judge has already found that this lawyer made patently
false allegations about WWE, and this is more of the same."

WWE did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment
August 11.


XPO LAST: Carter et al. Seek to Certify Overtime Claim under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RON CARTER, JUAN ESTRADA, JERRY GREEN, BURL
MALMGREN, BILL McDONALD, and JOEL MORALES, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. XPO LAST
MILE, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-
cv-01231-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to
conditionally certify their overtime claim under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion will be held on September 14,
2016 at 2:00 p.m. or as soon as the parties may be heard, in
Courtroom 2 of the San Francisco Division of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QJXhul6z

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth Ross, Esq.
          Jennifer Keating, Esq.
          Amy Endo, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272 0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272 0174
          E-mail: bross@leonardcarder.com
                  jkeating@leonardcarder.com
                  aendo@leonardcarder.com


YALE UNIVERSITY: Vellali Sues Over Losses in Retirement Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH VELLALI, NANCY S. LOWERS, JAN M. TASCHNER, RANAY P.
CIRILLO, JAMES MANCINI, AND TARA HEARD, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Yale University Retirement Account Plan v. YALE
UNIVERSITY AND MICHAEL A. PEEL, Case No. 3:16-cv-01345 (D. Conn.,
August 9, 2016), seeks to enforce the Defendants' personal
liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to
restore to the Plan all losses resulting from each alleged breach
of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiffs are participants and beneficiaries in the Yale
University Retirement Account Plan.

The Yale University Retirement Account Plan is a defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan
under the ERISA.  Faculty and staff members of Yale are eligible
to participate in the Plan, which provides the only source of
retirement income for many employees of Yale.  As of June 30,
2014, the Plan held $3.6 billion in assets and had 16,487
participants with account balances.

Yale University is a Connecticut non-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in New Haven, Connecticut.  Yale
University delegated to the Vice President of Human Resources and
Administration the authority to establish a committee and appoint
members thereto, which may oversee the investment options provided
under the Plan or otherwise administer the Plan.  Defendant
Michael Peel has served as Yale University's Vice President of
Human Resources and Administration since 2008.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart M. Katz, Esq.
          COHEN AND WOLF, P.C.
          1115 Broad Street
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 368-0211
          Facsimile: (203) 337-5505
          E-mail: skatz@cohenandwolf.com

               - and -

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Michael W. Wolf, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
          Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  mwolff@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
                  ssoyars@uselaws.com


YOUR MARKETING: Alan et al. Seek Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JASON ALAN, ROBERT BOHLKE, JOSEPH
MENICHIELLO, AND DAVID VACCARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. YOUR MARKETING
SOURCE, INC. DBA INTERNET LOCAL LISTINGS, INC., SAM RIEMER,
DOUGLAS POWELL, AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE AND EACH OF THEM, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00728-AG-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class consisting of:

     "all persons within the United States who received any
     telephone calls from Defendant or their agent/s and/or
     employee/s to said person's cellular telephone made through
     the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or with an
     artificial or prerecorded voice within the four years prior
     to the filing of the Complaint".

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for appointment of Plaintiffs
as Class Representatives, and for appointment of Plaintiffs'
attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6fSi4Bmy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Dr., No. 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228


                            *********

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  * * *