CAR_Public/160824.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 24, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 169




                            Headlines


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: $3.9MM Settlement in "Hughes" Has Final OK
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 11th Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Church Case
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Anger" Parties Attempt to Finalize Agreement
ACX PACIFIC: Court Grants Stipulated Protective Order
AKORN INC: Lead Plaintiff Group Filed Amended Complaint

ALICO INC: Deal in Silver Nip Citrus Merger Suit Awaits Final OK
ALLAN OBERMAN: "Van Matre" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
AMARIN CORP: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending
AMERICAN SCIENCE: Court Seals Records in "Klein" Case
AMSURG CORP: Defending Against Anderson v. Sanger Case

ANASEED LLC: Faces Medical & Chiropractic Suit in Florida
ANZ BANKING: Late Payment Fees Not Penalties, Court Rules
ARBEN KRYEZIU: "Torres" Sues Over Share Price Drop
ARSUAL INVESTMENT: Moreno Files Suit Over Hostile Work Environment
AT&T INC: Still Defends DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket Suit

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Opposed Motion to Vacate Judgment
B&G FOODS: Court Sanctioned Plaintiff and Counsel
BITFINEX: Faces Backlash From Some Users Over Cyberattack
BP PRODUCTS: Faces Crude Market Price-Rigging Allegations
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: "Musarra" Suit Consolidated in MDL No. 2385

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: "Padula" Suit Consolidated in MDL No. 2385
BP PLC: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Seeks Approval of $600MM Legal Fees
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: "Artiles" Suit Invokes FLSA, Fla. Wage Act
C.E.P. INC: Faces "Cicero" Suit Under FLSA, Colorado Labor Laws
CADE DRILLING: "Falk" Lawsuit Sees to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA

CALIFORNIA: Chase Has 30 Days to Cure Complaint
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Facing Class Action in New York
CANADA: May Face Class Action Over Foreign Buyer Tax
CASH AMERICA: Andrew Samtoy Files Class Action
CENTURYLINK INC: Fulghum Plaintiffs Will Not Appeal Ruling

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Sikora" Settlement Granted Final Approval
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Says Masters, Brown & Tagalogon Cases Related
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Wants Gratuities Class Suit Dismissed
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Court Dismissed Claims in "Guglielmo" Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in W.D. Okla.

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Funded $29MM Settlement in Royalty Owners Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Class Action Transferred to Oklahoma Court
CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Court Allows Amendments in "Carabez" Suit
CONTRA COSTA, CA: Court Sets Opt-Out Process in Retiree Case
CORMEDIX INC: Motion to "Li" Dismiss Case Taken Under Advisement

CTI BIOPHARMA: Motion to Consolidate Class Actions
COVISINT CORPORATION: Dec. 15 Hearing to Approve Settlement
DALLAS CENTRAL: PFSE Ltd Suit Alleges Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Amreit, et al. Appeal 2016 Order
DIGNITY HEALTH: Inspection of Medical Premises Set for Sept. 7

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Class Action Remains in Early Stages
DRAIN TEAM: Faces "Couri" Suit in Fla. Alleging FLSA Violations
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Retirement Plan Suit Alleges Violation of ERISA
DUN & BRADSTREET: Court Denies Settlements of Class Suits
EATON CORPORATION: Faces "Gabriele" Lawsuit Under Securities Act

ECOLAB INC: 4 Wage Hour Lawsuits Pending
EMCORE CORP: Says Liability in "Mirasol" Suit May Hit $2.6MM
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit in Ga. Over Alleged ERISA Violation
ENERGY RECOVERY: Defending Against Securities Class Action
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in "Kristensen" Class Action Underway

ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Dougherty" Case
ETSY INC: "Altayyar" Lawsuit v. Company, D&Os Still Pending
ETSY INC: Consolidated Cervantes and Weiss Actions Remain Pending
EVERCORE PARTNERS: Appellate Briefing to Be Completed September 9
FACEBOOK INC: "Smith" Case Cannot Have Interim Co-Lead Counsel

FARID FATA: US Gov't. Files Suit in Eastern District of Michigan
FIAT CHRYSLER: Hackers Show Jeep Cherokee Hacking Problem
FIFTH STREET: Settlement Agreements Reached to Resolve 3 Cases
FIRCROFT INC: Faces "Bryant" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
FIRST SOLAR: Pension Schemes Case Stayed Pending Appeal

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Muller" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
FITBIT INC: Fails to Shake Off Sleep Tracking Suit in N.D. Cal.
FITBIT INC: Arbitration Mulled in Heart Rate Tracking Suit
FITBIT INC: Bid to Dismiss Cal. Securities Suit Underway
FITBIT INC: IPO Class Action Remanded to San Mateo Court

FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Nov. 8 Case Conference Set in "Cryer" Suit
FRITO-LAY INC: No Sanctions for Defendants in "Roe" Suit
GENERAL CABLE: Sixth Circuit Denied Petition for Rehearing
GLOBUS MEDICAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "DeBons" Claim
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces RICO Violations Suit Related to 1MDB Fund

GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Approved Settlement of 2010 Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Has Paid Settlement in Case vs Litton, Ocwen
GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Solazyme Case Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Certified Class in FireEye Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dragged Into Class Suit v. TerraForm & SunEdison

GRAMERCY PROPERTY TRUST: Settlement Has Final Approval
GRANITE SOURCE: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Violation of FLSA
GRUBHUB: Ohio Attorney Comments on Independent Contractor Case
GUARANTY BANCORP: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation
HALL CONSTRUCTION: "Arrington" Suit Remains in Federal Court

HARRAH'S LAS VEGAS: Sept. 6 Hearing for Magistrate Judge
HARRIS COUNTY: Johnston Matejek Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: TWL Partners Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
HERO NUTRITIONALS: Faces "Guerra" Suit in E.D. of New York
HHGREGG INC: Indiana Appeals Court Reversed Summary Judgment

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Stamps Initial OK on "Reniger" Settlement
INTELICARE DIRECT: Settlement Approval Bid Due Dec. 5
INVENSENSE INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Appeal Pending
IOD INC: "Lowery" Case Returns to Alabama State Court

JOSEPH ELETTO: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
JUST ENERGY: Faces Employee Misclassification Class Action
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Motion for Class Certification Pending
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Won't Proceed in Virgin Islands Case
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: 56 Coal Tar Pitch Cases Pending

LEW BLUM TOWING: "Thornton" Sues Over Illegal Towing
LIFETIME BRANDS: Faces "Murray" Suit in District of New Jersey
LIHUA INT'L: Court Finds Alternative Service Unnecessary
LINCOLN LIFE: "Hanks" Suit Alleges Unlawful Insurance Increases
LLOYDS BANKING: LTU Mulls Equal Pension Scheme Class Action

LOOK ENTERTAINMENT: Jordan Seeks Compensation Under Labor Law
MAGNOLIA TORQUE: Operators File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
MAINE: Court Dismisses "Williams" Suit Over Bond Fee
MDL 1720: 2nd Cir. Says Appeal on Service Awards "Moot"
MDL 2143: IPPs Assign 2 Settlement Administrators

MEDICREDIT INC: Court Won't Revive "Kreger" TCPA Suit
MIKE'S AUTO: "Tariq" Sues Over Shady Car Sale Deal
MISSION BAY: $450,000 Settlement in "Palana" Has Final Approval
MONSANTO CO: Faces Suits Over Cancer-Causing Herbicide Products
MONSTER INC: Status Report in "Perez" Case Due Sept. 29

MYLAN N.V.: Retirement System's Class Action Dismissed
NALCO COMPANY: 9 Suits Consolidated in MDL 2179
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Suit in Ohio Over Cancelled Aug. 7 Game
NEIL JONES: Supplemental Briefing Underway in "Valdez" Case
NEW MEXICO: "Palacios-Valencia" Case Gets Confidentiality Order

NEW YORK, NY: Councilman Calls for Probe of ACS Amid Class Action
NIANTIC INC: "Dodich" Suit Claims Nuisance Resulting from Pokemon
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Tsisin" Suit in E.D. of New York
NOVANT HEALTH: Sept. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
OCWEN FINANCIAL: New Deadlines Set for "Weiner" Suit

OMAHA STEAKS: Settlement in "Hetherington" Case Granted Final OK
ONE WEST: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Casault" Suit
OSP GROUP: Communications in "McEwan" Case Need No Court Approval
P.W. STEPHENS: Final Settlement Approval in "Lopez" on Dec. 8
PAYREEL INC: "Deas" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law

PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Court Keeps "McPherson" Class Claims
PERRIGO CO: "Wilson" Files Securities Class Action in New Jersey
PILOT THOMAS: Sued Over Alleged Violation of FLSA, Col. Wage Laws
PLANET FITNESS: "Truglio" Suit Has to Prove Federal Jurisdiction
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss "Strader" Complaint Pending

REALPAGE INC: Motion to Dismiss "Stokes" Action Underway
REALPAGE INC: Motion to Dismiss "Jenkins" Action Underway
REGIS CORP: Final Approval Hearing Moved Forward to Nov. 18
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces "Brown" Suit Under FLSA, SC Wages Act
RK LOGISTICS: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Missed Breaks Premium

RMG SUNSET: "Wiley" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT, Tips
RUBY'S DINER: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Missed Break Pay
SAC CAPITAL: September 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Amendment in "Farris" Case Due Sept. 9
SCOTT JEWELERS: "Pau" Suit Seeks Recovery of Commissions, Wages

SHERWOOD, AR: Fed. Suit Seeks to End Modern-Day Debtors' Prison
SODEXO INC: Stipulation to Dismiss "Crenshaw" Suit Granted
TAYLOR LAW: Faces "Iden" Suit in Middle District of Florida
TEEL LAW: Faces "Waldrop" Suit in District of Arizona
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed

THAI SMILE: "Gonzalez" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations
TITAN CASING: Faces "Rodriquez" Suit Over FLSA "Violation"
TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Doshi" Stockholder Class Action
TOYOTA MOTORS: Extends Time to File Class Cert. Bid in "Burns"
TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Court Trims Claims in Consumer Suit

TRI-STATE WATER: Court Enters Consent Judgment in "Acadia" Suit
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Oct. 4 Case Management Conference Set
UNIVERSAL PACKAGING: Tovar Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ERISA
VIACOM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Two Delaware Class Suits

VLADIMIR TABAKMAN: Faces "Fuller" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Merkin & Smith Case Stayed Pending Arbitration
WARNER MUSIC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Brief Due Nov. 6
WELLS FARGO: Court Upholds Ruling in "Gambuti" Case
WOOD GROUP: "Dobbs" Case Remanded to California Superior Court

WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Epstein Cannot Proceed with Class Certification
YOONO SOO LEE: "Juno" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code
YUCATASIA: Case Management Conference Moved to Sept. 15


                            *********


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: $3.9MM Settlement in "Hughes" Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the district court has
granted final approval of the $3.9 million settlement in the case,
Hughes v. Accretive Health, Inc. et al.

On May 17, 2013, the Company, along with certain of its former
directors and former officers, was named as a defendant in a
putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Hughes v.
Accretive Health, Inc. et al.). The primary allegations, relating
to its March 8, 2013 announcement that the Company would be
restating its prior period financial statements, are that its
public statements, including filings with the SEC, were false
and/or misleading with respect to its revenue recognition and
earnings prospects. On November 27, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the Company's directors and former directors, other than
Mary Tolan.

On January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On September 25, 2014, the Court granted the Company
motion to dismiss without prejudice, however, the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint on October 23, 2014. On November 10,
2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. While that motion was still pending, on January 8,
2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the second amended
complaint, seeking to add allegations regarding the recently
issued restatement.

On April 22, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend,
and a third amended complaint was filed on May 13, 2015. The
Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on June 3,
2015. On December 7, 2015, the parties executed a memorandum of
understanding to resolve the suit for $3.9 million and filed a
notice of settlement with the district court.

On March 8, 2016, the district court granted preliminary approval
to the settlement, and on June 28, 2016, the district court
granted final approval. The settlement payment of $3.9 million was
covered by insurance.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: 11th Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Church Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of the Church case
with prejudice.

On February 11, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama (Church v. Accretive Health,
Inc.). The primary allegation is that the Company attempted to
collect debts without providing the notice required by the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). On November 24, 2015, the
district court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment
and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal on December 21, 2015. The appeal was decided July 6, 2016,
and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of the case with prejudice, finding that the Company is not a debt
collector as defined in the FDCPA.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Anger" Parties Attempt to Finalize Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has postponed
all deadlines in the "Anger" case as the parties attempt to
finalize a confidential agreement in principle to settle the case.

On July 22, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health,
Inc.). The primary allegations are that the Company attempted to
collect debts without providing the notice required by the FDCPA
and Michigan Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and failed to
abide by the terms of an agreed payment plan in violation of those
same statutes. On August 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. An amended
complaint was filed on November 30, 2015.

Discovery is underway, but on July 15, 2016, the court postponed
all deadlines in the case as the parties attempt to finalize a
confidential agreement in principle to settle the case. The
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these claims, if the settlement
in principle is not finalized.


ACX PACIFIC: Court Grants Stipulated Protective Order
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIGUEL ROJAS-CIFUENTES on behalf of himself, on
behalf of all others similarly situated and in the interest of the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. ACX PACIFIC NORTHWEST INC, PACIFIC
LEASING, LLC, JOHN M. GOMBOS, JOHN E. GOMBOS and Does
1-20 Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-00697-JAM-CKD (E.D. Calif.),
District Judge John A. Mendez granted the parties' stipulated
Protective Order to the limited information that are entitled to
confidential treatment.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, which is designated as "Confidential",
but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected
Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of
Protected Material and (3) any testimony, conversations, or
presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal
Protected Material.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order do not
cover the following information: (a) any information that is in
the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party
or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a
Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a
violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public
record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known
to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the
Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained
the information lawfully and under no obligation of
confidentiality to the Designating Party.

The Stipulation noted that any Party or Non-Party may challenge a
designation of confidentiality at any time. Unless a prompt
challenge to a Designating Party's confidentiality designation is
necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness,
unnecessary economic burdens, or a significant disruption or delay
of the litigation, a Party does not waive its right to challenge a
confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a challenge
promptly after the original designation is disclosed.

The Stipulation provided that even after final disposition of the
litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order
shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise
in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Within 60 days
after the final disposition of the action, each Receiving Party
must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or
destroy such material. As used in this subdivision, "all Protected
Material" includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries,
and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected
Material.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 15, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/gflxsMfrom Leagle.com.

Pablo Hernandez, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Hector
Rodriguez Martinez, Mallison & Martinez, Joseph Donald Sutton,
Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau, Mallison & Martinez & Stanley
S. Mallison, Mallison & Martinez.

ACX Pacific Northwest Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Ames
Goodin -- mgoodin@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker and Green.


AKORN INC: Lead Plaintiff Group Filed Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the lead plaintiff group has
filed a consolidated amended complaint in the securities class
action lawsuit.

On March 4, 2015, a purported class action complaint was filed
entitled Yeung v. Akorn, Inc., at el., in the federal district
court of Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-cv-1944. The
complaint alleged that the Company and three of its officers
violated the federal securities laws in connection with matters
related to its accounting and financial reporting in the wake of
its acquisitions of Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. and VersaPharm,
Inc.

A second, related case entitled Sarzynski v. Akorn, Inc., et al.,
No. 15- cv-3921, was filed on May 4, 2015 making similar
allegations. On August 24, 2015, the two cases were consolidated
and a lead plaintiff group appointed in In re Akorn, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On July 6, 2016, the lead plaintiff group filed a consolidated
amended complaint making similar allegations against the Company
and an officer and former officer of the Company. The consolidated
amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of the putative class.
The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously
contest the matter.


ALICO INC: Deal in Silver Nip Citrus Merger Suit Awaits Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alico, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a consolidated
class action lawsuit are awaiting final approval of the settlement
agreement.

Effective February 28, 2015, the Company completed the merger
("Merger") with 734 Citrus Holdings, LLC ("Silver Nip Citrus")
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with 734 Sub, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company ("Merger Sub"), Silver Nip Citrus and, solely with respect
to certain sections thereof, the equity holders of Silver Nip
Citrus. The ownership of Silver Nip Citrus was held by 734
Agriculture, 74.89%, Mr. Clay Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, 5% and an entity controlled by Mr. Clay Wilson owned,
20.11%.

On March 11, 2015 a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Shiva Y. Stein v. Alico, Inc., et al., No. 15-CA-000645
(the "Stein lawsuit") was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County, Florida,
against Alico, Inc. ("Alico"), its current and certain former
directors, 734 Citrus Holdings, LLC d/b/a Silver Nip Citrus, 734
Investors, LLC ("734 Investors"), 734 Agriculture, LLC ("734
Agriculture") and 734 Sub, LLC ("734 Sub") in connection with the
acquisition of Silver Nip by Alico (the "Acquisition"). The
complaint alleges that Alico's directors at the time of the
Acquisition, 734 Investors, and 734 Agriculture, breached
fiduciary duties to Alico stockholders in connection with the
Acquisition, and that Silver Nip and 734 Sub aided and abetted
such breaches. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and
equitable relief, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and
expenses.

On May 6, 2015 a putative stockholder class action and derivative
lawsuit captioned Ruth S. Dimon Trust v. George R. Brokaw, et al.,
No. 15-CA-001162 (the "Dimon lawsuit") was filed in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County,
Florida, against Alico, its current directors, Silver Nip Citrus,
734 Investors and 734 Agriculture, in connection with the
Acquisition of Silver Nip Citrus by Alico. The complaint alleges
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of
corporate assets and tortious interference with contract against
Alico's directors, unjust enrichment against three of the
directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against
Silver Nip Citrus, 734 investors and 734 Agriculture. The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, rescission of the Acquisition, an
injunction prohibiting certain payments to Silver Nip Citrus
members, unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, costs, fees
(including attorneys' fees) and expenses.

On July 17, 2015 the plaintiffs in the Stein and Dimon lawsuits
filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating their cases
for all purposes under the caption, In re Alico, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Master File No. 15-CA-000645 (the "Consolidated
Action") and seeking the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead
and liaison counsel. The court entered that proposed order on July
21, 2015.

On October 16, 2015, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
reported to the Court that the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Consolidated Action and other claims
related to the Acquisition and that they were in the process of
formally documenting their agreements. The proposed settlement
contemplates that Alico will adopt certain changes to its
corporate governance practices, policies and procedures concerning
related party transactions, that the Consolidated Action will be
dismissed and that all claims that were or could have been
asserted challenging any aspect of the Acquisition will be
released. On March 31, 2016, the parties entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement.  The parties filed an Amended
Stipulation of settlement with the Court on April 22, 2016.

On April 28, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and providing for notice to relevant
Alico shareholders.  The settlement remains subject to final
judicial approval following notice to the relevant Alico
shareholders and a settlement hearing at which the Court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. In connection with the proposed settlement, the
parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses. There can be no assurance that the
Court will approve the settlement.


ALLAN OBERMAN: "Van Matre" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Van Matre, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allan Oberman, Robert Flanagan,
Anthony Krizman, Mary Taylor Behrens, Michael Fekete, and Shlomo
Yanai, Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH-10413, (Ill. Cir., August 8,
2016), seeks (i) to enjoin, preliminarily and permanently, a
proposed merger transaction and/or rescinding it if transaction is
consummated; (ii) damages, reasonable allowance for the fees and
expenses of Plaintiffs attorneys and experts; and (iii) such
further relief for breach of fiduciary duties.

Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is to be acquired by Nichi-Iko
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and its direct wholly owned subsidiary,
Shepard Vision, Inc. in an all-cash tender offer valued at
approximately $736 mi1lion. Sagent stockholders will receive
$21.75 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Sagent they
own. Plaintiff alleges that the deal failed to maximize the sale
by restricting other offers.

Allan Oberman, Robert Flanagan, Anthony Krizman, Mary Taylor
Behrens, Michael Fekete, and Shlomo Yanai are members of the Board
of Directors of Sagent.

Sagent is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware with principal corporate offices at 1901 N.
Roselle Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60195. Sagent produces and
sells pharmaceuticals to the hospital market.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
      SALAS WANG LLC
      73 West Monroe, Suite 219
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 803-4963
      Fax: (312) 244-3152
      Email: jsa1as@salaswang.com

             - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (212) 363-7500


AMARIN CORP: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company plans a
vigorous defense to the appeal of a class action lawsuit.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted on
April 26, 2016, a motion to dismiss in favor of the Company and
related defendants in the putative consolidated class action
lawsuit captioned In re Amarin Corporation plc, Securities
Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013). The class
action was dismissed without prejudice with leave for plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs alleging that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors made misstatements and omissions regarding the FDA's
willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication and related
contributing factors and the potential relevance of data from the
ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that potential approval. The April 2016
dismissal was the second motion to dismiss granted in favor of the
Company and related defendants in this litigation. The first
motion to dismiss in this litigation was granted in June 2015 in
response to the original complaint and related amendment.

On May 24, 2016, plaintiffs notified the court they would not file
another amended complaint and, on May 26, 2016, filed a notice of
appeal of the most recent dismissal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Company plans a vigorous defense to this appeal. The
Company has insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover any
significant loss exposure that may arise from this action.


AMERICAN SCIENCE: Court Seals Records in "Klein" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard G. Stearns granted the parties'
Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order regarding the
sealing of court records in the case, SHARON KLEIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 16-11542 (D. Mass.).

The Order shall govern all documents or things produced in
discovery, deposition testimony, exhibits and transcripts, written
discovery requests and responses, and any other information or
material produced, given or exchanged in the case, including its
contained information or derived from the case, and the
designation and handling of Discovery Materials containing
confidential, proprietary and/or private information produced in
the action by any Party or non-Party.

The stipulation provides that any Party or non-Party person or
entity producing discovery materials shall be marked with
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential".

The Confidential Information shall be disclosed only to:

     (a) the named Parties to this action and their officers,
directors, and authorized agents deemed necessary by counsel for
the prosecution or defense of this action;

     (b) the attorneys for the Parties, including both outside and
in-house counsel, and their staff;

     (c) the Court and its staff in this action and in any appeal;

     (d) the jury, if any;

     (e) any mediators, arbitrators, or judicial referees and
their staff used in connection with this action;

     (f) court reporters used in connection with this action and
their employees;

     (g) consultants, technical advisors, and expert witnesses
(whether designated as trial witnesses or not) employed or
retained by the Parties or their counsel; provided, however, that
any such consultant, technical advisor, or expert witness is not
currently an employee of, or advising or discussing employment
with, or a consultant to, any Party to this litigation or any
competitor or potential competitor of any Party;

     (h) any anticipated witness in this action, except that such
witness shall be shown Confidential Information only in
preparation for or during his or her testimony and may not copy or
retain such Confidential Information;

     (i) any person indicated on the face of a document to be the
author, addressee, or a recipient of the document;

     (j) any other person or entity as to whom the Parties agree
in writing; and

     (k) any other person as to whom the Court orders.

On the other hand, Highly Confidential Information shall be
disclosed only to:

     (a) the attorneys for the Parties, including both outside and
in-house counsel, and their staff;

     (b) the Court and its staff in this action and in any appeal;

     (c) the jury, if any;

     (d) any mediators, arbitrators, or judicial referees and
their staff used in connection with this action;

     (e) court reporters used in connection with this action and
their employees;

     (f) consultants, technical advisors, and expert witnesses
(whether designated as trial witnesses or not) employed or
retained by the Parties or their counsel; provided, however, that
any such consultant, technical advisor, or expert witness is not
currently an employee of, or advising or discussing employment
with, or a consultant to, any Party to this litigation or any
competitor or potential competitor of any Party;

     (g) any anticipated witness in this action, except that such
witness shall be shown Highly Confidential Information only in
preparation for or during his or her testimony and may not copy or
retain such Highly Confidential Information;

     (h) any person indicated on the face of a document to be the
author, addressee, or a recipient of the document;

     (i) any other person or entity as to whom the Parties agree
in writing; and

     (j) any other person as to whom the Court orders.

The Court noted that, in the event of a disclosure of Confidential
or Highly Confidential Information to a person not authorized to
have had such disclosure made to him or her under the provisions
of the Order, the Party responsible for having made such
disclosure shall immediately procure the return of the
Confidential or Highly Confidential Information, and inform
counsel for the designating Party whose Confidential or Highly
Confidential Information has thus been disclosed of all relevant
information concerning the nature and circumstances of such
disclosure.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 11, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/6XbIWgfrom Leagle.com.

Sharon Klein, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell J. Matorin --
mjm@matorinlaw.com -- Matorin Law Office LLC.

American Science and Engineering,Inc., Defendant, represented by
Eric D. Wolkoff -- eric.wolkoff@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Hale LLP.


AMSURG CORP: Defending Against Anderson v. Sanger Case
------------------------------------------------------
AmSurg Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, that shareholder
litigation against AmSurg and Envision could result in an
injunction preventing completion of their Mergers, the payment of
damages in the event the Mergers are completed and/or an adverse
effect on the combined company's business, financial condition or
results of operations following the Mergers.

A purported Envision stockholder filed on July 15, 2016, a
putative stockholder class action lawsuit against the members of
the Envision Board and Barclays PLC in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. The case is captioned Anderson v. Sanger et
al., C.A. No. 12561-CB (Del. Ch.). The lawsuit alleges that the
members of the Envision Board violated their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed Mergers and that Barclays PLC aided
and abetted those breaches.

Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Mergers
from proceeding or, alternatively, damages in the event the
Mergers are consummated.

The Company said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and
intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The outcome of any such
litigation is uncertain. This lawsuit could prevent or delay
completion of the Mergers and result in substantial costs to
AmSurg or Envision, including any costs associated with the
indemnification of directors and officers. Other purported
stockholders of Envision or shareholders of AmSurg may file
additional lawsuits against Envision, Envision's directors and
officers, AmSurg or AmSurg's directors and officers in connection
with the Mergers. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or
claim that remains unresolved at the time the Mergers are
completed may adversely affect the combined company's business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

"One of the conditions to the closing of the Mergers is that no
governmental entity or competent jurisdiction has issued a final
and non-appealable order permanently prohibiting, restraining or
otherwise making illegal the consummation of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement. Consequently, if a
settlement or other resolution is not reached in the lawsuit
referenced above and the plaintiffs secure injunctive or other
relief prohibiting AmSurg's or Envision's ability to complete the
Mergers, then such injunctive or other relief may prevent the
Mergers from becoming effective within the expected timeframe or
at all."


ANASEED LLC: Faces Medical & Chiropractic Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Anaseed, LLC. The case is
captioned Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., a Florida
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Anaseed, LLC and
John Does 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-02341-CEH-TBM (M.D.
Fla., Aug, 16, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Charlene Edwards
Honeywell.

Anaseed is an information technology and services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


ANZ BANKING: Late Payment Fees Not Penalties, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Overington, Esq. -- ruth.overington@hsf.com -- of Herbert
Smith Freehills LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in a
decision highly-anticipated by bank consumers and corporates
alike, last month Australia's High Court clarified the current
state of Australia's law of penalties.

In short, the High Court ruled that a contractual obligation to
pay a specified sum of money upon breach of contract will be
enforceable, as long as the amount payable is not "out of all
proportion" to the party's interest in ensuring compliance with
the relevant obligation.  The relevant "interest" for these
purposes may include financial interests such as the cost
associated with making accounting provisions and therefore may
extend beyond the costs recoverable by way of damages in
litigation.

In Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, the
High Court was asked to determine whether or not late payment fees
payable upon failing to make a minimum payments under consumer
credit card contracts, were truly penalties and therefore
unenforceable at law.  The appeals were pursued by Mr Paciocco for
and on behalf of a group of similarly affected persons as part of
a class action.

By a majority, the High Court determined that the late payment
fees were not penalties, nor did the imposition of them contravene
any of the applicable statutory provisions.

The appeals followed earlier decisions of the Full Federal Court
of Australia and a single judge of the Federal Court.

Relevant underlying facts

Lead plaintiff Mr. Paciocco held two credit card accounts with
ANZ, the terms of each of which included:

  -- a requirement that he make the nominated minimum monthly
payments; and

  -- an entitlement conferred upon ANZ to deduct fees and charges
"for the provision and operation of the credit card account".

In accordance with these contractual terms, one of the fees
charged to Mr. Paciocco's account was a monthly amount of $35
which was subsequently reduced to $20, being a "late payment fee"
for failing to pay the minimum monthly payment required under the
contract.

The fact that the fees would be charged was made clear to, and
understood by, Mr. Paciocco.  Similarly, Mr. Paciocco was free to
cancel the credit card contracts at any time.  He chose not to do
so.  Instead he managed "those accounts at close to their limits
and to bear the risk of being charged the late payment fee on
those occasions when he failed to comply with the standard
stipulation to make the minimum monthly payment by the due date."

The late payment fee was not calculated by ANZ as being the amount
of loss it expected to suffer should Mr. Paciocco fail to make the
minimum payments under his contract.  Rather, it was a fee charged
generally to customers with similar accounts and did not vary
having regard to the amount outstanding on the account.

Are fees a penalty?

ANZ argued that in determining the value of its late payment fee
it was entitled to have regard to indirect costs associated with a
failure of its customers to meet their contractual commitments.
Relevantly, these indirect costs included:

1. provisioning costs (costs attributable to the increased risk
that a loan may be unrecoverable;

2. regulatory capital costs (the costs of funding capital required
to meet the relevant prudential standards); and

3. operational costs (costs associated with taking steps to
collect outstanding debts).
By majority the High Court agreed with ANZ.

In particular the Court accepted that each of these categories of
cost, was one which was affected by a customer's failure to meet
his, her or its, contractual repayment commitments.

As part of ANZ's financial interest which would be affected by a
breach of contract, ANZ was therefore entitled to consider these
costs in setting its standard late payment fee.  Once regard was
had to these costs, the value of the late payment fee it imposed
upon Mr Paciocco was determined to be not "out of all proportion"
and was therefore enforceable.

Implications

Calculating in advance an amount payable upon breach of contract
is a difficult exercise. However, the Court recognized in Paciocco
that the "task is not one which calls for precision.  The
conclusion to be reached, after all, is whether the sum is "out of
all proportion" to the interests said to be damaged in the event
of default."

Relevantly, contracting parties are not limited to considering
only the direct costs attributable to a potential breach of
contract.  Instead, regard may be had to the effect of default on
their broader interests. The fact that a sum payable upon default
is disproportionate to the loss suffered as a result of that
breach, is not determinative.  Instead the defaulting party must
establish that the amount payable is "out of all proportion".  In
the absence of proof of that kind, the innocent party will be
entitled to pursue recovery of the payment specified in the
agreement.


ARBEN KRYEZIU: "Torres" Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Georges Torres, individually andon behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Arben Kryeziu a/k/a Arben Kane, Reid
Dabney, Volodymyr Bykov, James Canton, David Dwelle, Burnham
Securities Inc. and Lichter, Yuand Associates, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. BC629838 (Cal. Super., August 5, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or
a rescissory measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive or
other relief under the Securities and Exchange Act.

Code Rebel is a Delaware Corporation headquartered at 77 Ho'okele
Street, Suite 102, Kahului, Hawaii. It operated two business
segments, software providing end-user applications through the
Code Rebel product line, and its IT Services providing management
and consulting services. Code Rebel filed for bankruptcy on May
18, 2016.

Plaintiff owns Code Rebel Common stock and alleges that its
financial statements contained errors concerning its assets and
financial condition. The price of the Company's common stock
closed at $0.08 per share on June 22, 2016, a more than 98%
decline from the Offering Price.

Arben Kryeziu a/k/a Arben Kane, Reid Dabney, Volodymyr Bykov,
James Canton and David Dwelle are members of the Code Rebel BOD
while Burnham Securities Inc. and Lichter, Yuand Associates, Inc.
were the underwriter involved in the IPO.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
     Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
     Marisac. Livesay, Esq.
     Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEINADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     750 BStreet, Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619/239-4599
     Facsimile: 619/234-4599
     Email: manifold@whafh.com
            rickert@whafh.com
            livesay@whafh.com
            dejong@whafh.com


ARSUAL INVESTMENT: Moreno Files Suit Over Hostile Work Environment
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Moreno, an individual Plaintiff, v. Arsual Investment,
Arsual Truckers Club, Inc., Petros Minasyan and Does 1 through 100
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC629621 (Cal. Super., August 8,
2016), seeks general damages, including back pay, front pay, and
other monetary relief, special damages from loss of earnings, loss
of job security, emotional injury, mental and emotional distress,
pain and suffering, prejudgment interest on all monetary damages,
reinstatement to his former position of employment, exemplary and
punitive damages, statutory penalties under the California Labor
Code as well as Common Law and Statutory Assault under the
California Penal Code.

Defendant employed Plaintiff as a security person overseeing two
lots that it maintained at the Burbank Airport. Moreno claims to
be denied meal breaks, denied overtime and forced to work in
inhospitable working conditions. He eventually was demoted
allegedly from filing such complaints. He also claims he was
assaulted by a co-worker, Petros Minyasan.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen F. Danz, Esq.
      STEPHEN DANZ & ASSOCIATES
      11661 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 500
      Los Angeles, CA 90049
      Tel: (310)207-4568

            - and -

      Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
      572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Tel: (626) 796-7470


AT&T INC: Still Defends DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend
against a consolidated amended complaint challenging DIRECTV's NFL
Sunday Ticket.

More than two dozen putative class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Central District of California and the
Southern District of New York against DIRECTV and the National
Football League (NFL). These cases were brought by residential and
commercial DIRECTV subscribers that have purchased NFL Sunday
Ticket. The plaintiffs allege that (i) the 32 NFL teams have
unlawfully agreed not to compete with each other in the market for
nationally televised NFL football games and instead have "pooled"
their broadcasts and assigned to the NFL the exclusive right to
market them; and (ii) the NFL and DIRECTV have entered into an
unlawful exclusive distribution agreement that allows DIRECTV to
charge "supra-competitive" prices for the NFL Sunday Ticket
package. The complaints seek unspecified treble damages and
attorneys' fees along with injunctive relief. The first complaint,
Abrahamian v. National Football League, Inc., et al., was served
in June 2015.

In December 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases outside the Central District of California
to that court for consolidation and management of pre-trial
proceedings.

On June 24, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

"We vigorously dispute the allegations the complaints have
asserted," the Company said.


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Opposed Motion to Vacate Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has opposed
the lead plaintiffs' motion to vacate and reconsider the district
court's judgment in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit.

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain of its former officers and members of its board of
directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer
and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May
9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May
31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the
complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint
was filed on February 3, 2014.

The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. The amended complaint generally
alleged that the Company and certain of its present and former
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for the Company's
TIVO-1 study in an effort to lead investors to believe that the
drug would receive approval from the FDA. The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.
The consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice
on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second
amended complaint bringing similar allegations.

The Company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of
briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in the Company's favor
and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on
November 18, 2015.  The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.  They have also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider
the district court's judgment, which we have opposed.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there
is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense
or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any
settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action.
Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.


B&G FOODS: Court Sanctioned Plaintiff and Counsel
-------------------------------------------------
B&G Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has granted B&G Foods' motion to
dismiss the appeal and sanctioned the plaintiff and his counsel.

B&G Foods has been named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by The Weston Firm on behalf of Troy Walker in
August 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The lawsuit alleges that the company has
violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair
Competition Law, with respect to the advertising, marketing and
labeling of certain Ortega taco shells.  Specifically, the
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the products are
deceptively marketed because the products are labeled "0g trans
fat" on the front of the package and contain partially
hydrogenated oil.  The complaint seeks monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "We have been vigorously defending this lawsuit
and believe that the plaintiff's claims are without merit and that
the products are and have at all times been properly labeled in
compliance with applicable law.  We also believe the claims are
moot because, among other things, we began transitioning away from
partially hydrogenated oil in these products before first being
contacted by The Weston Firm and we no longer use partially
hydrogenated oil in these products."

"On February 8, 2016, the court ruled on our motion to dismiss,
dismissing all of the plaintiff's labeling claims and agreeing
with our position that any claim for removal of partially
hydrogenated oil would be moot after B&G Foods has done so.  Under
the court's ruling, the plaintiff's only surviving claims relate
to his alleged use of these products.  These claims have been
stayed, however, pending further guidance from the FDA, which has
already stated that companies may continue to use partially
hydrogenated oil through at least 2018.  The plaintiff attempted
to appeal the dismissal order, however, the Ninth Circuit granted
B&G Foods' motion to dismiss the appeal and sanctioned the
plaintiff and his counsel.

"Based upon information currently available, we do not believe the
ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse
effect on B&G Foods' consolidated financial position, results of
operations or liquidity."


BITFINEX: Faces Backlash From Some Users Over Cyberattack
---------------------------------------------------------
Phil Muncaster, writing for Infosecurity Magazine, reports that
Hacked Bitcoin exchange Bitfinex appears to be back online now but
faces a backlash from some users after announcing everyone would
lose around 36% of their assets as a result of the cyber-attack
which shut it down.

The firm revealed that almost 120,000 Bitcoin (around $70 million)
had been stolen by hackers, although not all customer accounts
were affected.

The firm explained:

"After much thought, analysis, and consultation, we have arrived
at the conclusion that losses must be generalized across all
accounts and assets.  This is the closest approximation to what
would happen in a liquidation context.  Upon logging into the
platform, customers will see that they have experienced a
generalized loss percentage of 36.067%.  In a later announcement
we will explain in full detail the methodology used to compute
these losses."

However, each customer will get a token labelled BFX to note their
losses.  These will either be redeemed "in full" by Bitfinex or
could be exchanged for shares in the Hong Kong-based exchange's
parent company, iFinex.

The firm said it is still working out the small print on exactly
how this will work and will post further updates in the coming
days.

That's not gone down too well with some customers, who are still
in the dark over exactly how the exchange was breached in the
first place.

Some argued that shares in the company will be worth little given
recent events, while others claimed the exchange's owners should
be sent to jail.

Another demanded a public audit of the affair, claiming someone
should launch a class action suit against Bitfinex amid rumors
there may have been some insider element to the attack.

However, some have confirmed that even if Bitfinex sought
bankruptcy the courts would likely follow the same path and
distribute the losses equally between all users.

If nothing else, the incident confirms the highly volatile and
risky nature of cryptocurrencies.


BP PRODUCTS: Faces Crude Market Price-Rigging Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------
Christian Berthelsen, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a
firm owned by two Wall Street commodity market veterans has
accused oil giant BP PLC of manipulating the crude market on a
single day in 2014 to get a better price on a deal it was
negotiating with them.

The company, controlled by Kaushik Amin and Neal Shear, pioneers
of Wall Street's foray into commodity markets, claims BP rigged
market prices on a day it was using to value a two-year crude-
supply agreement, costing the firm $33 million.  BP denies the
allegations.  The pair's investment partnership, SilverRange
Capital Partners LLC, lodged the charges through a subsidiary
called NARL Refining Limited Partnership as part of a legal fight
over the contract between BP and a refinery it owns in Canada.

The price-rigging allegations, which surfaced in documents filed
in New York federal court, haven't been reported previously.
SilverRange hasn't yet produced evidence to support its claim that
BP rigged the market.  BP has previously been sanctioned in the
U.S. for natural gas and propane-market manipulation. Pinning
price movements in global markets on a single player will be a
tough task for them, an analyst said.

"There have been very few manipulation cases proved," said
Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz, a New York University professor and market-
manipulation expert who has testified in enforcement cases,
including the natural gas case against BP. "The requirements are
high, they're difficult to establish."

BP Denial

The claims by Messsrs. Amin's and Shear's firm "are completely
without merit and have been made solely as a tactical move" in the
dispute, BP said in a prepared statement.  The company said it
couldn't comment further because of confidentiality rules covering
the private arbitration proceeding in which the claim was
originally raised.  The claims were entered into public court
records as part of the New York lawsuit.

There are hundreds of traders involved in the roughly $275 billion
market for the world's two main crude contracts, making it too big
to manipulate over long periods.  But larger dealers can influence
it at the margins, causing incremental moves by putting on
significant positions when trading is thin.

It's not the first time BP's energy-trading unit has been accused
of market manipulation. Last month, BP was fined $20 million by
U.S. pipeline regulators for gaming the Texas natural gas market
in 2008. BP has said it plans to appeal.  In 2007, the company
agreed to pay $303 million to the U.S. Justice Department and the
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to resolve an
investigation into propane market manipulation.  The company
neither admitted nor denied the allegations.

That same year, a BP trader paid $400,000 to settle CFTC civil
charges that he tried to manipulate gasoline futures. He neither
admitted nor denied the claims.

CFTC Case

Now, Messrs. Amin's and Shear's firm is raising similar complaints
in the arbitration.  BP launched the arbitration case against
SilverRange last year, claiming the refinery failed to produce the
required amount of fuels under the contract. SilverRange sued in
New York federal court in January, accusing BP of supplying
inferior crude that caused damage to refining equipment.

A judge has already denied SilverRange's effort to force BP to
continue supplying crude to the refinery, as SilverRange sought.
The lawsuit has been suspended while the dispute, including the
manipulation claim, remains in arbitration.  SilverRange could
demand that BP produce its trading records, internal
communications and other evidence in an effort to back up its
claim.

Lead Traders

Mr. Shear built the commodity franchise at Morgan Stanley, long
considered one of the top-tier firms in the market, while Amin did
so at Lehman Bros.  Their Wall Street careers were damaged in the
financial crisis.  Mr. Shear, who had risen to a more senior role
overseeing trading at Morgan Stanley, was demoted in 2007
following its $3.7 billion loss on mortgage securities, and left
the firm soon after.  Mr. Amin was cited in the Lehman bankruptcy
examiner's report as being a key figure in the use of the so-
called Repo 105 accounting maneuver that the examiner said helped
the firm conceal its deteriorating finances.

After a handful of other ventures, including a stint at UBS
Securities LLC where they first worked together, the two teamed up
in 2013 to pursue direct ownership of energy facilities such as
refineries and delivery terminals.

Supply Deal

They bought the Come by Chance refinery in Newfoundland and
Labrador in 2014 after negotiating a two-year agreement with BP,
under which the oil company would sell them crude and then buy the
finished fuels.  The price tag on the supply deal was tied to the
closing prices of the U.S. and global Brent crude benchmarks on
Aug. 1, 2014.

As that day approached, the gap between the two benchmarks reached
its highest level in a month, which benefited SilverRange,
according to court records.  But on Aug. 1, a Friday, it lurched
in the other direction, contracting 7.5 percent over the course of
the trading session, with global Brent prices dropping more
sharply than their U.S. counterparts.

According to SilverRange's court filing, much of the move came in
the final half hour of trading before the market closed for the
weekend.  Traders sometimes use such tactics at day's end to drive
the market in their favor, in a strategy known as "banging the
close."

SilverRange asserts the ripple sliced 50 cents-a-barrel off the
value of their deal, or $32.9 million over the life of the
contract.

"BP appears to have engaged in manipulation of the crude oil
markets" to force prices down and reduce their cost in the deal,
the firm claimed in a court filing.

Weak Demand

At the time, traders and analysts attributed the market's move to
evidence of weakening demand amid the start of a burgeoning supply
glut that would ultimately prompt a two-year collapse.
But executives at SilverRange were immediately suspicious and
called BP that day to ask if their trading was behind the move,
according to the court records.  BP assured them, according to one
SilverRange filing, that "it was not responsible for the movement
and reaffirmed that it would be a good partner in the
relationship."

Evidence of market manipulation has to document intent and show
that the price change was directly caused by the tactic.  Both
private litigation and regulatory enforcement actions have often
fallen short. In the CFTC's most high-profile oil-market-
manipulation case in recent years, the agency wound up settling
with the defendants for $13 million -- much less than the $50
million they allegedly reaped from the scheme.

Class Action

A class-action lawsuit claiming BP, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, trading
house Trafigura Beheer BV and others conspired to manipulate
global oil benchmarks has dragged on in New York federal court for
three years, through three different versions of the lawsuit and
with some co-defendants being dismissed from the case.  The
companies deny wrongdoing.

BP was among companies raided in 2013 and subpoenaed by European
Union antitrust officials investigating rigging in the crude oil
markets, but the probe ended without charges being filed.
The case is NARL Refining Ltd. Partnership v. BP Products North
America Inc., 16-cv-00404, U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York (Manhattan).


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: "Musarra" Suit Consolidated in MDL No. 2385
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Musarra and Dominic Musarra, Plaintiffs, v. Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim
International GMBH, Defendants, (Conn. Super., August 5, 2016) has
been consolidated with Case No. MDL No. 2385. Case seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, costs and such other relief for
violation of the Connecticut Product Liability Act.

Boehringer is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877.
Defendants, directly or through their agents, apparent agents,
servants, or employees designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, distributed, promoted, labeled, tested and sold
Pradaxa (R) (Dabigatran Etexilate Mesylate), used to reduce the
risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular
atrial fibrillation.

Plaintiff began taking Pradaxa twice a day  for treatment of
atrial fibrillation and soon was diagnosed with gastrointestinal
bleeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
      FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
      4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 715
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Tel. (214) 890-0711
      Fax. (214) 890-0712
      Email: mccarley@fnlawfirm.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: "Padula" Suit Consolidated in MDL No. 2385
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Padula, Plaintiffs, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Defendants,
(Conn. Super., August 5, 2016), has been consolidated with Case
No. MDL No. 2385. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
costs and such other relief for violation of the Connecticut
Product Liability Act.

Boehringer is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877.
Defendants, directly or through their agents, apparent agents,
servants, or employees designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, distributed, promoted, labeled, tested and sold
Pradaxa (R) (Dabigatran Etexilate Mesylate), used to reduce the
risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular
atrial fibrillation.

Plaintiff began taking Pradaxa twice a day  for treatment of
atrial fibrillation and soon was diagnosed with gastrointestinal
bleeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
      FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
      4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 715
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Tel. (214) 890-0711
      Fax. (214) 890-0712
      Email: mccarley@fnlawfirm.com


BP PLC: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Seeks Approval of $600MM Legal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Derr, writing for SE TexasRecord, reports that attorneys for
the plaintiffs steering committee (PSC) in the multidistrict
class-action litigation over the Deepwater Horizon explosion and
oil spill have asked the presiding judge to approve $600 million
in attorney and common plaintiff benefit fees, saying the
reimbursement is warranted given the case's staggering scope and
complexity.

When BP and the other companies involved in the case agreed to
settle the related claims for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster,
the terms included a $600 million cap for attorney fees and
expenses.  As such, the 107 law firms that make up the PSC
detailed in a court petition filed last month how much work
they've have done on the case.

According to the fee petition filed with U.S. District Judge Carl
Barbier and Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan, the PSC's members, co-
liaison counsel and 88 additional common benefit law firms
invested more than 527,000 hours, more than 60 years collectively;
and provided approximately $45 million to plaintiffs and other
interests impacted by the April 2010 accident, which killed 11 rig
workers and released millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of
Mexico.

The requested $555 million fee award comes to 6.59 percent of the
benefits paid so far under BP class settlements and 4.25 percent
of the estimated economic and medical payouts, the filing read.

The PSC's clients comprise approximately 130,000 individuals,
businesses and governmental entities that opted to participate in
the multidistrict litigation instead of pursuing individual claims
on their own.

"With just over a year from the formation of the MDL to complete
all discovery and otherwise prepare for a massive two-phase
comprehensive liability trial, dozens of common benefit attorneys
essentially gave up their entire practices to live and work in New
Orleans on exclusively the Deepwater Horizon Litigation from (at
least) the end of 2010 through (at least) the end of the Phase One
Trial in April of 2013, and in many cases through the end of the
Phase Two Trial in October of 2013 (and beyond)," the petition
stated.

The petition explains at great length the fees attorneys are
seeking, though it's unlikely BP or any of the other companies
will challenge them, since they didn't exceed the $600 million
ceiling the parties previously accepted.

"The relief provided under the BP Class Settlements has already
been fully and finally approved as 'fair, reasonable, and
adequate' to the members of each class, and the BP defendants have
agreed not to contest or oppose the requested approval and award
of common benefit cost reimbursements and/or fees in the amounts
sought herein," the petition stated.

The settlement capped attorney contingency fees for individual
claims at 25 percent, while Judge Barbier has stated lawyers are
able to ask for less, especially for simple claims.

The plaintiffs' attorneys tackled competing federal and state
legal processes, and worked with state and federal officials, the
petition said.  The legal teams also had to navigate through
environmental and maritime law, and oversee more than 130,000
businesses, government entities and individuals that joined the
litigation.

Then, not only were the involved attorneys tasked with negotiating
multi-billion settlements, but they also defended those agreements
from efforts by BP to alter the assigned terms or withhold
payments, the petition explained.

Out of the $600 million requested, according to the filing, $555.2
million would be paid to class counsel and common benefit
attorneys, with the remainder earmarked for shared expenses,
already paid back by common benefit attorneys or forwarded to
third-party service providers, along with certain claimed
expenses.


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: "Artiles" Suit Invokes FLSA, Fla. Wage Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAYELIN ARTILES, And other similarly situated individuals, v.
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Foreign Profit Corporation, d/b/a
CHILI'S Case No: 1:16-cv-23451-MGC (S.D. Fla., August 10, 2016),
seeks recovery of alleged unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. is an American multinational
hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's
Little Italy restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flager St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005
     E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
             apestico@rgpattorneys.com
             rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com
             pn@rgpattorneys.com


C.E.P. INC: Faces "Cicero" Suit Under FLSA, Colorado Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN CICERO, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. C.E.P., INC, a Colorado Corporation, Case
No: 1:16-cv-02024 (D. Col., August 10, 2016), alleges violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act, and the Colorado Minimum
Wage Order.

Plaintiff and those similarly situated are currently, or were
formerly, employed by Defendant C.E.P, Inc. as store managers at
all nine on the Defendant's retail store locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam W. Ray, Esq.
     Seth J. Benezra, Esq.
     John A. Culver, Esq.
     BENEZRA & CULVER P.C.
     633 17th Street, Suite 2610
     Denver, CO 80202
     Phone: (303) 716-0254
     E-mail: awray@bc-law.com
             sjbenezra@bc-law.com
             jaculver@bc-law.com


CADE DRILLING: "Falk" Lawsuit Sees to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB FALK and all others similarly situated under 29 USC Section
216(b), v. CADE DRILLING, LLC, Case No: 1:16-cv-02027-KLM (D.
Col., August 10, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is involved in oilfield casing services in oilfields
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jesse Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
             forester@l-b-law.com

        - and -

     JACK SIEGEL, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Phone: (214) 706-0834
     E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


CALIFORNIA: Chase Has 30 Days to Cure Complaint
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNY CHASE, Plaintiff, v. J. LOPEZ, Defendant, No.
1:14-cv-01853-EPG-PC (E.D. Calif.), Magistrate Judge Erica P.
Grosjean ordered the Plaintiff to file the Third Amended Complaint
within 30 days from the August 1 dismissal of his Second Amended
Complaint.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant intentionally left his
flashlight where a riot was ensuing so that other prisoners, of
Latino nationality, could use it as a weapon against Plaintiff, an
African prisoner. Thus, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Lopez
violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual
punishment because Defendant failed to enforce a policy or take
other reasonable steps when he knew the threat of violence was
substantial.

The Court ordered that the Third Amended Complaint should be brief
and must state what each named defendant did that led to the
deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/3PE0nlfrom Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Facing Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
California Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that "On April
21, 2016, a purported class action was filed against us in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all beneficial owners of our unsecured notes from
November 12, 2015 to the present.  The complaint alleges that our
December 2015 debt exchange excluded non-qualified institutional
holders in violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and
related law and, thereby, impaired their rights to receive
principal and interest payments.  The purported class action seeks
declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the liens securing
the new notes are null and void and that the debt exchange
resulted in a default.  The plaintiff also seeks monetary damages
and attorneys' fees.  The Company plans to vigorously defend
against the claims made by the plaintiff."


CANADA: May Face Class Action Over Foreign Buyer Tax
----------------------------------------------------
Philippine Canadian Inquirer reports that the BC government pulled
a surprise legislation to discourage foreign buyers from buying a
property in Metro Vancouver, a harebrained attempt that could
leave taxpayers footing the bill for a massive class-action
lawsuit that is bound to happen.

Mylene Villanueva Lim, a mortgage professional at Dominion Lending
Centres, said, "It is not so much the imposition of the foreign
buyer tax (that is not the topic here) as it is the underhanded
way it was brought in.  It is the retroactive implementation of
the legislation for contracts that have already been entered into
in good faith, before the new tax was announced."

She elaborated, "On a micro level, let us talk about the average
Joe, not the multi-millionaire who could very well afford the 15
percent tax imposition, but the one who has been working among us,
toiling and saving to own a home in time for his permanent
residency status to be granted in the next week or so."

"After a careful review of his finances and meeting all the
conditions to his property purchase, Joe decided to go into a firm
and binding contract to buy a home for $600,000.  Then out of the
blue, he finds himself needing to pay an extra $90,000.  If poor
Joe couldn't close the deal as soon as possible (he has all of
eight days from announcement date), he better come up with the
extra $90,000 to be able to go ahead with his purchase or he
defaults.

Ms. Lim explained that Joe's seller, Jane, could bring him to
court for breach of contract, or at the very least, he loses his
deposit.  Ms. Lim likewise asked, "What about if Jane had gone
into a binding purchase contract, relying on Joe's purchase of her
property? She also faces a lawsuit and stands to lose her
deposit."

Ms. Lim strongly disagrees with the BC government study
arbitrarily asking an extra 15 percent tax from unsuspecting
buyers.  She said these buyers were duped into thinking that the
BC government can be depended on to honor binding agreements.  "In
other words, the BC government's word is not worth the paper it is
printed on," Lim denounced.

The mortgage specialist added that on a macro level, the 15
percent foreign buyer tax would not solve the housing
affordability in BC.  According to Finance Minister Mike de Jong,
foreign buyers only constitute approximately six percent of
current transactions.  The remaining 94 percent of buyers are
fellow Canadians in BC or moving to BC for better opportunities.

"This has caused the escalation of real estate prices. The law of
supply and demand, in our case, the supply cannot meet the demand.
Our gov't cannot temporarily assuage the resentment and anger of
BC residents by using the mere six percent of buyers as
scapegoats.  They need to address the housing shortage so that the
average Joe wouldn't have to pay through his nose to afford a home
in BC," Ms. Lim said.

This is the crux of the housing shortage.


CASH AMERICA: Andrew Samtoy Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Andrew
Samtoy, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed on July 6,
2016, a Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Petition in the
District Court of Dallas County of the State of Texas, styled
Samtoy et al. v. Stuart et al., DC-16-08063 (the "Samtoy Action"),
against the Company's board of directors, First Cash Financial
Services, Inc. ("FCFS") and Frontier Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger
Sub"). The complaint in the Samtoy Action also names the Company
as a nominal defendant. The complaint in the Samtoy Action asserts
direct and derivative claims against the Company's board of
directors for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with their
approval of the proposed transaction. The complaint in the Samtoy
Action also asserts direct and derivative claims against FCFS and
Merger Sub for allegedly aiding and abetting the Company's board
of directors' breach of fiduciary duties. The Samtoy Action seeks,
among other things, an injunction enjoining the proposed
transaction from closing and an award of attorneys' fees and
costs. The Company, its board of directors, FCFS and Merger Sub
believe that the claims in the complaint are entirely without
merit and intend to defend this action vigorously.


CENTURYLINK INC: Fulghum Plaintiffs Will Not Appeal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Centurylink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the
Fulghum class action lawsuit have stated they will not appeal a
court ruling because there is no reasonable prospect for success.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a class action
lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in
retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical
insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective
January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the
modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses
for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants
include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee
Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of
certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include
Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The court
certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected
class certification as to other claims.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at
issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members
of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly
vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are
similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II),
on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The court
has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited
discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the
plaintiffs.

On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of
the plaintiffs' claims in the case. On interlocutory appeal, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled on
February 24, 2015, that the plan documents reviewed do not support
any claim for vested benefits, and affirmed the district court's
dismissal of claims based on those documents. The Tenth Circuit
decision allowed a subset of claims for vested benefits to return
to the district court for further proceedings. The Tenth Circuit
also affirmed the district court's dismissal of all age
discrimination claims. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district
court's determination that the statute of repose under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA"), is a time bar to the breach of fiduciary duty claims of
fifteen named plaintiffs.

The district court in Fulghum subsequently granted judgment in
favor of defendants on all remaining and unadjudicated vested
benefits claims, and on July 5, 2016, ordered that any affected
class members may appeal this ruling.  The named Fulghum
plaintiffs have stated in court filings that they will not appeal
because there is no reasonable prospect for success. Assuming no
individual class members attempt an appeal by August 4, 2016, all
claims for vested benefits under this suit will lapse. Defendants
will continue to vigorously contest any further proceedings that
may occur in the district court.

"We have accrued a liability that we believe is probable for these
matters; the amount is not material to our consolidated financial
statements," the company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Sikora" Settlement Granted Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2016, that the court
has entered the order and judgment granting final approval of the
"Sikora" class action settlement.

On April 11, 2013, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer
County, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code, by requiring
employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820).  A similar
lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed in Placer
County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al;
Case No. SCV27073).  By stipulation the parties agreed to transfer
the Reed and Sikora cases to Los Angeles County.  Both cases were
subsequently coordinated together in Los Angeles County by order
of the Judicial Council.  On November 15, 2013, the Company filed
a motion to enforce judgment and to preclude the prosecution of
certain claims under the California Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") and California Business and Professions Code Section
17200.  On March 11, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion
in Case No. SCV0032820. The parties participated in voluntary
mediation on June 25, 2015 and have executed a memorandum of
understanding with respect to the terms of settlement, which is
subject to court approval and is intended to be a full and final
resolution of the actions.

On January 29, 2016, the court granted the parties' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement for Case Nos.
SCV0032820 and SCV27073.  On June 10, 2016, the court entered the
order and judgment granting final approval of the class action
settlement.

"Based on the current status of this matter, we have reserved an
immaterial amount in anticipation of settlement," the Company
said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Says Masters, Brown & Tagalogon Cases Related
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2016, that class
action lawsuits by Masters, Brown and Tagalogon may be related.

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278).  By
stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-
00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court.

On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially
transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the
Orange County Superior Court.

On June 27, 2016, we gave notice to the court that Case Nos.
CIV1504091 and BC603620 may be related.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments
on behalf of the Plaintiff and other purported class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments.

On November 10, 2015, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Marin County Superior Court alleging
that the Company failed to provide complete and accurate wage
statements as set forth in the California Labor Code.

On January 26, 2016, the plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in
addition to other monetary payments (Brown v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. CIV1504091).

On April 18, 2016, the court granted our motion to compel
individual arbitration of plaintiff's wage statement claim and
stayed the PAGA claim until completion of the individual
arbitration.

On June 28, 2016, we gave notice to the court that Case Nos. 30-
2015-00775529 and BC603620 may be related. We intend to vigorously
defend against this action.  Based upon the current status of this
matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee
filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court alleging that the Company improperly classified its
managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to
provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to
other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., Case No. BC603620).

On March 23, 2016, the parties issued their joint status
conference statement at which time we gave notice to the court
that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and CIV1504091 may be related.  On
April 29, 2016, the Company filed its response to the complaint.

We intend to vigorously defend against this action.  Based upon
the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Wants Gratuities Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2016, that the
Company intends to file a motion to dismiss a class action
complaint in New York.

On April 24, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that the Company violated the New York deceptive business
practices statute by improperly calculating suggested gratuities
on split payment checks.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties
in addition to other monetary payments.  On June 8, 2016, the
Company informed the court that it intends to file a motion to
dismiss the complaint.

"We intend to vigorously defend against this action.  Based upon
the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Court Dismissed Claims in "Guglielmo" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2016, that a court
has issued an order confirming the agreement of the parties to
dismiss all class claims with prejudice in the case, Guglielmo v.
The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 2:15-CV-
03117).

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the
State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions
(Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al;
Case No 2:15-CV-03117).

On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the
complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against opt-
in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements.  On July 21,
2016, the court issued an order confirming the agreement of the
parties to dismiss all class claims with prejudice and to allow
the case to proceed as a collective action at a limited number of
the Company's restaurants in the State of New York.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based upon the
current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in W.D. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on April 19, 2016,
a derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and current and
former directors and officers of the Company alleging, among other
things, violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, breach of
fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement
and violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act related to actions allegedly taken by such persons since 2008.
The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action, damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Funded $29MM Settlement in Royalty Owners Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has
funded the settlement amount in the royalty owners' case of
approximately $29 million in cash and signed a $10 million, three-
year promissory note in July 2016.

Chesapeake is defending numerous lawsuits filed by individual
royalty owners alleging royalty underpayment with respect to
properties in Texas. On April 8, 2015, Chesapeake obtained a
transfer order from the Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel to
transfer a substantial portion of these lawsuits filed since June
2014 to the 348th District Court of Tarrant County for pre-trial
purposes (the "MDL"). These lawsuits, which primarily relate to
the Barnett Shale, generally allege that Chesapeake underpaid
royalties by making improper deductions and using incorrect
production volumes. In addition to allegations of breach of
contract, a number of these lawsuits allege fraud, conspiracy,
joint venture and antitrust violations by Chesapeake. The lawsuits
seek direct damages in varying amounts, together with exemplary
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest.

Chesapeake entered into a settlement agreement with MDL plaintiffs
representing over 97% of the hydrocarbons at issue by volume and,
on July 22, 2016, the plaintiffs who accepted the settlement filed
to dismiss such lawsuits. Chesapeake funded the settlement amount
of approximately $29 million in cash and signed a $10 million,
three-year promissory note in July 2016, which is accrued for as
of June 30, 2016.

Additional plaintiffs are continuing to accept the settlement on a
rolling basis. Chesapeake expects that additional lawsuits filed
by plaintiffs not participating in the settlement will continue to
be pursued and that new plaintiffs will file other lawsuits making
similar allegations.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Class Action Transferred to Oklahoma Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the class action
lawsuit on behalf of holders of the Company's 6.875% Senior Notes
due 2020 has been transferred to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma.

In April 2016, a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of the
Company's 6.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (the 2020 Notes) and 6.125%
Senior Notes due 2021 (the 2021 Notes) was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to
the Company's December 2015 debt exchange, whereby the Company
privately exchanged newly issued 8.00% Senior Secured Second Lien
Notes due 2022 (Second Lien Notes) for certain outstanding senior
unsecured notes and contingent convertible notes. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939
and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
benefiting themselves and a minority of noteholders who are
qualified institutional buyers (QIBs). According to the lawsuit,
as a result of the Company's private debt exchange in which only
QIBs (and non-U.S. persons under Regulation S) were eligible to
participate, the Company unjustly enriched itself at the expense
of class members by reducing indebtedness and reducing the value
of the 2020 Notes and the 2022 Notes. The lawsuit seeks damages
and attorney's fees, in addition to declaratory relief that the
debt exchange and the liens created for the benefit of the Second
Lien Notes are null and void and that the debt exchange
effectively resulted in a default under the indentures for the
2020 Notes and the 2021 Notes. In June 2016, the lawsuit was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma.


CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Court Allows Amendments in "Carabez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez granted the Plaintiff's motion to
file amended class action and individual complaint in the case
captioned, JOSE CARABEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v.
CONSTELLATION BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-CV-01294-JAM-CKD (E.D. Calif.).

Judge Mendez ordered the Plaintiff to serve the amended complaint
to the Defendant within 10 days following its Order dated August
11, 2016.

The Court noted that Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint shall serve as Defendant's responsive pleading
to the Amended Class Action and Individual Complaint, unless
Defendant chooses to file an alternative responsive pleading
within thirty days from the date of service of the Amended Class
Action and Individual Complaint.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at http://goo.gl/N1e13q
from Leagle.com.

Jose Carabez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman
-- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C. & Salwa Khader
Haddad -- shaddad@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C..

Constellation Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gabriel Neil
Rubin -- grubin@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP.


CONTRA COSTA, CA: Court Sets Opt-Out Process in Retiree Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RETIREE SUPPORT GROUP OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, MICHAEL
SLOAN, DEBORAH ELITE, SUSANNE BEADLE, BILLIE JOE WILSON ELKIN,
ALYN GOLDSMITH, AND ALICE GROTHMANN, Plaintiffs, v. CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY, Defendant, No. C 12-00944 JST (N.D. Calif.), District
Judge Jon S. Tigar directed the Settlement Administrator to follow
its ordered opt-out procedure concerning the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Retiree.

Simpluris, Inc. is the Settlement Administrator.

The procedure provides that on the seventh business day after the
date of mailing the Court's Corrective Notice, the Settlement
Administrator shall call each person who submitted an opt-out if
the opt-out contains a telephone number. Upon reaching the person
submitting the opt-out by telephone, a script shall be used by the
Settlement Administrator and in any case, shall be forwarded to
the counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class if the person who wishes
to opt out presents further questions.

The Settlement Administrator shall keep a log of all attempted and
completed calls to and from Class Members who submitted opt-outs,
including the time(s) and date(s) of the calls to and from such
Class Members, the result of each call (e.g., left voicemail,
talked to the person), whether the person was referred to Class
Counsel for further information, and whether the person specified
that he or she wanted to withdraw his or her opt-out

The Court further ordered that in the absence of any telephone
number for the Class Member or if the Class Member has not
returned the Settlement Administrator's calls, the Settlement
Administrator shall send by U.S. mail a letter providing an
important notice about the person's rights to retiree medical
benefits.

Meanwhile, the Class members who indicates orally, but not in
writing, that he or she wishes to withdraw his or her opt-out, the
Settlement Administrator shall send to that person by U.S. mail a
letter confirming that the Class Member has elected to withdraw
the opt-out.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 8, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/32EUkGfrom Leagle.com.

Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County, et al., Plaintiffs,
represented by Jeffrey Greg Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. & Jacob Avery Richards --
jrichards@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Contra Costa County, Defendant, represented by Raymond Francis
Lynch, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Lawrence M. Cirelli, Hanson Bridgett
LLP, Mary Ann McNett Mason, Office of County Counsel, Matthew
Joseph Peck -- mpeck@hansonbridget.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP,
Sharon Louise Anderson, Office of County Counsel & Stephen B.
Peck, Esq., Hanson Bridgett LLP.

Ruth Roe, Defendant, represented by Lorrie Elizabeth Bradley --
lbradley@beesontayer.com -- Beeson, Tayer and Bodine & Sheila
Kathleen Sexton -- ssexton@beesontayer.com -- Beeson Tayer &
Bodine PC.


CORMEDIX INC: Motion to "Li" Dismiss Case Taken Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cormedix Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has taken the
Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit under
advisement.

On July 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, captioned Li v. Cormedix Inc., et al., Case 3:15-cv-05264
(the "Securities Class Action"). On September 4, 2015, two
individuals, Shahm Martini and Paul Chretien (the "Martini
Group"), filed a Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff. On that same
date, another individual, Elaine Wood, filed a competing Motion to
Appoint Lead Plaintiff. On September 18, 2015, the Martini Group
withdrew its motion. Thereafter, on September 22, 2015, the Court
appointed Elaine Wood as Lead Plaintiff and, on October 2, 2015,
appointed the Rosen Law Firm as Lead Counsel.

On December 1, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
asserting claims that the Company and Steven Lefkowitz, Randy
Milby and Harry O'Grady (the "Cormedix Defendants") violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended
Complaint also names as defendants several unrelated entities that
allegedly were paid stock promoters. Lead Plaintiff alleges
generally that the Cormedix Defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other
things, the competitive landscape for the Company's Neutrolin
product and the alleged use of stock promoters.  The Amended
Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.

On February 1, 2016, the Cormedix Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint
on the grounds, among others, that the Amended Complaint fails to
adequately allege: (1) material misstatements or omissions; (2)
scienter by any of the Cormedix Defendants; or (3) loss causation.
The Court heard oral argument on this motion on July 18, 2016 and
took the matter under advisement.

CorMedix Inc. ("CorMedix" or the "Company") is a biopharmaceutical
company focused on developing and commercializing therapeutic
products for the prevention and treatment of infectious and
inflammatory diseases. The Company was incorporated in the State
of Delaware on July 28, 2006. In 2013, the Company formed a
wholly-owned subsidiary, CorMedix Europe GmbH.


CTI BIOPHARMA: Motion to Consolidate Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
CTI Biopharma Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has granted
the motion to consolidate class action lawsuits.

The Company said, "On February 10, 2016 and February 12, 2016,
class action lawsuits entitled Ahrens v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et
al, Case No. 1:16-cv-01044 and McGlothlin v. CTI BioPharma Corp.
et al, Case No. C16-216, respectively, were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, respectively, on behalf of shareholders that purchased
or acquired the Company's securities pursuant to our September 24,
2015 public offering and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired
our stock between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive.

"The complaints assert claims against the Company and certain of
our current and former directors and officers for violations of
the federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and
Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims
allege that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
for the September 24, 2015 public offering contained materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects, including with respect to the clinical trials and
prospects for pacritinib. Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims allege
that the Company's public disclosures were knowingly or recklessly
false and misleading or omitted material adverse facts, again with
a primary focus on the clinical trials and prospects for
pacritinib."

"On May 2, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrens
case to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington. The motion was unopposed and granted by the court
on May 19, 2016.

"On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate
the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in order to proceed as a
single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016, the court
granted the motion to consolidate with the action being captioned
In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
2:16-cv-00216-RSL.

"The lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount. We believe
that the allegations contained in the complaints are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against all claims
asserted therein. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any
possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time and, as
such, we have not recorded an accrual for any possible loss."


COVISINT CORPORATION: Dec. 15 Hearing to Approve Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Covisint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the hearing on Court
approval of the settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit
is currently scheduled for December 15, 2016.

The Company said, "Beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us, our directors and former
directors, and certain of our officers and former officers
alleging violation of securities laws in connection with our IPO
and seeking unspecified damages. These lawsuits were consolidated
in the action entitled Desrocher v. Covisint Corporation, et al.,
No. 14-cv-03878 (the "Securities Class Action"). On October 14,
2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Complaint") alleging violations of Regulation S-K
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The Complaint
alleges, among other things that the IPO's registration statement
contained (1) untrue statements and omissions of material facts
related to the Company's projected revenues for fiscal 2014, (2)
materially inaccurate statements regarding the Company's revenue
recognition policy, and (3) omissions of known trends,
uncertainties and significant risk factors as required to be
disclosed by Regulation S-K."

"On May 5, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement to dismiss all claims with prejudice and
settle the Securities Class Action (the "Settlement"). The
Settlement was reached after the Court denied defendants' motions
to dismiss and granted class certification of a class of all
persons who purchased the Company's stock in and/or traceable to
the Company's IPO on or about September 26, 2013, seeking to
pursue remedies under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The
Settlement, which is subject to Court approval, provides for a
payment by the defendants of $8.0 million. The Company's uninsured
portion of the settlement amount is $0.4 million, which was
recorded as a liability as of March 31, 2016 and paid in July
2016. The hearing on Court approval of the Settlement is currently
scheduled for December 15, 2016."


DALLAS CENTRAL: PFSE Ltd Suit Alleges Misappraisal
--------------------------------------------------
PFSE, Ltd., operating as Forest and Marsh Lanes Shopping Center -
Southeast Corner, Plaintiff, v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-09547, (S.D. Tex., August 8, 2016),
seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and reasonable
attorney's fees and such other and further relief for violation of
the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff owns/operates real property and improvements company
located in Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value placed
on the property by the District represents a value in excess of
fair market value for tax year 2016.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas
75247-6195.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax)
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             itobin@gpd.com
             mkrasoff@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Amreit, et al. Appeal 2016 Order
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in AMREIT UPTOWN DALLAS, LP, CASA LINDA (EDENS) LLC,
AMREIT PRESTON ROYAL, LP, AMREIT PRESTON ROYAL NEC, LP MACARTHUR
PARK, LP AS OWNER AND LESSEE, V. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09628 (D. Tex., August 10, 2016), are
appealing the 2016 Orders issued by the County Appraisal Review
Board on the case.

Plaintiffs own and/or lease property in Dallas County, Texas.  The
Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gavin McBryde, Esq.
     Kathleen J. Santos, Esq.
     MCBRYDE FIRM, PLLC
     7600 Burnet Road, Suite 500
     Austin, TX 78757
     Phone: (512) 296-2115
     Fax: (512) 691-9072
     E-mail: Serv.gavin@mcbrydefirm.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Inspection of Medical Premises Set for Sept. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kandis A. Westmore ordered the parties in a lawsuit
against Dignity Health to complete joint inspection of the subject
medical premises on September 7, 2016, following the parties'
request for an extension from the schedule initially set August
18, 2016.  Judge Westmore added that all related deadlines are to
follow the September 7 deadline.

The parties of the case, entitled, CHRISTOPHER SELDON, Plaintiff,
v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California Corporation dba ST. MARY'S MEDICAL
CENTER aka ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, DIGNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION and DOES
1-20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-02454-KAW (N.D.
Calif.), said a 20-day extension of the date for joint inspection,
along with the deadline for initial disclosures, ensures that the
Parties are able to meet and confer about the scope and schedule
of the inspection in light of the Consent Decree in place under a
related Kemper case.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 12, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/MKIRfzfrom Leagle.com.

Christopher Seldon, Plaintiff, represented by Celia Louise
McGuinness -- cmcguinness@reinlawoffice.com -- Law Offices of Paul
L. Rein, Paul Leslie Rein, Law Offices of Paul L. Rein & Steven
Leo Derby -- derbylaw@att.net -- The Derby Law Firm P.C..

Dignity Health, et al., Defendants, represented by Elizabeth
Blanche Stallard -- estallard@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Class Action Remains in Early Stages
------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class
action lawsuit against the Company remains in its early stages.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the patients of the Facility over the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaints.

On June 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of Arkansas issued a ruling in
a lawsuit against another provider that may impact this action. In
that case, the Court ruled that a lawsuit against several
facilities formerly operated by Golden Living could proceed as a
class action.

The lawsuit against the Company remains in its early stages and
has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. The
Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


DRAIN TEAM: Faces "Couri" Suit in Fla. Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHON COURI, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. THE DRAIN TEAM, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and PETER
MACCIO, individually, Case No: 8:16-cv-02301-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
August 11, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a plumbing service
technician.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: 954-318-0268
     Fax: 954-333-3515
     E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Retirement Plan Suit Alleges Violation of ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID CLARK, KEITH A. FEATHER, JORGE LOPEZ, THOMAS C. MEHEN, SUSIE
PETTUS, AND ROBERT HEALY individually and as representatives of a
class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Duke
Faculty and Staff Retirement Plan, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY AND THE DUKE
INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Case No: 1:16-cv-01044 (M.D.N.C.,
August 10, 2016), was filed individually and as representatives of
a purported class of participants and beneficiaries in the Duke
Faculty and Staff Retirement Plan, who are alleging violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Duke University is a private research university located in
Durham, North Carolina, United States. Founded by Methodists and
Quakers in the present-day town of Trinity in 1838, the school
moved to Durham in 1892.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David B. Puryear Jr, Esq.
     PURYEAR AND LINGLE, P.L.L.C.
     5501-E Adams Farm Lane
     Greensboro, NC 27407
     Phone: (336) 218-0227
     E-mail: puryear@puryearandlingle.com

        - and -

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
     Troy A. Doles, Esq.
     Heather Lea, Esq.
     Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
     Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
             mwolff@uselaws.com
             tdoles@uselaws.com
             hlea@uselaws.com
             kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
             ssoyars@uselaws.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: Court Denies Settlements of Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas S. Zilly denied, without prejudice, the
motions for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in
all five cases alleging the Defendants' violations of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act (and similar consumer acts of
California, New Jersey, North Carolina and Ohio).

The cases are entitled as follows:

     (1) O&R CONSTRUCTION, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUN & BRADSTREET
CREDIBILITY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. C12-2184 TSZ
(W.D. Wash.);

     (2) DIE-MENSION CORPORATION, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUN & BRADSTREET
CREDIBILITY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. C14-855 TSZ (W.D.
Wash.);

     (3) VINOTEMP INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUN
& BRADSTREET CREDIBILITY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. C14-
1021 TSZ (W.D. Wash.);

     (4) ALTAFLO, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUN & BRADSTREET CREDIBILITY
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. C14-1288 TSZ (W.D. Wash.);

     (5) FLOW SCIENCES INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUN & BRADSTREET
CREDIBILITY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, C14-1404 TSZ (W.D.
Wash.).

In the proposed class action settlement, the parties have not
provided any estimate of the amount a typical class member might
anticipate receiving. In addition, the parties have offered no
basis for the Court to determine whether the total amount of the
settlement is reasonable based on the alleged claims and defenses.
The parties have also failed to provide the Court with any
analysis of plaintiffs' chances of success or the likelihood of
any relief being afforded to plaintiffs if successful, and have
failed to discuss whether more than one class is necessary in
light of the various state law claims.

In all cases, the Court held that it cannot begin to evaluate
whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and
in the best interests of the class. The Court also held that in
each case, all class members would not be able to form opinions
concerning whether or not to object to the proposed settlement.

The parties envision that attorney's fees will be equal to or less
than 25% of the settlement amount, or $687,500. They also
contemplate that O&R Construction, LLC will receive an incentive
award of $5,000, while the other five class representatives will
each receive an incentive award of $2,500, for a total in
incentive awards of $17,500. If those amounts are subtracted from
the settlement amount, the sum remaining would be $2,045,000, or
roughly $58 per class member, assuming all class members shared
equally. Litigation expenses, notice and claims administration
fees, taxes, and tax-related expenses, however, must also be
deducted from the settlement amount in advance of any distribution
to class members, and the parties have offered no approximations
for these items.

The Court further ordered the parties, in case of any renewed
motion, to discuss how class members will be notified about any
request for attorney's fees, and shall indicate whether, in light
of the proposed class definition, these five actions should be
consolidated into the lowest cause number before a class is
certified for settlement purposes.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 9, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/A4AL3Efrom Leagle.com.

O&R Construction, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron A. Bartz,
SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP, pro hac vice, Bradley Jerome Moore
-- brad@stritmatter.com -- STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN KOEHLER
MOORE KAHLER, Christopher Collins -- chrisc@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS
GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice, Drew Legando, LANDSKRONER
- GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC, pro hac vice, Frank J. Janecek Jr. --
frankj@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac
vice, Holly W. Kimmel -- hkimmel@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP, pro hac vice, Jack Landskroner, LANDSKRONER -
GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC, pro hac vice, Lea Malani Bays --
lbays@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac
vice, Ross E. Shanberg, SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP, pro hac
vice, Stuart A. Davidson -- Sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS
GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP, pro hac vice, Theodore J. Pintar --
tedp@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice
& Thomas E. Egler -- tome@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD LLP, pro hac vice.

Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Gail E. Lees, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas
Matthew Brennan -- tmb@mckay-chadwell.com -- MCKAY CHADWELL,
Timothy W. Loose, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, pro hac vice,
Zathrina Zasell G. Perez -- zperez@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN &
CRUTCHER LLP, pro hac vice & Michael D. McKay -- mdm@mckay-
chadwell.com -- MCKAY CHADWELL.

Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by
Inyoung Hwang -- sarah.hwang@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN & STERLING
LLP, pro hac vice, Mikael A. Abye -- mikael.abye@shearman.com --
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, pro hac vice, Richard F. Schwed --
rschwed@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, pro hac vice,
Carson R. Cooper -- cooperc@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC &
Charles C. Huber -- huberc@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC.


EATON CORPORATION: Faces "Gabriele" Lawsuit Under Securities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
HELENE KARAFIN GABRIELE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. EATON CORPORATION PLC, ALEXANDER CUTLER,
and RICHARD FEARON, Case No: 1:16-cv-06393 (S.D.N.Y., August 11,
2016), was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Eaton between November 13, 2013 and July 28, 2014, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act.

EATON CORPORATION PLC is an Ireland-based manufacturer of
engineered products marketed to customers in the industrial,
agricultural, construction, aerospace, and vehicle markets. The
Company's products include hydraulic equipment, fluid connectors,
electrical distribution equipment, and engine components.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


ECOLAB INC: 4 Wage Hour Lawsuits Pending
----------------------------------------
Ecolab, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the company is a
defendant in four pending wage hour lawsuits claiming violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or a similar state law.
Of these four suits, two have been certified for class action
status.

Ross (formerly Icard) v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern
District of California, case no. C 13-05097 PJH, an action under
California state law, has been certified for class treatment of
California Institutional employees. The Court in Ross recently
granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding
that Institutional Route Sales Managers are not exempt from
overtime pay under California wage and hour laws. The company
appealed this judgment. The court has not determined damages;
however the company has established an accrual, which is not
material to its results of operations or financial position. This
matter has been tentatively settled, subject to court approval.

A second pending suit, Charlot v. Ecolab Inc., U.S. District
Court-Eastern District of New York, case no. CV 12-04543, seeks
nationwide class certification of Institutional employees for
alleged FLSA violations as well as purported state sub-classes in
New York, New Jersey, Washington and Pennsylvania alleging
violations of state wage hour laws. The Court in Charlot recently
granted the company's motion for summary judgment against
plaintiffs on the federal FLSA claims. Plaintiffs' claims under
state law remain pending and the judgment in favor of Ecolab may
be subject to appeal by Plaintiffs.

A third pending suit, Schneider v. Ecolab, United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, case no. 14 C 01044,
seeks certification of a class of Institutional employees for
alleged violations of Illinois wage and hour laws.

In a fourth pending suit, Martino v. Ecolab, United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, case no.
5:14-cv-04358-PSG, an action under California state law, the Court
has certified a class of California Institutional Territory
Managers alleging violation of state wage and hour laws.  This
matter has been tentatively settled, subject to court approval.
The company has established an accrual, which is not material to
its results of operations or financial position.


EMCORE CORP: Says Liability in "Mirasol" Suit May Hit $2.6MM
------------------------------------------------------------
EMCORE Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's ultimate
liability with respect to an employee class action lawsuit may
range from $39,000 to $2.6 million.

While the Company believes that it has valid and meritorious
defenses with respect to the allegations, the ultimate liability
to the Company, including penalties and fines associated with the
remaining claims, is subject to many uncertainties and may range
from $39,000 to $2.6 million.

On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff Christina Mirasol ("Mirasol"), on
her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated individuals composed of current and former non-exempt
employees of the Company working in California since December 15,
2011, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County. The complaint alleges seven
causes of action related to: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2)
failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wages;
(4) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (5) failure to
provide compliant wage statements; (6) unfair competition under
the California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.;
and (7) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.

The claims are premised primarily on the allegation that Mirasol
and the putative class members were not provided with their
legally required meal periods. Mirasol seeks recovery on her own
behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified
amount for compensatory and liquidated damages as well as for
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, pre-
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

In exchange for a one-time cash payment offered by the Company,
certain current and former employees have agreed to release the
Company from all potential claims related to the matters alleged
in the Mirasol lawsuit. The Company has recorded an accrual for
these amounts at June 30, 2016 that is not material to the
Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash
flows, which has been recorded within Operating Expenses for the
nine months ended June 30, 2016.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the claims
asserted in the lawsuit. While the Company believes that it has
valid and meritorious defenses with respect to the allegations,
the ultimate liability to the Company, including penalties and
fines associated with the remaining claims, is subject to many
uncertainties and may range from $39,000 to $2.6 million.


EMORY UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit in Ga. Over Alleged ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
GENEVA HENDERSON, HELEN DULOCK, RENA GUZMAN, JACQUELINE GOLDBERG,
CONNIE CORPENING, JOANNE RACKSTRAW, JOANN D. WRIGHT, DEON M.
MOORE, CYNTHIA T. JAMES, HUBERTA W. WALLER, JACQUELINE BLACKWELL,
AND KATHRYN T. PRESLEY, individually and as representatives of a
class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Emory
University Retirement Plan and the Emory Healthcare, Inc.
Retirement Savings and Matching Plan, v. EMORY UNIVERSITY, EMORY
HEALTHCARE, INC., EMORY PENSION BOARD, EMORY INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT, AND MARY L. CAHILL, Case No: 1:16-cv-02920-MHC (N.D.
Ga., August 11, 2016), was filed on behalf of a purported class of
participants and beneficiaries in the Emory University Retirement
Plan and the Emory Healthcare, Inc. Retirement Savings and
Matching Plan, over alleged violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Emory University is a private research university in metropolitan
Atlanta, located in the Druid Hills section of unincorporated
DeKalb County, Georgia, United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bradley S. Wolff, Esq.
     SWIFT, CURRIE, MCGHEE, & HIERS, LLP
     1355 Peachtree St., N.E., Ste. 300
     Atlanta, GA 30309-3231
     Phone: (404) 874-8800
     Fax: (404) 888-6199
     E-mail: brad.wolff@swiftcurrie.com

        - and -

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
     Troy A. Doles, Esq.
     Heather Lea, Esq.
     Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
     Ethan D. Hatch, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-5934


ENERGY RECOVERY: Defending Against Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the Energy Recovery Inc. Securities Litigation.

On January 20 and 27, 2015, two stockholder class action
complaints were filed against the Company in the United States
District Court of the Northern District of California, on behalf
of Energy Recovery stockholders under the captions, Joseph
Sabatino v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00265
EMC, and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy Recovery, Inc, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00374 EMC. The complaints have now been consolidated under
the caption, In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based upon
alleged public misrepresentations and seeks the recovery of
unspecified monetary damages. Based on currently available
information and review with outside counsel, the Company is not
able to estimate the possible loss, if any, due to the early stage
of this matter.


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in "Kristensen" Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enova International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appeal in the class
action lawsuit by Fleming Kristensen is ongoing.

On March 8, 2013, Flemming Kristensen, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against the Company and other
unaffiliated lenders and lead providers. The lawsuit alleges that
the lead provider defendants sent unauthorized text messages to
consumers on behalf of the Company and the other lender defendants
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
complaint seeks class certification, statutory damages, an
injunction against "wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees
and costs. The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying
all liability.

On March 26, 2014, the Court granted class certification. On July
20, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment, denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and, on
July 21, 2015, entered judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiff
filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the order
granting summary judgment for the Company, the judgment in favor
of the company, and the order denying Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider. Plaintiff's appellate brief was due on August 11,
2016.

Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable appellate decision nor
the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this matter can be
determined at this time, and the Company is currently unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC
450-20-20, Contingencies-Loss Contingencies-Glossary, for this
litigation. The Company believes that the Plaintiff's claims in
the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
this lawsuit.

The Company operates an internet-based lending platform to serve
customers in need of cash to fulfill their financial
responsibilities.


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Dougherty" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has
filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Kevin L.
Dougherty.

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company
and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). An amended complaint
was filed on May 20, 2016.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an
August 17, 2015, public statement that the Food and Drug
Administration would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial
before approving the Company's lead product candidate. The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with
an allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015, and
September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.


ETSY INC: "Altayyar" Lawsuit v. Company, D&Os Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and the named
officers and directors intend to defend themselves vigorously
against the "Altayyar" class action lawsuit.

On May 13, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-02785) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against the Company and certain officers. The
complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of the Company's common stock from April 16, 2015 through and
including May 10, 2015. It asserted violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with
respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the
Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark
or copyright infringement.

On October 22, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. On January 21, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint alleging false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to substantially the same
topics as the original complaint. The amended complaint adds
certain outside directors and underwriters as defendants, expands
the purported class period to be April 16, 2015 to August 4, 2015,
inclusive, and asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint
seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company and the named officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously against this action. In light of, among
other things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make
a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome.

Etsy, Inc. operates a marketplace where people around the world
connect, both online and offline, to make, sell and buy unique
goods.


ETSY INC: Consolidated Cervantes and Weiss Actions Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and the named
officers and directors intend to defend themselves vigorously
against the consolidated Cervantes and Weiss actions.

On July 21, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed in
the Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain officers, directors and underwriters.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  As in the Altayyar litigation, the
complaint alleges misrepresentations in the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-1 and Prospectus with respect to, among other
things, merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

On November 5, 2015, another purported securities class action
complaint (Weiss v. Etsy et al., No. CIV 536123) was filed in the
Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo. The
Weiss complaint names as defendants the Company and the same
officers, directors and underwriters named in the Cervantes
complaint, and also asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to, among other things,
merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement.

On December 24, 2015, the court consolidated the Cervantes and
Weiss actions. The Company and the named officers and directors
intend to defend themselves vigorously against these consolidated
actions. On February 3, 2016, the court granted the Company's
motion to stay the consolidated actions. In light of, among other
things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company is unable
to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make a
meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome.

Etsy, Inc. operates a marketplace where people around the world
connect, both online and offline, to make, sell and buy unique
goods.


EVERCORE PARTNERS: Appellate Briefing to Be Completed September 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that briefing in the appeal
in the class action lawsuit by Donna Marie Coburn is scheduled to
be complete on September 9, 2016.

In January 2015, Donna Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action
complaint against Evercore Trust Company ("ETC") in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, in which she
purported to represent a class of participants in the J.C. Penney
Corporation Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the "Plan") whose participant accounts held J.C. Penney stock at
any time between May 15, 2012 and the present. The complaint
alleged that ETC breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by causing the Plan to invest in
J.C. Penney stock during that period and claimed that the Plan
suffered losses of approximately $300 million due to declines in
J.C. Penney stock.

ETC believes that it has meritorious defenses against the
plaintiff's claims and intends to vigorously defend the action.
ETC is indemnified by J.C. Penney, and ultimately the Plan, for
reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which would
be refunded should ETC not prevail.

On April 13, 2015, ETC moved to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and on February
17, 2016, the district court granted ETC's motion to dismiss. On
March 15, 2016, plaintiff noticed an appeal of the district
court's decision. Briefing in the appeal is scheduled to be
complete on September 9, 2016, and the case is scheduled to be
argued to the court of appeals on October 13, 2016.

Evercore Partners Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") is an
investment banking and investment management firm, incorporated in
Delaware on July 21, 2005 and headquartered in New York, New York.
The Company is a holding company which owns a controlling interest
in Evercore LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Evercore LP").
Subsequent to the Company's initial public offering, the Company
became the sole general partner of Evercore LP. The Company
operates from its offices and through its affiliates in North
America, Europe, South America and Asia.


FACEBOOK INC: "Smith" Case Cannot Have Interim Co-Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila denied the Plaintiff's move for an
order appointing their counsel as interim co-lead class counsel,
in the case, WINSTON SMITH, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01282-EJD (N.D. Calif.).

Judge Davila found that the appointment is neither necessary to
protect the interests of class members nor useful in promoting the
efficient administration of the Plaintiffs' claims.

The Court maintained that an interim class counsel is appointed
only in instances when there are overlapping, duplicative, or
competing class suits pending before the court. The Court will not
grant a motion for appointment of lead counsel when no other
plaintiffs have brought a suit and no other counsel claims the
position of lead counsel. In this case, Plaintiffs have yet to
identify another competing, potentially related action asserting
the same privacy violations alleged in the Complaint such that
more than one proposed representation structure is possible.

A copy of the Court's Judgment dated August 8, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/LyVCXJfrom Leagle.com.

Winston Smith, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Jay Barnes,
Barnes & Associates, pro hac vice, Nicole Ramirez --
ramirez@kiesel-law.com -- Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R. Kiesel --
Kiesel@kiesel.law -- Kiesel Law LLP, Stephen M. Gorny, The Gorny
Law Firm, LC, pro hac vice, Amy Collignon Gunn --
agunn@simonlawpc.com -- The Simon Law Firm, P. C., pro hac vice,
Andrew Stephan Lyskowski, pro hac vice, Ashley Ann Smith --
asmith@njadvocates.com -- Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow and McElroy,
LLP, pro hac vice, Barry R. Eichen, Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow
McElroy LLP, pro hac vice, Evan J. Rosenberg, Eichen Crutchlow
Zaslow and McElroy, LLP, pro hac vice, Nimrod Thomas Chapel, Jr.,
Barnes and Associates, pro hac vice & Jeffrey Alan Koncius --
koncius@kiesel-law.com -- Kiesel Law LLP.

Facebook, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Nadolenco --
jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Lauren R. Goldman -
- lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown Llp, pro hac vice.

American Cancer Society, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Shelley Gershon Hurwitz -- sghurwitz@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight
LLP, David Ilan Holtzman -- david.holtzman@hklaw.com -- Holland
and Knight LLP & John Palmer Kern -- john.kern@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight LLP.

American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Brandy Hutton Ranjan -- branjan@jonesday.com --
Jones Day, pro hac vice, Brian G. Selden -- bgselden@jonesday.com
-- Jones Day, Jeffrey Rabkin -- jrabkin@jonesday.com -- Jones Day
& Alexandra Alford McDonald -- amcdonald@jonesday.com -- Jones
Day.

BJC Healthcare, Defendant, represented by Michael H. Rubin --
mrubin@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Anthony J.
Weibell -- aweibell@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati &
Lauren Gallo White -- lwhite@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
and Rosati, PC.

Cleveland Clinic, et al., Defendants, represented by Matthew D.
Pearson -- mpearson@murchison.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP, Teresa
Carey Chow -- tchow@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Daniel
Rubin Warren -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP, pro
hac vice, David A. Carney -- dcarney@bakerlaw.com -- Baker
Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Steven M. Dettelbach --
sdettelbach@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler, pro hac vice & Tanya
Lee Forsheit -- tforsheit@fkks.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP.


FARID FATA: US Gov't. Files Suit in Eastern District of Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Farid Fata. The case is styled
United States of America, the Plaintiff, v. Farid Fata, the
Defendant and Tracey Korff, Interested Party, Case No. 2:16-cv-
12984-PDB-MKM (E.D. Mich., Aug. 16, 2016). The assigned District
Judge is Hon. Paul D. Borman.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catherine K Dick, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Criminal Division, Fraud Section
          1301 New York Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 305 2402
          E-mail: Catherine.Dick@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Jacqueline M. Hotz, Esq.
          John K. Neal, Esq.
          Linda Aouate, Esq.
          Sarah Resnick Cohen, Esq.
          Wayne F. Pratt, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
          Detroit, MI 48226-3211
          Telephone: (313) 226 9108
          E-mail: Jackie.Hotz@usdoj.gov
                  john.neal@usdoj.gov
                  linda.aouate@usdoj.gov
                  sarah.cohen@usdoj.gov
                  wayne.pratt@usdoj.gov

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark J. Kriger, Esq.
          LARENE & KRIGER
          645 Griswold Street, Suite 1717
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 967 0100
          E-mail: mkriger@sbcglobal.net

Tracey Korff is represented by:

          Jules B. Olsman, Esq.
          OLSMAN, MUELLER,
          2684 W. Eleven Mile Road
          Berkley, MI 48072
          Telephone: (248) 591 2300
          Facsimile: (248) 591 2304
          E-mail: jbolsman@olsmanlaw.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Hackers Show Jeep Cherokee Hacking Problem
---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Jeep
Cherokee hack is back on track, at least according to the same
hackers who took control of a 2014 Jeep Cherokee in July 2015.

Back then, Chris Valasek and Charlie Miller performed a controlled
experiment where the Cherokee driver knew Valasek and Miller were
sitting in a basement with laptops ready to attack.

During the 2015 hack, the driver quickly felt the accelerator
pedal stop working, then pushing the pedal caused the RPM to climb
even though the Jeep lost half its speed and then slowed to a
crawl.  The friendly hackers also found they could control the air
conditioning and heating system, wipers, radio and brakes.

The fiasco led to Fiat Chrysler recalling 1.4 million vehicles to
secure the wireless connections and separately the government
investigated the radios used in the hack.  That was followed by a
class-action lawsuit alleging Fiat Chrysler was aware of the
hacking risk 18 months before the recall.

Those same hackers appeared at the Las Vegas Black Hat hacker
conference where they showed more examples of hacking the same
Jeep Cherokee.  Messrs. Valasek and Miller this time took control
of the Jeep not by remote control, but by connecting directly into
the Jeep and overriding correct data by sending false messages to
the internal CAN bus network.

Messrs. Miller and Valasek say the 2015 hacking attempt couldn't
do certain things if the Jeep was traveling over 5 mph, so the men
wanted to know how to get around that wall.  After a lot of time
and effort, the men found a way to get around the obstacles by
more-or-less reverse engineering the Jeep's system.

The men were able to make the Cherokee perform maneuvers that no
driver would want to do, including making the Jeep make sharp
turns so fast skid marks were left on the road.  Another turn of
the wheel caused the Jeep Cherokee to take an unplanned detour
into a ditch.

The hackers also caused the Jeep to brake suddenly and speed up
without driver input.

Much of their work was very time consuming and not something an
amateur could do, something the automaker pointed out and the two
hackers admitted.

Chrysler also argued because of its previous fixes to the Jeeps,
there is no way the hackers could have taken control remotely.
However, Messrs. Valasek and Miller disagreed and believe they
could have pulled it off from anywhere.

The security researchers say automakers need to do more to block
access to the CAN bus, such as making a vehicle accessible to
diagnostic ports by using a switch on the vehicle.  The switch
could be used by a mechanic to do perform maintenance and testing
on a vehicle.

In addition, the hackers say they built their own device that
could be used to warn a driver of any suspicious activity and it
could have stopped all the attacks they used on the Jeep Cherokee.
In other words, if they could do that, why can't an automaker?


FIFTH STREET: Settlement Agreements Reached to Resolve 3 Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Finance Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, that the
Company has reached deals to resolve these lawsuits:

                                      Settlement Amount
                                      -----------------
     FSC Securities Class Actions     $14,050,000

     FSC shareholder
        derivative actions            FSM to $1-Mil. Waive Fees
                                      $5.1-Mil. for Plaintiffs'
                                      Attorneys' fees & Expenses

     FSAM Securities Class Action     $9,250,000

Fifth Street Finance Corp. ("FSC" or the "Company") previously
disclosed that it has been named as a defendant in various legal
proceedings, including (i) consolidated securities class actions
filed on behalf of FSC shareholders and pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption In re Fifth Street Finance Corp. Securities
Litigation, No. 15-cv-7759 (LAK), and (ii) shareholder derivative
actions filed on behalf of FSC and pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut under the caption
In re Fifth Street Finance Corp. Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, No. 3:15-cv-01795-RNC, in the Superior Court of
Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk, under the
caption In re Fifth Street Finance Corp. Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, No. FST-CV16-6027659-S, and in the Delaware Court of
Chancery under the caption In re Fifth Street Finance Corp.
Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12157-VCG. In addition, Fifth
Street Asset Management Inc. ("FSAM"), the Company's adviser
(through subsidiaries), has been named as a defendant in a
previously disclosed securities class action filed on behalf of
FSAM's shareholders and pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption
Ronald K. Linde, etc. v. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01941 (LAK).

The Company and the other parties to the FSC securities class
actions, the FSC shareholder derivative actions, and the FSAM
securities class action have entered into three agreements to
settle those cases. Each of the proposed settlements is subject
both to the plaintiffs' completion of additional discovery and to
approval by the applicable court after notice has been sent to the
relevant shareholders. The parties have not yet filed the
settlement agreements with the courts.

The proposed settlement of the FSC securities class actions calls
for a payment of $14,050,000 to a settlement class consisting of
persons and entities who purchased FSC common stock during the
period from July 7, 2014 through February 6, 2015. Approximately
99% of the settlement amount will be paid from insurance coverage.
The proposed settlement will be presented for approval to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The proposed settlement of the FSC shareholder derivative actions
provides for Fifth Street Management LLC's waiver of fees charged
to FSC in the amount of $1,000,000 for each of ten consecutive
quarters starting in January 2018 and maintenance of the
previously announced decrease in Fifth Street Management's base
management fee from 2% to a maximum of 1.75% of gross assets
(excluding cash and cash equivalents) for at least four years.

The proposed settlement also calls for FSC to adopt certain
governance and oversight enhancements. Those enhancements include
provisions relating to equity ownership by FSC Board members,
disclosure of executive compensation, director independence,
valuation policies and processes, creation of a Board-level Credit
Risk and Conflicts Committee, and increased consultation with
outside advisers and independent third parties. Some of the
undertakings and enhancements described are subject to Fifth
Street Management's continuing as FSC's investment adviser. FSC
and the defendants further agreed that they would not oppose
plaintiffs' request for an award of $5,100,000 in attorneys' fees
and expenses, which will be paid from insurance coverage. The
proposed settlement will be presented for approval to the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The proposed settlement of the FSAM securities class action calls
for a payment of $9,250,000 to a settlement class consisting of
all persons and entities who purchased FSAM common stock pursuant
or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection
with FSAM's initial public offering. The settlement amount will be
paid from insurance coverage. The proposed settlement will be
presented for approval to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


FIRCROFT INC: Faces "Bryant" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  FIRCROFT, INC. Case 4:16-cv-02448 (S.D. Tex., August
10, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fircroft Inc. is a professional staffing business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: 713-751-0025
     Fax: 713-751-0030
     E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@fibichlaw.com
             litkin@fibichlaw.com

        - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-877-8788
     Fax: 713-877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


FIRST SOLAR: Pension Schemes Case Stayed Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Arizona District
Court has entered a stay of the proceedings in the class action
lawsuit by the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff
Superannuation Scheme in district court until the appeal is
decided.

The Company said, "On March 15, 2012, a purported class action
lawsuit titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:12-cv-00555-DGC, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court")
against the Company and certain of our current and former
directors and officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly
traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012
(the "Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action."

"On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

"Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth
Circuit").

"First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the
Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November 18, 2015.
On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order
granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits
briefing schedule. Briefing on the Pension Schemes' motion is now
complete. The Arizona District Court has entered a stay of the
proceedings in district court until the appeal is decided.

"Given the pending appeal, the need for further expert discovery,
and the uncertainties of trial, we are not in a position to assess
whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is
probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if
any."


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Muller" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource Advantage, LLC. The
case is titled Miri Muller, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04565 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2016).

Firstsource Advantage provides innovative debt collections
services to the leading credit card issuers, financial
institutions, and healthcare providers.

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


FITBIT INC: Fails to Shake Off Sleep Tracking Suit in N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2015, against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging that the sleep tracking function available in certain
trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs seek class
certification, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court
may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs have amended their complaint
four times, and on January 15, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss
the Fourth Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2016, the Court denied
the motion to dismiss.


FITBIT INC: Arbitration Mulled in Heart Rate Tracking Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
Heart Rate Tracking class action lawsuit have appeared at a Case
Management Conference to discuss whether the issue of
arbitrability should be decided by the arbitrator.

On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S.
District for the Northern District of California, alleging that
the PurePulse heart rate tracking technology in the Fitbit Charge
HR and Fitbit Surge do not consistently and accurately record
users' heart rates. Plaintiffs allege common law claims as well as
violations of various states' false advertising and unfair
competition statutes based on our sale and marketing of the Fitbit
Charge HR and Fitbit Surge. Plaintiffs seek class certification,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive
damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and
other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint that combines the plaintiffs from the two
previously filed complaints. On May 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
an Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint.

Attached as an exhibit was a "study" commissioned by the
plaintiffs and performed by two researchers at California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona, which allegedly found that the
Fitbit devices incorrectly measured heart rate by an average of 20
beats per minute during moderate to high exercise.

The Company has not yet answered. On August 3, 2016, the parties
appeared at a Case Management Conference to discuss whether the
issue of arbitrability should be decided by the arbitrator.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


FITBIT INC: Bid to Dismiss Cal. Securities Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing date has not
yet been scheduled on the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the federal securities class action.

On January 11, 2016 a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers (the
"Federal Securities Class Action"). On May 10, 2016, the Court
appointed the Fitbit Investor Group (consisting of five individual
investors) as lead plaintiff.

The amended complaint, filed on July 1, 2016, names as defendants
the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
financial institutions that acted as underwriters in connection
with the Company's June 2015 initial public offering, or IPO.
Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Act, and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, based on alleged materially
false and misleading statements about Fitbit's products between
October 27, 2014 and November 23, 2015.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities (i) on the open market
between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016; and/or (ii) pursuant to or
traceable to the IPO. Plaintiffs seek class certification, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
July 29, 2016. The hearing date has not yet been scheduled.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


FITBIT INC: IPO Class Action Remanded to San Mateo Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that two state securities
class action have been remanded.

On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the
Company, certain of its officers, its board members, the
underwriters for the IPO, and a number of its investors (the "San
Mateo Action"). On May 23, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff's
request to voluntarily dismiss the investor defendants.

Plaintiff alleges that the IPO registration statement contained
material misstatements about the Company's products. Plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased Fitbit common
stock in and/or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiff seeks class
certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees,
and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On May 17, 2016, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco alleging
claims similar to those at issue in the San Mateo Action and the
Federal Securities Class Action (the "San Francisco Action"). The
complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act based on
alleged material misstatements in the registration statements for
the IPO and November 2015 follow-on public offering and names as
defendants Fitbit, certain of its officers and directors, the
underwriters for Fitbit's public offerings, and two of Fitbit's
investors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who
acquired Fitbit common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO
and follow-on public offering.

The Company removed both the San Mateo Action and the San
Francisco Action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. On July 27, 2016, the District Court
remanded the actions back to state court. Defendants have not yet
answered.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations in these
actions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of
this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result
from this matter.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Nov. 8 Case Conference Set in "Cryer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken ordered that a Case Management
Conference shall be held on November 8, 2016 in the case, MARLON
H. CRYER, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 16-cv-04265-CW (N.D. Calif.).

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/NBsMu4from Leagle.com.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9, parties are required to file a
joint case management statement addressing each of the items
listed in the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern
District of California. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of
this Order at once on all parties to this action in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Following service, the party causing the service shall
file a certificate of service with the Clerk of Court.

Marlon H. Cryer, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Andrew Creitz
-- joseph.creitz@gmail.com -- Creitz & Serebin, LLP & Mark P.
Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP.


FRITO-LAY INC: No Sanctions for Defendants in "Roe" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminated the pending motion
for sanctions against the Defendant in the case, JANE ROE,
Plaintiff, v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-00751-HSG
(KAW), (N.D. Calif.).

The proposed sanction is based on the Defendant's alleged
violation of a prior court order.

The Court, therefore, granted the motion for preliminary approval
of the class action settlement of the case and reminded the
Plaintiff to re-notice the sanctions motion, should it be pursued.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 9, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/yfRkwkfrom Leagle.com.

Jane Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Devin Heng Fok --
devin@devinfoklaw.com -- DHF Law P.C., Andre Sherman --
asherman@girardikeese.com -- Girardi & Keese & Joshua E. Kim --
joshua@anewwayoflife.org -- A New Way of Life Reentry Project.

Frito-Lay, Inc., a foreign corporation doing business in
California, Defendant, represented by Ashley Teiko Hirano --
ahirano@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP, Hali Michelle Anderson -- handerson@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP & Samantha D. Hardy --
shardy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton.


GENERAL CABLE: Sixth Circuit Denied Petition for Rehearing
----------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2016, that the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals has denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing or
rehearing en banc.

The Company said, "Two civil complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on
behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory
Kenny, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian
Robinson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer."

"On our motion, the complaints were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the
actions were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed
in that Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees
Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported
class of all persons or entities who purchased our securities
between November 3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the "City of
Livonia Complaint").

"The City of Livonia Complaint alleged claims under the antifraud
and controlling person liability provisions of the Exchange Act,
alleging generally, among other assertions, that we employed
inadequate internal financial reporting controls that resulted in,
among other things, improper revenue recognition, understated cost
of sales, overstated operating income, net income and earnings per
share, and the failure to detect inventory lost through theft;
that we issued materially false financial results that had to be
restated on two occasions; and that statements of Messrs. Kenny
and Robinson that they had tested and found effective our internal
controls over financial reporting and disclosure were false.

"The City of Livonia Complaint alleged that as a result of the
foregoing, our stock price was artificially inflated and the
plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint sought damages in an
unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses, including
counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive or other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

"On January 27, 2015, the Court dismissed the City of Livonia
Complaint, with prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. On February 24, 2015,
plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the January 27, 2015
judgment and for leave to file the proposed amended complaint,
which the lower Court also denied.

"On June 9, 2015, plaintiff appealed the lower Court's decisions
to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 24, 2016, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court's decisions. On
June 28, 2016, plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing or
rehearing en banc. On July 19, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing or rehearing en
banc."


GLOBUS MEDICAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "DeBons" Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's breach of contract
claim in the case, EUGENE A. DEBONS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLOBUS MEDICAL,
INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-56455 (9th Cir.).  The Court said
Plaintiff failed to state a claim in his third amended complaint.

The Ninth Circuit further affirmed that the negligence per se
claim of the Plaintiff is not a recognized independent claim under
the California law.

The appeal involves the district court's judgment dismissing the
Plaintiff's putative class action alleging various claims under
California statutory, tort, and contract law.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Ruling dated August 16, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/8ihS1yfrom Leagle.com.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces RICO Violations Suit Related to 1MDB Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHIAS CHANG and HUSAM MUSA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. RIZA SHAHRIZ BIN ABDUL AZIZ; LOW
TAEK JHO; GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.; TIMOTHY LEISSNER; CHRISTOPHER
JOEY MCFARLAND; RED GRANITE PICTURES, INC.; DEBRA WHELAN JOHNSON;
METROPOLIS IX CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC Case No: 1:16-cv-06386-KBF
(S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2016), seeks to recover alleged damages to
the 1 Malaysia Development Berhad Fund (1MDB Fund), a sovereign
wealth fund of Malaysia. Plaintiffs also seek disgorgement of
money Defendants allegedly took from 1MDB with the goal of
restoring money that rightfully belongs to the Fund and its
beneficiaries.  The case was filed pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Defendant Goldman is a global investment banking, securities, and
investment management firm.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Louis Burke, Esq.
     Leslie S. Wybiral, Esq.
     LOUIS F. BURKE PC
     460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212-682-1700
     Fax: 212-808-4280
     E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com
             lwybiral@lfblaw.com

        - and -

     Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
     Dona Szak, Esq.
     Justin C. Pfeiffer, Esq.
     AJAMIE, LLP
     Pennzoil Place - South Tower
     711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: 713-860-1600
     Fax: 713-860-1699
     E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com
             dszak@ajamie.com
             jpfeiffer@ajamie.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Approved Settlement of 2010 Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action was
filed on September 30, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(GS&Co.), Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of
investors in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two
synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). On July 1,
2016, the district court approved a settlement resolving the
action. The firm has paid the full amount of the settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Has Paid Settlement in Case vs Litton, Ocwen
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Group Inc., Litton
Loan Servicing LP (Litton), Ocwen Financial Corporation and Arrow
Corporate Member Holdings LLC (Arrow), a former subsidiary of
Group Inc., are defendants in a putative class action pending
since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York generally challenging the procurement manner
and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance arranged by Litton
when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance as required by
their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion,
unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair practices law
and RICO claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

On January 15, 2016, Group Inc. and Arrow were added as defendants
to a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California based on substantially similar
allegations, asserting RICO claims and violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law, and seeking similar relief. The parties to
the action pending in the Northern District of California have
settled the plaintiff's individual claims, and on May 12, 2016
that action was dismissed with prejudice.

On April 20, 2016, the court in the action pending in the Southern
District of New York preliminarily approved a settlement among
Group Inc., Litton and Arrow and the plaintiffs. The firm has paid
the full amount of the proposed settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Solazyme Case Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that defendants' motion
to dismiss Solazyme, Inc. Securities Litigation remains pending.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on June 24,
2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include Solazyme, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers.
As to the underwriters, the complaints generally allege
misstatements and omissions in connection with March 2014
offerings by Solazyme, Inc. of approximately $63 million of common
stock and $150 million principal amount of convertible senior
subordinated notes, assert claims under the federal securities
laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and
rescission. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 15,
2015, and defendants moved to dismiss on February 12, 2016. GS&Co.
underwrote 3,450,000 shares of common stock and $150 million
principal amount of notes for an aggregate offering price of
approximately $187 million.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Certified Class in FireEye Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has
certified a class of purchasers of FireEye stock in the March 2014
offering in the FireEye Securities Litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of
Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and
officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and
omissions in connection with the offering materials for the March
2014 offering of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common
stock, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On
August 11, 2015, the court overruled the defendants' demurrers,
which sought to have the consolidated amended complaint dismissed.
On May 19, 2016, FireEye and the director and officer defendants
filed in the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, a
petition for a writ of mandate appealing the denial of their
motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. By an order dated July 11, 2016, the court certified
a class of purchasers of FireEye stock in the March 2014 offering.
GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of
approximately $172 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dragged Into Class Suit v. TerraForm & SunEdison
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) and other underwriters were added on July 22, 2016,
as defendants to a putative class action, commenced on November
30, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, relating to the August 2015 public offering of $650
million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible preferred
stock. GS&Co. is also among the underwriters, placement agents and
initial purchasers named as defendants in individual actions,
filed beginning in March 2016, in the Superior Court of
California, San Mateo County, relating to that preferred stock
offering, the June 2015 private placement of $335 million of
TerraForm Global Inc. (TerraForm Global) Class D units, and the
August 2015 Rule 144A offering of $810 million principal amount of
TerraForm Global senior notes. SunEdison is TerraForm Global's
controlling shareholder and sponsor. The defendants also include
SunEdison, TerraForm Global and certain of their directors and
officers.

The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in
connection with the offerings, assert claims under federal
securities laws and, in certain actions, state laws, and seek
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as
rescission or rescissory damages. TerraForm Global sold 153,100
Class D units, representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $153 million, to the individual plaintiffs. GS&Co.,
as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison convertible
preferred stock in the offering, representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $139 million, and, as initial
purchaser, sold approximately $49 million principal amount of
TerraForm Global senior notes in the Rule 144A offering. On April
21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in several
putative securities class actions and individual actions relating
to the $675 million July 2015 initial public offering of the
common stock of TerraForm Global, filed beginning in October 2015
in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County and the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
defendants also include TerraForm Global, SunEdison, and certain
of their directors and officers. The complaints generally allege
misstatements and omissions in connection with the offering
materials for TerraForm Global's initial public offering, assert
claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, as well as rescission or
rescissory damages. GS&Co. underwrote 2,340,000 shares in the
offering for a total offering price of approximately $35 million.


GRAMERCY PROPERTY TRUST: Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has issued a
final order approving the settlement of a class action lawsuit in
New Jersey.

On October 1, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County by a
purported shareholder of Chambers. The action, captioned Elstein
v. Chambers Street Properties et al., Docket No. L-002254-15 (the
"New Jersey Action"), names as defendants Chambers, its board of
trustees and Legacy Gramercy. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the trustees of Chambers breached their fiduciary
duties to Chambers' shareholders by agreeing to the Merger after a
flawed sales process and by approving improper deal protection
terms in the merger agreement, and that Legacy Gramercy aided and
abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
also alleges that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
was materially misleading and incomplete. Plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the
Merger to the extent it is already implemented, declaratory relief
and an award of damages.

On December 3, 2015, the parties to the New Jersey Action entered
into a Stipulation of Settlement providing for the settlement of
the New Jersey Action. While the defendants in the New Jersey
Action continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing,
fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class
of shareholders of Chambers, and believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i)
avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of
further litigation in connection with the New Jersey Action, (ii)
finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or
could have been asserted against the defendants in the New Jersey
Action and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the
Superior Court of New Jersey ordering an injunction or damages in
connection with the New Jersey Action, Chambers and Legacy
Gramercy agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger,
all of which were set forth in Legacy Gramercy's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with on December 7, 2015. The Stipulation of
Settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court
approval following notice to the Chambers shareholders.

On April 4, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. On July 1, 2016 the court issued a final order
approving the settlement.


GRANITE SOURCE: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE ARTILES, ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ, MANUEL V. MILLAN and other
similarly-situated individuals, v. GRANITE SOURCE, CORP. and
CARLOS GONZALEZ, individually Case No: 1:16-cv-23471-FAM (S.D.
Fla., August 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant GRANITE SOURCE is a construction and remodeling Company
doing business in Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd, Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GRUBHUB: Ohio Attorney Comments on Independent Contractor Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that sharing
economy litigation such as the misclassification lawsuit filed in
June against Grubhub is more about governments and predatory
plaintiffs than anything inevitable in cooperative consumerism, an
Ohio attorney opined during a recent interview.

"The independent contractor model is not new by any stretch," J.
Allen Jones III -- ajones@beneschlaw.com -- a partner and
transportation industry attorney in Benesh's Columbus, Ohio,
office said during a Legal Newsline email interview.  "It has
utilized and continues to be utilized successfully in many
industries.  Some may view my perspective as a bit cynical, but I
believe the current litigation trend is being largely driven by
governments looking for sources of additional revenue and the
class-action plaintiffs' bar preying on a new set of victims."

Grubhub, the online food menu, ordering and delivery service, is
the target of a proposed class and collective-action suit filed
June 28 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Six Grubhub drivers from Chicago; Portland, Oregon;
Philadelphia; Brooklyn; and Bridgeport, Illinois claim Grubhub
violated hour and wage laws under the Federal Labor Standard Act,
in addition to state labor laws.  The drivers claim they often
worked more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay and that
they also had to pay some costs just to do their jobs.

The drivers in the case, Souran, et al. v. Grubhub Holdings Inc.,
et al., are represented by various attorneys, including Boston-
area plaintiffs' attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-
Riordan.  Ms. Liss-Riordan, widely recognized as one of the
nation's top plaintiffs' class-action employment lawyers, is best
known for her counsel in the many cases against ride sharing
companies Lyft and Uber.  The lion's share of those cases have
been aimed at Uber, including two in Massachusetts and California
settled earlier this year.

Pseudo-cabs are only one segment of the sharing economy with
litigation before the courts.  A ruling by the U.S. Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals in June found that two Maryland dance clubs had
misclassified exotic dancers as independent contractors, a
decision expected to be significant for all businesses that have
agreements with so-called "independent contractors."

Other pioneers of the sharing economy and collaborative
consumption, such as DoorDash and RelayRides, also face litigation
from customers and independent contractors.

Companies not usually associated with the sharing economy have run
into legal problems over how they identify their independent
contractors.  In June, FedEx created a $228 million fund to
settled a case brought by 2,000 FedEx Ground, and FedEx Home
Delivery pickup and delivery drivers.

Drivers in the Grubhub case all worked for the Chicago-based food
service between 2014 and 2015.  The drivers claim they had to
comply with a number of Grubhub requirements, including where to
report for their shifts, where to pick up deliveries and how to
dress on the job.  The drivers claim they generally were paid a
flat fee, in addition to tips from customers, that they were
required to remain in a certain area as required by Grubhub, and
had to accept all delivery jobs dispatched to them or risk being
fired.

Despite the legal pressures, Mr. Jones said there are no
additional difficulties in starting a business and employ mostly
independent contractors in the shared economy.

"I don't believe it's any more or less difficult to start a
business today engaging independent contractors," Mr. Jones said.
"However, an entrepreneur can't simply decide to use independent
contractors, pay those contractors on 1099s, and operate the
business as if all workers are employees."

Employers in the shared economy, as in any other part of the
economy, must remember that independent contractors are not
employees and they can't be treated like employees, Mr. Jones
said.

"Instead, they should be treated like any other vendor or customer
that is important to the success of the business," he said.  "Both
parties, the business and the contractor, need to understand this
relationship in clear terms so that each party knows its
respective obligations under the contract."

Mr. Jones would not say whether he thought Grubhub would prevail
in this case.

"It is really too soon to predict," he said.  "However, the courts
have not been particularly friendly venues over the last several
years for various segments of the transportation industry that use
independent contractors in their businesses."

Mr. Jones did say that he believed it unlikely that a similar case
in California would be consolidated with this lawsuit.


GUARANTY BANCORP: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
Guaranty Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that parties to the merger
litigation have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement.

On May 20, 2016, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit (the
"Merger Litigation"), was filed against the Company and the
individual members of Company's board of directors in connection
with the Company entering into the Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). The action, Sciabacucchi
v. Cordes et al., Case No. 16cv31793, was filed in Colorado
District Court, Denver County.

The Merger Litigation alleges that the members of the Company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
Company's stockholders by causing a materially incomplete
registration statement to be filed. The plaintiff in the Merger
Litigation generally seeks, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief concerning the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the merger
and attorneys' fees and costs, and other further relief.

On July 5, 2016, the parties to the merger litigation entered into
a Memorandum of Agreement providing that, among other things: (1)
the Company will make specified additional disclosures in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the
Merger; (2) the merger litigation is stayed; and (3) the parties
will enter into a stipulation providing for certification of a
class for settlement purposes and a class release. The joint proxy
statement/prospectus filing filed on July 19, 2016, included these
specific additional disclosures.

The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things,
approval of the District Court, City and County of Denver,
Colorado. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, following
final court approval, the action will be dismissed with prejudice.
There can be no assurances, however, that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that court
approval of the settlement will be obtained. The proposed
settlement may be terminated if any of the conditions to the
proposed settlement are not met.


HALL CONSTRUCTION: "Arrington" Suit Remains in Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul C. Huck denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand the case captioned, WALTER ARRINGTON, III, An Individual,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANA P. HALL CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., an
unregistered foreign limited liability corporation; et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:15cv711-PCH (M.D. Ala.), and
instead maintained the Defendants' removal of the case to a
federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
(CAFA).

The Court referred the case as a mass action, contrary to the
Plaintiffs' claim of applying the local controversy exclusion, an
exception to the CAFA's jurisdictional requirements.

CAFA gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over a
case which is (1) either a class action or a mass action, (2) in
which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and (3) in
which a minimal diversity requirement is met.

The local controversy exclusion is an exception to a mass action.
Based on the exclusion provision's legislative history, it is an
"event or occurrence" that must be a single, discrete incident,
and not merely similar instances taking place at the same location
for which the same defendants are responsible.

In the case, the Court said the Plaintiffs failed to prove that
their claims fall under the exception of a mass action. The
defendants' alleged malfeasance did not culminate in a single
focused event, such as the collapse of the apartment building or a
fire or the like. Instead, their claims arise directly from
failures by the defendants to provide a wide array of maintenance
services to plaintiffs in numerous different units. Therefore, the
case warrants a mass action and satisfies the federal court
jurisdiction.

A copy of the Court's Judgment dated August 12, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/eqec3Lfrom Leagle.com.

Walter Arrington, III, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by David
Craig Allred, Allred & Allred, PC, David Earl Allred, Allred &
Allred, PC & Norman Osaygefo Grubbs, Reed & Associates, LLC.

Ana P. Hall Construction, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, represented
by Bradford J. Griffin, The Law Offices of Vickers & White, PLLC,
Lindsay C. Ronilo, The Law Offices of Vickers & White, PLLC,
Caroline Thomason Pryor, Carr Allison, Jonathan R. Maples, Carr
Allison & Matthew Bruce Hall, Carr Allison.

Southern Holdings, II, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, represented by
John Edward Goodman -- jgoodman@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP, Michael Robert Lunsford -- mrl@phm-law.com --
Porterfield Harper Mills Motlow & Ireland PA, Joseph Mitchell
Hastings -- jmh@phm-law.com -- Porterfield Harper Mills Motlow &
Ireland PA & Larry William Harper -- lwh@phm-law.com --
Porterfield Harper Mills Motlow & Ireland PA.


HARRAH'S LAS VEGAS: Sept. 6 Hearing for Magistrate Judge
--------------------------------------------------------
The Court is set to hear arguments on September 6, 2016, on
whether consent requirements, in referring the action to a
magistrate judge, have been satisfied in the case, NICOLE
MCDONAGH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HARRAH'S LAS VEGAS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-01744-CWH (D. Nev.).

A magistrate judge may exercise jurisdiction over a case in which
a district court has jurisdiction upon the consent of the parties
and upon special designation by the district court. The United
States District Judge Richard F. Boulware entered a prior Order
designating the case to a magistrate judge, however, the consent
of the parties in the case, remains unclear.

The Court, based on the consent form, finds that it is unclear
whether the Plaintiff claims authority to consent to magistrate
judge jurisdiction on behalf of the other named plaintiff David
Grucello, as well as the putative unnamed class members. In
addition, the proposed notice to the class does not notify the
class members that named plaintiff Nicole McDonaugh consented to a
magistrate judge.

Pursuant to the Court's position that the consent to a magistrate
judge's jurisdiction must be explicit, clear, voluntary and
unambiguous, the Court still has to weigh the issue on consent
requirements. The Court further set the August 30, 2016 deadline,
should the parties wish to file briefs on the issue.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 11, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/9FHdkafrom Leagle.com.

Nicole McDonagh, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by David R.
Markham -- dmarkham@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm,
Janine R. Menhennet, The Markham Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joshua D.
Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R.
Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP.

Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Dustin L. Clark -- dclark@garggolden.com -- Clark Law Counsel
PLLC, Joel M. Cohn -- jcohn@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Juliet E. Gray, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld, Rick D. Roskelley -- rroskelley@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, PC & Wendy M. Krincek -- wkrincek@littler.com -
- Littler Mendelson, PC.


HARRIS COUNTY: Johnston Matejek Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNSTON MATEJEK DEVELOPMENT LLC, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-54375 (Harris
Cty. Ct., Aug. 16, 2016), seeks reduction of Plaintiff's tax
liability.

The Plaintiff alleges that the appraised value of the property
according to the appraisal roll exceeds the appraised value
required by law. The Plaintiff alternately pleads that the
property be appraised unequally because the ratio of the property
exceeds by at least 20 percent the medial level of appraisal.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Saffer, Esq.
          Boe Bowen, Esq.
          THE SAFFER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          14214 Saddlebend Dr.
          Houston, TX 77070
          Telephone: (713) 851 1525
          Facsimile: (832) 717 0070
          E-mail: msaffer@safferlaw.com
                  bbowen@safferlaw.com


HARRIS COUNTY: TWL Partners Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
TWL PARTNERS L.P., the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-54303 (Harris Cty. Ct.,
Aug. 16, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less
(attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the
appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiff's property).

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the property for use
by the Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad
valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the
Property at an amount in excess of the appraised value required by
law.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001 6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovaa@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


HERO NUTRITIONALS: Faces "Guerra" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Hero Nutritionals, Inc. The case
is styled Ruth Guerra and John Does (1-100), individually on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Hero Nutritionals, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-04563 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2016).

Hero Nutritionals produces nutritional supplements for children
and adults in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Ste. 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483 7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749 7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


HHGREGG INC: Indiana Appeals Court Reversed Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
hhgregg, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiff has 30
days to appeal the decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals, which
reversed the Superior Court's decision for summary judgment and
directed that summary judgment be entered in the Company's favor.

The Company was the defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned,
Dwain Underwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gregg Appliances, Inc. and hhgregg, Inc., filed in the
Superior Court in Marion County, Indiana, where a former employee
alleged that the Company breached a contract by failing to
correctly calculate his (and other class members) incentive bonus.

On July 9, 2014, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification, and on July 17, 2015, the judge granted the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, although no finding on
damages was made.  The Company's interlocutory appeal to the
Indiana Court of Appeals was accepted on October 23, 2015.

On July 22, 2016, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the
Superior Court's decision for summary judgment and directed that
summary judgment be entered in the Company's favor. The plaintiff
has 30 days to appeal the decision. The Company believes a loss is
not probable, and thus, as of June 30, 2016, a liability has not
been recorded for this matter.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Stamps Initial OK on "Reniger" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken granted preliminary approval of the
class action settlement in the case, entitled, JULIA RENIGER, et
al., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California corporation,
and HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 4:14-cv-03612-CW (N.D. Calif.).

Judge Wilken further certified the settlement class, appointed the
class counsel, and issued a scheduling order, which particularly
sets the Fairness Hearing of the case on February 28, 2017.

The Court finds that the Class shall consist of all residents of
the United States and the District of Columbia (excluding U.S.
territories) who currently own or lease, or previously owned or
leased, a Class Vehicle that was originally purchased or leased in
the United States. The "Class Vehicles" are 2010 through 2012
model year Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles with 3.5L engines.

The Class Representatives shall consist of Plaintiffs Julia
Reniger, Greg Battaglia, Lucia Saitta and Ann Mancuso and the
designated Class Counsel will be Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the Court appoints Defendant Hyundai
Motor America as the Settlement Administrator to help implement
the terms of the Agreement, with vendor assistance as appropriate.

The deadlines set by the Court Order are as follows:

     (a) The Class Notice shall be mailed by November 30, 2016
          (the "Notice Date");

     (b) The Settlement Website and Toll-Free Telephone Number
         shall be established and become operational no later
         than the date on which the Class Notice is mailed.

     (c) Plaintiffs' motion in support of final approval of the
         Settlement and Class Counsel's Fee Application shall
         be filed no later than January 9, 2017 and posted to
         the Settlement Website as soon as practicable
         thereafter, and may be supplemented no later than seven
         days prior to the Fairness Hearing

     (d) All written objections to the Agreement and written
         notices of an objector's intention to appear at the
         Fairness Hearing shall be filed with the Court no
         later than January 29, 2017.

     (e) All Requests for Exclusion shall be postmarked and
         sent to the Settlement Administrator no later than
         January 29, 2017.

     (f) All replies in support of Plaintiffs' motion for final
         approval of the Settlement and Class Counsel's Fee
         Application, and all responses to any written objections
         to the Agreement, shall be filed no later than February
         7, 2017 and posted to the Settlement Website as soon as
         practicable thereafter.

     (g) Not later than seven calendar days before the date of
         the Fairness Hearing, the Settlement Administrator shall
         file with the Court:

         -- a list of those persons who have opted out or
            excluded themselves from the Settlement; and

         -- the details regarding the number of valid Claim
            Forms received and processed by the Settlement
            Administrator.

     (h) A Fairness Hearing shall be scheduled for February 28,
         2017 at 2:30 p.m.

     (i) All completed Claim Forms must be postmarked and mailed
         to the Settlement Administrator or uploaded to the
         Settlement Website no later than March 29, 2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 8, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/lZw84Ofrom Leagle.com.

Julia Reniger, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Mark Samuel
Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP & Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP.

Lucia Saitta, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Mark Samuel
Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP.

Hyundai Motor America, et al., Defendants, represented by Eric Y.
Kizirian -- kizirian@lbbslaw.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and
Smith, Kimberly Thanh Chung -- kimtbernstein@gmail.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP & Michael K. Grimaldi --
mgrimaldi@lbbslaw.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


INTELICARE DIRECT: Settlement Approval Bid Due Dec. 5
-----------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the case entitled, ROBERT MONTOYA, Plaintiff, v.
INTELICARE DIRECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15cv1269-LAB (JMA),
(S.D. Calif.), is scheduled for final approval hearing on December
5, 2016.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Aug.
10, and appointed KCC Class Action Services, LLC, as a third-party
claims administrator.

The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) brings claims for disability
discrimination and for failure to pay wages upon termination. The
parties have agreed to abandon the disability claims and to settle
the claims for failure to pay wages upon termination.

The Court has certified the following class:

     "all non-exempt employees terminated in California by
     Intelicare from June 8, 2012 through the Preliminary
     Approval Date, whose termination dates precede the dates
     listed on their Final Paychecks, and who were not paid any
     waiting time penalties as required by California Labor Code
     section 203."

The order penned by District Judge Larry Alan Burns clarified that
the parties are settling only the "waiting time" claims set in the
Second Amended Complaint. Disability-related claims may be settled
on an individual basis, but are not being settled class-wide.
Disability-related claims by unnamed class members will be
dismissed without prejudice.

The Court further ordered that the counsel for any named party may
appear telephonically. But if they wish to do so, they should file
a notice of intent to appear telephonically and should provide the
Court with a telephone number at which they can be reached, as
they did for the preliminary approval hearing.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 10, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/kaMjPQfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Montoya, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Georgiy
Borisovich Lyudyno.

Intelicare Direct, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chana Emily
Ickowitz -- ceickowitz@venable.com -- Venable, LLP, Richard James
Frey -- rjfrey@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP & Ryan M. Andrews --
rmandrews@Venable.com -- Venable.


INVENSENSE INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Invensense, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2016, that the Court has not yet
issued an order on the motion seeking dismissal of the
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit.

In January and March of 2015, purported shareholders filed five
substantially similar class action complaints in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California against the Company and two
of the Company's current and former executives ("Class Action
Defendants") (Jim McMillan v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. Case No.
3:15-cv-00084-JD, filed January 7, 2015; William Lendales v.
InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00142-VC, filed on
January 12, 2015; Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v.
InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, filed on
January 16, 2015; William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW, filed on January 29, 2015; and
Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio v.
InvenSense et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01134, filed on March 11,
2015).

On April 23, 2015, those cases were consolidated into a single
proceeding which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California and captioned In re InvenSense,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD (the
"Securities Case"), and the Vossen Group was designated as lead
plaintiff.

On May 26, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding our business results between July
29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages along
with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On June 25, 2015, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion
seeking dismissal of the case and a hearing on that motion was
held on October 7, 2015. On March 28, 2016, the court granted the
motion to dismiss, in part with prejudice and in part with leave
to amend. On April 18, 2016, the lead plaintiff's counsel filed an
amended complaint. On May 5, 2016, the Class Action Defendants
filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case and a hearing on that
motion was held on June 29, 2016. The Court has not yet issued an
order.

In light of the unresolved legal issues, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be estimated. At this stage, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and, accordingly,
cannot estimate the potential financial impact on the Company's
business, operating results, cash flows or financial position.


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal
in the Massachusetts securities class action lawsuit remains
pending.

On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and Francis Reynolds, its former
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as
defendants (the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements related to the
timing and completion of the clinical study of the Company's
Neuro-Spinal Scaffold(TM) implant. The plaintiff sought class
certification for purchasers of the Company's common stock during
the period from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and
unspecified damages. On April 3, 2015, the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's
claim with prejudice.

On May 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this
decision. A mandatory mediation conference was held on September
10, 2015. Following that conference, on October 5, 2015, the
plaintiff/appellant filed his opening brief with the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Company and the
individual defendants/appellees filed their answering brief on
November 5, 2015, and the plaintiff/appellant filed his reply
brief on December 10, 2015. The Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on April 6, 2016.


IOD INC: "Lowery" Case Returns to Alabama State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONNA G. LOWERY, JOEL S. KELLY, III, BLAKE M. ELLIS,
and SHEILA GARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IOD, INC., and CIOX HEALTH,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-862-RDP (N.D. Ala.), District
Judge R. David Proctor approved the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand,
thus handling over to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Birmingham Division, the jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Plaintiffs in the case alleged the Defendants' wrongful and
systematic charging of sales tax on its services involving the
collection and reproduction of medical records. The Defendants
then, removed the action for federal jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The court concludes that the Defendants have not made a sufficient
showing that the amount in controversy in the case exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold of $5,000,000 under CAFA. Moreover, due
to concerns about comity, the Court decided that, although it has
the power to entertain the action, it should not do so in favor of
remanding the case to state court.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 11, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/1nYpcSfrom Leagle.com.

Donna G Lowery, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Cameron L.
Hogan, LLOYD & HOGAN PC, Anil A. Mujumdar, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR &
DEBROSSE,  TRIAL LAWYERS & Diandra S. Debrosse-Zimmermann --
fuli@zarzaur.com -- ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE.

Sheila Garrett, Plaintiff, represented by Cameron L. Hogan, LLOYD
& HOGAN PC & Anil A. Mujumdar, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE, TRIAL
LAWYERS.

IOD Inc, et al., Defendants, represented by Richard R. Owens --
rrowens@burr.com -- BURR & FORMAN LLP & Stephen J. Bumgarner --
sbumgarner@burr.com -- BURR & FORMAN LLP.


JOSEPH ELETTO: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Joseph Eletto Transfer, Inc., and I.
Williams Associates, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 16-005431 (N.Y.
Sup., August 5, 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 New York Labor Laws.

Defendants Joseph Eletto and I. Williams provide residential
delivery services for merchants in the home furnishings industries
where Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver. Defendants allegedly
classified him as an independent contractor.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy I. Kessler, Esq.
      Marijana Matura, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 499-9100
      Email: lkessler@shuhnankessler.com
             mmatura@shulmankessler.com


JUST ENERGY: Faces Employee Misclassification Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for Toronto Star, reports that for 18
months, Haidar Omarali says he was told when and where to work by
multimillion-dollar utilities retailer Just Energy.  He was told
what to say to customers courtesy of a pre-written script, what to
wear in the form of company branded clothing, and was trained,
supervised and disciplined by his company.

Sound like an employee to you? So it should, according to a new
class-action lawsuit -- the first of its kind in Canada.

But in the eyes of multi-national corporation Just Energy,
Mr. Omarali was not an employee at all; he was an "independent
contractor" with no right to minimum wage, overtime pay, or any
other workplace protections.  As a result, court documents allege,
the 58-year-old Toronto father worked at least six days a week
from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on commission set by the company,
which sometimes came out to as little as $3.32 an hour -- far
below Ontario's $11.25 minimum wage.

The class-action lawsuit on behalf of 7,000 Just Energy sales
agents claims the business with operations across North America
and the United Kingdom "unjustly enriched" itself by
misclassifying its salespeople as independent contractors.  That,
the suit alleges, allowed it to make significant savings on things
like basic pay, overtime, and EI contributions -- since only
workers designated as employees are entitled to such workplace
rights.  The case has yet to be tested in court.

"They keep you at the bottom of the totem pole because that's
where most of their revenue comes from," said Mr. Omarali, who
says he had to cash out his kids' life insurance at one point to
make ends meet.

In a statement to the Star, Just Energy said it disagreed with the
Ontario superior court's decision to certify the lawsuit, or give
it approval to move forward as a class action, adding that the
presiding judge acknowledged the company "may well prevail on the
merits."

"The judge also recognized that previous decisions by numerous
regulatory agencies had reassured Just Energy that the sales
agents were, indeed, independent contractors, and not employees.
Just Energy believes it complied with the law and will continue to
vigorously defend itself in this litigation," the statement said.

In a summary of its position, leading labor law firm Koskie Minsky
described its clients, who went door-to-door across Ontario
selling gas and electricity contracts, as "low-skilled and
vulnerable employees," often people without post-secondary degrees
or new Canadians.

"This is the first class action where we're actually seeking
determination from the court that all 7,000 of these people were
improperly classified and as a result denied their basic
employment rights like minimum wage," said Jody Brown, a lawyer
for the plaintiffs.

Ms. Brown said the key objective of the suit was "changing current
behavior" around misclassification, which strips workers of basic
protections.

Under Canadian law, independent contractors are generally supposed
to operate autonomously, setting their own schedules and using
their own equipment.  According to the class-action suit, Just
Energy sales agents signed a contract classifying them as such.
But, the suit alleges, they were also transported by company
employees to target neighborhoods, subject to mandatory training,
supervision, and disciplinary schemes, and instructed to wear
company-branded clothing -- right down to the hat on their head,
which they were told should sport the Just Energy logo.

In response to those allegations, lawyers for Just Energy said in
a statement of the company's position sent to the Star that their
sales agents' training was "largely a function of regulatory
compliance."  While it says its sales agents had to identify
themselves as company representatives to customers and abide by
some company restrictions, it also said workers were "not required
to follow scripts prescribed by Just Energy or otherwise follow
Just Energy's suggestions or advice."

The issue of what defines an employee and who should be entitled
to basic workplace rights is a live one: Ontario is in the midst
of reviewing its employment and labor laws, which critics call
outdated and ineffective.  Among the recommendations made by labor
groups is a government crackdown on misclassification by
establishing a "reverse onus" on employee status -- meaning all
workers would be presumed to be employees unless their bosses can
prove otherwise.

"I think increasing enforcement mechanisms to ensure people know
if they're captured as an employee or not, or if they're really
being misclassified is important," Ms. Brown said.

"When people are looking for a job, they're looking for a
paycheque.  They're not necessarily aware of the legal nuances,
the differences between an independent contractor and an
employee."

As previously reported by the Star, there has been significant
momentum south of the border to tackle employee misclassification.
At the Port of Los Angeles, hundreds of truck drivers are
challenging their classification as independent contractors
through the courts.  The U.S. Department of Labour has signed
agreements with multiple states to tackle employee
misclassification, and recently issued legal guidance to clarify
that most workers should be treated as employees under the law.

The lawsuit filed by Ms. Omarali and his lawyers against Just
Energy says the individual claims of the 7,000 sales agents would
have been too small to pursue -- but a class action would "provide
access to justice to thousands of vulnerable employees."

For Ms. Omarali, who left the company in 2013 after making less
than $24,000 that year, it is about righting a job opportunity
gone wrong.

"There was always the hope that you would make more," he said.
"But that was just a mirage."


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Motion for Class Certification Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit related to the former Gainesville wood
treating plant are awaiting a ruling from the court on the motion
for class certification.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs
define the putative class as consisting of all persons who are
present record owners of residential real properties located in an
area within a two-mile radius of the former Gainesville wood
treating plant. Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and
contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real
properties within the two mile geographical area, have caused
property damage (diminution in value) and have placed residents
and owners of the putative class properties at an elevated risk of
exposure to and injury from the chemicals at issue. The second
amended complaint seeks damages for diminution in property values,
cleaning of allegedly contaminated homes and punitive damages. The
plaintiffs presently seek a class comprised of all current
property owners of single family residential properties with a
polygon-shaped area extending approximately two miles from the
former plant area (which area encompasses approximately 7,000
owners).

Under the current scheduling order, class factual discovery closed
in May 2015 and expert witness discovery was completed in August
2015. Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order of the
court. Motions were subsequently filed by each side to strike or
limit the testimony of the other side's experts. Plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification on September 30, 2015 and the
response of Koppers Inc. was filed on October 30, 2015. A hearing
on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the parties'
motions relating to experts was held in January 2016 and the
parties await a ruling from the court.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Won't Proceed in Virgin Islands Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit in Virgin Islands have filed a motion not to
proceed with the matter.

Koppers Performance Chemicals Inc. ("PC") is currently a defendant
in a putative class action lawsuit filed in July 2014 in the
United States District Court of the Virgin Islands. The plaintiffs
claim, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, that
PC's wood preservative products and formulas are defective, and
the complaint alleges the following causes of action: breach of
contract, negligence, strict liability, fraud and violation of the
Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
statute. The putative class is defined as all users (residential
or commercial) of wood products treated with PC wood preserving
products in the United States who purchased such wood products
from January 1, 2004 to the present.

Alternatively, plaintiffs allege that the putative class should be
all persons and entities that have owned or acquired buildings or
other structures physically located in the U.S. Virgin Islands
that contain wood products treated with PC wood preserving
products from January 1, 2004 to the present. The complaint
alleges plaintiffs are entitled to unspecified "economic and
compensatory damages", punitive damages, costs and disgorgement of
profits. The complaint further requests a declaratory judgment and
injunction to establish an inspection and disposal program for
class members' structures.

On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion not to proceed with
the matter.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: 56 Coal Tar Pitch Cases Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Koppers Inc. is one of
several defendants in lawsuits filed in two states in which the
plaintiffs claim they suffered a variety of illnesses (including
cancer) as a result of exposure to coal tar pitch sold by the
defendants. There are 110 plaintiffs in 56 cases pending as of
June 30, 2016, compared to 110 plaintiffs in 59 cases pending as
of December 31, 2015. As of June 30, 2016, there are a total of 55
cases pending in state court in Pennsylvania, and one case pending
in state court in Tennessee.

The plaintiffs in all 56 pending cases seek to recover
compensatory damages. Plaintiffs in 51 of those cases also seek to
recover punitive damages. The plaintiffs in the 55 cases filed in
Pennsylvania state court seek unspecified damages in excess of the
court's minimum jurisdictional limit. The plaintiff in the
Tennessee state court case seeks damages of $15.0 million. The
other defendants in these lawsuits vary from case to case and
include companies such as Beazer East, Inc. ("Beazer East"),
United States Steel Corporation, Honeywell International Inc.,
Vertellus Specialties Inc., Dow Chemical Company, UCAR Carbon
Company, Inc., SGL Carbon Corporation and Alcoa, Inc. Discovery is
proceeding in these cases. No trial dates have been set in any of
these cases.

The Company has not provided a reserve for these lawsuits because,
at this time, the Company cannot reasonably determine the
probability of a loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated. The timing of resolution of these cases
cannot be reasonably determined. Although Koppers Inc. is
vigorously defending these cases, an unfavorable resolution of
these matters may have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition, cash flows and results of
operations.


LEW BLUM TOWING: "Thornton" Sues Over Illegal Towing
----------------------------------------------------
Rory Thornton, individually, and on behalf of a class of other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lew Blum Towing Company,
Defendant, Case No. 160800769 (Pa. Com. Pleas, August 5, 2016),
seeks compensatory, punitive and other damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fee and costs and all such
other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices And Consumer Protection Law.

Plaintiff accuses Defendant of illegally towing his vehicle parked
in the private parking space at 40th and Filbert Street in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Lew Blum Towing Company, Inc. is a towing company located in 1130
N. 4th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
     LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Tel: (215)592-1500

           - and -

     Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
     Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
     MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
     2041 Herr Street
     Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624
     Tel: (717) 238-5707
     Fax: (717) 233-8133


LIFETIME BRANDS: Faces "Murray" Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Lifetime Brands, Inc. The case is
captioned NICOLE MURRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. LIFETIME BRANDS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05016-NLH-JS (D.N.J., Aug. 16, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Hon. Noel L. Hillman.

Lifetime designs, markets and distributes household cutlery,
kitchen tools, gadgets, and other houseware products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark W. Morris, Esq.
          CLARK LAW FIRM
          811 16th Avenue
          Belmar, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 443 0333
          E-mail: mmorris@clarklawnj.com


LIHUA INT'L: Court Finds Alternative Service Unnecessary
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE LIHUA INTERNATIONAL, INC., SECURITIES
LITIGATION, No. 14-CV-5037 (RA) (RLE), District Judge Ronald L.
Ellis denied the Plaintiffs' motion for alternative service of the
individual Defendants, Zhu and Wang, in a securities class action
filed before the South District of New York. Both individual
Defendants live and work in China.

Defendant Zhu is the former President, former Chief Executive
Officer, and former Chairman of the Board of Directors of Lihua,
the Defendant Corporation, while Defendant Wang, is the former
Chief Operating Officer of Lihua and former member of its Board of
Directors.

It is with the Plaintiffs' submission that, because Zhu is the
current legal representative of Lihua's Chinese subsidiaries and
Wang is Zhu's wife, service on Lihua and its counsel in the action
is reasonably calculated to apprise Zhu and Wang of the instant
action.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f), the Court may
fashion means of service on an individual in a foreign country, so
long as the ordered means of service (1) is not prohibited by
international agreement and (2) comports with constitutional
notions of due process.

The Court ruled that an alternative service to the legal
representative of the Lihua subsidiaries is not necessary based on
the surrounding circumstances that it would be impossible to
imagine that the individual defendants would not be made aware of
the pending action against them by the corporate entities. Should
the service be pursued to Lihua's legal counsel, Douglas Greene of
the law firm Lane Powell, PC, the Court believed that it would
leave considerable room for doubt that such service would be
reasonably calculated to apprise Zhu and Wang of the claims
against them because Greene had neither met nor spoken to in any
way with the individual Defendants.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated August 12, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/xHWAObfrom Leagle.com.

James Holtz, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Laurence M. Rosen
-- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, Phillip C. Kim
-- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. & Jonathan Stern
-- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Peter Hoang, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Stern --
jstern@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Jeffrey Grodko, Plaintiff, represented by Michael M. Goldberg,
Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom,
Pomerantz LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, pro hac vice & Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com --
Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP.

Shawn Hart, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara --
bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Robert B. Dreisin, Movant, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP.

Lihua International Inc., Defendant, represented by Bret A.
Finkelstein -- finkelsteinb@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC,
Claire Loebs Davis -- davisc@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC,
Douglas W. Greene -- greened@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell, Jay
Shapiro -- shapiroj@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams, LLP,
Kristin Beneski -- beneskik@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, pro
hac vice, Peter Douglas Hawkes -- hawkesp@lanepowell.com -- Lane
Powell PC & Sharon Ben-Shahar -- smayer@birdmarella.com
-- Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks and Lincenberg.

Philip Cafaro, Bankruptcy Movant, represented by Betsy C. Manifold
-- manifold@whafh.com -- Symphony Tower & Matthew Moylan Guiney --
guiney@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.


LINCOLN LIFE: "Hanks" Suit Alleges Unlawful Insurance Increases
---------------------------------------------------------------
HELEN HANKS on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. THE LINCOLN LIFE & ANNUITY COMPANY OF NEW YORK; VOYA
RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, formerly known as Aetna
Life Insurance and Annuity Company, Case No: 1:16-cv-06399
(S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2016), was filed on behalf of owners of life
insurance policies issued by Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity
Company (now Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company), who
have been subject to alleged unlawful cost of insurance increases
imposed by The Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York.

Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York offers annuity, life
insurance and retirement planning products to individuals and
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
     Phone: 310-789-3100
     Fax: 310-789-3150
     E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

        - and -

     Seth Ard, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: 212-336-8330
     Fax: 212-336-8340
     E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com


LLOYDS BANKING: LTU Mulls Equal Pension Scheme Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Scott, writing for Employee Benefits, reports that
Lloyds Trade Union (LTU) is preparing to bring a class action
lawsuit against Lloyds Banking Group regarding equal payments for
members of its defined benefit (DB) pension scheme.

According to the union, the different rates at which male and
female members of the pension scheme accrue guaranteed minimum
pensions (GMP) payments is discriminatory.  The legal action seeks
to ensure that female pension scheme members see their pension
increase at the same rate as male members of the scheme.

The union claims that this issue could affect up to 100,000 women,
and that the difference in benefits could be worth up to œ2,000
per female member of staff.

The issue could affect those who joined one of the group's final
salary pension schemes before April 6, 1997.

Lloyds Banking Group declined to comment.


LOOK ENTERTAINMENT: Jordan Seeks Compensation Under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERI JORDAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LOOK ENTERTAINMENT, LTD. d/b/a BILLY
DEAN'S SHOWTIME CAFE; WILLIAM DEAN; RORI GORDON; and any other
related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 600345/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Aug. 16, 2016), seeks all compensation, including minimum
wage compensation, all earned gratuities and tips, and improper
deductions from wages, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs,
under New York Labor Law.

The Defendants allegedly has a common policy or plan of violating
the Labor Law by failing to provide statutory minimum hourly wage
for all hours worked, by unlawfully retaining gratuities and tips,
and by imposing improper deductions and fines from the Named
Plaintiff's and class members' wages.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment under
the name Billy Dean's Showtime Cafe, located at 1538 Newbridge
Road, North Bellmore, New York 11710.

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

The Defendant appears pro se.


MAGNOLIA TORQUE: Operators File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that two
operators have filed a class-action lawsuit against Magnolia
Torque & Testing, Inc., a former employer, citing alleged
violation of workers compensation acts.

Simon Joseph Dubois and Joseph Conwell filed a complaint on behalf
of all others similarly situated on July 27, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana against Magnolia
Torque & Testing, Inc. alleging that the former employer violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Messrs.
Dubois and Conwell often worked for weeks consisting of 84 hours
or more without receiving overtime compensation.  They were paid a
base salary, an hourly rate and a ticket bonus regardless of the
number of hours worked.  The plaintiffs holds Magnolia Torque &
Testing, Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly
illegally practiced not paying them overtime compensation by
misclassifying them as exempt from the overtime requirements.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek an order
certifying this case as a collective action, award for all unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, and/or penalties, pre- and post-
judgment interest and such other relief as may be necessary.  They
are represented by Kenneth D. St. Pe of Kenneth D. St. Pe LLC in
Lafayette.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Case
number 6:16-cv-01100


MAINE: Court Dismisses "Williams" Suit Over Bond Fee
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRADLEY PAUL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. EVERY JUDGE IN
MAINE, ET AL., Defendants, Civil No. 1:16-CV-235-DBH (D. Maine),
District Judge D. Brock Hornby adopted the Magistrate Judge's
Recommended Decision dismissing the Plaintiff's allegation that
the imposition of a non-refundable bond fee of $60 is a form of an
extortion.

Judge Hornby ruled that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. The Court then, cannot determine that
Maine's current system is unconstitutional and therefore, ruled
that the plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint "to remove the
'class action' status," "to remove the Maine association of Police
and the Maine State BAR Association as Defendants," and to add the
Magistrate Judge "to the list of the Maine judges that are
Defendants" is rendered moot.

In the case, the Plaintiff aggrieved the fact that he had to pay
the $60 fee in order to post $500 bail and that once the criminal
charges were dismissed, he was refunded only his $500, not his
$60.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 15, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/c4r25vfrom Leagle.com.


MDL 1720: 2nd Cir. Says Appeal on Service Awards "Moot"
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, ruled that the
Appellants' appeal from the judgment of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York granting service awards
to class representatives is moot.  The appellate case is IN RE
PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Nos. 15-217 (Lead), 15-234 (Con) and 15-519 (Con),
(2nd Cir.).

The Appellants' settlement in question is subject of an appeal in
another case, captioned, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 12-4671-cv(L). In this
case, the Court vacated the certification of the class action,
reversed the approval of the settlement, and remanded for further
proceedings. Therefore, based on the ruling of this related case,
the appeal before the Second Circuit is rendered moot.

A copy of the Court's Judgment dated August 10, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/gTss98from Leagle.com.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded
approval of the settlement in MDL 1720.

Additional information on the case is available at:

     https://www.paymentcardsettlement.com/en

JOHN J. PENTZ, Sudbury, MA, JOSHUA R. FURMAN --
jrf@furmanlawyers.com -- Joshua R. Furman Law Corp., Sherman Oaks,
CA, For Appellants.

K. CRAIG WILDFANG -- KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com -- (Thomas J.
Undlin, Ryan W. Marth), Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN; H.
Laddie Montague, Merrill G. Davidoff, Michael J. Kane, Berger &
Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA; Patrick Coughlin, Joseph David
Daley, Alexandra Senya Bernay, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
San Diego, CA; Joseph Goldberg -- JG@FBDLAW.com -- Freedman Boyd
Goldberg Urias & Ward, P.A., Albuquerque, NM., For Appellees.


MDL 2143: IPPs Assign 2 Settlement Administrators
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, No. 3:10-md-2143 RS (N.D. Calif.), District Judge
Richard Seeborg granted the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' (IPPs)
proposal to add the firm Sipree, Inc. as a Settlement
Administrator in its preliminarily approved class action
settlement.

Sipree, Inc. will be joining with Gilardi & Co. LLC to supervise
and administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of
claims as more fully set forth in the Order Granting Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlements with Panasonic, NEC, Sony and HLDS Defendant
Families and Dissemination of Class Notice, ECF No. 1916.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated August 8, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/k9x6Nafrom Leagle.com.

CMP Consulting Services, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, represented by
Dianne M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Christopher T.
Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio, Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilaw.com -- Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman Criden & Love,
P.A., Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Linda M. Fong -- lfong@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox
& Kilsheimer LLP, Michael E. Criden, Criden & Love P.A. & Steven
Noel Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP.

KI, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Jonathan Whitcomb --
jwhitcomb@dmoc.com -- Siserio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni LLP,
Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilaw.com -- Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox
& Kilsheimer LLP, Linda M. Fong -- lfong@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP.

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Plaintiff, represented
by Dianne M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Sarah
Robin London -- slondon@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP.

Rokas Beresniovas, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Prisco Electronic Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne
M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Adam John Zapala --
azapala@cpmlegal.com -- Davis Cowell & Bowe LLP, Aron K. Liang,
Minami Tamaki LLP, Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Gene
Woo Kim -- gkim@gordonrees.com -- Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy,
LLP, Guido Saveri -- guido@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri, Inc.,
Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Joseph W. Cotchett --
jcotchett@cpmlaw.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Joseph R.
Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilaw.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
Niki B. Okcu -- Niki.Okcu@att.com -- AT&T Services, Inc. Legal
Dept., Richard Alexander Saveri -- rick@saveri.com -- Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Steven Noel Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com --
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law
Firm.

Heather Tremblay, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dianne M.
Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Lee Albert --
lalbert@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Susan Gilah
Kupfer -- skupfer@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP &
Sylvia M. Sokol -- ssokol@constantinecannon.com -- Scott+Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP.

Christopher Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker --
ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker Levine LLP.

Matthew Slavin, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr. --
abailey@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Christopher T. Heffelfinger
-- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio,
Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Eugene A. Spector -
espector@srkw-law.com -- Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC,
Jeffrey Lawrence Spector, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis P.C.,
Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilaw.com -- Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Michael D. Hausfeld - mhausfeld@hausfeld.com --
Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com --
Hausfeld LLP, Robert G. Eisler -- reisler@gelaw.com -- Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Stephanie Yunjin Cho -- scho@hausfeld.com --
Hausfeld LLP & William G. Caldes - bcaldes@srkw-law.com --
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, P.C..

Warren S. Herman, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Christopher T. Heffelfinger --
cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Lawrence Walner, The Walner
Law Firm LLC & Richard Alexander Saveri -- rick@saveri.com --
Saveri & Saveri, Inc..

David Carney, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Sheanin --
asheanin@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Dianne M.
Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Elizabeth Cheryl
Pritzker -- ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker Levine LLP.

L.E. Hoover Co., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Elizabeth R. Odette -
erodette@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., W.
Joseph Bruckner - wjbruckner@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P & Clinton Paul Walker, Damrell Nelson Schrimp
Pallios Pache.

JLK Systems Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Paul
Germaine - dgermaine@vaneklaw.com -- Vanek Vickers & Masini PC,
pro hac vice, Dianne M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC,
John Paul Bjork, Vanek Vickers Masini PC, Joseph M. Vanek -
jvanek@vaneklaw.com -- Vanek Vickers Masini PC, Richard Alexander
Saveri -- rick@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Allan Steyer -
- asteyer@steyerlaw.com -- Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr. -- abailey@hausfeld.com --
Hausfeld LLP, Bruce Lee Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Cadio R. Zirpoli -- zirpoli@saveri.com --
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Christopher T. Heffelfinger --
cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Christopher
L. Lebsock - clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Donald Scott
Macrae -- smacrae@steyerlaw.com -- Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas
Alvarez & Smith LLP, Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner London &
Millen LLC, pro hac vice, Guido Saveri -- guido@saveri.com --
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Jill Michelle Manning --
jmanning@steyerlaw.com -- Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP, Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Michael D. Hausfeld --
mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann --
mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Patrick Howard --
phoward@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, Robert W.
Biederman -- rbiederman@steyerlaw.com -- Steyer Lowenthal, et al.,
Robert G. Eisler -- reisler@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,
Simon Bahne Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett
and Bendesky, Stephanie Yunjin Cho -- scho@hausfeld.com
-- Hausfeld LLP, Steven Noel Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com
-- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP & Travis Luke Manfredi --
travis@cobaltlaw.com -- Saveri and Saveri Inc.

Univisions-Crimson Holding Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne
M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Christopher T.
Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio, Daniel Bushell, Berman DeValerio, Joseph R. Saveri --
jsaveri@saverilaw.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joseph J.
Tabacco, Jr. - jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio,
Manuel Juan Dominguez -- jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, Marc Jeffrey Greenspon --
mgreenspon@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Matthew W.
Ruan -- mruan@cohenmilstein.com -- Berman DeValerio & Todd Anthony
Seaver -- tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio.

Diana Saed, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Susan Gilah Kupfer --
skupfer@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Amber Nikkel, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Christopher T.
Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio, Francis M. Gregorek -- gregorek@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Michael D. Yanovsky, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman Herz LLC & Rachele R. Rickert --
rickert@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Ann Carney, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Craig C. Corbitt -
ccorbitt@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla --
fos@scarpullalaw.com -- Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla &
Qianwei Fu, Zelle LLP.

Don Cheung, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Amy Harrington --
amy@amyharringtonlaw.com -- Law Office of Amy Harrington & Julio
J. Ramos -- ramosfortrustee@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Julio J.
Ramos.

Tina Corse, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & John Dmitry Bogdanov --
jdb@coopkirk.com -- Cooper & Kirkham, P.C..

Alec Berezin, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glackin,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Eric B. Fastiff --
efastiff@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilaw.com -- Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Joel Cary Meredith, Meredith & Associates, Marc
Anthony Pilotin -- pilotin.marc.a@dol.gov -- U.S. Department of
Labor & Steven J. Greenfogel -- sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com --
Lite DePalma Greenburg, LLC.

The Stereo Shop, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick
Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Dianne M. Nast
-- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Eric B. Fastiff --
efastiff@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilaw.com -- Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Christopher T. Heffelfinger --
cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Daniel E.
Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, pro hac vice, Jason Kilene -- jkilene@gustafsongluek.com --
Gustafson Gluek PLLC & Marc Anthony Pilotin --
pilotin.marc.a@dol.gov -- U.S. Department of Labor.

Bay Area Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast
-- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Brad Yamauchi --
byamauchi@MinamiTamaki.com -- Minami Tamaki LLP, Derek G. Howard -
- derek@dhowlaw.com -- Howard Law Firm & Jack Wing Lee --
jlee@MinamiTamaki.com -- Minami Tamaki LLP.

Larson Group, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker --
ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker Levine LLP.

Aaron Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, George W. Sampson, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert William Finnerty,
Girardi Keese, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Mr. Cullen Byrne, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & William Henry Parish, Parish &
Small.

Freud Reia, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Terry Gross, Gross Belsky
Alonso LLP.

Brent Pickett, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dianne M. Nast -
- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Terry Gross --
terry@grossbelsky.com -- Gross Belsky Alonso LLP.

Alireza Tabatabai, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Robert M. Partain --
rpartain@rcrlaw.net -- O'Donnell & Associates.

Mary Jane Garland, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, James Lewis Wilkes, Wilkes &
McHugh & Timothy Charles McHugh, Wilkes & McHugh.

Beth O'Donnell, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry --
bribarry1@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Brian Barry, Dianne M. Nast
-- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Jennifer Sarnelli --
jsarnelli@gmail.com -- Gardy & Notis, LLP.

Vanessa Stark, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dianne M. Nast -
- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Jennifer Sarnelli --
jsarnelli@gmail.com -- Gardy & Notis, LLP.

Gregory Sinigiani, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Mario N. Alioto --
malioto@tatp.com -- Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Sherman
Kassof -- heevay@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Lauren
Clare Capurro -- laurenrussell@tatp.com -- Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP.

Aimee Brock, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Mario N. Alioto --
malioto@tatp.com -- Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Joseph
Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro -- laurenrussell@tatp.com -- Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP & Sherman Kassof -- heevay@yahoo.com -- Law Offices
of Sherman Kassof.

EMW, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Lingel Hart Winters --
sawmill2@aol.com -- Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Aaron Deshaw, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Ernest Warren, Walker & Warren.

David Knight, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dianne M. Nast
-- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Steve Douglas Larson --
zac@deerdigit.com -- Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting Shlachter P.C..

James P. Ito-Adler, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Tompkins
-- cet@willmont.com -- Williams, Montgomery & John, Ltd., Dianne
M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC & Ian J. McLoughlin
-- imcloughlin@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Todd Anthony Seaver --
tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Jeff D. Friedman
-- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E.
Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of
Legal Affairs, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Liz Ann
Brady, Office of the Attorney General & Nicholas J. Weilhammer,
Office of the Attorney General.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Ivy Arai
Tabbara -- ivy@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lingel Hart Winters -- sawmill2@aol.com -- Law
Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Matthew Alexander Smith, Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Shana E. Scarlett --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Dell Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Jacob Tuck
-- andy.tuck@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, Adrian James
Sawyer -- sawyer@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Debra
Dawn Bernstein -- dbernstein@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP,
Elizabeth Helmer Jordan -- elizabeth.helmer@alston.com -- Alston &
Bird LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe -- wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -
- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Kelley Connolly Barnaby --
kelley.barnaby@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
Micah Dean Moon, Alston Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Michael P. Kenny -
- mike.kenny@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Michael John Newton
-- mike.newton@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, Nicolas Ward
Steenland, pro hac vice & Rodney J. Ganske --
rod.ganske@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K.
Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Aaron Ross Walner, The
Walner Law Firm LLC, Cadio R. Zirpoli -- zirpoli@saveri.com --
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Guido Saveri -- guido@saveri.com -- Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Richard Alexander Saveri --
rick@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri, Inc..

John McKee, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Jeff D. Friedman
-- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E.
Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff, represented by Alistair B.
Dawson -- adawson@beckredden.com -- Beck Redden & Secrest,
Beatrice B. Nguyen, Crowell & Moring LLP, Angela Julie Yu --
ayu@crowell.com -- Crowell and Moring LLP, Daniel A. Sasse --
dsasse@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, Matthew J. McBurney,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP &
Ryan Christopher Wong -- rwong@crowell.com -- Crowell and Moring
LLP.

Ingram Micro Inc, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel A.
Sasse -- dsasse@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP & Matthew J.
McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Acer Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Bedford Esau, Eric
Sofge -- esofge@tklg-llp.com -- TechKnowledge Law Group, LLP,
Hsiang James H. Lin -- jlin@tklg-llp.com -- TechKnowledge Law
Group LLP & Kaiwen Tseng -- ktseng@tklg-llp.com -- TechKnowledge
Law Group LLP.

Acer America Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by David
Bedford Esau, Hsiang James H. Lin, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP,
Eric Sofge -- esofge@tklg-llp.com -- TechKnowledge Law Group, LLP,
Fatima S. Alloo -- falloo@tklg-llp.com -- TechKnowledge Law Group
LLP & Kaiwen Tseng -- ktseng@tklg-llp.com -- TechKnowledge Law
Group LLP.

Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by Colleen M. Keating --
CKeating@ktbslaw.com -- Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff and Stern LLP,
Larry Gabriel, Brutzkus Gubner, Michael W. Davis, Brutzkus Gubner,
Michael Lloyd Tuchin -- mtuchin@ktbslaw.com -- Klee Tuchin
Bogdanoff Stern LLP, Robert J. Pfister -- rpfister@ktbslaw.com --
Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP & Steven Todd Gubner --
sgubner@brutzkusgubner.com -- Brutzkus Gubner.

Peter Kravitz, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Pfister --
rpfister@ktbslaw.com -- Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP,
Colleen M. Keating -- CKeating@ktbslaw.com -- Klee, Tuchin,
Bogdanoff and Stern LLP, David Marc Stern, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff &
Stern LLP, Jason Benjamin Komorsky -- jkomorsky@brutzkusgubner.com
-- Brutzkus Gubner, Jonathan Mark Weiss -- jweiss@ktbslaw.com --
Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Michael W. Davis, Brutzkus
Gubner, Michael Lloyd Tuchin -- mtuchin@ktbslaw.com -- Klee Tuchin
Bogdanoff Stern LLP & Steven Todd Gubner --
sgubner@brutzkusgubner.com -- Brutzkus Gubner.

Sony Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by Beko Osiris
Ra Reblitz-Richardson -- brichardson@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Ian T. Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP & Steven Christopher Holtzman -- sholtzman@bsfllp.com
-- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

LG Electronics, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Ameri
Rose Klafeta, Eimer Stahl LLP, Arin Charles Aragona --
aaragona@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, pro hac vice, Ian T.
Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Nathan P.
Eimer -- neimer@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Samuel R.
Miller, Sidley Austin LLP, Sarah Hargadon, Eimer Stahl LLP &
Vanessa Greenwood Jacobsen -- vjacobsen@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer
Stahl LLP, pro hac vice.

Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony
C. Biagioli -- Anthony.Biagioli@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Grat LLP,
Emily Jessica Derr -- Emily.Derr@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray
LLP, pro hac vice, Jane E. Willis -- Jane.Willis@ropesgray.com --
Ropes & Gray LLP, Mark Samuel Popofsky --
Mark.Popofsky@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray LLP & Michelle Lynn
Visser -- Michelle.Visser@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Casandra Leann
Thomson -- casandra.thomson@law.duke.edu --  Latham & Watkins,
Daniel Murray Wall, Latham & Watkins LLP, Deana Louise Cairo,
Tucker Ellis LLP, Belinda S. Lee -- belinda.lee@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins, Brendan Andrew McShane, Latham & Watkins LLP, Catherine
E. Palmer, Latham and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Ian T. Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Defendants, represented by
Ian T. Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, David
Josiah Ribner, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, pro hac vice, James Pearl,
Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Leah Suzanne Martin
- lmartin@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen Joel McIntyre -- smcintyre@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers
LLP.

Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, represented by Casandra Leann Thomson --
casandra.thomson@law.duke.edu -- Latham & Watkins, Daniel Murray
Wall, Latham & Watkins LLP, Belinda S. Lee, Latham & Watkins,
Brendan Andrew McShane -- brendan.mcshane@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP, Catherine E. Palmer -- catherine.palmer@lw.com --
Latham and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Ian T. Simmons --
isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al., Defendants, represented by
Stuart Christopher Plunkett -- stuart.plunkett@bakerbotts.com --
Baker Botts, Evan J. Werbel - evanwerbel@bakerbotts.com -- Baker
Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Gina Ann Bibby --
gina.bibby@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP, Ian T. Simmons --
isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James G. Kress -
james.kress@bakerbotts.com -- BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., John M. Taladay
-- john.taladay@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson - jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P.,
Kimberly Ann Murphy - kim.white@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP,
Stacy Turner - stacy,turner@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P.,
pro hac vice, Tiffany Belle Gelott --
tiffany.gelott@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice &
William Lavery -- William.lavery@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts
LLP, pro hac vice.

Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Korea, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Anthony C. Biagioli -- Anthony.Biagioli@ropesgray.com -- Ropes &
Grat LLP, Emily Jessica Derr -- Emily.Derr@ropesgray.com -- Ropes
and Gray LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Samuel Popofsky --
Mark.Popofsky@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray LLP & Michelle Lynn
Visser -- Michelle.Visser@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray LLP.

NEC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dana Lynn Cook-Milligan
-- dlcook@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP, Ian T. Simmons --
isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeanifer Ellen
Parsigian -- jparsigian@gmail.com -- Winston and Strawn, Matthew
Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Paul R. Griffin --
pgriffin@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Robert Bernard
Pringle -- rpringle@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP & Sean D.
Meenan -- smeenan@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn.

Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Belinda S. Lee -- belinda.lee@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins, Brendan Andrew McShane -- brendan.mcshane@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP, Catherine E. Palmer, Latham and Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice & Ian T. Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP.

Quanta Storage Inc, Defendant, represented by Anthony James Ellrod
-- aje@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester
LLP, Ian T. Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP &
Paul Hanna -- pxh@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Treater, LLP.

BenQ Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by Cheryl
Stephanie Chang -- Chang@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Joel
Barry Kleinman -- JKleinman@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Ian
T. Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Lisa
Marie Kaas -- LKaas@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP & Nicholas
Cheolas -- dlcook@winston.com -- Dickstein Shapiro LLP.

Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Defendant, represented
by John F. Cove, Jr. -- john.cove@shearman.com -- Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP.

Quanta Storage America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Neumeyer -- cmneumeyer@duanemorrisselvam.com --Asia
Law & Ian T. Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by A. Paul
Victor - pvictor@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A.
Badini -- abadini@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, David L.
Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler --
lcdrjjk@aol.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Elizabeth A. Cate --
caterinak@gtlaw.com -- Winston and Strawn, LLP, George E. Mastoris
- gmastoris@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian T. Simmons --
isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James F. Lerner -
jlerner@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Kelli L. Lanski -
klanski@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Marissa C. Nardi, pro
hac vice, Matthew C. Oxman, Dewey Leboeuf LLP & Susannah P. Torpey
-- storpey@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP.

Sony Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Beko Osiris Ra
Reblitz-Richardson -- brichardson@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP & Ian T. Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP.

Pioneer North America, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Eric Patrick Enson -- epenson@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, Jeffrey
Alan LeVee, Jones Day & Kathleen Patricia Wallace --
kpwallace@jonesday.com -- Attorney at Law.

Pioneer Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by Jeffrey
Alan LeVee, Jones Day, Eric Patrick Enson -- epenson@jonesday.com
-- JONES DAY & Matthew Paul Accornero, Jones Day.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, et al., Defendants,
represented by Evan J. Werbel -- evanwerbel@bakerbotts.com --
Baker Botts LLP.


MEDICREDIT INC: Court Won't Revive "Kreger" TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington denies the
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration as to Order Dismissing the
Case captioned, SEAN KREGER, Plaintiff, v. MEDICREDIT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-1481-T-33JSS (M.D. Fla.).

The case involves the Defendant's alleged violations under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act which the Court entered a prior
order to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of a class-action
settlement agreement. Despite the decision, Plaintiff moved to
reconsider the Court's Order.

District Judge Covington noted that the Plaintiff's motion merely
rehashes old arguments and raises arguments not previously
asserted in an effort to persuade the Court to reconsider its
decision, thus, warrants a denial.

A copy of the Court's Judgment dated August 16, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/4ise3cfrom Leagle.com.

Sean Kreger, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Andrew Ziegler --
mike@zieglerlawoffice.com -- Law Office of Michael A. Ziegler,
Esq.

Medicredit, Inc., Defendant, represented by William Jason Cantrell
-- william.cantrell@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


MIKE'S AUTO: "Tariq" Sues Over Shady Car Sale Deal
--------------------------------------------------
Tahir Tariq individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aqleh Michael Nadeem, d/b/a Mike's Auto
Sales - San Bruno, Westlake Services, LLC, a California limited
liability company and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No 16CIV00821 (Cal. Super., August 8, 2016), seeks an
injunction, including restitution, to prevent further violations,
correction, repair, replacement, or other remedy of the concerned
vehicle, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses and such
other and further relief for violation of Consumers Legal Remedies
and Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act.

Plaintiff bought a car from the Defendants under a financing
scheme. He alleges that Defendant failed to disclose several
conditions in the agreement. He also claims that the vehicle he
purchased was defective.

Aqleh Michael Nadeem owns and operates Mike's Auto Sales in San
Bruno, and is engaged in the business of buying and selling
automobiles to the general public.

Westlake Services, LLC, is a financial institution engaged in the
business of holding conditional sale contracts and collecting
payments made by consumers pursuant to such contracts.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
     LOUIS-LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, PLC
     553 Pilgrim Dlive, Suite A
     Foster City, CA 94404
     Tel: (650) 341-0300
     Fax: (650) 403-1783
     Email: lou@carlawyer.com


MISSION BAY: $450,000 Settlement in "Palana" Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA, JOAN SOLIVEN, CONCHITO
CABILES, and ALEXANDER YALUNG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and SHEILAH BALAGTAS and FELIX CADENAS
individually, Plaintiffs, v. MISSION BAY INC. and PRINT IT HERE
AND COPY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-05235 SI (N.D. Calif.),
District Judge Susan Illston granted the parties' Motion for Final
Approval and the Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

The Court noted that the Settlement notice was mailed to 42
putative class members. Of the 42 putative class members, all have
chosen to participate in the settlement, and none objected.

The Court approved the Gross Settlement Amount of $450,000.00
including payments of:

     attorneys' fees in the amount of $150,000.00;

     costs in the amount of $13,710.18;

     claims administration fees in the amount of $9,000.00;

     payment to Plaintiffs Sheilah Balagtas of $7,3000.00 and
     Felix Cadenas of $12,700.00, and enhancement of $5,000.00
     each to Horacio De Veyra Palana, Joan Soliven, and Alexander
     Yalung,; and

     $7,500 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).

The Administrator, CPT Group, is directed to make the above
payments as well as the payments in the distribution to the class
based on the "Re-Distributed Calculations Report" to the Proposed
Order. The amounts earmarked to one class member named, Nieves Y.
Brady were re-distributed in a pro rata manner to the rest of the
class but she is part of the Class whose claims are being
adjudicated.

Consistent with the Agreement, checks not negotiated within 90
days shall be cancelled. If the funds total less than $20,000.00,
they shall be given to the Katherine and George Alexander
Community Law Center through the cy pres doctrine. If the funds
total $20,000.00 or more, they shall be redistributed and re-
mailed to the class in a pro rata manner after the administrator
deducts the costs for the second mailing.

A copy of the Court' Order dated August 12, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/41YpUyfrom Leagle.com.

Horacio De Veyra Palana, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Phung
Hoang Truong, Justice at Work Law Group, Tomas Eduardo Margain --
margainlaw@hotmail.com -- CASA Legal, Cary S. Kletter --
ckletter@kletterlaw.com -- Kletter + Nguyen Law LLP, Trung Thi
Nguyen -- snguyen@kletterlaw.com -- Kletter Law Firm & Huy Ngoc
Tran -- Huy@JAWLawGroup.com -- Justice at Work Law Group.

Mission Bay Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Reyna Elena
Macias -- rmacias@wfbm.com -- WFBM, LLP & Scott A. Freedman --
sfreedman@wfbm.com -- WFBM, LLP.


MONSANTO CO: Faces Suits Over Cancer-Causing Herbicide Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Geske, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
several law firms in Illinois are mounting claims against a
multinational agrochemical manufacturer, alleging one of the
components in its herbicide product causes cancer.

In what could become class-actions against Monsanto Co., several
law firms are banding together to find clients who allegedly have
been affected by the company's Roundup product, which they claim
has caused cancer in several consumers.

Two such cases were recently filed in federal court in East St.
Louis.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, was declared by the
World Health Organization earlier this year as a probable
carcinogen to humans.  Following the organization's announcement,
several lawsuits have popped up declaring that Monsanto's Roundup
was the reason for the plaintiffs' cancer.

Monsanto maintains that glyphosate is safe and said the World
Health Organization is wrong in its findings.

"The contrived claims that glyphosate causes cancer are based on
the erroneous conclusions of a French-based, non-governmental
agency of the World Health Organization," Scott Partridge, vice
president of global strategy at Monsanto, told the Record.

"IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) and its
findings have been thoroughly discredited and rejected by the
rigorous scientific research of governmental authorities around
the world.  In fact, those respected regulatory agencies,
including the U.S. EPA, the European Food Safety Authority and the
relevant bodies in Germany, Japan, Australia and Canada, have all
come to the exact opposite conclusion: glyphosate is safe. Even
the World Health Organization has now issued a new report that
states glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to
humans from exposure through diet, contradicting the IARC report."

Monsanto maintains that glyphosate has been an effective herbicide
for farmers, landowners and homeowners to use for the last 40
years.  Its Roundup product is used in more than 160 countries
around the word and, according to Monsanto, has actually replaced
herbicides that were dangerous to use.

"While we empathize with anyone facing these terrible illnesses,
there is no evidence that glyphosate is the cause," Mr. Partridge
said.  "The very long and well-established history of glyphosate
as safe clearly shows that these claims are supported neither by
the science nor the facts."

The Illinois litigation against Monsanto is especially interesting
as the state's economy is supported by a significant agricultural
sector and its southwestern border is within 20 miles of
Monsanto's headquarters in St. Louis.  Other areas throughout the
U.S. are also collecting plaintiffs and several suits have already
been filed against the company involving its Roundup product.

Monsanto has come under fire before for the chemicals used in its
products in the past with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that
were produced in the 1970s.  The World Health Organization also
declared PCB a carcinogen, causing Monsanto to face more than 700
lawsuits against it claiming that PCB caused the plaintiffs to
develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.  Monsanto is still fighting these
claims today.

The amount of law firms and attorneys looking for clients to join
their case against Monsanto is staggering.  A Google search turns
up hundreds of opportunities to become a plaintiff, which may lead
to trouble for Monsanto if these claims can be proven.


MONSTER INC: Status Report in "Perez" Case Due Sept. 29
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENJAMIN PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. MONSTER INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-03885-EMC (N.D. Calif.), a Motion
Hearing was held before the Hon. Edward M. Chen on Aug. 18, 2016,
and the Court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Stay
proceedings.  The Court set these deadlines:

     Status Report due by Sept. 29; and

     Status Conference reset for Oct. 6 10:30 a.m. in
     Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.

Earlier in August, Judge Chen issued orders denying Defendants'
motion for immediate stay and motion for relief from a
nondispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Ryu after
finding that both motions are rendered moot.  A copy of the
Court's Order dated August 8, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/sU7nC8from Leagle.com.

Benjamin Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher
-- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Annick Marie
Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.,
Joshua David Arisohn -- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher,
P.A., pro hac vice & Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor
& Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice.

Monster Inc., Defendant, represented by Luanne Sacks --
lsacks@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts & Case, LLP & Michele D.
Floyd -- mfloyd@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP.

Best Buy Stores, LP, et al., Defendants, represented by Michele D.
Floyd -- mfloyd@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP.


MYLAN N.V.: Retirement System's Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, DORIS ARNOLD, ROOFERS LOCAL 149 PENSION FUND, MARSHA
BLAKE, and B.W. LEWIS on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MYLAN N.V., HEATHER BRESCH and
ROBERT J. COURY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-821 (W.D.
Penn.), District Judge Mark R. Hornak granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
adopting the Report and Recommendation penned by a United States
Magistrate Judge, Cynthia Reed Eddy.

Magistrate Judge Eddy recommended that the Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint warrants dismissal for
failure to state a claim.

The Court further adopted from the Recommendation that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendant
Mylan N.V.'s Motion to Deny Summary Judgment are moot, thus Judge
Hornak denied both motions.

A copy of the Court's Judgment dated August 12, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/yMKkjifrom Leagle.com.

CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Hollander --
adam.hollander@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela,
LLP, James Notis -- jnotis@gardylaw.com -- Gardy & Notis, LLP, pro
hac vice, Ann M. Kashishian -- akashishian@gelaw.com -- Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice, Meagan Farmer --
mfarmer@gardylaw.com -- Gardy & Notis, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael
J. Barry -- mbarry@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac
vice & Stephanie K. Goldin, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP.

ROOFERS LOCAL 149 PENSION FUND, Plaintiff Consolidated,
represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela,
LLP.

MARSHA BLAKE, et al., Plaintiffs Consolidated, represented by
Gerald L. Rutledge, Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, Jr..

MYLAN N.V., et al., Defendants, represented by Daniel I. Booker
-- dbooker@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Roy W. Arnold --
rarnold@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, William Pietragallo, II
-- WP@Pietragallo.com -- Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon, John A.
Schwab -- JAS@Pietragallo.com -- Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick
& Raspanti, Peter S. Wolff -- PSW@Pietragallo.com -- Pietragallo
Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, Sandra C. Goldstein --
sgoldstein@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac
vice, Stefan H. Atkinson -- satkinson@cravath.com -- Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas L. Allen --
tallen@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith.


NALCO COMPANY: 9 Suits Consolidated in MDL 2179
-----------------------------------------------
Ecolab, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that additional complaints
filed against Nalco Company by individuals alleging, among other
things, business and economic loss resulting from the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill have been consolidated under In Re: Oil Spill by
the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April
20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) ("MDL 2179").

On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater
Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of
Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April
20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one week
following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab, to
supply large quantities of COREXIT(R) 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant
product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule. Nalco Company responded immediately by providing
available COREXIT and increasing production to supply the product
to BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by
agencies of the federal government throughout the incident. Prior
to the incident, Nalco and its subsidiaries had not provided
products or services or otherwise had any involvement with the
Deepwater Horizon platform.

On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it had capped the leaking
well, and the application of dispersants by the responding parties
ceased shortly thereafter.

On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident
Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the
incident at the national level. The EPA directed numerous tests of
all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, "to ensure
decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are
grounded in the best available science." Nalco Company cooperated
with this testing process and continued to supply COREXIT, as
requested by BP and government authorities. After review and
testing of a number of dispersants, on September 30, 2010, and on
August 2, 2010, the EPA released toxicity data for eight oil
dispersants.

The use of dispersants by the responding parties was one tool used
by the government and BP to avoid and reduce damage to the Gulf
area from the spill. Since the spill occurred, the EPA and other
federal agencies have closely monitored conditions in areas where
dispersant was applied. Nalco Company has encouraged ongoing
monitoring and review of COREXIT and other dispersants and has
cooperated fully with the governmental review and approval
process. However, in connection with its provision of COREXIT,
Nalco Company has been named in several lawsuits.

Cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon accident were
administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the
Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) ("MDL 2179").

                 Putative Class Action Litigation

Nalco Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants,
in six putative class action complaints related to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill: Adams v. Louisiana, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
01051 (E.D. La.); Elrod, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production
Inc., et al., 12-cv-00981 (E.D. La.); Harris, et al. v. BP, plc,
et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-02078-CJBSS (E.D. La.); Irelan v. BP
Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00881 (E.D. La.);
Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-
EMT (N.D. Fla.); and, Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No.
1:10-cv-00397-B (S.D. Ala.). The cases were filed on behalf of
various potential classes of persons who live and work in or
derive income from the effected Coastal region. Each of the
actions contains substantially similar allegations, generally
alleging, among other things, negligence relating to the use of
our COREXIT dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill. The plaintiffs in these putative class action lawsuits
are generally seeking awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. These cases have
been consolidated in MDL 2179.

             Other Related Claims Pending in MDL 2179

Nalco Company was also named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in 23 complaints filed by individuals: Alexander, et
al. v. BP Exploration & Production, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00951
(E.D. La.); Best v. British Petroleum plc, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
00772 (E.D. La.); Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et
al. Case No. 2:11-cv- 867, (E.D. La.); Brooks v. Tidewater Marine
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv- 00049 (S.D. Tex.); Capt Ander, Inc.
v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-00364-RH-WCS (N.D. Fla.);
Coco v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al. (E.D. La.); Danos,
et al. v. BP Exploration et al., Case No. 00060449 (25th Judicial
Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); Doom v. BP Exploration &
Production, et al. , Case No. 12-cv-2048 (E.D. La.); Duong, et
al., v. BP America Production Company, et al., Case No. 13-cv-
00605 (E.D. La.); Esponge v. BP, P.L.C., et al., Case No. 0166367
(32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana);
Ezell v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01920-KDE-JCW (E.D.
La.); Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration, et al., Case No. 13-cv-00650
(E.D. La.); Hill v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00471-CG-N
(S.D. Ala.); Hogan v. British Petroleum Exploration & Production,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2012-22995 (District Court, Harris County,
Texas); Hudley v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00532-N (S.D.
Ala.); In re of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 12-
426 (E.D. La.); Kolian v. BP Exploration & Production, et al. ,
Case No. 12-cv-2338 (E.D. La.); Monroe v. BP, plc, et al., Case
No. 1:10-cv-00472-M (S.D. Ala.); Pearson v. BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-863, (E.D. La.); Shimer v. BP
Exploration and Production, et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-4755 (E.D.
La.); Top Water Charters, LLC v. BP, P.L.C., et al., No. 0165708
(32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana);
Toups, et al. v Nalco Company, et al., Case No. 59-121 (25th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); and,
Trehern v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00432-HSO-JMR (S.D.
Miss.).

The cases were filed on behalf of individuals and entities that
own property, live, and/or work in or derive income from the
effected Coastal region. Each of the actions contains
substantially similar allegations, generally alleging, among other
things, negligence relating to the use of our COREXIT dispersant
in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs
in these lawsuits are generally seeking awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Pursuant to orders issued by the court in MDL 2179, the claims
were consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil
Spill (known as the "B3 Master Complaint").

On May 18, 2012, Nalco filed a motion for summary judgment against
the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint, on the grounds that: (i)
Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the comprehensive oil spill
response scheme set forth in the Clean Water Act and National
Contingency Plan; and (ii) Nalco is entitled to derivative
immunity from suit.

On November 28, 2012, the Court granted Nalco's motion and
dismissed with prejudice the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint
asserted against Nalco. The Court held that such claims were
preempted by the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan.
Because claims in the "B3" Master Complaint remain pending against
other defendants, the Court's decision is not a "final judgment"
for purposes of appeal. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
4(a), plaintiffs will have 30 days after entry of final judgment
to appeal the Court's decision.

Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder
defendants have been named as first party defendants by Transocean
Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "Transocean
Entities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In April
and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International
Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C.,
Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc.
(collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL
2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross
defendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other
things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from
the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response,
they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross
defendants.

In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims
against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross
Claimants. In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges
that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the
Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it
is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants.

In December 2012 and January 2013, the MDL 2179 court issued final
orders approving two settlements between BP and Plaintiffs' Class
Counsel: (1) a proposed Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement;
and (2) a proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action
Settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlements, class members
agree to release claims against BP and other released parties,
including Nalco Energy Services, LP, Nalco Holding Company, Nalco
Finance Holdings LLC, Nalco Finance Holdings Inc., Nalco Holdings
LLC and Nalco Company.

In May 2016, Nalco was named in nine additional complaints filed
by individuals alleging, among other things, business and economic
loss resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Seng Lim v.
BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-03950 (E.D. La.); Dai Nguyen v. BP, Case No.
2:16-cv-03952 (E.D. La.); Thanh Duong v. BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-
03953 (E.D. La.); Nghia Nguyen v. BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-03954 (E.D.
La.); Loc Van Nguyen v. BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-03955 (E.D. La.);
Hanh Phan v. BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-03956 (E.D. La.); Anh Ly v. BP,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03957 (E.D. La.); Danny Tam Ly v. BP, Case No.
2:16-cv-04027 (E.D. La.); Terry v. BP, Case No. 2:16-cv-04137
(E.D. La.).

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are generally seeking awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  These actions have been consolidated in the MDL and
the company expects they will be dismissed pursuant to the Court's
November 28, 2012 order granting Nalco's motion for summary
judgment.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Suit in Ohio Over Cancelled Aug. 7 Game
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN BILAND, MATTHEW CRABB, TIFFANY RATCLIFF, and CARMELO TREVISO,
individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NATIONAL FOOTBALL MUSEUM, INC. dba PRO
FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME, Case No: 5:16-cv-02010-JRA (N.D. Ohio,
August 11 2016), was filed by ticketholders to the cancelled 2016
Hall of Fame Game scheduled August 7, 2016 between the Green Bay
Packers and the Indianapolis Colts.

The National Football League (NFL) is a professional American
football league consisting of 32 teams, divided equally between
the National Football Conference (NFC) and the American Football
Conference (AFC).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Romney Cullers, Esq.
     Michael F. Becker, Esq.
     THE BECKER LAW FIRM
     134 Middle Avenue
     Elyria, OH 44035
     Phone: 440-323-7070
     E-mail: rcullers@beckerlawlpa.com
             mbecker@beck

        - and -

     Michael J. Avenatti, Esq.
     EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
     520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: 949-706-7000
     E-mail: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com


NEIL JONES: Supplemental Briefing Underway in "Valdez" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
To resolve the case, entitled, LUIS VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
THE NEIL JONES FOOD COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-
00519-AWI-SAB (E.D. Calif.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone
ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing the
distribution of funds to subclass B, the manner of distribution of
the unclaimed settlement funds, and the costs for which recovery
is sought on or before August 5, 2016.

Judge Boone opined, upon review on the parties' motion for final
approval of a class action settlement, that while the parties may
be able to set forth valid reasons for finding the proposed manner
of distribution to be fair to the class members, the disparity in
the percentage of reduction between employees based upon the
amount of time they worked raises a concern regarding whether the
settlement is being distributed fairly to all members of subclass
B or unfairly favors class members with employment longevity.

As to the manner of distribution of the unclaimed settlement
funds, Judge Boone maintained that it is not for the Court to
establish the manner of distribution, but for the parties to set
forth the requested manner of distribution for approval by the
Court.

Lastly, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to submit, at a minimum, a
list of the costs requested and explanation sufficient for the
Court to determine if the costs are reasonable and recoverable in
this action.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/oaNOfZfrom Leagle.com.

Luis Valdez, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis Patrick
Wilson -- WILSONTRIALGROUP@ATT.NET -- Law Offices Of Dennis P.
Wilson.

The Neil Jones Food Co., Defendant, represented by Andrea
Bednarova -- abednarova@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster
Employment Law & Michael Eugene Wilbur --
mwilbur@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster Employment Law.


NEW MEXICO: "Palacios-Valencia" Case Gets Confidentiality Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen entered a Confidentiality
Order in the case entitled, SUSANA PALACIOS-VALENCIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Defendants, No. 1:14-cv-01050-WJ-KBM (D. N.M.).

The Court specified in the Order that a Confidential Information
means information designated as "Confidential-Subject to
Confidentiality Order" by the producing party that falls within
one or more of the following categories: (a) information covered
by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a; (b) information defined as
protected personal identifier information by the New Mexico
Inspection of Public Records Act, N.M. Stat. Sec. 14-2-6(E); and
(c) federal law-enforcement-sensitive information, including but
not limited to, investigative files and techniques. Information or
documents that are available to the public may not be designated
as Confidential Information.

These categories of persons may be allowed to review Confidential
Information:

     (1) Counsel. Counsel for the parties and employees of counsel
who have responsibility for the action;

     (2) Parties. Individual parties and employees of a party but
only to the extent counsel determines in good faith that the
employee's assistance is reasonably necessary to the conduct of
the litigation in which the information is disclosed;

     (3) The Court and its personnel;

     (4) Court Reporters and Recorders. Court reporters and
recorders engaged for depositions;

     (5) Contractors. Those persons specifically engaged for the
limited purpose of making copies of documents or organizing or
processing documents, including outside vendors hired to process
electronically stored documents;

     (6) Consultants and Experts. Consultants, investigators, or
experts employed by the parties or counsel for the parties to
assist in the preparation and trial of this action but only after
such persons have completed the certification contained in
Attachment A, Acknowledgment of Understanding and Agreement to Be
Bound;

     (7) Witnesses at depositions. During their depositions,
witnesses in this action to whom disclosure is reasonably
necessary. Witnesses shall not retain a copy of documents
containing Confidential Information, except witnesses may receive
a copy of all exhibits marked at their depositions in connection
with review of the transcripts. Pages of transcribed deposition
testimony or exhibits to depositions that are designated as
Confidential Information pursuant to the process set out in this
Order must be separately bound by the court reporter and may not
be disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this Order.

     (8) Author or recipient. The author or recipient of the
document (not including a person who received the document in the
course of litigation); and

     (9) Others by Consent. Other persons only by written consent
of all parties or upon order of the Court and on such conditions
as may be agreed or ordered.

The Court reminded that nothing in the Order shall be construed to
affect the use of any document, material, or information at any
trial or hearing. A party that intends to present Confidential
Information at a hearing or trial shall bring the issue to the
Court's and parties' attention by motion or in a pretrial
memorandum without disclosing the Confidential Information. The
Court may thereafter make such orders as are necessary to govern
the use of such documents or information at trial.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 12, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/iLn0Vkfrom Leagle.com.

Susana Palacios-Valencia, Plaintiff, represented by John C.
Bienvenu -- jbienvenu@rothsteinlaw.com -- The Rothstein Law Firm,
Brendan K. Egan, The Rothstein Law Firm, Kristina Martinez,
Coberly and Martinez, LLLP & Mark H. Donatelli --
mhd@rothsteinlaw.com -- Rothstein Law Firm.

Somos Un Pueblo Unidos, Plaintiff, represented by John C. Bienvenu
-- jbienvenu@rothsteinlaw.com -- The Rothstein Law Firm.

San Juan County Board of Commissioners, et al., Defendants,
represented by Darius V. Jackson, Eaton Law Office, PC, P. Scott
Eaton -- pseaton@eatonlaw-nm.com -- Eaton Law Office PC, James P.
Barrett -- jbarrett@eatonlaw-nm.com -- Eaton Law Office PC &
Michelle Lalley Blake, Eaton Law Office.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), et al.,
Defendants, represented by Carlton F. Sheffield, Department of
Justice, Elianis N. Perez, USDOJ & Sarah L. Vuong, USDOJ.


NEW YORK, NY: Councilman Calls for Probe of ACS Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Edelman, writing for The New York Post, reports that a city
councilman is calling on the Administration for Children's
Services to disclose how it handles troubled kids in a foster-care
center who are sent next door to Bellevue Hospital for possible
psychiatric medication.

Councilman Paul Vallone (D-Queens) said he has asked the council
to hold a hearing on an agreement between ACS and Bellevue to
treat youths in city custody at the Nicholas Scopetta Children's
Center on First Avenue.

He is drafting legislation to require quarterly reports on kids
taken to the city hospital, for violent or erratic behavior, where
doctors may administer anti-psychotic drugs along with sedatives.

"Making this data public will help ensure we are only using these
tactics in the appropriate situations," Mr. Vallone said.

His actions follow a Post report that the Children's Center in the
last year has labeled at least 50 out-of-control children
"emotionally disturbed persons" and sent them by EMS to the
hospital.  Kids referred to the drugs as "booty juice."

ACS Commissioner Gladys Carrion said children removed from homes
because of abuse or neglect often suffer anxiety disorders,
depression and post-traumatic stress, and "sometimes exhibit
challenging or risky behavior."

"Only the most serious cases are referred for an emergency
assessment at Bellevue's specialized child psychiatry emergency
department, where each young person is evaluated by a child
psychiatrist and social worker.  Medication is never the first or
only option," she said in a statement.

Public Advocate Letitia James has brought a class-action suit
charging that some kids are physically, sexually and mentally
abused while languishing in the city foster-care system.

"We're deeply concerned about the over-medication of children
under ACS' care and committed to reforming this broken system,"
Ms. James said.


NIANTIC INC: "Dodich" Suit Claims Nuisance Resulting from Pokemon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT DODICH and JAYME GOTTS DODICH, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. NIANTIC, INC., THE POKEMON
COMPANY, and NINTENDO CO. LTD., Case No: 3:16-cv-04556 (N.D. Cal.,
August 10, 2016), alleges that Niantic is liable for nuisance in
relation to its Pokemon Go mobile game.  It alleges that Defendant
Niantic's placement of Pokemon on and near Plaintiffs' property
caused Pokemon Go players to interfere with Plaintiffs' use and
enjoyment of their property.

Defendant Niantic, Inc. is a software development company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Tsisin" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group, Inc. The case is
captioned Ilya Tsisin, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Northland Group, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04572 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2016).

Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J Sasson
          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


NOVANT HEALTH: Sept. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
current and former Novant Health Inc. employees will benefit from
three times the original financial settlement value from a class-
action lawsuit targeting the system's defined-compensation
retirement plan.

Each of the six named plaintiffs receives $25,000.  The remaining
money will be distributed among the class.

Attorneys representing the employees said in a legal filing that
not only will they receive payment from a settlement fund whose
value has been raised from $32 million to $37.95 million.

They also will benefit from what the attorneys are calling "an
unprecedented affirmative relief" of $69 million that "ensures
that class members will have a high-quality 401(k) plan for years
to come."

According to LawDictionary.com, affirmative relief is defined as a
benefit or compensation which may be granted to a defendant(s) in
a judgment or decree, in accordance with the facts established in
their favor.

In this instance, the $69 million represents "the value of the
reduction in administrative and investment management fees" of the
plans.

The affirmative relief was disclosed in the attorneys' request for
federal court approval for $10.67 million in fees and $68,997 in
costs and expenses.

According to the plaintiffs' law firm of Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, there are about 25,000 affected Novant employees who had
been enrolled automatically in the retirement plan since 2009. The
lawsuit covered the period Oct. 1, 1998, to Sept. 30, 2015, and
has 70,683 potential beneficiaries.

The lawsuit was filed March 12, 2014, by six current and former
employees, including Karolyn Kruger, a retired doctor who served
as chief of staff at Thomasville Medical Center.

The complaint accuses Novant of breaching its fiduciary duties by
causing plan participants to pay millions of dollars in fees for
excessive record-keeping and administrative services to third-
party service providers Great West Life & Annuity Insurance Co.
and brokerage firm D.L. Davis & Co. of Winston-Salem.

The plan's assets more than doubled from $612 million in 2008 to
$1.42 billion as of March 2014, the latest total available.
Novant's administrative and retirement plan committees -- both in
their committee roles and as individuals -- are listed as co-
defendants.

Novant has agreed to: conduct a comprehensive request for proposal
competitive bidding process led by an outside consultant; hire an
independent consultant to assess its 401(k) plans on an annual
basis for four years; revise investment options as needed; remove
D.L. Davis from any involvement in the plans; not offer any Mass
Mutual investments in the plans; not offer any brokerage services;
and provide accurate communications to beneficiaries.

"Having committed to these practices for a four-year period, it is
highly unlikely defendant would discontinue them," the attorneys
said.

Novant filed for dismissal in May 2014, saying the plaintiffs had
failed to state a claim for excessive investment and record-
keeping fees.  "Novant offers a 'sufficient mix' of 23 different
investment options which spanned the risk/return spectrum," Novant
said at the time.

Plaintiffs argued the plan has different versions of the same
investment vehicle available with less expensive fees.

The $32 million settlement was approved May 11 by Judge William
Osteen Jr. of the Middle District Court of N.C.  He also approved
a joint motion to certify the class.  A fairness hearing will be
held at 2:00 p.m. Sept. 23.

Novant said in a May statement that it believes the settlement "is
in the best long-term interests of our health system and our
retirement plan participants."

"If finally approved in September, the settlement will allow us to
put additional money toward eligible team members' retirement
accounts, rather than spending it on a long and costly legal
battle."

The complaint said Great West received excessive compensation of
$8.6 million between 2009 and 2012.

The complaint states D.L. Davis received a second source of
revenue in the form of "kickbacks" from the managers of the plan
investment options.  The complaint claims that D.L. Davis provided
the plan with limited marketing and enrollment services, but was
paid excessive fees up to $9.6 million from 2009 to 2012 in the
form of "commissions."

Novant denied the allegation of kickbacks.

Novant said D.L. Davis "provided extensive services that go well
beyond mere limited and enrollment services."  Among the services
that Novant cited are plan-design implementation, mutual-fund
selection and fees, selection of the record keeper, and
communication and educational efforts with employees.

According to a May blog on the Fiduciary Matters website, "the
early settlement of this case suggests that the plan fiduciaries
were engaging in conduct that did not meet the stringent standards
of ERISA."  ERISA stands for Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

"The fiduciary of the average plan can look to this lawsuit and
settlement as an example that ERISA requires you to act in the
best interest of plan participants at all times," according to the
blog.

"That often involves hiring conflict-free experts and regularly
reviewing a plan's investments and service provider arrangements."


OCWEN FINANCIAL: New Deadlines Set for "Weiner" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID WEINER, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Action Filed: a Florida corporation and
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited Trial liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-02597-MCE-CKD (E.D. Calif.),
District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. granted the parties' Joint
Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines.

The Court ordered the deadlines to be continued as follows: (1)
All discovery relevant to whether this action should be certified
as a class action shall be completed by October 20, 2016; (2)
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later
than December 1, 2016; (3) The deposition of Plaintiff's Class
Certification Expert(s) shall take place during the period
December 12 through 21, 2016; (4) Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later
than January 12, 2017; (5) The deposition of Defendants' Class
Certification Expert(s) shall take place during the period January
23 through February 1, 2017; (6) Plaintiff's Reply in support of
his Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than
February 9, 2017; and (7) The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification shall be held on February 23, 2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/hzzZvcfrom Leagle.com.

David Weiner, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone --
dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland Karim
Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Evan M.
Zucker -- ezucker@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, PC, Michael Isaac
Miller -- imiller@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Peter
Klausner -- peter.klausner.esq@gmail.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C. &
Mark Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Lemond McKeen -- elemond@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Ashley
Pavel -- apavel@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Catalina Joos
Vergara -- cvergara@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, Erika Maki Rasch
-- erasch@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP & James Abbott Bowman
-- jbowman@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.


OMAHA STEAKS: Settlement in "Hetherington" Case Granted Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK D. HETHERINGTON, as personal representative
of the Estate of MICHAEL S. HETHERINGTON, individually and on
behalf of the class, PLAINTIFF, v. OMAHA STEAKS, INC. and OMAHA
STEAKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:13-cv-02152-SI
(D. Ore.), District Judge Michael H. Simon approved the
Plaintiffs' proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and thus, entered the Class Action Settlement Order and Final
Judgment, which constitutes a final adjudication on the merits of
all claims of the Settlement Class.

The Court confirmed that the proposed Settlement Class satisfies
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as found in the Court's
Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Granting the incentive awards, the Court grants Patrick D.
Hetherington, the personal representative of the Estate of Michael
S. Hetherington, an amount of $10,000.00 as an incentive payment
in compensation for the time, effort, and risk he undertook as
representative of the Settlement Class.

The Court also approves the Class Counsel's attorney's fees in the
amount of $1,312,500.00 and further approves reimbursement of
costs in the amount of $100,926.70, for a total fee and cost award
of $1,413,426.70. These fees and costs are in lieu of statutory
fees and costs that either the Representative Plaintiff or the
Settlement Class might otherwise have been entitled to recover.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 12, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/qsdJKHfrom Leagle.com.

Omaha Steaks, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Duane A.
Bosworth, II -- duanebosworth@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine,
LLP, Jaime D. Allen -- jaimeallen@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine, LLP, pro hac vice, James H. Corning --
jamescorning@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, pro hac vice &
Kenneth E. Payson -- kenpayson@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine,
LLP.

Dealer Computer Services, Inc., Movant, represented by Alex C.
Trauman, Motschenbacher & Blattner LLP.


ONE WEST: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Casault" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed an
order dismissing a class action against banking and mortgage
lending/servicing entities and institutional trustees.

The appellate case is captioned, TOM CASAULT, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. ONE WEST BANK FSB; et al., Defendants-Appellees,
No. 14-55494 (9th Cir.).

The Ninth Circuit maintained that the Plaintiff must sufficiently
plead justiciable reliance as part of stating his claim for fraud
against the Servicer Defendants. The Ninth Circuit further upheld
the ruling that the Plaintiff failed to allege a cause of action
for improper foreclosure against the Trustee Defendants. The
mortgage promissory notes define "default" as failure to pay the
full amount of each monthly payment on the date it is due, and the
trust agreements and pooling and servicing agreements contemplate
borrower default and foreclosure.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Decision dated August 1, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/tEf1wTfrom Leagle.com.


OSP GROUP: Communications in "McEwan" Case Need No Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo denied the Defendants' request
for Court approval to any of the Plaintiffs' written communication
to putative class members, in the case, HONEY McEWAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. OSP GROUP, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-
cv-2823-BEN (WVG), (S.D. Calif.).

The Court upheld that the mere possibility of abuses does not
justify routine adoption of a communications ban that interferes
with the formation of a class or the prosecution of a class action
in accordance with the Rules. In the case, Defendants have not
identified any past abusive conduct or communications by
Plaintiffs or their attorneys. Therefore, the restriction that the
Defendants requested has no grounds.

The Court further noted that if Plaintiffs' communications with
putative class members prove abusive or misleading, or otherwise
injurious, then Defendants may renew their request for relief,
which may include limitations on Plaintiffs' communications with
putative class members and/or sanctions.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated August 9, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/CHSkQBfrom Leagle.com.

Honey McEwan, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Zachariah Paul
Dostart -- zdostart@sdlaw.com -- Dostart Hannink Coveney LLP &
James T. Hannink -- Jim.Hannink@sdlaw.com -- Dostart Hannink &
Coveney LLP.

OSP Group, L.P., et al., Defendants, represented by Ana Tagvoryan
-- ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Brendan F. Hug,
Blank Rome LLP, Evelyn Crystal Lopez -- ECLopez@mintz.com --
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Joshua
Briones -- jbriones@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin & Yosef Adam Mahmood,
Blank Rome LLP.

OSP Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ana Tagvoryan --
ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Brendan F. Hug, Blank
Rome LLP & Evelyn Crystal Lopez -- ECLopez@mintz.com -- Mintz,
Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C..

OSP Group, LLC, Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joshua
Briones -- jbriones@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin.

OSP Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Yosef Adam Mahmood --
YMahmood@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP.


P.W. STEPHENS: Final Settlement Approval in "Lopez" on Dec. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANED LOPEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. P.W. STEPHENS,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03579-JD (N.D. Calif.), District Judge
James Donato granted preliminary approval of class and collective
action settlement and set a hearing for final settlement approval
on December 8, 2016.

Judge Donato directed the parties to file any motion for
attorneys' fees and costs and service awards by August 8, 2016,
and to file any motion for final approval no later than November
2, 2016. The Court will then decide at the final approval stage
the attorney's fees request and whether the named plaintiffs will
receive an incentive payment for service as the class
representatives.

The case involves allegation that the Defendant violated the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay
employees minimum wages for all hours worked, failing to provide
overtime pay as warranted, and failing to make, keep, and preserve
adequate and accurate records of the same. Plaintiffs also allege
additional wage and hour violations under California law,
including failures to pay proper wages, failures to provide duty-
free meal periods, failures to reimburse certain employees for
expenses related to use and maintenance of company vehicles, and
failures to pay all wages due upon termination of employment.

The certified class in the case consists of about 519 individuals
who performed asbestos abatement, lead removal, mold remediation
and other services while employed by the Defendant in California
during the class period, which runs from April 29, 2011 through
August 21, 2015.

In the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will pay $1,500,000
into a non-reversionary settlement fund, which will be the source
of settlement administration costs (up to a maximum of $19,000),
attorney's fees and costs (up to a maximum of $375,000 in fees and
up to $15,000 in costs as decided by the Court in subsequent
proceedings), class representative service awards for each of the
two representatives if the Court approves the request (totaling
$10,000), Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) penalties to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and monetary
relief for the class.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 10, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/ySqn2ifrom Leagle.com.

Aned Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Carole Vigne -- cvigne@las-
elc.org -- Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, David Philip Pogrel -
- dpogrel@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP, Diane Leslie
Webb -- dwebb@LAS-ELC.org -- Legal Aid Society-Employment Law
Center, Giselle Olmedo -- golmedo@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard
Cardner, LLP & Aaron D. Kaufmann -- akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
-- Leonard Carder, LLP.

P.W. Stephens, Defendant, represented by Aaron Franklin Olsen --
aolsen@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP & John Ellis
Lattin, IV -- jlattin@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP.


PAYREEL INC: "Deas" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVRIN DEAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. PAYREEL, INC., and LDJ PRODUCTIONS NYC, INC., Case
No: 1:16-cv-06346 (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

PayReel, Inc. is a global staffing company.  LDJ Productions NYC,
Inc. holds itself out as a full-service technical production,
creative services, show direction and event management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zachary J. Liszka, Esq.
     LISZKA LAW FIRM
     1180 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 800
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: 347-762-5131
     E-mail: zachliszka@gmail.com


PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Court Keeps "McPherson" Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen said the class claims in an
uncertified class will remain despite the grant of voluntary
dismissal over the Plaintiff's individual claims in the case,
SHAKIMA McPHERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PERFORMANT RECOVERY,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00520-EMC (N.D. Calif.).

Judge Chen dismissed the Plaintiff's individual claims with
prejudice. The surviving class claims remain uncertified and the
suit's notice has not disseminated to the class.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated August 1, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/hUxo5Wfrom Leagle.com.

Shakima McPherson, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Lawrence
Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A..

Performant Recovery, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J.
Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP, Jeanne
Louise Zimmer -- zimmerj@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP,
Charles Robert Messer -- cmt@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP &
June Grace Felipe -- felipeg@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP.


PERRIGO CO: "Wilson" Files Securities Class Action in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wilson filed a securities class action against Joseph C.
Papa and Perrigo Company plc, in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, with Case No. 2:16-cv-04358-SDW-
LDW, on July 18, 2016.  The suit was filed on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who sold Perrigo put options between April 21, 2015 and May 11,
2016 and were damaged thereby.

The complaint says the Company mislead stockholders in turning
down a merger proposal from Mylan NV. Plaintiff entered into
contracts to sell Perrigo put options during the Class Period and
was damaged upon the revelation of corrective disclosures.

Perrigo Company plc develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and
distributes generic, branded generic, and specialty
pharmaceuticals worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
     KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
     210 Summit Avenue
     Montvale, NJ 07645
     Phone: (201) 391-7000
     E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

        - and -

     Peter Safirstein, Esq.
     Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq.
     SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
     1250 Broadway, 2ih Floor
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 201-2845
     Fax: (212) 201-2858
     E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com
             emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com


PILOT THOMAS: Sued Over Alleged Violation of FLSA, Col. Wage Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONNIE FRANKLIN, MIKE MONTERRO, NEIMIAH MCGEE, BRENT BUCHANAN,
NATHAN LONG, ANTHONY URNBERG, ADAM FOUDOU, and FREDRICK A.
NICOLOSI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, V. PILOT THOMAS LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No: 1:16-cv-02043
(D. Col., August 11, 2016), was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act, and Colorado common law
under theories of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
quantum meruit.

PILOT THOMAS LOGISTICS, LLC --
http://www.pilotlogistics.com/about-us.html-- is a provider of
fuel, lubricants and chemicals to the energy, marine, mining and
industrial markets.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Sara A. Green, Esq.
     Andrew C. Quisenberry, Esq.
     BACHUS & SCHANKER, LLC
     1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 700
     Denver, CO 80202
     Phone: 303.893.9800
     Fax: 303.893.9900
     E-mail: Sara.green@coloradolaw.net
             Andrew.quisenberry@coloradolaw.net


PLANET FITNESS: "Truglio" Suit Has to Prove Federal Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARNI TRUGLIO, individually and as a class
representative on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. PLANET FITNESS, INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-
7959 (FLW)(LHG), (D. N.J.), has yet to identify whether the
requirements in acquiring federal jurisdiction are satisfied
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005.

District Judge Freda L. Wolfson ordered the Defendants to submit
sufficient proof to support subject-matter jurisdiction of the
case.

In a submitted certification for the Defendant Planet Fitness,
Inc., the Court ruled that it fails to satisfy the burden of
proving the existence of the subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to the CAFA. The Defendants, in order to warrant federal
jurisdiction, are ordered to provide evidence from a person with
knowledge, that more than 50,000 individuals entered into the same
(or similar) contested Membership Agreements, during the time
period running from September 28, 2009 to September, 28, 2015.

The Court further ordered that, if sufficient proof is not
produced, the case will be remanded to the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Monmouth County, Law Division.

A copy of the Court Order is available at http://goo.gl/CyGjPS
from Leagle.com.

MARNI TRUGLIO, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF,
Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi,
LLC.

PLANET FITNESS, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG R.
TRACTENBERG -- ctractenberg@nixonpeabody.com -- NIXON PEABODY,
LLP.

FIT TO BE TIED II, LLC, Defendant, represented by LOUIS A.
FELICETTA, CARLUCCIO LEONE.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss "Strader" Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
the Court has not yet decided on the Company's motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint in the case, Strader, et al. and Hall
v. PHH Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California).

The Company said, "This is a purported class action brought by
four California residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy
and certain of its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home
Loans, LLC (a joint venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging
violations of Section 8(a) of RESPA.  Plaintiffs seek to represent
two subclasses comprised of all persons in the United States who,
since January 31, 2005, (1) obtained a RESPA-covered mortgage loan
from either (a) PHH Home Loans, LLC or one of its subsidiaries, or
(b) one of the mortgage services managed by PHH Corporation for
other lenders, and (2) paid a fee for title insurance or
settlement services to TRG or one of its subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that PHH Home Loans, LLC operates in
violation of RESPA and that the other defendants violate RESPA by
referring business to one another under agreements or arrangements
that are prohibited by RESPA.  Plaintiffs seek treble damages and
an award of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

"On February 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case claiming that not only do the claims lack merit, but they are
time-barred under RESPA's one-year statute of limitations. On
April 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on April 21, 2016, and a third
amended complaint on May 12, 2016.  On May 26, 2016 we filed a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.  The Court has not
yet decided that motion."

"The case raises significant and various previously unlitigated
claims.  As with all class action litigation, the case is
inherently complex and subject to many uncertainties.  We believe
that we and the joint venture have complied with RESPA, the
regulations promulgated thereunder and existing regulatory
guidance. There can be no assurance, however, that if the action
continues and a large class is subsequently certified, the
plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage award, penalties and
other remedies.  Given the early stage of this case and the novel
claims and issues presented, we cannot estimate a range of
reasonably potential losses for this litigation.  The Company will
vigorously defend this action."


REALPAGE INC: Motion to Dismiss "Stokes" Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the
"Stokes" class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "In March 2015, we were named in a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. The claims in this purported class action
relate to alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") in connection with background screens of prospective
tenants of our clients. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an
order placing the case on hold until the United States Supreme
Court issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which case
addressed issues related to standing to bring claims related to
the FCRA."

"On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the
Spokeo litigation, vacating the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanding the case for
further consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Following the
Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the judge in the Stokes case
lifted the stay. On June 24, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss
certain claims made in the case based upon the Spokeo decision.
The motion to dismiss is pending before the U.S. District Court.
We intend to defend this case vigorously."


REALPAGE INC: Motion to Dismiss "Jenkins" Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the
"Jenkins" class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "In November 2014, we were named in a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, styled Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14cv758. The claims in this purported class action
relate to alleged violations of the FCRA in connection with
background screens of prospective tenants of our clients. This
case has since been transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania."

"On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case
on hold until the United States Supreme Court issued its decision
in the Spokeo case. Following the Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo, the judge in the Jenkins case lifted the stay. On June 24,
2016, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims made in the case
based upon the Spokeo decision. The motion to dismiss is pending
before the U.S. District Court. We intend to defend this case
vigorously."


REGIS CORP: Final Approval Hearing Moved Forward to Nov. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted the parties' joint
request to advance the Final Approval Hearing to November 18,
2016, in the following cases:

     (a) The Jessica Dearaujo; individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Regis Corporation, a
Minnesota Corporation; Supercuts Corporate Shops, Inc., a
Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1 through 99, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-01408-KJM-DAD (E.D. Calif.); and

     (b) Amymarie Kaelan; individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Regis Corporation, a Minnesota
Corporation; Supercuts Corporate Shops, Inc., a Minnesota
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 99, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:14-CV-01411-KJM-DAD (E.D. Calif.).

Following the order, the Court vacates the initial schedule for
Final Approval Hearing set on December 16, 2016. All other
deadlines including the class deadlines are directed to remain in
place.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/luZ7GHfrom Leagle.com.

Jessica Dearaujo, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by James Ross
Hawkins -- James@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James Hawkins APLC & Sean
Sasan Vahdat -- sean@vahdatlaw.com -- Law Offices Of Sean S.
Vahdat & Associates.

Regis Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by Catherine M.
Dacre -- cdacre@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Daniel C. Whang
-- dwhang@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Michael Anderson
Wahlander -- mwahlander@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces "Brown" Suit Under FLSA, SC Wages Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeronica Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Republic Services of South Carolina, LLC d/b/a
Republic Services, Case No: 2:16-cv-02804-CWH (D.S.C., August 11,
2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs on behalf of waste
disposal drivers, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

The Defendant provides waste disposal services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Scott Falls, Esq.
     Ashley L. Falls, Esq.
     245 Seven farms Drive, Suite 250
     Charleston, SC 29492
     Phone: (843 737-6040
     Fax: (843) 737-6140
     E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com
             ashley@falls-legal.com


RK LOGISTICS: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Missed Breaks Premium
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Sanchez on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The RK Logistics Group, Inc., and Does l-
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG16826234, (Cal. Super.,
August 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution,
monetary damages and related relief under the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with meal periods, premium
wages for missed breaks and itemized wage statements.

RK Group -- http://www.rklogisticsgroup.com/-- is a logistics
company operating in the Silicon Valley and the greater Northern
California community specializing in complex inventory management
and manufacturing logistics.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Thomas Segal, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard Penthouse Suite
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 222-7800
      Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
             thomas@setarehlaw.com


RMG SUNSET: "Wiley" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT, Tips
-----------------------------------------------------
Luke Wiley, an individual, Plaintiff, v. RMG Sunset, Inc., HL WD
IP Grill, LLC, Kahuna Restaurant Group, LLC, CC HL WD, LLC,
Michael Bezerra and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. BC629666 (Cal. Super., August 5, 2016), seeks recovery of
overtime pay and gratuities, unpaid wages upon termination,
unlawful deductions, missed break premium and damages resulting
from failure to provide wage statements, pursuant to the
California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Order.

Defendants jointly operate a restaurant group in various
California locations. Plaintiff performed manual labor, such as
bartending, maintaining, repairing, taking out trash, cleaning,
taking care of inventory, loading and unloading, running errands
and the such.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 251-5533
      Facsimile: (213) 251-5534
      Email: leethomas.esq@gmail.com

             - and -

      Barry G. Florence, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BARRY G. FLORENCE
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-4969
      Facsimile: (213) 232-4890
      Email: bgf@bgflawoffices.com


RUBY'S DINER: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Missed Break Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Heriberto Perez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. Ruby's Diner, Inc., a California
corporation, Ruby Restaurant Group, a business entity of unknown
form; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC629903,
(Cal. Super., August 8, 2016), seeks unpaid wages and interest,
overtime, illegal deductions, missed meal and break premium,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties, injunctive and other equitable
relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under California
Labor Codes and Industrial Welfare Commission and the Wage Orders.

Defendants operate restaurants in various California locations
with head office at 557 Wald, Irvine, California 92618.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP.
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
      Email: ilavi@lelawifirm.com
             arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com


SAC CAPITAL: September 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP and Motley Rice LLC issued a
statement regarding the Wyeth SAC Capital Shareholders Litigation
Settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
S.A.C. CAPITAL ADVISORS, L.P., et al.,
Defendants.

No. 13 Civ. 2459 (VM) (KNF)
ECF CASE

REVISED COURT ORDERED DATE DEADLINES FOR REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSIONS,
OBJECTIONS, CLAIM FORM FILING AND HEARING DATE. SUMMARY NOTICE OF
(I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION;
(II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: (a) All persons or entities who sold shares of Wyeth common
stock during the period January 14, 2008 through and including
July 18, 2008; and (b) All persons or entities who purchased
shares of Wyeth common stock during the period July 21, 2008
through and including July 29, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. EDT (the
"Class").

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.  YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on September
23, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Victor Marrero at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street, Courtroom 11B, New York, New York, 10007-1312, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement")
of the above-captioned action ("Action") for $10,000,000 in cash
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) the Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation") should be entered,
dismissing the Action on the merits and with prejudice; (3) the
release by the Class of the Released Wyeth Lead Plaintiffs'
Claims, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be provided to the
SAC Capital Defendants' Releasees; (4) this Action satisfies the
applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (5) to award Lead Counsel
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses out of the Settlement Fund
(as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is discussed below); (6) to grant the Wyeth Lead
Plaintiffs' requests for reimbursement of their costs and expenses
incurred, in connection with their role in prosecuting this action
on behalf of the Class out of the Settlement Fund; and (7) the
Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court.

IF YOU SOLD WYETH SHARES BETWEEN JANUARY 14, 2008 THROUGH AND
INCLUDING JULY 18, 2008 OR YOU PURCHASED WYETH SHARES DURING THE
PERIOD JULY 21, 2008 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JULY 29, 2008 AT 4 P.M.
EDT, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by filing a Proof of Claim on or before
September 12, 2016.  Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by
September 12, 2016 will subject your claim to rejection and
preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the
Settlement of this Action.  If you are a Member of the Class and
do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the
Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action,
including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not
you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of
the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions
for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice), online at
www.Wyethsaccapitalsecuritieslitigation.com, or by writing to:

         Wyeth SAC Capital Shareholders Litigation Settlement
         c/o Heffler Claims Group
         P.O. Box 58697
         Philadelphia, PA 19102-8697
         Phone: 1-844-777-8058

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim form, may be made to Wyeth Lead Counsel:

         SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
         Deborah Clark-Weintraub
         The Chrysler Building
         405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY  10174
         Tel: (212) 223-6444

         MOTLEY RICE LLC
         Gregg S. Levin
         28 Bridgeside Boulevard
         Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
         Tel: (843) 216-9000

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY AUGUST 24, 2016, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.  ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT
REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT
ENTERED IN THE ACTION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF
CLAIM.


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Amendment in "Farris" Case Due Sept. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER FARRIS and CALEB SAUNDERS, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, AARON BOOGAERTS, and SHERRI
ROSS, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-0012-RRB (D. Alaska), District
Judge Ralph R. Beistline ordered the Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint to provide a more definitive statement regarding the
class they purport to represent. The amendment is due on September
9, 2016.

The lawsuit alleges unpaid overtime compensation.

The Court held that a more definitive statement as to the number
of class members that Plaintiffs would represent is critical to
determine the issue on federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
Court ordered to deny, without prejudice, the Defendants' motion
to dismiss and the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) gives federal courts
jurisdiction over certain class actions, if the class has more
than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the
amount in controversy exceeds US$5 million.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 9, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/VXnnKZfrom Leagle.com.

Christopher Farris, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth W.
Legacki, Kenneth W. Legacki, P.C..

Schlumberger Technology Corporation, et al., Defendants,
represented by David A. Devine -- DevineD@groheggers.com -- Groh
Eggers, LLC, Robert P. Lombardi -- rpl@kullmanlaw.com -- The
Kullman Firm, pro hac vice & Samuel Zurik, III --
sz@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm.


SCOTT JEWELERS: "Pau" Suit Seeks Recovery of Commissions, Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iliana Pau, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Scott Jewelers, Ltd. d/b/a London
Jewelers, Mark Udell Jewelers, Ltd., Udell Jewelers, Inc., Mark
Udell and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No.
605986/2016 (N.Y. Sup., August 5, 2016), seeks all compensation,
including deprived commissions and wages, plus interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to New York Labor Laws.

Defendants jointly operate jewelry retails stores as a single
integrated enterprise under the direction and/or control of Mark
Udell where Pau was employed as a salesperson.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA &AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080

            - and -

      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      1 Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550


SHERWOOD, AR: Fed. Suit Seeks to End Modern-Day Debtors' Prison
---------------------------------------------------------------

On August 23, 2016, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law (Lawyers' Committee), along with Morrison & Foerster LLP and
the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas (ACLU of Arkansas)
filed a class action civil rights lawsuit challenging the modern-
day debtors' prison in Sherwood, Arkansas. The lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, against the city of Sherwood, Arkansas, Pulaski County,
Arkansas and Judge Milas Hale, III.

The suit was filed on behalf of four individuals who allege their
constitutional rights were violated by the Hot Check Division of
the Sherwood District Court when they were jailed for their
inability to pay court fines and fees in violation of longstanding
law forbidding the incarceration of people for their failure to
pay debts, and a concerned taxpayer.

"The resurgence of debtors prisons across our country has
entrapped poor people, too many of whom are African American or
minority, in a cycle of escalating debt and unnecessary
incarceration," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive
director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
"The Sherwood District Court epitomizes the criminalization of
poverty and the corrupting effect of financial incentives on our
local courts. Not only does this 'Hot Check' court completely
ignore the long-standing principle that a person cannot be
punished because they are poor, but by using coercive practices to
collect money from the poorest Arkansans, this debtors' prison
scheme generates huge revenues for the city. Revenue from the
district court constitutes nearly 12 percent of the city's budget,
second only to city and county sales tax."

"Across the country, the cost of debtors' prisons in human lives
and public resources is enormous," said ACLU of Arkansas Executive
Director Rita Sklar. "When the criminal justice system serves as
unscrupulous debt collectors for the public and private sector,
without regard to due process, the government is not only
violating people's rights, it is facilitating the never-ending
cycle of poverty: threatening the poor with incarceration for
failure to pay bills they can't pay, keeping them from jobs that
may help them pay their bills, and stacking up fines that dig the
poor into an even deeper hole. We need open court proceedings and
public accountability, fair, rational laws that take into account
defendant's ability to pay and prohibit incarceration for failure
to pay, and we need to stop raising money on the backs of the
poor."

"In this country it is unconstitutional to imprison someone for
the 'crime' of being poor," said J. Alexander Lawrence, partner at
Morrison & Foerster. "But every day, Sherwood does just that.
This lawsuit seeks to end Sherwood's unconstitutional practices
and ensure that no more indigent defendants are trapped in a cycle
of poverty and imprisonment."

The lawsuit alleges that Sherwood, Pulaski County and their
officials engage in a policy and custom of jailing poor
individuals who owe court fines, fees and costs stemming from
misdemeanor "hot check" convictions with complete disregard for
the person's ability to pay; requiring defendants to waive their
right to counsel before entering the courtroom; and closing court
proceedings to the public.

The court issues an arrest warrant each time a person fails to
make a payment, regardless of their ability to pay, and uses it as
an opportunity to assess more fines and fees against the
individual.  Sherwood Police Department also plays a critical role
in the collections scheme.  Police officers knock on people's
doors and threaten to arrest the person unless they can pay a
small amount of money -- usually $50 or $100 -- to get a court
date instead of being taken into custody. Despite the abuses in
this court, Pulaski County continues to channel county-wide
misdemeanor "hot check" cases there.

The lawsuit also makes a claim under Arkansas' "illegal exaction"
law, which allows taxpayers to sue for a misuse of public tax
funds. Philip Axelroth, a resident of Sherwood, represents himself
and other taxpayers in condemning Sherwood and Pulaski County for
their role in perpetuating the illegal debtors' prison scheme.
"The unconscionable things happening in the Sherwood Hot Check
Court have no place in our community," said Axelroth. "We stand
with our neighbors in saying these predatory practices must stop."

                 About the Lawyers' Committee

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers'
Committee), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in
1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the
private bar in providing legal services to address racial
discrimination. Formed over 50 years ago, we continue our quest of
"Moving America Toward Justice." The principal mission of the
Lawyers' Committee is to secure, through the rule of law, equal
justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and
community development; employment; voting; education;
environmental justice; and criminal justice.  For more information
about the Lawyers' Committee, visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.

                        About the ACLU

Since 1920 the American Civil Liberties Union has been our
nation's guardian of liberty, working in courts, legislatures, and
communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the
United States.  With more than a million members, activists, and
supporters, the ACLU is a nationwide organization that fights
tirelessly in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C. to
safeguard everyone's rights. For more information about the ACLU
of Arkansas, visit www.acluarkansas.org; for information about
ACLU Nationwide, visit www.aclu.org.

                    About Morrison & Foerster

Morrison & Foerster is a global law firm with a long history of
litigating for civil rights and civil liberties.


SODEXO INC: Stipulation to Dismiss "Crenshaw" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John F. Walter granted the parties' stipulation of
dismissal in the case, JAMES CRENSHAW, individually, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and as representatives of other
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. SODEXO INC., a Delaware
corporation, et al., Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-05850 JFW(JCx), (C.D.
Calif.).

The individual claims of the Plaintiff were dismissed with
prejudice while the claims of any other putative class members or
aggrieved employee were dismissed without prejudice.

The Court noted both the individual plaintiff and the class
members to bear their own costs and attorney's fees.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 16, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/iM021Qfrom Leagle.com.

James Crenshaw, Plaintiff, represented by Gary R. Carlin, The Law
Offices of Carlin and Buchsbaum LLP, Brent S. Buchsbaum, Law
Offices of Carlin and Buchsbaum LLP, Ian M. Silvers, Law Offices
of Carlin and Buchsbaum LLP & Laurel N. Haag, Law Offices of
Carlin and Buchsbaum LLP.

Sodexo Inc, Defendant, represented by Jullie Z. Lal --
jullielal@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, Graham Michael
Hoerauf -- grahamhoerauf@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP &
Jeffrey D. Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP.


TAYLOR LAW: Faces "Iden" Suit in Middle District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Taylor Law, PLLC. The case is
entitled Jerry R. Iden, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Taylor Law, PLLC, a Kentucky
Professional Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
8:16-cv-02338-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., Aug. 16, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. James S. Moody, Jr.

Taylor Law is a multi-faceted law firm based in Belmont, North
Carolina providing a variety of legal services to clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Salvatore Giardina, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER RIGHTS
          LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3104 W Waters Ave., Suite 200
          Tampa, FL 33614-2877
          Telephone: (813) 413 5610
          Facsimile: (866) 535 7199
          E-mail: james@consumerrightslawgroup.com


TEEL LAW: Faces "Waldrop" Suit in District of Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Teel Law Offices LLC. The case is
styled Shannon Waldrop and John Waldrop, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Teel
Law Offices LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02748-ESW (D.
Ariz., Aug. 16, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon.
Eileen S Willett.

Teel Law provides legal services for individuals and small
businesses throughout southern Maine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Scott Lee, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RYAN LEE PLLC
          7272 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 540
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (323) 524 9500
          Facsimile: (323) 524 9502
          E-mail: ryan@ryanleepllc.com


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the lead
plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint in the
securities class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In January and March 2016, securities class
action lawsuits were filed against us, our chief executive
officer, our former chief operating officer and our former chief
financial officer in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. Each complaint was brought on behalf of
an alleged class of those who purchased our common stock between
March 5, 2015 and September 8, 2015, and alleges claims arising
under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended. Each complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by, among other things,
making material misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE2.
Each complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees, and costs.

"In May 2016, the complaints were consolidated and the court
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint in July 2016. We believe we
have valid defenses against these claims, and will engage in a
vigorous defense of such litigation."


THAI SMILE: "Gonzalez" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. THAI SMILE RESTAURANT INC. (d/b/a TUE THAI FOOD),
PRASONG PORNPICHAYANURAK, and SUPHAKIT SAE UE, Case No: 1:16-cv-
06384 (S.D.N. Y., August 11, 2016),  was filed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Tue Thai Food is a Thai restaurant located at 3 Greenwich Avenue,
New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TITAN CASING: Faces "Rodriquez" Suit Over FLSA "Violation"
----------------------------------------------------------
DOMINICK RODRIGUEZ, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC
& 216(b), V. TITAN CASING LLC, Case No: 1:16-cv-00290-DLH-CSM
(D.N.D, August 9, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an oil field service company that has provided casing
services in oilfields throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     10440 N. Central Expy, Suite 1040
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Phone: 214-706-0834
     Fax: 469-339-0204

        - and -

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jay Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, Texas 75202
     Phone: 214-749-1400
     Fax: 214-749-1010


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Doshi" Stockholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a purported
stockholder of the Company filed on August 1, 2016, a putative
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Jodie P. Morrison and
Lee H. Kalowski, entitled Vaibhav Doshi v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Jodie Pope Morrison and Lee H. Kalowski, No. 1:16-cv-06106.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions about the
Company's clinical trials for its drug candidate, galeterone. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock
price between June 24, 2015 and July 25, 2016 as a result of those
allegedly false and misleading statements, as well as interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes it has valid defenses, and intends to engage
in a vigorous defense of the litigation. However, the Company is
unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this action, and,
therefore cannot estimate possible losses or ranges of losses, if
any, or the materiality thereof. An unexpected unfavorable
resolution of this matter in any reporting period may have a
material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and
cash flows for that period.


TOYOTA MOTORS: Extends Time to File Class Cert. Bid in "Burns"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN BURNS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-02208 (W.D. Ark.), Chief
District Judge P.K. Holmes, III granted the parties' joint motion
for an extension of time to file a motion for class certification,
or alternatively, stay the proceedings.

A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings when
appropriate to control its docket. This power to stay proceedings
is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.

The Court further ordered the parties to submit a status report to
the Court within seven days of any status conference in a related
Warner action.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/wxoLUmfrom Leagle.com.

Ryan Burns, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Aura Neal, Roberts Law
Firm, PA, Jana Law, Roberts Law Firm, Jing Zhao, Roberts Law Firm,
P.A., Karen Sharp Halbert -- karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us --
Roberts Law Firm, Michael L. Roberts, Roberts Law Firm, P.A.,
Phillip J. Milligan, Milligan Medlock Gramlich LLP, Thomas J.
O'Reardon, II -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon
LLP, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP, Ben Barnow -- b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and
Associates P.C. & Erich P. Schork -- e.schork@barnowlaw.com --
Barnow and Associates P.C..

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Edwin
Lee Lowther, Jr. -- elowther@wlj.com -- Wright Lindsey Jennings
LLP, John P. Hooper -- jhooper@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, Paul
D. Morris -- pmorris@wlj.com -- Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP &
Peter W. Herzog, III -- pherzog@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.


TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Court Trims Claims in Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Travelport Worldwide Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court in the
consumer antitrust class action has granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims.

The Company said, "On July 14, 2015 and July 17, 2015,
approximately 24 plaintiffs filed purported class action lawsuits
against us, Amadeus, and Sabre in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Gordon et al. and Kolman et
al. v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., Amadeus North America, Inc.,
Amadeus Americas, Inc., Sabre Corporation f/k/a Sabre Holdings
Corporation, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre GLBL Inc., Sabre
Travel International Limited, Travelport Worldwide Limited, and
Travelport LP d/b/a Travelport.) A consolidated, amended complaint
was filed on October 2, 2015 (the "Amended Complaint"). The
Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Sherman Act, state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by defendants
beginning in 2006. In particular, the plaintiffs claim there was a
conspiracy among us and the other defendants to maintain higher
fees and restrict competition for airfare bookings that prevents
airline discounting."

"On January 15, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. On July 6, 2016, the court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion thereby dismissing the plaintiffs'
state law claims for damages in full, but declined to dismiss
plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim, which seeks injunctive relief.

"At this time, the outcome of this lawsuit cannot be determined,
but we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and we
will continue to defend the claims vigorously."


TRI-STATE WATER: Court Enters Consent Judgment in "Acadia" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ACADIA INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TRI-STATE
WATER TREATMENT, INC., MICHAEL BAUER, and STACEY BAUER,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00094 (S.D. Ill.), Chief District Judge
David R. Herndon granted the parties' Consent Judgment in favor of
the Plaintiff.

The Consent Judgment provides that:

      (1) the Plaintiff has had no duty to defend and/or indemnify
Tri-State with respect to the Bauer Counterclaim and/or the Bauer
Amended Counterclaim and/or any subsequent amended counterclaims;

     (2) Tri-State, Mr. Bauer, and/or Ms. Bauer shall make no
attempt to tender coverage of case number 15-SC-1407, pending in
the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois, to Acadia;

     (3) In the event that Tri-State, Mr. Bauer, and/or Ms. Bauer
breach any provision of this Consent Judgment, Plaintiff may, at
its option, enforce the provision(s) being breached and/or reopen
the instant case;

     (4) Nothing in this Consent Judgment shall be construed to
waive, limit, or affect any right, claim, or remedy that any party
in this declaratory judgment action may have against any non-party
to this action;

     (5) The parties have consented to the entry of the Consent
Judgment;

     (6) The Consent Judgment is effective immediately upon its
entry by the Court;

     (7) The entry of the Consent Judgment will terminate this
case;

     (8) The parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve
informally any differences regarding interpretation of and
compliance with this Consent Judgment prior to bringing such
matters to the Court for resolution;

     (9) The Consent Judgment shall bear its own costs and
attorney's fees associated with the action; and

     (10) The Consent Judgment may be signed by the parties in
counterparts.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/UE4P6Rfrom Leagle.com.

Acadia Insurance Company, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Kent
J. Cummings -- kcummings@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented
by Mark S. Johnson, Johnson, Schneider & Ferrell, L.L.C..

Michael Bauer, et al., Defendants, represented by George Volney
Granade, II, Reese LLP, Troy E. Walton, Schoen Walton Telken &
Foster, LLC, Brian T. Kreisler -- briankreisler@wwkinsurance.com
-- Kreisler Law Firm, LLC & Micah Shaw Summers, Walton Telken
Foster, LLC.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Oct. 4 Case Management Conference Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken ordered that a Case Management
Conference shall be held on October 4, 2016, in the case, ROBERT
MACINTOSH, Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03490-CW (N.D. Calif.).

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/zGa6krfrom Leagle.com.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9, parties are required to file a
joint case management statement addressing each of the items
listed in the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern
District of California. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of
this Order at once on all parties to this action in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Following service, the party causing the service shall
file a certificate of service with the Clerk of Court.

Robert MacIntosh, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James Quirk
-- trevor@quirklawyers.com -- Pillsbury & Coleman LLP.

UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Bryan Scott Westerfeld -- bwesterfeld@walravenlaw.com -- Walraven
& Westerfeld LLP & Larry Andrew Walraven -- law@walravenlaw.com
-- Walraven & Lehman LLP.


UNIVERSAL PACKAGING: Tovar Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME TOVAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSAL PACKAGING SYSTEMS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC630805 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 16, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal
and rest periods, penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, under the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have
allegedly not been paid wages for all time worked, including
overtime wages.

Universal Packaging provides packaging for cosmetic products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 t Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile (310) 553 3603


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOREN L. CASSELL, PAMELA M. STEELE, JOHN E. RICE, PENELOPE A.
ADGENT, IAN SALTER, MICHELLE N. WRAY, DAWN E. CRAGO, AND LYNDA
PAYNE, individually and as representatives of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Vanderbilt
University Retirement Plan and the Vanderbilt University New
Faculty Plan, v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, VANDERBILT RETIREMENT PLAN
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, DONALD BRADY, ANDERS HALL, ERIC KOPSTAIN,
JOHN MANNING, TRACI NORDBERG, BRETT SWEET, AND RICHARD WILLIS,
Case No: 3:16-cv-02086 (M.D. Tenn., August 10, 2016), was filed
individually and as representatives of a purported class of
participants and beneficiaries in the Vanderbilt University
Retirement Plan and the Vanderbilt University New Faculty Plan for
alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Vanderbilt University is a private research university located in
Nashville, Tennessee, founded in 1873.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     William B. Hawkins III, Esq.
     Eric G. Evans, Esq.
     HAWKINS HOGAN, PLC
     205 17th Avenue North, Suite 202
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: (615) 726-0050
     Fax: (315) 726-5177
     E-mail: whawkins@hawkinshogan.com
             eevans@hawkinshogan.com

        - and -

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
     Troy A. Doles, Esq.
     Heather Lea, Esq.
     James Redd, IV, Esq.
     Stephen M. Hoeplinger, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Ste. 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     Fax: (314) 621-5934


VIACOM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Two Delaware Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Viacom Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that Viacom and certain Viacom
directors have moved to dismiss the first two class action
complaints and expect to shortly move to dismiss the third.

Between June 17, 2016 and August 1, 2016, three substantially
similar purported class action complaints were filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court by purported Viacom stockholders, against
Viacom, Viacom's directors, NAI and the purported new directors
named in NAI's June 16th written consents. The complaints --
brought on behalf of the class of all holders of Viacom Class B
common stock except the named defendants and any person or entity
affiliated with any of the defendants -- allege claims for
breaches of fiduciary duty against the incumbent director
defendants and NAI. The purported new directors named in NAI's
June 16th written consents are alleged to have aided and abetted
these breaches.

In addition to damages and attorneys' fees, the complaints seek
declarations invalidating the June 2016 purported Bylaw amendments
described above and "such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper." Viacom and certain Viacom directors have
moved to dismiss the first two complaints and expect to shortly
move to dismiss the third.


VLADIMIR TABAKMAN: Faces "Fuller" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEELY FULLER on behalf of herself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. VLADIMIR TABAKMAN, DDS, PC D/B/AWEST HOUSTON
ORTHODONTICS Case No: 4:16-cv-02433 (S.D. Tex., August 10, 2016),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, and for retaliation
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as a financial coordinator, insurance coordinator
and administrative assistant for Defendant's orthodontic office.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Merkin & Smith Case Stayed Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the lower court has
stayed the Merkin & Smith, et al. case pending arbitration.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees.

On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the
Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration, which the Court denied on February 4, 2014.

On March 5, 2014, Vonage appealed that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 26, 2014,
the district court proceedings were stayed pending the appeal.

On February 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district
court's ruling and remanded with instructions to grant the motion
to compel arbitration.

On March 22, 2016, Merkin and Smith filed a petition for
rehearing. On May 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its February
29, 2016 decision and issued a new order reversing the district
court's order and remanded with instructions to compel
arbitration. The Ninth Circuit also declared as moot the petition
for rehearing.

On June 27, 2016, the lower court stayed the case pending
arbitration.

Vonage Holdings is a provider of cloud communications services for
businesses and consumers.


WARNER MUSIC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Brief Due Nov. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case related to
pricing of digital music downloads, Plaintiffs' reply brief in
support of their motion for Class Certification is due on November
6, 2016.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us
with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information
relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both
investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order
dismissing the case as to all defendants, including us. However,
on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of
the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings
and on January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court
granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part.

Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were
dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and
federal claims remain for the class of Internet download
purchasers. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended
complaint on August 31, 2011. The Company filed its answer to the
fourth amended complaint on October 9, 2015. Plaintiffs filed an
amended Class Certification brief on October 12, 2015. The Company
filed amended answers to the fourth amended complaint on November
3, 2015. A mediation took place on February 22, 2016 but the
parties were unable to reach a resolution.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of
the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could
continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of
management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are
reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot
presently be made. Defendants filed their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on June 13, 2016.
Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for Class
Certification is due on November 6, 2016.


WELLS FARGO: Court Upholds Ruling in "Gambuti" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Judges Sabino and Gilson in the Appellate Division of the Superior
Court of New Jersey affirmed an order denying the Apellants'
motion to vacate a default and final judgment in a mortgage
foreclosure action, in the case, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BARBARA POST GAMBUTI and STEPHEN J.
GAMBUTI, Defendants-Appellants, No. A-3641-13T3 (S.C. N.J.).

Defendant-appellants are debtors in default whose mortgaged
property is under a judicial sale before the sheriff in order to
satisfy the amount of the loan. Defendants were of no show to
prior several notices executed by the creditor bank until the
sheriff's sale of the mortgaged property.

The Appellate Division affirmed the judge's ruling that defendants
had failed to show excusable neglect or a meritorious defense. The
Division further ruled that the judge involved acted within his
discretion in denying defendants' motion to vacate. The judge
considered defendants' proffered excusable neglect and rejected
the excuses finding that the foreclosure complaint had been served
on defendants in 2010, defendants had received several notices
advising them of the entry of the default, but defendants
inexcusably failed to respond to the foreclosure action for
several years.

A copy of the Appellate Division's Decision dated August 15, 2016
is available at http://goo.gl/HB3k0Afrom Leagle.com.

David M. Schlachter argued the cause for appellants.

Siobhan A. Nolan -- snolan@reedsmith.com -- argued the cause for
respondent (Reed Smith, LLP, attorneys; Henry F. Reichner --
hreichner@reedsmith.com -- on the brief).


WOOD GROUP: "Dobbs" Case Remanded to California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID DOBBS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. WOOD GROUP PSN, INC., AN UNKNOWN
ENTITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-CV-00838-LJO-JLT (E.D. Calif.),
is remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Kern, after Chief District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill
found that the Defendant failed to meet its burden to prove that
the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million threshold as
required under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

CAFA vests federal courts with jurisdiction over certain class
actions if the class has more than 100 members, the parties are
minimally diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million.

The issue of the case pertains to whether the amount exceeds the
$5 million requirement in order for the Court to acquire federal
jurisdiction. The Court believed that the Defendant's calculation
of a 100 percent violation rate is unreasonable since the
Plaintiff only alleges a "pattern and practice" of the Defendant's
labor violations. Thus, the Defendant must demonstrate that its
method of calculation should be based on a representative sample
from admissible data, from which it extrapolates for the entire
class. Absent showing of the correct calculation method would find
the Defendant's assertion of passing the threshold amount to be
merely speculative.

In remanding the case, Chief District Judge O'neill has set to
rule the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as moot. A copy of the
Court's Order dated August 16, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/i0Nzxqfrom Leagle.com.

David Dobbs, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Park --
dpark@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation, Douglas Han -
- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation & Shunt
Tatavos-Gharajeh -- statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law
Corporation.

Wood Group PSN, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melissa Marie
Samuel -- mms@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, pro hac vice,
Rebecca K. Kimura -- rkimura@lkclaw.com -- Lafayette & Kumagai LLP
& Susan T. Kumagai -- skumagai@lkclaw.com -- Lafayette & Kumagai
LLP.


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Epstein Cannot Proceed with Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis dismissed, without prejudice,
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification pending the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the case
captioned, EDNA SELAN EPSTEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WORLD ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-01606-
MGL (D. S.C.).

The case involves a putative class action against the Defendants
alleging claims under the federal securities laws. In the case,
the Lead Plaintiff had filed a Second Amended Complaint which the
Defendant countered with a motion to dismiss.

Pursuant to the motions of the parties, the Court amended the
Scheduling Order of the case, suspending all other deadlines as
follows:

     (1) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, all briefing and discovery relating to Lead
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be stayed pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss.

     (2) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, all discovery relating to the new allegations
in the Second Amended Complaint shall be stayed pending resolution
of the motion to dismiss.

     (3) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, the parties shall confer within five days after
the ruling on that motion concerning (i) the briefing schedule on
Plaintiff's motion for class certification; (ii) discovery
relating to class certification; and (iii) discovery relating to
the new allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.

     (4) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, the parties shall confer within ten (10) days
after the ruling on that motion concerning (i) all fact and expert
discovery deadlines; (ii) the deadline for filing a status report
with the Court; (iii) the deadline for completion of mediation;
and (iv) the deadline for all other motions, except those to
complete discovery, those nonwaivable motions made pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, and those relating to the admissibility of
evidence at trial.

     (5) If necessary, the Court will enter a scheduling order
setting a trial date and deadlines for other trial-related matters
after the Court has ruled on dispositive motions.

     (6) Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is
dismissed without prejudice and with leave to refile once the
Court has issued its Order on Defendant's Second Motion to
Dismiss.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated August 12, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/wX0wZYfrom Lealge.com.

Edna Selan Epstein, Plaintiff, represented by William Douglas
Smith -- dsmith@jshwlaw.com -- Johnson Smith Hibbard and Wildman.

Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous
Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Bailie L. Heikkinen -
bheikkinen@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudmand and Dowd, pro hac
vice, Janine D. Arno -- jarno@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
and Dowd, pro hac vice, Marlon E. Kimpson --
mkimpson@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, William Paul Tinkler --
wtinkler@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, Elizabeth A. Shonson -
eshonson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudmand and Dowd, pro hac
vice, Jack Reise -- JReise@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
and Dowd, pro hac vice & Stephen R. Astley -- SAstley@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudmand and Dowd, pro hac vice.

World Acceptance Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by
Benjamin A. Johnson -- bjohnson@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson
Bradshaw and Hinson, Benjamin Warren Pope -- wpope@kslaw.com --
King and Spalding, pro hac vice, David C. Wright --
dwright@robinsonbradshaw.com -- III, Robinson Bradshaw and Hinson,
pro hac vice, Emily Shoemaker Newton -- enewton@kslaw.com -- King
and Spalding, pro hac vice & Michael R. Smith -- mrsmith@kslaw.com
-- King and Spalding, pro hac vice.


YOONO SOO LEE: "Juno" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID JUNO, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. YOONO SOO LEE, an
individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC630779 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 16, 2016), seeks recovery of
unpaid overtime wages, statutory penalties, interest, costs, and
attorney's fees, and injunctive relief pursuant to the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and each of them engaged in
unlawful activities in violation of the Labor Code and the
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Order. The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants and each of them failed to provide
Plaintiff with proper payment of overtime wages due to him;
uninterrupted meal periods as required by law and regulation; and
uninterrupted rest periods as required by law and regulation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 251 5533
          Facsimile: (213) 251 5534
          E-mail: leethomas.esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Barry O. Florence, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES
          OF BARRY O. FLORENCE
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 232 4969
          Facsimile: (213) 232 4890
          E-mail: bgf@bgflawoffices.com


YUCATASIA: Case Management Conference Moved to Sept. 15
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IRMA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. YUCATASIA; WAI HO and
CHUN MUI HO, Trustees of the WAI HO and CHUN MUI HO 2001 Revocable
Trust, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-01547-EMC (N.D. Calif.),
a Further Case Management Conference has been reset from Aug. 18,
2016 to Sept. 15, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor,
San Francisco.

The Case Management Statement is due by Sept. 8, 2016.

District Judge Edward M. Chen previously reset the Case Management
Conference to Aug. 18, 2016, and ordered that an updated joint
case management conference statement shall be filed on Aug. 11,
2016.  In his Order dated Aug. 1, 2016, available at
http://goo.gl/dxXlsPfrom Leagle.com, the Court said the Aug. 18
Case Management Conference will be vacated once the stipulation
for dismissal is filed.

On Aug. 16, a Stipulation with Proposed Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice was filed by Ms. Ramirez.  Judge Chen gave his stamp of
approval the following day.

Irma Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E. Frankovich --
tfrankovich@disabilitieslaw.com -- Thomas E. Frankovich, APLC.

Duong Phuong, Defendant, represented by Joseph Antonio Lepera --
joseph@leperalaw.com -- Attorney at Law & Patrick A. Hormillosa
-- patrick@leperalaw.com -- Lepera & Associates PC.

Lorraine T.C. Dun, Defendant, represented by Joseph Alcordo
Sacramento Law Offices of Joseph A. Sacramento & David John Foran,
Law Offices of Joseph A. Sacramento.


                            *********

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  * * *