CAR_Public/160825.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 25, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 170




                            Headlines


2.7 AUGUST: Accused by "Corona" Suit of Not Paying Overtime Wages
AECO OF LOUISIANA: Ortiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Steinberg Questions Prop. Sale to QLT
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Must Defend Against "Gauquie" Class Suit
ALL PROFESSIONAL: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: No Trial Date Scheduled in Physicians Case
AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Doctors File Suit Over Membership Fees
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Judge Revives All-South Subcontractors' Suit
APPLE INC: Wants Appeals Court to Toss Path Privacy Class Action
ARAMARK FOOD: Court Denies Motion to Reconsider Case Dismissal

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Motion to Amend Interlocutory Order
BANNER HEALTH: Physician Files Data Breach Class Action
BERKELEY, CA: "Law" Case Plaintiffs May File 4th Amended Suit
BFI WASTE: "Turner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Sept. Hearing Set for Police Dept's Appeal

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "DiMartino" Suit Dismissed as Time-Barred
BORGATA HOTEL: Distribution of Tournament Proceeds Affirmed
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE: Court Trims Claims in "Escalante"
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY: Class Cert. Ruling in "Schmidt" Affirmed
CANADA: Save Oro Mulls Class Action Against Oro-Medonte Township

CASH BIZ: Texas Appeals Court Sends "Henry" Case to Arbitration
CETCO ENERGY: "England" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Cova" Suit Stays in E.D. Missouri
CHEVRON: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Amazon Oil Pollution Case
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Court Approves Class Action Notice in "Essex"

CITIGROUP INC: Court Reaffirms Ruling on Cy Pres Designees
COMCAST CORP: Court Sends "James" Suit to Arbitration
CONAIR CORP: Court Limits Definition of Class in "Czuchaj" Suit
CONNECTICUT: DCF Makes Progress Years Following Class Action
CR BARD: "Spencer" Suit Consolidated in IVC Filters Products MDL

CR BARD: "Watson" Suit Consolidated in IVC Filters Products MDL
CREATIVE RENOVATIONS: Garcia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CREDIT ONE BANK: "Beattie" TCPA Action Stayed Pending Arbitration
D.R. HORTON: "Vitale" Case Goes Back to State Court
DNC SERVICES: Plaintiff's Attorney in Fraud Class Action Dies

DUMONT AIRCRAFT: Bid to Transfer Suit to Delaware Denied
EDEN MANAGEMENT: Plaintiffs May Amend Suit Over Medicaid Program
EMBRAER SA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Regency Merger Litigation Pending
ENOTECA INC: "Beresheim" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Robbins Arroyo Investigates Acquisition
FAIRCHESTER SNACKS: Misclassifies Drivers, "Rhodes" Suit Asserts
FCA US LLC: 6th Cir. Affirms Judgment on Pleadings
FIAT CHRYSLER: Sept. 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
FINANCIAL AMERICAN: Sued Over Payment of Extraordinary Dividend

FIRST NATIONAL: Negotiating Settlement in "Antonik" Suit
FIRST NATIONAL: Negotiating Settlement in "Saxe" Suit
FLAGSHIP SB: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
FORD MOTOR: Wins Summary Judgment in Suit Over 2005 SUVs
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Against Cobalt Securities Case

GOLDMAN SACHS: Wants Intervenors' Claims in Employee Suit Nixed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Suit Over ERISA Employee Benefit Plans
GOLDMAN SACHS: Updates on Municipal Securities Matters
GOLDMAN SACHS: Updates on US Treasury Securities Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends ISDAFIX-Related Litigation
HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces "Spadola" Securities Class Action
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Consolidated Merger Class Suit Remains Pending
HB MARBLE: Accused by "Ramirez" Suit of Not Paying Overtime Wages
HERR FOODS: Court Rejects Bid to Strike Class Allegations

HOMESERVE USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Montero Alleges
HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST: Non-Binding Mediation Set for September 1
HYLAND'S INC: Court Adopts Jury Verdict Tossing Consumer Claims
INCONTACT INC: Court Consolidated 3 Class Actions
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Court Consolidated Xiang and Patel Actions

INSTITUTE OF BAKING: Court Grants Motion for Clarification
JOAL RESTAURANT: Minimum Wages Recovery Sought in "Peters" Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2,900 DePuy ASR(TM) Claims Pending at July 3
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2 Baby Powder Class Suits Pending in Illinois
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Must Defend Against Contact Lens Case

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Over XARELTO(R) Pending
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Defending 2 Class Suits in New York
KING COUNTY, WA: Faces Class Action Over $10 Jury Duty Pay
KORONA PAINTING: "Fillipas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
LADENBURG THALMANN: Court Denied Underwriters' Motion to Dismiss

LEGGETT & PLATT: Petition for Rehearing Pending
LIFEWAY FOODS: Loses Bid to Strike Class Allegations in "Figy"
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Defending "Glover" Class Suit
LIONS GATE: Six Investors Suits Filed Over Starz Deal

LUCKY RESTAURANT: Oster Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
LYFT INC: Refuses to Comply With Statutes, Southern Transpo Says
MAC'S CHILDREN: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Saratoga Advantage Trust's Suit Dismissed
MASTEC INC: Seeks to Dismiss "Wrigley" Amended Complaint

MATHESON TRI-GAS: Van Kempen Accord Denied for Insufficient Info
MCDONALDS CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in "Salazar" Granted in Part
MCDONALD'S CORP: Plaintiffs Bar Eyes Franchise Owners
MDL 1616: Objections to $835MM Dow Class Settlement Overruled
MDL 2516: Court Narrows Claims in Buyers' Amended Complaint

MDL 2580: Court Narrows End-Payor Purchaser Plaintiffs' Suit
MEMPHIS, TN: Police Dep't Settles Class Action Over Promotions
MG WHOLESALE: "Yu" Suit to Recover OT, Minimum Wages
MOISES GONZALEZ: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Class Action Mulled Over Hall of Fame Non-Game
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Burke" Suit
NEIL JONES: Settlement in "Valdez" Case Has Final Approval
NELNET INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss, Wants Suit Revised
NETVISION: Customer Data Class Action Dismissed, Parent Says

NEW MIAMI, OH: Speeders' Attorney Seeks $3MM Class Action Award
NEW RESIDENTIAL: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Court Denies Plaintiff's Discovery Bid
NOTIS GLOBAL: Final Fairness Hearing Moved to Sept. 22
NOVA HARDBANDING: "Mishler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

OLE MEXICAN FOODS: Settlement in "Guttmann" Wins Final Approval
OVASCIENCE INC: Co-Lead Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
PACIFIC PROCESS: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violation
PARKING REVENUE: Unpaid Parking Fees Are Debts, 7th Cir. Says
PINNACLE FOODS: "Thornton" Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid

PREMERA BLUE: Court Narrows Claims in Customer Data Breach Suit
PROVIDE COMMERCE: Plaintiff Attorney's Fees & Costs Affirmed
QUESTAR CORP: 4 Lawsuits Over Merger Deal Still Pending
RELYPSA INC: "Zavolas" Seeks to Block $1.53 BB Merger Deal
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper OT, "Taylor" Suit Claims

ROCKWELL INT'L: June 1, 2017 Claims Filing Deadline Set
RONKA RESTAURANT: Polanco Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
SAN JOSE, CA: Police Dep't Faces Class Action Over Gay Sex Stings
SEAWORLD PARKS: Court Narrows Claims in Anderson and Conway Suit
SERVIS ONE: Court Trims Claims in "McCamis" Class Suit

SHARKNINJA OPERATING: "Rosenthal" Dismissed with Leave to Amend
SHELBY COUNTY: Court Narrows Claims in Suit v. School Board
SIRIUSXM: Settles Robo-Dialing Class Action for $35 Million
SMARTE CARTE: Court Dismisses "McCollough" Privacy Complaint
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in "Quinn" Amended Suit

SPROUTS FARMERS: Motion to Remand Under Consideration
SPROUTS FARMERS: 4 "Phishing" Scam Actions Stayed
SQUARE INC: Levin Appeals Court's Order Compelling Arbitration
SUNTRUST BANKS: Non-Fiduciary Defendants Seek Summary Judgment
SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Mutual Funds Class Actions

SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss "Felix" Suit Still Pending
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Kincaid" Suit
SYNGENTA CORP: "Claas" Files Suit Over GMO Corn Trait
TERE RESTAURANT: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
TBC RETAIL: Court Sends Cole Claims to Arbitration

TIBURON FINANCIAL: "Briles" Settlement Granted Preliminary OK
TILE SHOP: Class and Sub-Class Certified in Retirement Fund Case
TIME INC: Appeal from Dismissal of "Coulter-Owens" Suit Underway
TIME INC: Motion to Dismiss "Perlin" Video Privacy Suit Underway
TRANS UNION: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in "Larson"

VALIDITY RESEARCH: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Autodialer
VIVUS INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal Remains Pending
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Court Aims to Speed Up Emissions Litigation
VOLKSWAGEN AG: DoJ Urged to Raise Compensation for Car Owners
WAHL CLIPPER: "Javers" Sues Over False Advertisement

WAHLBURGERS: Ex-Employees File Class Action Over Labor Violations
WALKER BROS: Judge Dismisses Waiters' Class Action Over Tips
WHEELER TRUCKING: Court Declines to Alter Remand Order
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado
WIDENER UNIVERSITY: 3rd Cir. Affirms Class Certification Denial

WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Court Trims Claims in "Rushing" Suit
WPX PRODUCTION: Court Denies Renewed Bid for Class Certification
XCEL ENERGY: Motion Seeking Clarification Remains Pending
ZAFGEN INC: Court Dismisses "Brenan" Suit, Denies Bid to Amend

* D&O Coverage Down 16.5% Despite Class Action Hike
* Four Cases Illustrate IC Structure Implementation Failures


                            *********


2.7 AUGUST: Accused by "Corona" Suit of Not Paying Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE CORONA, an individual v. 2.7 AUGUST APPAREL, INC., a
California Corporation; KYUNG JIN RHO, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC630778 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., August 16, 2016), accuses the Defendants of failing
to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Labor Code.

2.7 August Apparel, Inc., is a California Corporation with its
principal places of business located in Los Angeles.  Kyung Jin
Rho is a resident of California and who allegedly exercised
control over the Plaintiff's wages, hours, and working conditions.
The Plaintiff is uncertain as to the names and identities of the
Doe Defendants.

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 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
          E-mail: bgf@bgflawoffices.com


AECO OF LOUISIANA: Ortiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILMER ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. AECO OF LOUISIANA, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-13876 (E.D.
La., August 16, 2016), seeks to recover from the Defendant alleged
unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and on behalf
of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, who
worked for the Defendant during the past three years.

AECO of Louisiana, LLC, is a corporation organized under the laws
of Louisiana with its principal place of business in New Orleans.
AECO installs wall systems for commercial projects in various
states, including Florida, Louisiana, and Texas.  The Defendant's
services include the installation of drywall.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          ROBERTO LUIS COSTALES LAW OFFICE
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 914-1048
          Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
                  emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 483-8008
          E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Steinberg Questions Prop. Sale to QLT
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHAILE STEINBERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., DAVID
SCHEER, SOL J. BARER, ANTONIO M. GOTTO JR., SANDFORD D. SMITH,
PAUL G. THOMAS, ANNE M. VANLENT, JORGE PLUTZKY, DONALD K. STERN,
QLT INC., and ISOTOPE ACQUISITION CORP., Case No. 1:16-cv-11668-
GAO (D. Mass., August 16, 2016), stems from a proposed transaction
announced on June 15, 2016, pursuant to which Aegerion will be
acquired by QLT Inc. through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Isotope
Acquisition Corp.

On June 14, 2016, Aegerion's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, each outstanding share of Aegerion
common stock will be exchanged for 1.0256 shares of Parent common
stock.

On August 8, 2016, the Defendants issued materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff contends that the
Registration Statement is deficient and misleading in that it
fails to provide adequate disclosure of all material information
related to the Proposed Transaction, in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Aegerion is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  The Company is a
biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the development and
commercialization of innovative therapies for patients with
debilitating rare diseases.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.  The Company's products
include JUXTAPID(R) and MYALEPT(R).

QLT Inc. is incorporated under the laws of British Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453-0100
          Facsimile: (888) 628-6746
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com
                  jjr@rl-legal.com


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Must Defend Against "Gauquie" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Albany Molecular Research, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Gauquie class action
lawsuit.

On November 12, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit, John
Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-
6637, was filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. An amended complaint was filed on
March 31, 2015. The amended complaint alleges claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's alleged
failure to disclose in its August 5, 2014 announcement of its
financial results for the second quarter of 2014 that one of the
manufacturing facilities experienced a power interruption in July
2014. The amended complaint alleges that the price of the
Company's stock was artificially inflated between August 5, 2014
and November 5, 2014, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants submitted on July 29,
2015 a motion to dismiss lead plaintiffs' amended complaint. Lead
plaintiffs submitted an opposition on October 7, 2015, and
defendants submitted a reply on November 20, 2015.

On July 26, 2016, the court denied the defendants motion to
dismiss. The Company is evaluating its options with respect to
further proceedings regarding this matter and has updated its
insurers as to this development.


ALL PROFESSIONAL: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
FELIX ALEXANDER PEREZ SANCHEZ and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. ALL PROFESSIONAL CREW SERVICES INC., and JEMMY
C. RODRIGUEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23546-FAM (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 17, 2016), seeks to recover double damages and
reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants allegedly refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages
as required by the FLSA. The Defendants also recklessly failed to
investigate whether their payroll practices were in accordance
with the FLSA.

All Professional is engaged in the business services industry and
located in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: No Trial Date Scheduled in Physicians Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that no trial
date has been scheduled in the Physicians Healthsource, Inc.'s
class action.

The Company said, "On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we
or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief.
Allscripts answered the complaint denying all material allegations
and asserting a number of affirmative defenses, as well as
counterclaims for breach of a license agreement.  After
plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration of the counterclaims was
granted, Allscripts made a demand in arbitration where the
counterclaims remain pending.  Discovery in the proposed class
action has now concluded."

"On March 31, 2016, plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification.  On May 31, 2016, we filed our opposition to
plaintiff's motion for class certification, and simultaneously
moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff
submitted its reply memorandum in support of its motion for class
certification and its opposition to our motion for summary
judgment on July 14, 2016 and July 21, 2016, respectively.
Briefing on plaintiff's class certification motion, accordingly,
is complete and currently pending before the Court. Our reply
brief in support of our motion for summary judgment was to be
filed on August 11, 2016. No trial date has been scheduled."


AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Doctors File Suit Over Membership Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a group
of osteopathic doctors are suing the American Osteopathic
Association -- the main representative organization for such
physicians in the United States -- alleging the requirement that
they purchase memberships at a cost of nearly $700 is illegal.

Plaintiffs Albert Talone, Craig Wax, Richard Renza and Roy
Stoller, all DOs, filed their class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey Aug. 1.

The plaintiffs seek to recover millions of dollars in annual
membership fees that the doctors have been forced to pay for years
to the AOA.  The money is paid as a condition of obtaining and
maintaining physicians' board certification in any advanced
medical specialty.

"The revenues the AOA boards receive from the various fees paid by
Plaintiffs and the Class for their board certifications are far in
excess of the actual operating expenses attendant to the board
certification process," the doctors wrote in their 22-page
complaint.

"Nevertheless, the AOA has notified Plaintiffs and the Class that
even though they have already paid these fees and have been
qualified and recognized as board certified medical specialists,
their board certifications will be invalidated and cancelled
unless, in addition, they also purchase annual membership in the
AOA."

The plaintiffs argue the annual membership "serves no purpose" and
"has no actual connection" with AOA board certification.

Wayne Mack -- WAMack@duanemorris.com -- one of the Duane Morris
LLP attorneys helping to represent the plaintiffs and who is co-
head of the firm's antitrust practice, said antitrust laws
prohibit certain "tying" arrangements in which consumers who are
interested in purchasing one product are forced to also buy a
second.

"In this case, physicians who completed their residencies in
osteopathic programs were locked in to obtaining board
certification through the AOA," Mr. Mack said in a statement,
adding that the AOA had a monopoly on board certification for
these osteopathic doctors.

In order to keep their board certifications, the doctors were
forced to purchase annual memberships that currently amount to
$683 per year for most doctors.

By tying the board certification to the purchase of annual
memberships, the AOA generated tens of millions of dollars in
assessments across the profession.

"There are considerable costs of doing business as a board
certified DO, and doctors routinely pay them," said fellow
Duane Morris attorney James Greenberg --
jgreenberg@duanemorris.com -- who for 20 years served as general
counsel to the New Jersey Association of Osteopathic Physicians
and Surgeons.  They include hundreds of dollars of fees charged by
the AOA for board certification, including testing fees for
certification in such specialties as anesthesiology, dermatology
and obstetrics.

"But there is no legitimate reason why a physician should also
have to purchase an annual membership in the AOA and pay
additional hundreds of dollars a year to the AOA in dues on top of
the costs of certification," Mr. Greenberg said in a statement.

The plaintiff class is headed by Mr. Talone, a Burlington, N.J.,
osteopathic physician who is certified by the American Osteopathic
Board of Family Physicians.  He represents a proposed class of
some 32,000 DOs nationally affected by the AOA membership rule.

Duane Morris attorney Seth Goldberg -- SAGoldberg@duanemorris.com
-- also is helping represent the plaintiffs.

In a statement, the Chicago-headquartered AOA said it had not yet
been served, so its ability to comment was limited.

"All AOA policies, including those related to board certification,
have been developed by members and are designed to meet the needs
of a complex healthcare environment, the growing profession of
osteopathic medicine and our physician members," AOA CEO Adrienne
White-Faines said on Aug. 2.  "As the AOA assesses and reviews all
policies, this policy is currently under review, including recent
discussions at our House of Delegates Annual Business Meeting."

She added, "AOA board certification services are legally
appropriate as a benefit of membership."

According to the docket, Judge Noel Lawrence Hillman at the
federal court's Camden location has been assigned the case.


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Judge Revives All-South Subcontractors' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey L. Jay of the Florida Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court's final order that dismissed with prejudice an amended
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  That case is
captioned, ALL-SOUTH SUBCONTRACTORS, INC., Appellant, v. AMERIGAS
PROPANE, INC. and AMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P., Appellees, Civil Action
No. 1D15-5862 (Fla. App.).  The Appeals Court also reversed the
lower court's ruling that granted Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.

On December 3, 2014, All-South Subcontractors, Inc., filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint naming as defendants Appellees
Amerigas Propane, Inc., and Amerigas Propane, L.P., and alleging
Appellees' practice of charging "Fuel Recovery Fees" to its
customers, including Appellant and other Florida customers of
Appellees, violates the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act. Appellant also pleads a cause of action for unjust
enrichment. According to the factual allegations of the amended
complaint, Appellant is "a small commercial roofing business," and
Appellees are "the largest seller[s] of propane in the United
States." In 2010, while working on the roof of the National Flight
Academy in Pensacola, Florida, Appellant purchased propane from
Appellees.

Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, to compel arbitration, and to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. In
its motion, Appellees argue "the putative class action must be
dismissed because the dispute between the parties is governed by
an arbitration agreement between Amerigas and its customers,
including All-South, which requires such disputes be resolved
through binding arbitration."

The trial court ruled that particularly in the context of
sophisticated litigants that the case is not a consumer issue from
the Plaintiff's side and that the arbitration provision is
enforceable and was assented to by the Plaintiff, and the case be
dismissed on that basis only."

On appeal, Appellant asserts that the bulk mailer was not a valid
written agreement to arbitrate the earlier transaction because,
fundamentally, Appellees did not reveal how Appellant could have
anticipatorily assented to the written "Terms and Conditions" it
had never seen prior to the receipt of the 2012 mailer.

In his Opinion dated August 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/idNNaJ from Leagle.com, Judge Jay hold that as a
matter of law, Appellant did not "assent" to arbitrate the 2010
claims with Appellees.  The 2010 invoice did not have the "Terms
and Conditions" appended to it.  Consequently, Appellant did not
assent to them by leasing the propane tank.  Moreover, Appellant's
mere receipt of the "Terms and Conditions" in 2012 did not
evidence a mutual intent that they be applied retroactively to the
2010 invoice.  The action is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

All South Subcontracotrs, Inc. is represented by Charles Philip
Hall, Esq. -- phall@twwlawfirm.com -- and J. Phillip Warren, Esq.
-- pwarren@twwlawfirm.com -- TAYLOR, WARREN & WEIDNER, P.A.

Amerigas Propane, Inc. and Amerigas Propane LP are represented by
Robert Palmer, Esq. -- rob@robpalmerlaw.com -- WADE, PALMER &
SHOEMAKER, P.A.


APPLE INC: Wants Appeals Court to Toss Path Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Apple wants a
federal appellate court to overturn a recent decision granting
class-action status to a group of mobile users who say their
address books were accessed without permission by the app
developer Path.

In papers quietly filed late last month, the company asks the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to immediately appeal the
"manifestly erroneous" order that granted class-action status to
nearly half a million people who downloaded the Path app to their
iPhones, iPads and iPod Touch devices.

The battle dates to 2012, when allegations surfaced that Path
accessed and downloaded Apple users' address books without their
knowledge.  The accusation against Path resulted in charges by the
Federal Trade Commission, which the company settled by agreeing to
create a comprehensive privacy policy.

Soon after reports emerged about Path, a researcher also accused
Hipster (later acquired and shut down by AOL) of also scooping up
people's address books without their permission.

Observers subsequently accused other companies -- including
Twitter, Yelp and Foodspotting -- of downloading and storing
users' address books.  Those other companies reportedly asked
people for permission to access their address books, in order to
help them connect with friends who also used the service.  But
Twitter, Yelp and the other developers allegedly didn't specify
that they would store the data.

In late 2012, iPhone user Marc Opperman, and a group of other
consumers, sued a host of app developers and Apple.  The complaint
against Apple alleged that the company's marketing materials --
including ads, blog posts and corporate statements -- misled
consumers into believing that the company's devices would keep
personal data secure.  The consumers also say that Apple enabled
Path to violate their privacy.

The lawsuit specifically alleges that the address-book uploads
amount to "intrusion upon seclusion," which is actionable in
California.

U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar in the Northern District of
California ruled last month that approximately 480,000 Apple users
who downloaded the Path app could proceed as a class against both
Path and Apple. He hasn't yet ruled on whether the users can also
bring class-actions against other developers.

Apple now says the matter shouldn't move forward against itself
(or any of the other defendants) as a class-action, arguing that
questions about a claim for "intrusion upon seclusion" requires
case-by-case decisions.

"Binding California case law makes clear that this claim requires
an assessment of the subjective privacy expectations and mental
anguish of each individual class member," Apple argues in papers
filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"If not immediately corrected, the district court's errors will
likely be repeated when plaintiffs move to certify multiple
additional classes," the company adds.  "There is no reason to
waste the time and resources of both the district court and the
parties by litigating putative class claims when certification
turns on manifestly erroneous legal conclusions."


ARAMARK FOOD: Court Denies Motion to Reconsider Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anne E. Thompson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied Plaintiff Brian Keith
Bragg's motion for reconsideration in the case captioned, BRIAN
KEITH BRAGG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE, et al.,
Respondents, Case No. 13-4088 (AET-LHG) (D.N.J.).

On July 2, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a civil complaint alleging
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleged the food served to inmates at the
Mercer County Correctional Center (MCCC) was not in compliance
with "federal, state and local sanitation, safety and health
codes" and created unconstitutional conditions of confinement. He
named Aramark Food Service and several employees of the MCCC as
defendants.

The Court explained via Opinion and Order dated November 24, 2015
that the complaint had been dismissed on October 30, 2014 as
Plaintiff Simpson did not file an amended complaint within the
time period set forth by the Court. It further stated that as both
Plaintiff Bragg's and Coney's motions to amend had been denied on
August 31, 2015, there was no active complaint before the Court at
that time.

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff Bragg moved to reopen the case. He
argued the case should be reopened as he "has been trying to
prosecute his case and keep the Court updated about his current
address."  He also asserts he lacks legal skills and knowledge
about court procedure.

In her Opinion dated August 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/jCqJrV from Leagle.com, Judge Thompson held that
Plaintiff Bragg has repeatedly failed to follow the Court's
directions and that any defendants would be prejudiced in their
ability to defend themselves are particularly important. His
repeated failure to do so and lack of any explanation for said
failure weighs in favor of dismissal.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Motion to Amend Interlocutory Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sean F. Cox of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan denied Plaintiff's motion to
amend an interlocutory order to include a statement as prescribed
by 28 USC Sec. 1292(b) in the case captioned, Law Offices of
Daniel C. Flint, P.C., Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-13006 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff filed the prospective class action against Defendant
asserting several claims relating to Defendant's alleged
unconscionable overdraft policies and practices. Plaintiff filed a
prospective class action on August 25, 2015, alleging the
following claims:

     Count I - Breach of Contract and Breach of the Covenant
               of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;

     Count II - Unconscionability;

     Count III - Statutory Conversion;

     Count IV - Unjust Enrichment; and

     Count V - Violations of State Unfair Trade Practice Laws

Plaintiff's claims relate to Defendant's assessment of overdraft
fees on business deposit accounts. Plaintiff's complaint alleges
that Defendant utilizes a system that "intentionally maximizes the
number of overdrafts in order to charge each business customer the
maximum amount of fees."

On October 19, 2015, Defendant filed a "Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Stay Proceedings." Plaintiff opposed the motion,
arguing that the arbitration clause and the class action and jury
trial waivers were unconscionable. On April 13, 2016, the Court
granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings.

In the motion, Plaintiff argues that this Court should certify an
interlocutory appeal of its April 13, 2016 Opinion & Order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b).

In his Opinion and Order dated August 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/qmCFtW from Leagle.com, Judge Cox found that that no
exceptional circumstances exist to warrant an interlocutory appeal
in the case. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to establish that
a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists as to any
purported question of law.

Law Offices of Daniel C. FLint, P.C. is represented by Douglas D.
Hampton, Esq. -- dhampton@hamptonlawgroup.com -- HAMPTON LAW GROUP

Bank of America, N.A. is represented by Brian C. Summerfield, Esq.
-- BODMAN -- Catalina Joos Vergara, Esq. -- cvergagra@omm.com --
and -- Matthew W. Close, Esq. -- mclose@omm.com -- O'MELVENY &
MYERS LLP


BANNER HEALTH: Physician Files Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Akanksha Jayanthi, writing for Health IT & CIO Review, reports
that Phoenix-based Banner Health faces a class-action lawsuit
regarding a recent massive data breach.  The lawsuit, filed by a
Banner physician, claims Banner was negligent and allowed the
breach to occur and seeks compensation for identity protection and
credit monitoring, reports The Arizona Republic.

Howard Chen, MD, works at Banner Thunderbird Medical Center in
Glendale, Ariz., and he is among the 3.7 million patients, health
plan members, customers and providers whose personal information
may have been compromised in the cyberattack.  Hackers gained
access to Banner Health computer servers, including those that
process payment card information where food and beverages are
sold. It was the largest data breach so far of 2016.

Banner is offering free credit and identity monitoring to affected
individuals for one year.  Dr. Chen's lawsuit says these steps are
not sufficient reparation.

"Banner's negligence affected millions of people," said
Rob Carey, the attorney filing the lawsuit on Dr. Chen's behalf,
in a statement, according to the report.  "It's not enough to
offer a skimpy 'fix' -- the law requires Banner remedy the serious
risks it created for its stakeholders."

The lawsuit argues credit monitoring and identity protection are
not enough to protect individuals because cyber criminals will
wait a couple of years to use stolen information, often after
monitoring periods expire, according to the report.

Banner indicated it is enhancing the security of its network
systems, as well.

"Banner is committed to maintaining the privacy and security of
information of our patients, employees, plan members and
beneficiaries, customers at our food and beverage outlets, as well
as our providers," said Peter Fine, president and CEO of Banner
Health, in the public notice of the cyberattack.


BERKELEY, CA: "Law" Case Plaintiffs May File 4th Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scoot Corley of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied a
motion to dismiss and to strike certain allegations, and granted
Plaintiffs' leave to file the Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC) in
the case captioned, MONI LAW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
BERKELEY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-05343-JSC (N.D.
Cal.).

The lawsuit arises out of a racial justice protest in Berkeley,
California. Plaintiffs challenge the City of Berkeley and the
Berkeley Police Department's response to the protest and allege
that, among other things, they were subject to excessive force and
violation of their First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs contend that
this unlawful use of force is "the proximate result of a custom,
policy, pattern or practice of deliberate indifference by
defendant City of Berkeley to the repeated violations of the
constitutional rights of citizens by defendant City of Berkeley's
police officers, which have included, but are not limited to, the
repeated use of excessive force, racial profiling, and the
repeated failure to properly and/or adequately train, supervise
and/or discipline officers with respect to the use of excessive
force, constitutional limitations on the use of force, City
policies on use of weapons and force, and racial profiling; the
repeated failure by City of Berkeley high ranking officials,
police department managers and/or supervisors to hold officers
accountable for violating the rights of citizens; and/or other
customs, policies and/or practices."

Pending before the Court is Berkeley's motion to dismiss claims in
the Third Amended Complaint for lack of standing pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and to strike certain
allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
Defendants' motion raises three primary arguments. First,
Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations contending
that the proposed class is not adequately defined and Plaintiffs
have not adequately alleged the prerequisites for a class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) or (b)(2). Second,
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief for lack of standing. Finally, Defendants move
to strike Plaintiffs' allegations regarding injuries from mutual
aid agencies, specialty impact munitions, and racial profiling.

In her Order dated August 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/acUtcA from Leagle.com, Judge Corley found that
there is good cause to grant Plaintiffs leave to file the
previously submitted Fourth Amended Complaint and that Defendants
have not established at the stage in the proceedings that a (b)(2)
class cannot be certified.

Moni Law, et al. are represented by Rachel Lederman, Esq. --
rachel@bllaw.info -- LAW OFFICES OF RACHEL LEDERMAN & ALEXSIS C.
BEACH.

They are also represented by:

      James B. Chanin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. CHANIN
            350 Shattuck Avenue
      Berkeley, CA 94705
      Tel: (510)848-4752

City of Berkeley, et al. are represented by represented by Lynne
Sarah Bourgault, Esq. -- lbourgault@ci.berkeley.ca.us -- BERKELEY
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE


BFI WASTE: "Turner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Darren Turner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, The Plaintiffs, v. BFI Waste Services, LLC d/b/a
Republic Services; Republic Services of South Carolina, LLC d/b/a
Republic Services; and Republic Services, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02864-DCN (D.S.C., Aug. 17, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants allegedly did not pay Plaintiff or the Class
Members time and one-half for hours worked over 40 hours in a
workweek and, instead, utilized the "fluctuating work week" method
to pay employees only half-time for hours worked over 40 hours in
a workweek.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Scott Falls, Esq.
          Ashley L. Falls, Esq.
          FALLS LEGAL
          245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
          Charleston, SC 29492
          Telephone: (843) 737-6040
          Facsimile: (843) 737-6140
          E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com
                  ashley@falls-legal.com

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman
          Zachary C. Flowerree
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419 1008
          Facsimile: (312) 419 1025
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  zflowerree@flsalaw.com


BIRMINGHAM, AL: Sept. Hearing Set for Police Dept's Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
PBS Newshour reports that a federal court in Alabama ruled that
the Birmingham Police Department's disciplinary practices,
including the use of pepper spray for minor discipline problems,
is in violation of student rights and unconstitutional.

Attorney Ebony Howard of the Southern Poverty Law Center filed the
class-action suit, and returns to court next month when the police
department's appeal is heard.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "DiMartino" Suit Dismissed as Time-Barred
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martini of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant BMW of
North America, LLC's (BMWNA) motion to dismiss in the case
captioned, JOSEPH DIMARTINO Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-8447 (WJM)(D.N.J).

Plaintiff Joseph DiMartino brought suit on behalf of a putative
class, alleging unjust enrichment, monopolization under Section 2
of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).

DiMartino, a Florida resident, purchased a BMW 5-series car. The
vehicle contains a N54 engine that Plaintiff alleges incorporated
faulty fuel injectors-six Index 10 fuel injectors. Due to a
failure of two of these injectors, DiMartino was required to bring
his car in for an out-of-warranty repair. As part of the repairs,
DiMartino alleges that he was forced to pay to replace all six of
the Index 10 fuel injectors with Index 11 models. DiMartino
alleges that because of the need imposed by BMWNA to replace all
fuel injectors and a monopoly on this market, BMWNA is able to
profit from the sale of the additional, still functional, fuel
injectors and consumers are forced to spend more than necessary
for the repairs.

BMWNA seeks to have the Complaint dismissed in its entirety
arguing that all of DiMartino's claims are time-barred.

In his Opinion dated August 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/z7x1lD from Leagle.com, Judge Martini found that
Plaintiff neglects to provide any operative dates in the
Complaint, including when he purchased the car or when he brought
it in for repair so that the Court is unable to deduce when the
limitations periods began to run.

Joseph Dimartino is represented by James E. Cecchi, Esq. --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC is represented by R. Brendan Fee, Esq.
-- brendan.fee@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


BORGATA HOTEL: Distribution of Tournament Proceeds Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judges Jack M. Sabatino, Allison A. Accurso and Amy O'Connor of
the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the entry of summary
judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' Law Division action and approving
Director's order of distribution of tournament proceeds in the
case captioned, IN THE MATTER OF THE BORGATA WINTER POKER OPEN, A
GAMING TOURNAMENT CONDUCTED BY MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a Borgata Casino Hotel and Spa between January
14, 2014 and January 18, 2014. JACOB MUSTEREL, FARID VAGHEFI and
STEVEN CELESTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARINA DISTRICT FINANCE
COMPANY, INC. and MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a
BORGATA HOTEL CASINO AND SPA, MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT HOLDING
COMPANY, LLC, BOYD ATLANTIC CITY, INC. and BOYD GAMING
CORPORATION, Defendants-Respondents, Case No. A-4409-13T3, A-0231-
14T3 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).

The case arise out of a poker tournament hosted by Marina District
Development Company, LLC, d/b/a Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa,
which the Division of Gaming Enforcement cancelled when Borgata
discovered a registered player had introduced counterfeit chips
into tournament play. A review of surveillance tape revealed
Christian Lusardi entered the men's room at the conclusion of
play. He was, at that point, the tournament chip leader with
$519,000 in chips. Lusardi was arrested and charged in connection
with the counterfeit tournament chips.

In their Complaint Plaintiffs alleged negligence, violations of
the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A.56:8-1 to-120, promissory
estoppel, and breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of
good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment. They alleged
that Borgata failed to properly supervise the event (or their
staff); failed to implement adequate security measures; failed to
detect a participant's introduction of a significant amount of
counterfeit chips into the game did not halt the event as soon as
the event was, or should have been, recognized as compromised;
failed during the tournament to count the chips on an ongoing
basis and failed to adequately secure the legitimate chips during
breaks in play.

The judge hearing Borgata's summary judgment motion asked
plaintiffs' counsel at oral argument how the case was different
from one already dismissed by another judge in the vicinage
brought by others of the 27 players remaining in the tournament
when play was suspended.

The motion judge adopted the reasoning of the first judge to
consider claims arising out of the compromised poker tournament,
that is, that jurisdiction over the controversy is squarely in the
Division because the specific conduct alleged to have occurred is
within the Casino Control Act's prohibitions against the use of
bogus chips. Adopting as persuasive the first judge's finding that
the Division had both the expertise and the specifically delegated
authority to sanction licensee violations of the Casino Control
Act or its implementing regulations and to afford remedies to
plaintiffs, the judge granted Borgata's motion for summary
judgment.

On appeal, in the administrative matter, Plaintiffs challenge the
April 14, 2014 final order of the Director of the Division of
Gaming Enforcement directing the distribution of retained entry
fees, unpaid prizes and the remaining unallocated tournament funds
among the 2,827 persons participating in the tournament. They
contend the Director's distribution scheme was arbitrary and
capricious and that their due process rights were violated by the
agency's failure to hold a hearing.

In the Law Division matter, plaintiffs appeal from the entry of
summary judgment dismissing their class action complaint against
Borgata alleging negligence, consumer fraud, breach of contract,
promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing for negligently permitting
a player to introduce counterfeit chips into the tournament,
tainting the games and depriving plaintiffs of a fair opportunity
to win the tournament prize money as promised.

In the Per Curiam dated July 28, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/axixQv from Leagle.com, Judges Sabatino, Accurso and
O'Connor concluded that the Director's distribution scheme was
reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious, and amply supported by
the record, and that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate any entitlement
to a hearing.  The Court also found that the distribution of
tournament proceeds in this instance provided plaintiffs an
adequate administrative remedy to vindicate their damage claims
against Borgata.

Jacob Musterel, Farid Vaghefi and Steven Celeste are represented
by:

       Randall J. Peach, Esq.
       RANDALL J. PEACH LAW OFFICES
       991 US 22 #200
       Bridgewater, NJ 08807
       Tel:(908)684-8011

Marina District Development Company, Marina District Finance
Company, Inc., Marina District Development Holding Company, Boyd
Atlantic City, Inc. and Boyd Gaming Corporation are represented by
Gerard W. Quinn, Esq. -- tom.quinn@us.schindler.com - SCHINDLER
ELEVATOR CORP.

New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement is represented by
David S. Frankel, Esq. -- jonathan.frankel@sap.com --       DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE: Court Trims Claims in "Escalante"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the
case captioned, Luis Escalante, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. California Physicians'
Service dba Blue Shield of California, Defendants, Case No. CV 14-
03021 DDP (PJWx) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Luis Escalante was covered by a group health insurance
policy issued by Defendant Blue Shield of California. Plaintiff
alleges that he suffers from degenerative disc disease (DDD) and
that his doctor recommended he undergo artificial disc replacement
(ADR) surgery instead of a more traditional lumbar fusion.
Plaintiff requested authorization from Blue Shield to undergo ADR
surgery, but Blue Shield denied Plaintiff's request after finding
ADR surgery was excluded from coverage as investigational because
"the efficacy of [ADR] has not been validated by the peer reviewed
literature." Plaintiff appealed the decision to both Blue Shield
and the California Department of Managed Health Care, and was
again denied.

Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of a now certified class,
challenging Blue Shield's ADR policy under the Employee Retirement
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Blue Shield moves for summary judgment arguing that the court
should review Blue Shield's coverage decision for abuse of
discretion.

In his Order dated July 29, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Uy3riB
from Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson held that, despite Blue Shield's
evidence that it did not abuse its discretion and Plaintiff's lack
of intra-record evidence, the court must deny Blue Shield's motion
insofar as it relates to the decision on the merits because (1)
triable issues remain regarding the extent and effect of Blue
Shield's structural bias and (2) it is unclear whether the
evidence upon which Blue Shield relies is part of the
administrative record to which this Court must limit its merits
review.

Luis Escalante is represented by Adrian J. Barrio, Esq. --
Adrian.Barrio@gmlawyers.com -- Joshua Seth Davis, Esq. --
Joshua.Davis@gmlawyers.com -- Richard Reyes Fruto, Esq. --
richard@chunfrutolaw.com -- and Robert S. Gianelli, Esq. -
Robert.Gianelli@gmlawyers.com -- GIANELLO AND MORRIS ALC

California Physicians' Service is represented by Gregory N.
Primstone, Esq. -- gpimstone@manatt.com -- Jessamyn Elizabeth
Vedro, Esq. -- jvedro@manatt.com -- Joseph E. Laska, III --
jlaska@manatt.com -- Michael C. Godino -- mgodino@manatt.com --
MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS LLP


CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY: Class Cert. Ruling in "Schmidt" Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Arthur Gilbert of the California Court of Appeals
affirmed a trial court's judgment stating that Plaintiff should
have been issued a certificate of detention by the California
Highway Patrol, granting of class certification and award of
attorney fees in the case captioned, JOHN J. SCHMIDT, Plaintiff
and Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Defendant and
Appellant, Case No. B260643 (Cal. App.).

On May 1, 2011, John J. Schmidt was arrested by the CHP for
driving under the influence. He was booked into the Santa Barbara
County jail and released later that day on his own recognizance.
Schmidt signed a notice to appear in court. The CHP did not
provide Schmidt with a certificate describing his arrest as a
detention. Nor did the CHP report the arrest as a detention to the
Department of Justice.

Schmidt brought the action against the CHP on behalf of himself
and all persons similarly situated. The action sought a writ of
mandate to compel the CHP to comply with sections 849.5 and 851.6,
subdivision (b).

Susan Segura testified that she has been the records supervisor
for the Santa Barbara Police Department for 16 years. She
testified to her office's procedure when the police department
refers a case to the district attorney and the district attorney's
office sends notice to the police department that the case has
been rejected.

The trial court certified the class and granted Schmidt's writ
petition. The court also awarded Schmidt attorney fees in the
amount of $296,100 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
1021.5, the private attorney general statute.

On appeal, the CHP contends that the trial court (1)
misinterpreted sections 849.5 and 851.6, subdivision (b); (2)
erred in certifying the class; (3) erred in implementing a
problematic writ of mandate; and (4) abused its discretion in
awarding Schmidt attorney fees.

In his Order dated August 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/hsDtXe from Leagle.com, Judge Gilbert held that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion as to the grant of writ
of mandate because sections 849.5 and 851.6, subdivision (b) do
not give law enforcement the powers of a prosecuting attorney, as
to class certification the Court found that CHP's argument that
the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that a community
of interest exists is unpersuasive, and as to the awarding of
attorney fees the Court hold that it is within its discretion in
awarding attorney fees.

California Highway Patrol is represented by Kamala D. Harris, Esq.
-- attorneygeneral@doj.ca.gov -- Chris A. Knudsen, Esq. --
chris.knudsen@doj.ca.gov -- Kenneth C. Jones, Esq. --
kenneth.jones@doj.ca.gov -- Nancy G. James, Esq. --
Nancy.James@doj.ca.gov -- US ATTORNEY GENERAL

John J. Schmidt is represented by Robin L. Unander, Esq. --
robin@unanderlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF ROBIN L. UNANDER; William C.
Makler, Esq. -- bill@sbdefenselawyer.com -- LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM
C. MAKLER, P.C.


CANADA: Save Oro Mulls Class Action Against Oro-Medonte Township
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Bales, writing for The Orillia Packet & Times, reports
that the 2016 festival season at Burl's Creek Event Grounds may be
over, but opponents of the expanded programming in Oro-Medonte
Township refuse to relent in their battle against the multi-day
concerts.

After another sleepless and "terrible" weekend for Wendy McKay, a
neighbor of the park and director with Save Oro, a resident group
formed to oppose the expansion at Burl's Creek, a new avenue in
the group's strategy could soon open up.

But this action wouldn't focus on promoter Republic Live or the
Burl's Creek ownership, as has been the case with Save Oro's
involvement with the Ontario Municipal Board hearing into a
temporary zoning bylaw for the event grounds, or Ms. McKay's
private prosecution surrounding the 2015 festivals.

"We're looking at a class-action lawsuit against the township,"
Ms. McKay said.

She said there would be several grounds for such court action, but
the main thrust boils down to the actions the township has taken
over the years surrounding events at Burl's Creek.

"The only way that Burl's Creek and Republic Live are here is
because the township, over the years, passed zoning bylaws, zoning
changes, without consulting the public," Ms. McKay said.  "They
did them illegally; they passed them illegally.  Because of that,
they allowed the concerts to happen."

The potential lawsuit has not begun to work its way through the
court system and the allegations levelled have therefore not been
proven.  Discussion are ongoing, Ms. McKay said, as to when the
legal process may begin.

Oro-Medonte Mayor Harry Hughes told Postmedia he was not aware of
any potential legal proceedings involving the township and the
Burl's Creek property.


CASH BIZ: Texas Appeals Court Sends "Henry" Case to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Rebeca C. Martinez of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fourth
District of San Antonio, reversed the trial court's order denying
Cash Biz's motion to compel arbitration and denying Cash Biz's
motion to enforce the class action waiver provision in the case
captioned, Cash Biz, LP, et al., Appellants, v. Hiawatha Henry, et
al. Appellees, Case No. 04-15-00469-CV (Tex. App.).

Hiawatha Henry, Addie Harris, Montray Norris, and Roosevelt
Coleman, Jr. (the Borrowing Parties) obtained loans from Cash Biz
and subsequently defaulted on their repayment obligations. Cash
Biz attempted to deposit the post-dated checks written upon
execution of the loan documents; however, the checks were declined
based upon insufficient funds.

On January 30, 2015, the Borrowing Parties filed a class action
petition on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
in Texas, alleging Cash Biz: (1) illegally and wrongfully used the
criminal justice system to collect payday loans through the
wrongful filing of criminal charges; (2) illegally and wrongfully
threatened its customers with criminal prosecution for failure to
repay payday loans in violation of the Texas Finance Code, Texas
Penal Code, and Texas Constitution; and (3) illegally and
wrongfully classified post-dated checks as bad checks and pursued
criminal charges against its customers in violation of the Finance
Code and Penal Code. The Borrowing Parties alleged Cash Biz
engaged in the described conduct knowing it was in violation of
the law.

The trial court denied Cash Biz's motion to compel and enforce the
arbitration and class action waiver provisions concluding that the
arbitration provision and class action waiver within the Loan
Contracts are "not applicable" to the type of action brought by
the Borrowing Parties. In addition, the trial court concluded Cash
Biz waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the
judicial process when it "filed criminal charges against
Plaintiffs, participated in criminal trials, obtained criminal
judgments, and attempted to collect from Plaintiffs."

On appeal, Cash Biz argues it proved the Borrowing Parties' claims
fall within the scope of the arbitration provision because the
supporting factual allegations, contending Cash Biz used the
criminal justice system to enforce a civil debt arise out of the
Loan Contract which created the civil debt and which contains the
arbitration provision. Cash Biz contends these factual allegations
and basis of the action are encompassed within the broad
definition of "dispute" in the arbitration provision. The
Borrowing Parties assert their claims are not based on the
parties' legal relationship created by the Loan Contract, but
arise independently based upon Cash Biz's ancillary action of
illegally initiating criminal prosecutions against them.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated July 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/0Xob2z from Leagle.com, Judge Martinez concluded
that the trial court erred by denying Cash Biz's motion to enforce
the class action waiver provision absent any argument or basis to
hold the class action waiver provision internally invalid.  The
cause is remanded and stayed pending completion of individual
arbitration.

Hiawatha Henry is represented by Philip A. Meyer, Esq. -- Daniel
Dutko, Esq. -- ddutko@hanszenlaporte.com -- H. Mark Burck, Esq.
-- mburck@hanszenlaporte.com -- HANSZEN LAPORTE, HOUSTON TEXAS

Montray Norris and Addie Harris are represented by Daniel Dutko,
Esq. -- ddutko@hanszenlaporte.com -- HANZEN LAPORTE

Cash Biz, LP and Cash Zone, LLC are represented by Edward Hubbard,
Esq. -- ehubbard@lanealton.com -- Patrick E. Gaas, Esq. --
pgaas@coatsrose.com -- Sumit Kumar Arora, Esq. --
sarora@coatsrose.com -- COATS ROSE


CETCO ENERGY: "England" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Chad England, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CETCO Energy Services Company, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-00294, (W.D. Tex., August 9, 2016),
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CETCO Energy Services Company, LLC is an Illinois corporation
registered to do business in the State of Texas, providing
fracking services in the oil and gas industry where England was
employed as an operator, and was later promoted to supervisor. He
claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Cova" Suit Stays in E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carol E. Jackson of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Plaintiffs'
motion to remand in the case captioned, RENO COVA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:16-CV-675-CEJ (E.D. Mo.).

On April 5, 2016, plaintiffs initiated the putative class action
in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri.
Plaintiffs Reno Cova and Logan O'Connor are citizens of Missouri.
Plaintiff Zach Splaingard is a citizen of Illinois. Defendant
Charter Communications, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and
maintains its principal place of business in Connecticut.

According to the complaint, defendant advertises and sells
internet, phone, and television service, and leases to its
subscribers related equipment. Plaintiffs allege defendant's
actions mean its advertisements and agreements with its
subscribers were deceptive, fraudulent, and misleading; violated
the subscribers' rights to privacy and of publicity; and
constituted fraud or negligent inducement to purchase its products
and services.

On May 13, 2016, defendant timely removed, invoking diversity
jurisdiction, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
(CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).

In the motion, plaintiffs maintain defendant has not established
the proposed class comprises at least 100 people, or that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.

In her Memorandum and Order dated August 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/b1j03U from Leagle.com, Judge Jackson found that
defendant has established by preponderance of the evidence all of
the elements of subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA and that
defendant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the
aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.

Reno Cova, et al. are represented by Ryan P. Horace, Esq. --
ryan@swmklaw.com -- SWMK LAW

Charter Communications, Inc. is represented by Matthew D. Guletz,
Esq. -- mguletz@thompsoncoburn.com -- and Roman P. Wuller, Esq.
-- rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP


CHEVRON: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Amazon Oil Pollution Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Avalos, writing for East Bay Times, reports that Chevron on
Aug. 18 won a major appellate court ruling that bars a group of
indigenous people from seeking to seize the energy giant's U.S.
assets to pay for polluting Ecuador's Amazon jungle.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York City
based its ruling on "corrupt conduct" -- including bribes and
fraud -- on the part of the legal team for the plaintiffs, a group
of indigenous Ecuadoreans, as well as officials in the South
American nation.

"This decision, which is consistent with the findings of numerous
judicial officers in the United States and South America, leaves
no doubt that the Ecuadorean judgment against Chevron is the
illegitimate and unenforceable product of misconduct," said
R. Hewitt Pate, Chevron's general counsel.

"We are shocked by this decision," said Karen Hinton, a
spokeswoman for the plaintiffs, who sued Chevron in connection
with oil pollution caused, at least in part, by Texaco, which
Chevron bought in 2001. "The Ecuadoreans' attorneys are reviewing
it carefully and will be exploring all options for further
appeal."

The Ecuador group said it would continue to attempt to seize
Chevron's assets in Canada.

"This ruling will not deter the Ecuadoreans, their lawyers and
their supporters from aggressively seeking justice in Canada and
in other countries where litigation is underway to seize Chevron
assets," Ms. Hinton said.

The decision marked the latest major milestone after a $8.65
billion judgment against Chevron in Ecuador.

In 2011, an Ecuadorean court ordered Chevron to pay $18 billion,
but that amount was later reduced.  The same year, Chevron sued
attorneys for the plaintiffs in U.S. District Court, seeking to
block enforcement of the Ecuador decision in this country.

In 2014, the U.S. court ruled in favor of Chevron, saying the lead
attorney for the plaintiffs, Steven Donziger, had used "corrupt
means" to gain the judgment.

"The decision hands well-heeled corporations a template for
avoiding legal accountability anywhere in the world," said
Deepak Gupta, Donzinger's attorney.

The federal appeals court said Donziger's actions included fraud
and bribery of legal officials in Ecuador.

"Even innocent clients may not benefit from the fraud of their
attorney," Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse wrote in the unanimous opinion
of a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit.

The Aug. 8 ruling upheld the lower court's ruling, which Kearse
cited in writing the appellate court's decision.

"Justice is not served by inflicting injustice," the U.S. District
Court stated in its 2014 ruling.  "The ends do not justify the
means.  There is no 'Robin Hood' defense to illegal and wrongful
conduct.  The defendants' 'this-is-the-way-it-is-done-in-Ecuador'
excuses -- actually a remarkable insult to the people of Ecuador -
- do not help them."


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Court Approves Class Action Notice in "Essex"
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Michael Vazquez of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey Eastern Division granted
Plaintiffs' motion for notice in the case captioned, ANGELA R.
ESSEX, et al, Plaintiffs, v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-5621 (D.N.J.).

Named Plaintiffs Angela R. Essex and Gabriela Maradiaga, and eight
"opt-in" Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs) filed their complaint on July 17,
2015, alleging that they were misclassified as exempt under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and therefore, are entitled to unpaid
overtime wages. Plaintiffs were store managers at Children's
Place, a national retail store that sells children's clothing and
related goods. Plaintiffs allege that they, and similarly situated
employees, "worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, without
receiving overtime compensation as required by the FLSA."

Plaintiffs now request the Court to conditionally certify and
provide notice to a class of SMs who were allegedly misclassified
as exempt employees and not paid overtime wages as required by the
FLSA.

In his Opinion dated August 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/3SJGML from Leagle.com, Judge Vazquez granted
Plaintiffs' request for a list of all SMs employed by Children's
Place within the last three years since courts routinely order
employers to produce a list of potential class members to
plaintiffs.

The parties are also required to meet and confer regarding the
proposed notice and consent form, and submit the proposed notice,
with any objections, to the Court for review and approval within
30 days.

Angela R. Essex, et al. are represented by Michael Hayden Reed,
Esq. -- smreed80@gmail.com -- KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP --
Michael John Palitz, Esq. -- mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW
GROUP, P.A.

The Childrens Place, Inc. is represented by Michael T. Grosso,
Esq. -- mgrosso@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.


CITIGROUP INC: Court Reaffirms Ruling on Cy Pres Designees
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
ATD Group et al., Plaintiffs, v. XCEL ENERGY INC. et al.,
Defendants. REORGANIZED FLI, INC., Plaintiff, v. Citigroup Inc. et
al., Defendants, No. 07-CV-9901 (SHS)(S.D.N.Y.), District Judge
Sidney H. Stein of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York adhered to an earlier determination
approving lead plaintiffs' three cy pres designees to receive the
remaining settlement funds.

Plaintiffs are current and former Citigroup shareholders who
brought a number of securities fraud actions on behalf of a class
of Citigroup investors against Citigroup and fourteen of its
officials. The actions were consolidated and the consolidated
class action complaint charged that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In
essence, plaintiffs claimed that Citigroup knowingly understated
the risks it faced and overstated the value of the assets it
possessed with regard to its exposure to various financial
instruments prevalent prior to the financial crisis. Plaintiffs
claimed they suffered serious damage when the truth about
Citigroup's assets was finally revealed.

On February 5, 2016, class counsel notified the Court that
$374,820 designated for the class remained undistributed in the
settlement fund, that it was no longer feasible to make further
distributions, and that further efforts to do so would not be
effective. The $374,820 constitutes 0.064% of the original $590
million fund. Lead plaintiffs designated three nonprofit
organizations to receive the remaining funds: South Brooklyn Legal
Services; the National Consumers League; and the Consumer
Federation of America. In February 2016, the Court granted lead
plaintiffs' cy pres distribution.

Theodore H. Frank, a class member, moved the Court to reconsider
its determination. Frank is a Senior Attorney with the Competitive
Enterprise Institute.  Frank proposes alternate cy pres designees
who he believes are truly "next best" recipients.

After receiving Frank's motion to reconsider, the Court stayed its
February 16 order granting the cy pres distribution, and, to the
Court's knowledge, none of the residual funds have been
distributed to the three proposed nonprofit donees. No one
contests that it is no longer feasible to distribute the remaining
settlement funds to class members nor does anyone dispute that the
distribution of funds to one or more cy pres designees is now
appropriate. The parties disagree solely as to whom those funds
should be distributed.

In his Opinion dated August 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/aHZkWs  from Leagle.com, Judge Stein held that
Frank's motion to reconsider the "Order Authorizing Final
Distribution of Funds and Cy Pres Designation" dated February 13,
2016, is granted, and, upon reconsideration, the Court adheres to
its earlier determination approving lead plaintiffs' three cy pres
designees. The Court finds that the selection -- by experienced
counsel who have effectively worked in the interests of their
clients throughout this litigation -- of South Brooklyn Legal
Services, the National Consumers League, and the Consumer
Federation of America is closely tethered to the nature of this
lawsuit and the interests of the class.  Thus, lead plaintiffs'
motion to distribute 37.5% of the remaining settlement funds to
South Brooklyn Legal Services, 37.5% to the National Consumers
League, and 25% to the Consumer Federation of America is granted.

ATD Group is represented by Lauren Wagner Pederson, Esq. --
lpederson@kmllp.com -- Peter S. Linden, Esq. -- plinden@kmllp.com
-- Ira M. Press, Esq. -- ipress@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP

Tillie Saltzman, Plaintiff is represented by Samuel Howard
Rudman,Esq -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com --ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP

Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado is
represented by Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. -- aentwistle@entwistle-
law.com -- ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP -- Peter S. Linden, Esq. --
plinden@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP

Citigroup Inc., et al Defendants is represented by Richard A.
Rosen, Esq. -- rrosen@paulweiss.com -- Susanna Michele Buergel,
Esq. -- sbuergel@paulweiss.com -- Jane Baek O'Brien, Esq. --
jobrien@paulweiss.com -- PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
LLP


COMCAST CORP: Court Sends "James" Suit to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Defendant's motion
to compel arbitration in, and to dismiss, the case captioned, JOHN
C. JAMES, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 16-CV-02218-EMC(N.D. Cal.)

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff John C. James filed a putative class
action against Defendants Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, alleging that Comcast failed to provide
credits and/or refunds to month-to-month customers during the
times when Comcast did not provide uninterrupted service.

In 2011, Comcast added an arbitration provision to its Service
Agreement with a red bold-printed note stating "Important notice
regarding Comcast agreements for residential services." and
"Notice from Comcast regarding revised agreements for residential
services including arbitration provision" and provided a link to
the revised agreements.

James did not exercise his option to opt out of the 2011
Arbitration Provision, but continued to use Comcast's services.
James contends that he never received the 2011 Arbitration
Provision Notice. However, James paid his July 2011 bill with
which the Notice would have been included.

Comcast filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss, or,
in the alternative, to stay the action pending the completion of
arbitration.

In his Order dated August 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/5QDRxo  from Leagle.com, Judge Chen found that a
valid, enforceable agreement was made between James and Comcast.
The Court stays the case in its entirety.

John C. James is represented by Anthony Martin Perez, Jr. Esq. --
aperez@perezlawoffices.com -- PEREZ LAW OFFICES -- Dale Curtis
Campbell, Esq. -- dcampbell@weintraub.com -- Brendan J. Begley,
Esq. -- bbegley@weintraub.com -- Gary Alan Waldron, Esq. --
gwaldron@weintraub.com -- Joshua Heath Escovedo, Esq. --
jescovedo@weintraub.com -- WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN
LC

Comcast Corporation, et al. are represented by Joseph Edward
Addiego, III, Esq. -- joeaddiego@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE
LLP -- Adam S. Caldwell, Esq. -- adamcaldwell@dwt.com -- Patrick
John Curran, Jr., Esq. -- patcurran@dwt.com --  DAVIS WRIGHT
TREMAINE LLP


CONAIR CORP: Court Limits Definition of Class in "Czuchaj" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA L. CZUCHAJ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-01901-BEN-RBB.
(S.D. Cal.), arises from two alleged defects in Defendant's
Infinity Pro 1875 Watt model 259 hair dryer: a defect to the
strain relief in the product's cord and a defect to coils in the
barrel of the product. There are two class claims which are a New
York damages subclass for violation of New York General Business
Law section 349, represented by Plaintiff Patricia Carter, whose
hair dryer failed because of the coil issue, and a California
damages subclass for violation of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act,
represented by Plaintiff Cynthia Czuchaj, whose hair dryer failed
because of the cord issue.

Defendant seeks to narrow the definitions of each subclass. The
current definition of both subclasses is (i) All New York or
California residents who purchased either a model 259 or 279
Infiniti Pro 1875 Watt hair dryer, between August 15, 2009 and the
present, sold by Defendant Conair Corporation directly or through
a retailer for primarily personal, family, or household purposes,
and not for resale.

Defendant argues that the definition should be altered because the
only hair dryers at issue were manufactured by Sun Luen prior to
July 26, 2013 because, at that time, the problematic cord strain
relief was removed from production; and the proper plaintiff for a
Song-Beverly Act claim is a consumer who purchased a product in
California, not a California resident.

In his Order dated August 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/wwwAqf from Leagle.com, District Judge Roger Benitez
concluded that the present subclass definitions are overbroad and
must be narrowed. Because Plaintiff Carter lacks standing to
allege a cord defect claim and her coil claims are atypical of
cord claims, the New York subclass must be limited to individuals
who allege injury from the coil defect. The California subclass
includes plaintiffs alleging cord failures from Sun Luen-
manufactured hair dryers and plaintiffs alleging coil defects from
Sun Luen, Silver Plan, and Neumax-manufactured hair dryers.

Cynthia L. Czuchaj is represented by Isam C. Khoury, Esq --
ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Jeff Geraci, Esq. -- jgeraci@ckslaw.com --
Michael D. Singer, Esq. -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Jennifer Lynn
Connor, Esq. -- Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. -- tcohelan@ckslaw.com
-- COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER; Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. --
jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- BISNAR & CHASE; Katherine J.
Odenbreit, Esq. -- info@mahoney-law.net -- ODENBREIT LAW, APC

Conair Corporation is represented by Ryan Donald Saba, Esq. --
rsaba@rosensaba.com -- Momo Emily Takahashi, Esq. --
mtakahashi@rosensaba.com -- ROSEN SABA LLP.


CONNECTICUT: DCF Makes Progress Years Following Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Constable, writing for The Connecticut Mirror, reports that
despite continued funding cuts as state lawmakers look to curtail
spending, the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) has
"made and sustained progress" toward improving the state's child
welfare system, a federal court monitor reported on Aug. 8.

In two key areas -- case planning and meeting children's basic
needs -- court monitor Raymond Mancuso reported his "best findings
ever" at DCF in the first quarter of 2016.  The improvements,
while significant, still did not meet compliance standards ordered
by the court monitor, however.

The latest update comes after years of previous reports showing
DCF struggling to meet children's basic needs as staffing levels
remained below what officials said was necessary.

"Commissioner (Joette) Katz and her administration are moving in
the right direction to reform the system for thousands of children
and, if they can build on this recent progress, toward a
successful exit from court oversight," said Ira Lustbader,
litigation director for Children's Rights, one of the groups
representing plaintiffs in the 1989 "Juan F." class-action lawsuit
that led to federal oversight of DCF.

Overall, the agency met 16 of its 22 court-ordered goals to
improve child welfare in the first quarter of 2016 after meeting
14 of the goals in the fourth quarter of 2015.  Mr. Mancuso's
report found 13 of the goals had been met for at least two
consecutive quarters.

DCF Commissioner Joette Katz said her agency has responded to
funding cuts with "innovative and creative" solutions to keep
improving the quality of the services provided.

"While we have made important strides, we will not rest on our
laurels," Katz said. "These changes have not come easily and,
given the fiscal forecast in the coming years, we must remain
committed to thinking outside the box if we are to continue
serving in the best interests of children and families."

The agency's progress comes as it has seen a "steady increase" in
calls to the Careline, which is DCF's 24/7 hotline for questions,
concerns and reports of possible child abuse or neglect.  In
public hearing testimony earlier this year, officials attributed
this to an increase in the number of mandated reporters -- those
who are required to report a possible case of abuse if there is
reasonable cause or suspicion.

As the already understaffed agency deals with this influx,
Mr. Mancuso said his review staff found "numerous examples of
excellent case management, care coordination and service
provision" when examining cases for the Aug. 8 report.

The most recent report looked at 54 cases, and found the agency
had reached compliance standards for case planning in two-thirds
of them and met children's basic needs in more than 70 percent of
them. While lower than the agency would prefer, these levels were
significantly higher than in past reports.  The report in the
fourth quarter of 2014 found the agency was only compliant in case
planning in 41 percent of cases and in meeting children's basic
needs in 53 percent of cases.

Mr. Mancuso said the agency's case assessment work "still needs
improvement."  In addition, he said, there needs to be a
"continued emphasis on better engagement of families and
stakeholders."


CR BARD: "Spencer" Suit Consolidated in IVC Filters Products MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Spencer v. C.R. Bard Incorporated, et al., Case
No. 2:16-cv-02573, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona (Phoenix Division).  The Arizona District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02751-DGC to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled IN
RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-
md-02641-DGC.

The Plaintiffs in the litigation seek damages relating to the
Defendants' development, testing, assembling, manufacturing,
packaging, labeling, preparing, distribution, marketing,
supplying, and selling of the allegedly defective product sold
under the name Bard "Denali(R) Vena Cava Filter" ("Bard IVC
Filter").

C.R. Bard, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Murray
Hill, New Jersey.  Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., is a wholly
owned subsidiary corporation of Bard, with its principal place of
business located in Tempe, Arizona.  The Defendants designed, set
specifications, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled,
processed, marketed, distributed, and sold the Denali(R) Filter
system to be implanted in patients throughout the United States,
including Georgia and New Jersey.

Plaintiff Pamela Spencer is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          550 Broad Street, Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Grand, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: jgrand@seegerweiss.com


CR BARD: "Watson" Suit Consolidated in IVC Filters Products MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Watson v. C.R. Bard Incorporated, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02576, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court of
the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division).  The Arizona District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02753-DGC to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled IN
RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-
md-02641-DGC.

The Plaintiffs in the litigation seek damages relating to the
Defendants' development, testing, assembling, manufacturing,
packaging, labeling, preparing, distribution, marketing,
supplying, and selling of the allegedly defective product sold
under the name Bard "Denali(R) Vena Cava Filter" ("Bard IVC
Filter").

C.R. Bard, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Murray
Hill, New Jersey.  Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., is a wholly
owned subsidiary corporation of Bard, with its principal place of
business located in Tempe, Arizona.  The Defendants designed, set
specifications, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled,
processed, marketed, distributed, and sold the Denali(R) Filter
system to be implanted in patients throughout the United States,
including Georgia and New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          550 Broad Street, Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Grand, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: jgrand@seegerweiss.com


CREATIVE RENOVATIONS: Garcia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS GARCIA, FELIX FLORES, RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, JOSE MIGUEL
REYES, GERARDO AYALA and BRYAN AYALA, Individually and on Behalf
of the Putative Class Members v. CREATIVE RENOVATIONS, LLC and
ABDULHADI "SAM" AHMAD, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 514339/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 16, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiffs are former laborers and carpenters at the
Defendants' construction and renovations company located in
Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiffs allege that while working for
the Defendants, they primarily performed non-exempt manual labor
yet were paid on a purported "salary" basis, which did not include
overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.

Creative Renovations, LLC, is an active New York limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New
York.  Abdulhadi "Sam" Ahmad is an owner and operator of the
Company.  The Defendants have operated a residential and
commercial construction and renovations company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                  graham@peltongraham.com


CREDIT ONE BANK: "Beattie" TCPA Action Stayed Pending Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York granted Defendant's
motion to stay and compel arbitration in the case captioned,
RODNEY BEATTIE, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT ONE BANK, Defendant, Case No.
5:15-CV-1315 (LEK/TWD) (N.D.N.Y.).

Rodney Beattie (Plaintiff) commenced an action against Credit One
Bank, N.A. (Defendant) for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). Since 2013, Plaintiff has had a credit card
account with Defendant. Originally, Plaintiff consented to
Defendant contacting him on his cellphone concerning his credit
card account.  Plaintiff opened his account with Defendant on or
about October 2, 2013, by applying through Credit One's website.
Upon approval of the online application, Defendant mailed a credit
card to Plaintiff and enclosed within the same envelope a copy of
the "Visa/Mastercard Cardholder Agreement, Disclosure Statement
and Arbitration Agreement."

In September 2015, Plaintiff revoked his consent for Defendant to
contact him through his cellphone. Defendant acknowledged
Plaintiff's revocation but continued to make "multiple telephone
calls" to Plaintiff from September through October 2015.

Defendant moved to stay and compel arbitration on January 25,
2016, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, (FAA). Defendant
argues that Plaintiff's acceptance and repeated use of a credit
card demonstrates Plaintiff's acceptance of the Cardholder
Agreement. Plaintiff argues that a generic agreement and affidavit
are insufficient to prove that an arbitration agreement exists.

In his Memorandum-Decision and Order dated August 9, 2016
available at https://is.gd/FTaY4c from Leagle.com, Judge Kahn
found that Plaintiff's TCPA claims are subject to arbitration and
that since the sole claim set forth by Plaintiff to be subject to
the arbitration clause, the proceedings in the action must also be
stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Rodney Beattie is represented by Craig T. Kimmel, Esq. --
kimmel@creditlaw.com -- KIMMEL, SILVERMAN LAW FIRM

Credit One Bank is represented by Michael Del Valle, Esq. --
mdelvalle@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN LAW FIRM


D.R. HORTON: "Vitale" Case Goes Back to State Court
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Derrick K. Watson of the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii remanded to state court the case
captioned, Charles Vitale et al., Plaintiffs, v. D.R. Horton,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV No. 15-00312 DKW-KSC (D.
Haw.).

D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes, LLC developed,
constructed, and sold thousands of single-family homes and
condominiums in the State of Hawai'i that Plaintiffs allege
contain defective, embedded hurricane straps. The Plaintiffs filed
the action on July 13, 2015 in Hawai'i state court on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated home-purchasers. The
class is defined as "All individuals and entities that own Horton
Homes constructed with hurricane straps embedded in the
foundations substantially completed on or after July 13, 2005 in
the State of Hawai'i, and all homeowners associations whose
members consist of such individual and entity homeowners.
Plaintiffs have identified 3,300 putative class members, over
2,900 of whom they claim are citizens of the State of Hawai'i.

Defendants removed the action on August 10, 2015 based on the
Court's original subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, asserting
that CAFA's minimal diversity requirement had been met because
Plaintiffs are domiciled in and citizens of Hawaii and Horton Inc.
is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in
Texas. The case was stayed by stipulation of the parties on August
20, 2015 and the stay was officially lifted as of March 30, 2016.

In his Order dated August 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/TKzg67 from Leagle.com, Judge Watson concluded that
even if not all of the 99.7% of class members with mailing
addresses in California do not actually reside or intend to remain
Hawaii, over 300 employees would have to be non-California
citizens before the class fell below the two-thirds threshold.
Because Section 1332(d)(4)(A) controls, the Court shall decline to
exercise jurisdiction and, accordingly, remands the case to state
court.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a certified copy of the
order to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii.
Charles Vitale et al. are represented by Celene S. Chan, Esq. --
cchan@klwtlaw.com -- Glenn K. Sato, Esq. -- gsato@klwtlaw.com --
Graham B. LippSmith, Esq. -- glippsmith@klwtlaw.com -- KASDAN
LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP

D.R. Horton, Inc et al is represented by Charles W. Gall, Esq. --
cwg@ksglaw.com -- Craig K. Shikuma, Esq. -- cks@ksglaw.com --
David M. Louie, Esq. -- dml@ksglaw.com -- Nicholas R. Monlux, Esq
-- nrm@ksglaw.com -- KOBAYASHI SUGITA & GODA.


DNC SERVICES: Plaintiff's Attorney in Fraud Class Action Dies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Global Research News reports that since the filing of the fraud
and consumer class action captioned Wilding et al. v. DNC Services
Corp. et al., Attorney Shawn Lucas died under mysterious
circumstances.  A young attorney, he was 38 years old with a firm
commitment to Social Justice and Truth in Politics.

The class action includes 121 Plaintiffs.

Shawn Lucas, who served the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz with
election fraud papers in early July "has been found dead under
suspicious circumstances"

"According to a police report dated August 2nd, Lucas' girlfriend
came home and found him unconscious on the bathroom floor.
Paramedics responding to her 911 call found no signs of life. The
cause of death has not been confirmed.

Shawn Lucas was known to many frustrated Democrats as the young
man depicted in a viral video serving the DNC and Wasserman
Schultz with election fraud lawsuit papers.

"The rumor spread on Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter, where many
users were concerned that Lucas' death may have been connected to
his role as the process server for the DNC lawsuit.  Some versions
asserted Lucas was the "lead attorney" on the case, but we were
unable to corroborate that claim.

Mr. Lucas was named in a motion filed on July 22, 2016, by the
DNC, seeking to dismiss the suit on partial grounds of improper
service," Snopes reports.


DUMONT AIRCRAFT: Bid to Transfer Suit to Delaware Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Defendants'
motion to transfer the case captioned, GUY T. SAPERSTEIN,
Plaintiff, v. DUMONT AIRCRAFT SALES, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Civil No. 16-CV-01926-WHO (N.D. Cal.), to the District of
Delaware.

Plaintiff Guy Saperstein, a resident of this district, brings the
breach of contract action against defendants Dumont Aircraft
Sales, LLC (Dumont) and Dumont employee Kevin Wargo, both
residents of the District of Delaware. Saperstein's claims arise
out of an unsuccessful negotiation between the parties for the
purchase of a private jet.

Saperstein and Wargo signed a letter of intent (LOI) on January
15, 2015. In accordance with the LOI, Saperstein transferred the
$250,000 deposit to Dumont in two wire transfers on January 12,
2016 and January 15, 2016.

Saperstein filed his complaint on April 12, 2016. He brings six
causes of action: (1) fraudulent inducement; (2) negligent
misrepresentation; (3) breach of contract; (4) rescission; (5)
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6)
conversion; and (7) money had and received. The first two causes
of action are asserted against both Dumont and Wargo; the
remaining five are asserted against only Dumont.  Saperstein seeks
damages, rescission, disgorgement, and costs of suit. He does not
seek specific performance.

Defendants move to transfer venue to the District of Delaware,
arguing that the case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1404(a) "for the convenience of the parties and witnesses" and "in
the interest of justice."

In his Order dated August 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/uTMA7F from Leagle.com, Judge Orrick found that the
action has sufficient contacts with the district for Saperstein's
choice of forum to be afforded substantial weight. The defendants
have not shown that there are any relevant documents that cannot
be copied and transmitted or otherwise inspected with minimal
inconvenience to defendants. The location of the documentary
evidence does not favor transfer.

Guy T. Saperstein is represented by Richard F. Munzinger, Esq. --
rmunzinger@sflaw.com -- Roey Rahmil, Esq. -- rrahmil@sflaw.com --
and Arthur Joel Shartsis, Esq. -- ashartsis@sflaw.com -- SHARTSIS
FRIESE LLP

Dumont Aircraft Sales, LLC and Kevin M. Wargo are represented by
Julie Sandra Turner, Esq. -- turner@turnerboyd.com -- TURNER BOYD
LLP


EDEN MANAGEMENT: Plaintiffs May Amend Suit Over Medicaid Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to file their Second Amended Complaint and Motion
for Reassignment of Cases in the case captioned, H.O.P.E., INC.,
d/b/a/HOPE FAIR HOUSING CENTER, an Illinois Not-for-Profit
Corporation; KIMBERLY O'CONNOR; and TAMMY MORMINO; Plaintiffs, v.
EDEN MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a EDEN SUPPORTIVE LIVING; 311 LINCOLNWAY
PROPERTIES LLC d/b/a/EDEN FOX VALLEY; 222 STATE STREET PROPERTIES
LLC, d/b/a/EDEN CHAMPAIGN LLC; CHAMPAIGN CAPITAL VENTURE LLC;
MICHAEL HAMBLET JR.; MARIA DROSOS; CARLEEN CURALLI; KIMBERLY
CROSS; BRUCE V. RAUNER, in his official capacity as Governor of
the State of Illinois; FELICIA F. NORWOOD, in her official
capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and
Family Services; TERESA HURSEY, in her official capacity as Acting
Medicaid Director for HFS; KELLY CUNNINGHAM, in her official
capacity as DHFS Deputy Administrator for Long Term Care; JENNIER
REIF, in her official capacity as Acting Director of the Illinois
Department on Aging; and JAMES DIMAS, in his official capacity as
Secretary-designate of the Illinois Department of Human Services,
Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-7391 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs, Kimberly O'Connor and Tammy Mormino, are Medicaid
recipients who believe they are eligible for the Illinois Medicaid
Waiver Supportive Living Program on the basis of their physical
disabilities. These two plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a
putative class, along with H.O.P.E., Inc., a private, nonprofit
corporation, brought the suit against, inter alia, several current
and former employees of the State of Illinois (State Defendants)
as well as private entities (Eden Defendants) that operate certain
Supportive Living Facilities (SLFs). Plaintiffs allege that the
State Defendants have unlawfully excluded individuals with mental
disabilities from participating in the Supportive Living Program
(SLP) in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act.

The State Defendants moved to dismiss Counts IV, V, and VI of the
Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(Rule) 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and 12(b)(6) to failure to
state a claim. The court granted the State Defendants' motions to
dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the State
Defendants. Because the court found that Plaintiffs lacked
standing, it did not determine whether Plaintiffs adequately
stated claims under the ADA, FHA, or the Rehabilitation Act.

Before the court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file their
Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a). In addition,
Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Reassignment of Cases as
Related pursuant to Local Rule (LR).

The State Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have not corrected the
deficiencies identified in their FAC and therefore continue to
lack standing to pursue Counts IV, V, and VI of the SAC.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 27, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/F4LntC from Leagle.com, Judge Gottschall found
that have adequately meet the minimum requirements of Article III
standing in their SAC.

Kimberly O'Connor, et al. are represented by Jennifer K. Soule,
Esq. -- JSoule@SBLLegal.com  -- and Kelly K. Lambert, Esq. --
Klambert@SBLLegal.com -- SOULE, BRADTKE & LAMBERT; Justin A.
Haber, Esq. -- jhaber@kalcheimhaber.com -- KALCHEIM HABER, LLC;
Susan Ann Silverstein, Esq. -- litigation@aarp.org -- AARP
FOUNDATION LITIGATION.

Theresa Eagelson Wyatt and Kelly Cunningham are represented by
John E. Huston, Esq. -- bob_huston@yahoo.com -- ILLINOIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE


EMBRAER SA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Embraer S.A. ("Embraer" or the "Company")
(NYSE:ERJ) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 16-cv-06277, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Embraer securities between April 16, 2012 and July 28, 2016
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Embraer securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 7, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Embraer designs, develops, manufactures, and sells aircraft and
systems in Brazil, North America, Latin America, the Asia-Pacific
region, Europe, and internationally.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company had paid bribes to officials in the Dominican Republic
to secure contracts for the sale of aircraft; (ii) Embraer's
President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Defendant Frederico
Pinheiro Fleury Curado ("Curado") was aware of the bribery scheme;
(iii) the foreseeable consequences of the foregoing conduct would
cost Embraer hundreds of millions of dollars; and (iv) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Embraer's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On November 1, 2013, after the market closed, The Wall Street
Journal reported that Embraer was under investigation by the U.S.
and Brazilian governments concerning bribery of Dominican Republic
officials to secure a contract for the sale of military aircraft.

On this news, Embraer's ADRs fell $0.17, or 0.57%, to close at
$29.55 on November 4, 2013, the next trading day.

On September 23, 2014, shortly before the market closed, The Wall
Street Journal reported that Brazilian authorities had filed
bribery charges against eight Embraer employees, claiming that
they had bribed officials in the Dominican Republic to secure a
$92 million contract.

On this news, Embraer's ADRs fell $0.26, or 0.68%, to close at
$38.25 on September 24, 2014.

On March 16, 2016, after the market closed, various media outlets
reported that Elio Moti Sonnenfeld ("Sonnenfeld"), a sales
consultant who purportedly paid bribes on behalf of Embraer, had
told Brazilian prosecutors that he believed the Company's top
managers, including Defendant Curado, then CEO of Embraer, knew of
the illicit payments made in connection with the Dominican
Republic sales.

On June 9, 2016, after the market closed, Embraer announced that
Defendant Curado was stepping down from his position as CEO after
32 years with the Company, and that Paulo C‚sar de Souza e Silva
would replace Curado as of July 2016.

On this news, Embraer's ADRs fell $1.18, or 5.44%, to close at
$20.51 on June 10, 2016.

On July 29, 2016, Embraer filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, stating,
in relevant part, that:  [N]egotiations with the U.S. Department
of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
for the settlement of the allegations of non-compliance with the
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) have significantly
progressed, to the point that Embraer is recognizing a US$ 200
million loss contingency in the quarter ended June 30, 2016.

Embraer also announced its financial and operating results for the
quarter ended June 30, 2016.  Embraer reported, inter alia, the
$200 million loss contingency and a net loss for the quarter
totaling $99.4 million, or $0.55 per share.

On this news, Embraer's ADRs fell $2.93, or 13.82%, to close at
$18.27 on July 29, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Regency Merger Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal related
to the Regency Merger Litigation remains pending.

Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the Regency Merger,
purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal
courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the
Regency Merger. All Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been
dismissed, although one lawsuit remains pending on appeal. On June
10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that the Regency Merger breached the
Regency partnership agreement because Regency's conflicts
committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was not
approved in good faith. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and
on March 29, 2016, the Delaware court granted Defendants' motion
and dismissed the lawsuit. On April 26, 2016, Dieckman filed his
Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware.

This appeal is styled Adrian Dieckman v. Regency GP LP, et al.,
No. 208, 2016, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.
Dieckman filed his Opening Brief on June 9, 2016, and Defendants'
Answering Brief was due on July 29, 2016.


ENOTECA INC: "Beresheim" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Beresheim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Enoteca Inc. d/b/a La Lanterna, Vittorio
Antonini and Vittorio Antonini, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06312 (S.D. N.Y., August 9, 2016), seeks liquidated damages,
penalties, costs of action including expert fees, attorneys' fees,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
legal and equitable relief as the Court deems necessary pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Enoteca, Inc. is a New York corporation that operates La Lanterna
restaurant in Manhattan where Plaintiff was employed as a server.
Defendants allegedly paid Plaintiff an hourly rate below the
federal and state minimum wage for regular and overtime hours
worked.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      32 Broadway, Suite 601
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 688-5640
      Fax: (212) 688-2548


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Robbins Arroyo Investigates Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP are
investigating the proposed acquisition of EverBank Financial Corp.
by Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association.  On August 8, 2016,
the two companies announced the signing of a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Teachers Insurance will acquire
EverBank.  Under the terms of the agreement, EverBank shareholders
will receive $19.50 for each share of EverBank common stock.

Is the Proposed Acquisition Best for EverBank and Its
Shareholders?

Robbins Arroyo LLP's investigation focuses on whether the board of
directors at EverBank is undertaking a fair process to obtain
maximum value and adequately compensate its shareholders.

The $19.50 merger consideration is significantly below the target
prices of $22.00 set by an analyst at Maxim Group LLC on October
29, 2015 and $21.00 set by an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods
on January 29, 2014.  In the last three years, EverBank traded as
high as $21.18 on October 23, 2015, and most recently traded above
the merger consideration -- at $20.05 -- on October 28, 2015.

EverBank shareholders have the option to file a class action
lawsuit to ensure the board of directors obtains the best possible
price for shareholders and the disclosure of material information.
EverBank shareholders interested in information about their rights
and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at
(800) 350-6003, ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a securities litigation and shareholder
rights law firm.   The law firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits.


FAIRCHESTER SNACKS: Misclassifies Drivers, "Rhodes" Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD RHODES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FAIRCHESTER SNACKS CORP., LORENZ SCHNEIDER
CO., INC., and YORKSHIRE FOOD SALES CORP., Case No. 606231/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., August 16, 2016), challenges the
Plaintiff's and other drivers' unlawful misclassification as
independent contractors instead of as employees, and seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages pursuant to New York Labor Law.

The Defendants are New York domestic corporations headquartered in
New Hyde Park, New York.  They sell and distribute chips and other
snack foods to customers.  They employ the Plaintiff and similarly
situated drivers to deliver the merchandise to their customer's
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Marijana Matura, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com
                  mm@shulmankessler.com
                  gkaske@shulmankessler.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
                  apantuso@hayberlawfirm.com


FCA US LLC: 6th Cir. Affirms Judgment on Pleadings
--------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge David McKeague of the Court of Appeals, Sixth
District, affirmed the district court's order granting the motion
for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, DARRELL
HOLLAND, JR.; BRENDA BALDWIN; ANTHONY SOTO; JOHN DELL; JAMES
MORALES; DAVID LOCKETT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FCA US LLC, aka
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles U.S., LLC, fka Chrysler Group, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-4367 (6th Cir.).

Darrell Holland, Jr., John Dell, David Lockett, Brenda Baldwin,
Anthony Soto, and James Morales (Plaintiffs) sued FCA US LLC (FCA)
after the engine cradles in their Chrysler Pacifica vehicles began
to "prematurely rust, corrode and/or perforate." Plaintiffs filed
their First Amended Class Action Complaint (Complaint) against FCA
on April 6, 2015. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are
owners of 2004-2008 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles "manufactured with
Chrysler CS Platform engine cradles that prematurely rust, corrode
and/or perforate creating a substantial risk of, or causing the
engine to fall out of the vehicle."

On September 17, 2015, FCA filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that FCA had no legal duty to warn the
Plaintiffs of or to repair the alleged engine cradle defect. On
November 16, 2015, the district court granted FCA's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, finding that the Plaintiffs had failed
to "allege a relationship with FCA which would have created a duty
on the part of FCA to warn Plaintiffs of the alleged defect or pay
for repairs."

The Plaintiffs raised two arguments on appeal: (1) the district
court established the law of the case when it denied FCA's motion
for summary judgment, and, even if not, (2) the district court
erred in granting FCA's motion for judgment on the pleadings
because the Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to state claims
upon which relief could be granted.

In his Opinion dated August 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/f4pzTO from Leagle.com, Judge McKeague held that
Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim
and that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege that
FCA's failure to warn caused their injury to survive a motion for
judgment on the pleadings.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Sept. 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC (the "Firm") on Aug. 8 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V. ("Fiat" or the "Company").  Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares between October 29, 2014 and July 18,
2016 inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the
Firm in advance of the September 27, 2016 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, click here to participate.  In addition, we advise you to
contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 1999
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 800-
977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Fiat made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
facts about its business and operations.  Specifically, the
Company misrepresented its growth by purposefully inflating the
vehicle sales numbers of its U.S. subsidiary FCA US LLC and
falsely touting its streak of U.S. monthly vehicle sales growth
(on a year-over-year basis).  On January 12, 2016, a civil lawsuit
was filed against Fiat, alleging that the Company had inflated the
number of year-over-year sales reported. Then on January 15, 2016,
the Company filed a Form 6-K acknowledging that a lawsuit had been
filed against FCA US LLC.  When this information was disclosed,
Fiat shares fell in value significantly, causing investors harm.

Goldberg Law PC -- http://www.Goldberglawpc.com-- represents
shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class
actions and shareholder rights litigation.


FINANCIAL AMERICAN: Sued Over Payment of Extraordinary Dividend
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheela K. O' Donnell, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Financial American Holdings
Corporation c/o Corporate Service Company 2711 Centerville Rd.
Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19808; Financial American Life Insurance
(FAMLI) Company c/o Robert B. Sullivan 6201 College Blvd., Suite
500 Overland Park, Kansas 66211; and Manuel Jacob Millor 12485 SW
137th Ave Ste 300 Miami, FL 33186, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00798-GCS-TPK (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 17, 2016), seeks to recover
funds that were fraudulently transferred from FAMLI to Holdings
Corp. and its alter ego Millor in an effort to shield those assets
from Plaintiff and the Class members.

At or around the time of the $6,000,000 "extraordinary dividend,
FAMLI" Millor falsely represented in sworn financial statements
that the "Amount Claimed" in Plaintiff's class action complaint --
which FAMLI previous admitted in a court filing exceeded $5
million -- was only $31,000, and that the outcome of Plaintiff's
case "will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company's
results of operation, liquidity, or financial position."

However, after FAMLI transferred the $6,000,000 to Holding Corp.,
FAMLI admitted in court filings in the O'Donnell case that its
assets have been diminished to the point that it is "unlikely to
be able to sustain the costs of a protracted class-action
defense." FAMLI repeated the same statement (verbatim) in
petitioning the Sixth Circuit for rehearing en banc, and in moving
the Southern District of Ohio for a stay or proceedings.

Indeed, the $6,000,000 extraordinary dividend FAMLI paid to
Holdings Corp. allegedly exhausted FAMLI's assets to the point
that the state insurance departments of at least California, Iowa,
Virginia, and Washington suspended FAMLI's ability to write
insurance in those states for failure to comply with the state's
minimum capital requirements.

FAMLI is a property and casualty insurance holding company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          Robert B. Sherwood, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          1 West 4th Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs-legal.com
                  rsherwood@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          John M. Snider, Esq.
          STEBELTON, ARANDA & SNIDER, LPA
          109 North Broad Street, Suite 200
          P. O. Box 130
          Lancaster, OH 43130
          Telephone: (740) 654 4141
          Facsimile: (740) 654 2521
          E-mail: jms@sas-lawfirm.com


FIRST NATIONAL: Negotiating Settlement in "Antonik" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
parties are currently negotiating a Class Action Agreement and
Release in the Steven Antonik lawsuit to be submitted to the Court
for preliminary approval.

On August 13, 2013, Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator
of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A.
Howells, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
filed a consumer protection class action against the Company and
Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, seeking
equitable, injunction and monetary relief to address an alleged
pattern and practice of wrong doing by the Bank relating to the
repossession and sale of the Plaintiffs' and class members'
financed motor vehicles.

On December 17, 2015, the Honorable Margaret Moyle entered an
Order outlining the primary terms of a tentative agreement to
settle this matter, pending a finalized, more-detailed settlement
agreement, class notice and a class fairness hearing, said Order
covering both this matter and the matter involving Plaintiff
Charles Saxe, III individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

The primary terms of the tentative agreement to settle are 1)
Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs' class members, which the
Defendants have stated are approximately 430 members, the total
sum of $750,000; 2) Plaintiffs will release all claims against
Defendants; 3) Defendants will remove to vacate any judgements
against any class members arising from the vehicle loans that are
the subject of these actions; 4) Defendants will remove the trade
line on each class member's credit report associated with the
subject vehicle loans that are at issue in these actions for
Experian, Equifax and TransUnion, providing Plaintiffs' counsel
with verification of such; 5) Defendants will verify that the
aggregate amount received from class members by Defendants and its
agents during the alleged unjust enrichment class period does not
exceed $45,000; and 6) Defendants will waive the disputed
deficiency balances relating to the subject loans of each class
member and agree not to issue IRS Forms 1099-C in connection with
these deficiency waivers or to sell, assign , or otherwise collect
on the alleged deficiencies. The parties are currently negotiating
a Class Action Agreement and Release to be submitted to the Court
for preliminary approval.


FIRST NATIONAL: Negotiating Settlement in "Saxe" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
parties are currently negotiating a Class Action Agreement and
Release in the Charles Saxe, III lawsuit to be submitted to the
Court for preliminary approval.

On September 17, 2013, Charles Saxe, III individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated filed a consumer class
action against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common
Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial
Code in connection with the repossession and resale of financed
vehicles.

On December 17, 2015 the Honorable Margaret Moyle entered an Order
outlining the primary terms of a tentative agreement to settle
this matter, pending a finalized, more-detailed settlement
agreement, class notice and a class fairness hearing, said Order
covering both this matter and the matter involving Plaintiffs
Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator of the Estate of
Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A. Howells, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated. The primary terms
of the tentative agreement to settle are 1) Defendants to pay the
Plaintiffs' class members, which the Defendants have stated are
approximately 430 members, the total sum of $750,000; 2)
Plaintiffs will release all claims against Defendants; 3)
Defendants will remove to vacate any judgements against any class
members arising from the vehicle loans that are the subject of
these actions; 4) Defendants will remove the trade line on each
class member's credit report associated with the subject vehicle
loans that are at issue in these actions for Experian, Equifax and
TransUnion, providing Plaintiffs' counsel with verification of
such; 5) Defendants will verify that the aggregate amount received
from class members by Defendants and its agents during the alleged
unjust enrichment class period does not exceed $45,000; and 6)
Defendants will waive the disputed deficiency balances relating to
the subject loans of each class member and agree not to issue IRS
Forms 1099-C in connection with these deficiency waivers or to
sell, assign , or otherwise collect on the alleged deficiencies.
The parties are currently negotiating a Class Action Agreement and
Release to be submitted to the Court for preliminary approval.


FLAGSHIP SB: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ortiz Garcia and Paulino Galvez Braulio, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Flagship SB
Amsterdam NY LLC (d/b/a Saravanaa Bhavan), Mathaiah Ramaiah and
Shahul Ramaiah Veena Hameed, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06322
(S.D. N.Y., August 9, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum, overtime wages
and spread of hours premium pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate and control an Indian restaurant located
at 413 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10024, under the name
"Saravanaa Bhavan" with Mathaiah Ramaiah and Shahul Ramaiah Veena
Hameed as owners. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as
delivery workers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Wins Summary Judgment in Suit Over 2005 SUVs
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary
judgment in favor of Ford as to all claims in the case captioned,
JASON SCHMIDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant. DEBORAH GILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 12-7222, 13-7254(E.D. Pa.).

Before the Court are two consolidated actions arising from
Plaintiffs Jason Schmidt, Stephen Gooder, and Samuel and Deborah
Gill's product liability claims against Defendant Ford Motor
Company. Plaintiffs are the owners of 2005 Ford Expeditions with
5.4L V8 engines. According to the Complaint, these vehicles and
their engines contain a defect in the throttle bodies, which
causes a loss of power during acceleration. Plaintiffs seek
monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of similarly
situated consumers.

The remaining claims in the consolidated actions are (1) the
Schmidt's claims of breach of express and implied warranties; (2)
the Gills' claims for breach of express and implied warranties;
and (3) Gooder's claim for unjust enrichment.

Ford moves for summary judgment as to all remaining claims. Ford
argues first that Schmidt's and the Gills' breach of express
warranty claims fail because any applicable express warranty has
expired. Ford also argues that the Gills' breach of express
warranty claim fails because the Gills did not rely on the
existence of the warranty when purchasing their vehicle. Next,
Ford argues that Schmidt's and the Gills' breach of implied
warranty claims fail because their claims are untimely and they
have not demonstrated that Ford violated any implied warranty with
respect to their vehicles. Finally, Ford argues that Gooder's
unjust enrichment claim fails because there is no underlying basis
for the claim under Illinois law and Gooder has not established
that Ford has unfairly retained a benefit.

In his Memorandum dated August 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/8JHAKj from Leagle.com, Judge Robreno found that
Plaintiff has failed to show that there is a genuine issue of
material fact because there is no evidence that Ford received a
profit, either directly or indirectly, from Gooder.

Jason Schmidt, et al. are represented by Julie Parker Thompson,
Esq. -- jthompson@anapolwiess.com -- Larry E. Coben, Esq. --
lcoben@anapolweiss.com -- and Sol H. Weiss , Esq. --
sweiss@anapolwiess.com -- ANAPOL SCHWARTZ WEISS COHAN FELDMAN &
SMALLEY PC; Eric B. Snyder, Esq. -- esnyder@baileyglasser.com --
BAILEY & GLASSER

Ford Motor Company is represented by J. Tracy Walker, IV, Esq. --
twalker@mcguirewoods.com -- Perry W. Miles, IV, Esq. -- and
Richard Charles Beaulieu, Esq. -- MCGUIRE WOODS LLP;
Janet L. Conigliaro, Esq. -- jconigliaro@dykema.com --
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC; Emily J. Rogers, Esq. --
erogers@Campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- and William J. Conroy, Esq.
-- wconroy@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS
& CONROY PC


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Against Cobalt Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 Company
continues to defend against the Cobalt International Energy
Securities Litigation.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its
officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group
Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of
shareholders of Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and underwriters
(including Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings of
Cobalt's securities are defendants in a putative securities class
action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 1, 2015, asserts
claims under the federal securities laws, seeks compensatory and
rescissory damages in unspecified amounts and alleges material
misstatements and omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a
$1.67 billion February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a
$1.38 billion December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible
notes, a $1.00 billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common
stock, a $1.33 billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock,
and a $1.30 billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible
notes.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, among others,
Group Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as controlling persons with
respect to all five offerings. The consolidated amended complaint
also seeks damages from GS&Co. in connection with its acting as an
underwriter of 14,430,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $465 million, $690
million principal amount of convertible notes, and approximately
$508 million principal amount of convertible notes in the February
2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings, respectively, for an
aggregate offering price of approximately $1.66 billion.

On January 19, 2016, the court granted, with leave to replead, the
underwriter defendants' motions to dismiss as to claims by
plaintiffs who purchased Cobalt securities after April 30, 2013,
but denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects.
Defendants' ensuing motions to certify that order for an
interlocutory appeal were denied on March 14, 2016.

Cobalt, certain of its officers and directors (including employees
of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt),
certain shareholders of Cobalt (including funds affiliated with
Group Inc.), and affiliates of these shareholders (including Group
Inc.) are defendants in a putative shareholder derivative action
filed on May 6, 2016 in Texas District Court, Harris County.

As to the director and officer defendants (including employees of
affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), the
petition alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties under
state law by making materially false and misleading statements
concerning Cobalt in disclosures filed in connection with a May
2013 common stock offering.

As to the shareholder defendants and their affiliates (including
Group Inc. and several affiliated funds), the petition also
alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by selling
Cobalt securities in the May 2013 offering on the basis of inside
information. The petition seeks, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and disgorgement of proceeds from the sale of
Cobalt common stock.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Wants Intervenors' Claims in Employee Suit Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 defendants have
moved to dismiss the claims of the intervenors for lack of
standing and mootness.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against
female employees in respect of compensation, promotion,
assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint
alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at
specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since
July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the
named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm.

On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge
assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class
certification recommended that the motion be denied in all
respects.

On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge denied plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of that recommendation and granted the
plaintiffs' motion to intervene two female individuals, one of
whom was employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other
of whom ceased to be an employee of the firm subsequent to the
magistrate judge's decision.

On June 6, 2016, the district court affirmed the magistrate
judge's decision on intervention. On September 28, 2015, and by a
supplemental motion filed July 11, 2016 (after the second
intervenor ceased to be an employee), the defendants moved to
dismiss the claims of the intervenors for lack of standing and
mootness.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Suit Over ERISA Employee Benefit Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Group Inc. are among the defendants named in a
putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on June 3, 2015 and most recently
amended on July 15, 2016 on behalf of certain ERISA employee
benefit plans. The claims brought against GS&Co. and Group Inc.
generally allege that the defendants violated ERISA in connection
with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency
exchange markets, which caused losses to ERISA plans for which the
defendants provided foreign exchange services or otherwise
authorized the execution of foreign exchange services. Plaintiffs
seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as restitution and
disgorgement in an unspecified amount. On June 1, 2016, the court
enjoined the claims as to GS&Co., Group Inc. and other defendants
who have settled in the consolidated action, to the extent that
they involve allegations of collusive conduct at issue in the
consolidated action.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Updates on Municipal Securities Matters
------------------------------------------------------
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 GS&Co. (along with,
in some cases, other financial services firms) is named by
municipalities, municipal-owned entities, state-owned agencies or
instrumentalities and non-profit entities in a number of FINRA
arbitrations and federal court cases based on Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(GS&Co.)'s role as underwriter of the claimants' issuances of an
aggregate of approximately $834 million of auction rate securities
from 2003 through 2007 and as a broker-dealer with respect to
auctions for these securities.

The claimants generally allege that GS&Co. failed to disclose that
it had a practice of placing cover bids in auctions, and/or failed
to inform the claimant of the deterioration of the auction rate
market beginning in the fall of 2007, and that, as a result, the
claimant was forced to engage in a series of expensive refinancing
and conversion transactions after the failure of the auction
market in February 2008. Certain claimants also allege that GS&Co.
advised them to enter into or continue with interest rate swaps in
connection with their auction rate securities issuances, causing
them to incur additional losses.

The claims include breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent
concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract,
violations of the Exchange Act and state securities laws, and
breach of duties under the rules of the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board and the NASD. Certain of the arbitrations have
been enjoined in accordance with the exclusive forum selection
clauses in the transaction documents.

In addition, GS&Co. has filed motions with the FINRA Panels to
dismiss the arbitrations, one of which has been granted, and has
filed motions to dismiss three of the proceedings pending in
federal court, one of which was granted but has been appealed and
one of which was denied. GS&Co. has also reached settlements or
settlements in principle in nine other actions and one other
action was voluntarily dismissed.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Updates on US Treasury Securities 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 Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named as defendants in
several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S.
Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated the
federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-
issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities, as well
as related futures and options, and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and
restitution.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Company still
defends interest rate swap antitrust litigation.

Group Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), GSI, GS Bank USA and
Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the
defendants named in putative antitrust class actions relating to
the trading of interest rate swaps, filed beginning in November
2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaints generally allege a conspiracy
among the dealers and brokers since at least January 1, 2007 to
preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints
seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages
in an unspecified amount.

Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and GSFM are among the
defendants named in antitrust actions relating to the trading of
interest rate swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York beginning in April 2016 by operators
of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. The
complaints generally assert claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy among the defendants to preclude trading of interest
rate swaps on the plaintiffs' respective swap execution facilities
and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble
damages in an unspecified amount. These actions have been
consolidated with the class action described above for pretrial
proceedings.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends ISDAFIX-Related 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 Group Inc. is among
the defendants named in several putative class actions relating to
trading in interest rate derivatives, filed beginning in September
2014 and most recently amended on February 12, 2015 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiffs assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and
state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount. On March 28, 2016, the district court denied defendants'
motion to dismiss as to the antitrust, breach of contract, and
unjust enrichment claims, but dismissed the tortious interference
and implied covenant of good faith claims with prejudice.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces "Spadola" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SPADOLA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
IRWIN DAVID SIMON and PASQUALE CONTE, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-04597 (E.D.N.Y, Aug. 17, 2016), seeks to recover
compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and the other Class
members against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all
damages sustained as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing, in an
amount to be proven at trial, including interest.

The Defendants issued alleged materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, prospects and
financial results. Specifically, Hain improperly recognized
revenues on what were actually customer concessions. The
accounting misstatements also rendered the Company's 2016
financial guidance materially false and misleading. Additionally,
the Company failed to disclose the material defects in its
internal controls and procedures over financial reporting and
disclosure that caused the accounting misstatements.

As a result of Defendants' false statements, Hain securities
traded at artificially inflated prices, with stock prices reaching
a high of $56.99 per share in intraday trading on August 12, 2016.

Hain manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and
natural products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,
and Europe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mario Alba Jr., Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631 367 7100
          Facsimile: 631 367 1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  malba@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com
                  scotth@johnsonandweaver.com


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Consolidated Merger Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric Company,
Inc. 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 consolidated state court actions related
to a merger agreement remain pending.

Since the December 3, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement
with NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE), eight purported class action
complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
for the State of Hawaii by alleged stockholders of HEI against
HEI, Hawaiian Electric (in one complaint), the individual
directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries. The
lawsuits are captioned as follows: Miller v. Hawaiian Electric
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2531-12 KTN (December 15,
2014) (the Miller Action); Walsh v. Hawaiian Electric Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2541-12 JHC (December 15, 2014) (the
Walsh Action); Stein v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 14-1-2555-12 KTN (December 17, 2014) (the Stein
Action); Brown v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case
No. 14-1-2643-12 RAN (December 30, 2014) (the Brown Action); Cohn
v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2642-
12 KTN (December 30, 2014) (the Cohn State Action); Guenther v.
Watanabe, et al., Case No. 15-1-003-01 ECN (January 2, 2015) (the
Guenther Action); Hudson v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 15-1-0013-01 JHC (January 5, 2015) (the Hudson
Action); Grieco v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 15-1-0094-01 KKS (January 21, 2015) (the Grieco Action).

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the Miller Action, the Walsh
Action, the Stein Action, the Brown Action, the Guenther Action,
and the Hudson Action filed a motion to consolidate their actions
and to appoint co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Cohn
State Action was voluntarily dismissed. On January 27, 2015, Cohn
filed a purported class action captioned Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric
Industries, Inc., et al., Civil No. 15-00029-JMS-RLP in the United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii against HEI, the
individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition
subsidiaries (the Cohn Federal Action).

On February 13, 2015, the state court orally granted the
plaintiffs' motions to consolidate the seven state court actions
and appoint co-lead counsel and entered a written order granting
the motions on March 6, 2015. On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed
a first consolidated complaint in state court that added as a
defendant J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (JP Morgan), the financial
advisor to HEI for the Merger, and deleted Hawaiian Electric
Company, Inc. as a defendant and concurrently served a first
request for production of documents on HEI and the individual
directors.

On March 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for limited expedited
discovery in the consolidated state action and thereafter on March
25, 2015 withdrew their request for limited discovery and first
request for production of documents as a result of the parties'
agreement to conduct certain specified limited discovery which
included a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective
order protecting the confidentiality of certain information
exchanged between the parties in connection with discovery in the
consolidated action that was filed on April 6, 2015.

On April 15 and 17, 2015, a deposition of a representative of HEI
and a representative of JP Morgan were taken, respectively. On
April 21, 2015, plaintiffs confirmed the cancellation of the
preliminary injunction hearing that had been scheduled for May 5,
2015 in the consolidated action and on April 23, 2015, the state
court entered a stipulation and order to extend indefinitely the
time to answer or otherwise respond to the first amended
consolidated complaint.

On April 30, 2015, the state court entered a consolidated case
management order confirming the consolidated treatment of the
state actions for purposes of case management, pretrial discovery,
procedural and other matters. On May 27, 2015, the federal court
entered a stipulation and order approving the stipulation of the
parties to stay the Cohn Federal Action pending the resolution of
the state court consolidated action and administratively closing
the Cohn Federal Action without prejudice to any party.

On May 29, 2015, the state court entered a stipulated order
amending the consolidated caption to read IN RE Consolidated HEI
Shareholder Cases, Master File No. Civil No. 1CC15-1-HEI, to add
JP Morgan as a named defendant in each individual action, add the
caption for the Grieco Action, and remove Hawaiian Electric
Company, Inc. from the caption in the Brown Action.

In October 2015, several depositions of HEI representatives were
taken in the state consolidated action. On February 9, 2016,
plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for second extension of time
to file the pretrial statement in the state consolidated action
from February 15, 2016 to August 15, 2016.

Following the termination of the Merger Agreement, a stipulation
and order for dismissal with prejudice of all claims and parties
was entered by the court in the Cohn Federal Action on July 22,
2016. The consolidated state court actions remain pending.

The pending consolidated state court actions allege, among other
things, that members of HEI's Board of Directors (Board) breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction, and that the Merger Agreement involved an unfair
price, was the product of an inadequate sales process, and
contained unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
precluded competing offers. The complaints further allege that
HEI, NEE and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in the
pending consolidated state actions also allege that JP Morgan had
a conflict of interest in advising HEI because JP Morgan and its
affiliates had business ties to and investments in NEE. The
consolidated state action also alleges that the HEI Board violated
its fiduciary duties by omitting material facts from the
Registration Statement on Form S-4.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a
declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach
of HEI's directors' fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining
the HEI Board from consummating the Merger, (iii) an order
directing the HEI Board to exercise their duties to obtain a
transaction which is in the best interests of HEI's stockholders,
(iv) a rescission of the Merger to the extent that it is
consummated, and/or (v) damages suffered as a result of the
defendants' alleged actions.

HEI and Hawaiian Electric believe the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and are moot as a result of the
termination of the Merger Agreement.


HB MARBLE: Accused by "Ramirez" Suit of Not Paying Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILBER RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. HB MARBLE & GRANITE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company
and VALDINEI DESOUZA, Individually, Case No. 2:16-cv-OO638-UA-CM
(M.D. Fla., August 16, 2016), accuses the Defendants of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act by paying the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
irrespective of whether those hours were overtime hours or not.

HB Marble & Granite, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company,
with its principal place of business in Lee County, Florida.
Valdinei Desouza, is a resident of Florida, who owned and operated
HB Marble.  The Company sells, installs, services and repairs
marble, granite and quartz products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954)333-3517
          E-mail: PBotros@forthepeople.com


HERR FOODS: Court Rejects Bid to Strike Class Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled on
Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike in the case
captioned, Kenneth Whitaket, Plaintiff, v. HERR Foods, Inc.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-2017. (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Kenneth Whitaker filed the present action on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, based on Defendant's
alleged (1) violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL); (2) breach of express warranty;
(3) fraudulent misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation;
(5) breach of contract; and (6) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant "misbranded" approximately one dozen snack
food products-namely, chips and pretzels.

Defendant removed the action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA).

In the motion, Defendant argues that (1) Plaintiff's UTPCPL,
fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims do not satisfy Rule
9(b)'s particular pleading requirements; (2) Plaintiff's breach of
contract claim fails for lack of privity; (3) Plaintiff's UTPCPL,
fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims are barred by the
economic loss doctrine; (4) Plaintiff's fraud and negligent
misrepresentation claims are barred by the gist of the action
doctrine; (5) Plaintiff fails to state a claim for unjust
enrichment; and (6) Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive
relief. The Defendant also moves to strike the class allegations.

In his Memorandum dated July 29, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/5eA5rd from Leagle.com, Judge Robreno found that
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim would fail because there is
no privity between Plaintiff and Defendant, and Plaintiff's UTPCPL
claim will be dismissed pursuant to the economic loss doctrine
because Plaintiff alleges only economic damages. The Court denied
without prejudice Defendant's motion to strike the class
allegations as premature.

Kenneth Witaker is represented by Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq. --
anthony@counselonegroup.com -- Jeffrey N. Golant, Esq. --
jeffrey@counselonegroup.com -- and -- Justin Kachadoorian, Esq. --
justin@counselonegroup.com -- THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY N. GOLANT
-- COUNSELONE P.C.

HERR Foods Inc. is represented by JASON CONFAIR, Esq--
confair@kkallaw.com -- KEGEL KELVIN ALMY & LORD LLP.


HOMESERVE USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Montero Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO MONTERO, CHARLES MCEWAN, CLINT MCCLEOD, CHARLES LUSCAVAGE,
EDWARD B. THOMAS JR., MIKE DOHERTY, CHRISTOPHER TATE, WILLIAM
STEBNER, CURTIS WILLIAMS, AARON GORDON, ANTHONY STERLINE, MICHAEL
PHILBOTTS, LENIA TORRES, and RYAN DEOFARAN v. HOMESERVE USA CORP.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04559 (E.D.N.Y., August 16, 2016), is a
collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and of the New York Labor Law for the Defendant's
alleged failure to pay overtime, minimum wage and "spread of
hours."

The Plaintiffs are mechanics employed by HomeServe, who service
customers at their homes and who must utilize Company-owned
vehicles.  The Plaintiffs brought the Case on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated current and future employees, to wit,
technician employees of the Defendant, who are unable to take home
a company vehicle.

HomeServe has its principal place of business in Norwalk,
Connecticut.  HomeServe employs more than 65 individuals as
technicians out of its Queens location.  HomeServe employs
hundreds of other technicians at locations in New York and
Connecticut.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS
          225 Broadway, Suite 1902
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 285-1400
          E-mail: aschwartz@afjlaw.com


HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST: Non-Binding Mediation Set for September 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty 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 a non-binding mediation
is scheduled for September 1, 2016, in the class action lawsuit by
Chieftain Royalty Company.

In September 2008, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed
against XTO Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living
Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny
County, Kansas. The case was removed to federal court in Wichita,
Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken
post production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from
wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado; later reduced to
Kansas. The case was certified as a class action in March 2012.

XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 2012, which was granted on
June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of the class
and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings.

The case was previously stayed pending a final decision from the
Kansas Supreme Court on the Fawcett v. OPIK appeal. Following the
decision in Fawcett, the Judge in Roderick ordered new briefing on
the pending motions. In its pleadings, the plaintiff has alleged
damages in excess of $40 million. On June 22, 2016, plaintiffs'
Second Motion for Class Certification was denied.

In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against
XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in
Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case
to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from
royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent
efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and
its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether
they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The
case was certified as a class action in April 2012.

XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012, which was granted on
June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of the class
and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings. A non-binding mediation is scheduled for September 1,
2016.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO
Energy has strong defenses to these lawsuits and intends to
vigorously defend its position. However, XTO Energy has informed
the trustee that it is cognizant of other, similar litigation. As
these cases develop, XTO Energy will assess its legal position
accordingly. If XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement
payments or receives a judgment against it in Chieftain or
Roderick, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that the Trust should
bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment, including any
future royalty adjustments that would reduce net proceeds. The
trustee intends to review any claimed reductions in payment to the
Trust based on the facts and circumstances of such settlement or
judgment.

In light of a 2014 arbitration decision in which a three panel
tribunal decided that the settlement in Fankhouser v. XTO Energy,
Inc, including a new royalty calculation for future royalty
payments, could not be charged to the Trust, to the extent that
the claims in Chieftain or Roderick are similar to those in
Fankhouser the trustee would likely object to such claimed
reductions. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the
amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently
determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not
currently expected to be material to the Trust's financial
position or liquidity though it could be material to the Trust's
annual distributable income.

Additionally, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that any
reductions would result in costs exceeding revenues on the
properties underlying the net profit interests of the cases named
above, as applicable, for several monthly distributions, depending
on the size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and the net
proceeds being paid at that time, which would result in the net
profits interest being limited until such time that the revenues
exceed the costs for those net profit interests. If there is a
settlement or judgment and should XTO Energy and the trustee
disagree concerning the amount of the settlement or judgment to be
charged, if any, against the Trust's net profits interests, the
matter will be resolved by binding arbitration through the
American Arbitration Association under the terms of the Indenture
creating the Trust.

Certain of the underlying properties are involved in various other
lawsuits and governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary
course of business. XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it
does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these claims will
have a material effect on the financial position or liquidity of
the Trust, but may have an effect on annual distributable income.


HYLAND'S INC: Court Adopts Jury Verdict Tossing Consumer Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dolly M. Gee of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California adopted a jury's verdict
finding that Plaintiffs' False Advertising Law and California's
Unfair Competition Law claims failed in the case captioned, KIM
ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HYLAND'S, INC., et. al., Defendants,
Case No. CV 12-1150 DMG (MANx) (C.D. Cal.).

The legal claims came before a jury during a 13-day trial that
began on September 1, 2015. The jury returned a verdict in favor
of Defendants Hylands, Inc. and Standard Homeopathic Company and
against Plaintiffs Kim Allen, Melissa Nigh, Nancy Rodriguez, Diana
Sisti, Sherrell Smith, Daniele Xenos, and Yuanke Xu as to the
breach of express warranty, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), and
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims.

Plaintiffs also brought equitable claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq.
and False Advertising Law (FAL) on the same underlying facts as
the breach of warranty, MMRA, and CLRA claims that they presented
to the jury that Defendants' products did not perform as stated on
the product packaging because they cannot relieve certain symptoms
as represented.

In her Findings dated August 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/rttI64 from Leagle.com, Judge Gee found that
Plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
Defendants' product advertisements were untrue, misleading, or
likely to deceive the reasonable consumer and that Defendants
violated any laws or offended any public policy tethered to
specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions.

Kim Allen, et al. are represented by John H. Gomez, Esq. --
john@gomeztrialattorneys.com -- and Kristen K. Barton, Esq. --
kbarton@gomeztrialattorneys.com -- GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS;  Alexis
M. Wood, Esq. -- alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICES OF
RONALD A. MARRON APLC; Gabriel Barenfeld, Esq. --
gbarenfeld@NFlawfirm.com -- and Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. --
gnelson@nflawfirm.com -- NELSON AND FRAENKEL LLP; Stuart R.
Fraenkel, Esq. -- SFraenkel@kreindler.com -- KREINDLER AND
KREINDLER LLP

Hylands Inc. and Standard Homeopathic Company are represented by
Jade F. Jurdi, Esq. -- jade.jurdi@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Jeffrey B. Margulies, Esq. --
jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Spencer Persson, Esq.
-- spencer.persson@nortonrosefulbright.com -- and Stephanie Anne
Stroup, Esq. -- stephanie.stroup@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON
ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP


INCONTACT INC: Court Consolidated 3 Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------
inContact, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that three class action
lawsuits against the Company have been consolidated.

On June 10, 2016, a complaint captioned Natalie Gordon v.
inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160903695 was filed in the Third
Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the
"Court") naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors
(the "Gordon Action"). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
the Gordon Action on July 1, 2016.

On July 5, 2016, a complaint captioned David Stern v. inContact,
Inc., et al., Case No. 160904200 was filed in the same Court
naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the
"Stern Action").

On July 8, 2016, a complaint captioned Andre Davis v. inContact.
Inc., et al., Case No. 160904272 was filed in the same Court
naming as defendants inContact, its Board of Directors, Parent and
Merger Subsidiary (the "Davis Action").

On July 14, 2016 the Court ordered the three actions consolidated
and designated the amended complaint in the Gordon action as the
operative complaint.  The consolidated action purports to be a
class action brought by shareholders alleging that inContact's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the Merger Agreement with NICE pursuant to which the Company would
be acquired as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of NICE.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed
transaction or to rescind the transaction in the event it is
consummated.

In management's view such litigation is a common occurrence in
connection with acquisitions of public companies, regardless of
any merits related to the underlying acquisition.  The Company
intends to defend against the actions vigorously.  Defendants have
not yet filed an answer to the consolidated complaint and the
Company cannot predict at this time any possible outcome of the
litigation.


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Court Consolidated Xiang and Patel Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inovalon 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 court has
consolidated the Xiang and Patel actions.

On June 24, 2016, a purported securities class action complaint
(Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-04923) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain officers,
directors and underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased shares of the
Company's Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on February 18, 2015. The complaint
asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
with respect to, among other things, the Company's revenues from
sales in the city and state of New York and the Company's
effective tax rate. The complaint seeks certification as a class
action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.

On June 28, 2016, an identical complaint to the Xiang complaint
(Patel v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-05065) was
filed in the same court. On July 5, 2016, the court consolidated
the Xiang and Patel actions.

The Company believes that the claims against it and its officers
and directors are without merit, and the Company and the named
officers and directors intend to defend themselves vigorously. In
light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation,
the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these consolidated
actions and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.


INSTITUTE OF BAKING: Court Grants Motion for Clarification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, Rick Fitzer, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Institute of
Baking et al, Defendants, Case No. CV 209-169 (S.D. Ga.), Chief
District Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, Dismissed Plaintiff's Claims Against AIB and
AIBI, and denied in part and dismissed in part as premature,
Hatfield's Motion Regarding the PCA Settlement Procedures.

Plaintiff Rick Fitzer is a resident of Chatham County, Georgia,
allegedly got salmonella poisoning after ingesting food products
containing peanut butter supplied by Peanut Corporation of America
(PCA). AIBI had contracted to inspect PCA's food-production
plants, and Hatfield, an AIBI employee, conducted the audit of the
PCA facility in Blakely, Georgia, that is alleged to have produced
the contaminated peanut butter.

On September 2, 2009, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
putative class of similarly situated persons, filed suit against
AIBI and Hatfield and AIBI's affiliate, alleging that they
negligently performed the inspection or audit at the PCA facility.

AIB moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for lack of
personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b) (2). AIB contends
that Plaintiff cannot satisfy Georgia's long-arm statute, as is
required for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the company,
because he fails to show that AIB has established minimum contacts
with this State.  While conceding that its subsidiary, AIBI, does
business in Georgia, AIB maintains that its ownership of AIBI
alone is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over it, and that the
separate and independent nature of the companies precludes
imputing AIBI's contacts with this State to AIB. Even if
jurisdiction were appropriate under the Georgia long-arm statute,
AIB asserts, exercising jurisdiction over it would fail to comply
with constitutional due-process guarantees.

Plaintiff opposes AIBI and Hatfield's Motion in its entirety. He
emphasizes that the movants do not, and cannot, cite to any case
law supporting the proposition that a claimant waives his rights
or fails to mitigate his damages by suing one joint tortfeasor
over another. Plaintiff asserts that a ruling on class
certification would be premature at this time, and that, in any
event, his decision not to participate in the PCA settlement
procedures is characteristic of the majority of the proposed class
members.

In her Order dated August 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/iiPBAg  from Leagle.com, Judge Wood concluded that
AIB's Motion to Dismiss is granted because AIB has submitted a
sworn declaration explicitly denying or refuting each of Plaintiff
has neglected to include a single affidavit or sworn declaration
in support of his position. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims
against AIB for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court denied in
part and dismissed in part AIBI and Hatfield's Motion Regarding
PCA Settlement Procedures for purposes that the defendants do not
challenge the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff's claims for relief
set forth in the Complaint. The court found that while the
bankruptcy court documents are subject to judicial notice at this
stage, the evidence does not support a dismissal of Plaintiff's
claims against AIBI and Hatfield. It is dismissed in part as AIBI
and Hatfield filed remained pending their motion was premature.

Rick Fitzer is represented by Mark A. Tate, Esq. --
marktate@tatelawgroup.com -- TATE LAW GROUP, LLC

American Institute of Baking et al Defendants is represented by
Derek T. Teeter, Esq. -- derek.teeter@huschblackwell.com  --
Kirsten A. Byrd, Esq. -- kirsten.byrd@huschblackwell.com --
Michael T. Crabb, Esq. -- mcrabb@ktklattorneys.com -- Stephen J.
Torline, Esq. -- storline@ktklattorneys.com --  HUSCH, BLACKWELL &
SANDERS, LLP --  Mason White, Esq. -- attys@bhrlegal.com --
BRENNAN, HARRIS & ROMINGER, LLP


JOAL RESTAURANT: Minimum Wages Recovery Sought in "Peters" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PRINCESS PETERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JOAL RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a KEY CLUB CABARET; ALLEN J.
MABOWITZ; and any other related entities, Case No. 606234/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., August 16, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, illegally retained tips, and improperly
withheld wages owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated
persons, who are presently or were formerly employed by the
Defendants.

The Defendants operate adult entertainment establishments in New
York, including the facility operating under the name "JOAL
RESTAURANT CORP.," and commonly known as "KEY CLUB CABARET" or
"KEY CLUB" in Bronx, New York.  The Defendants provide food and
drinks to its customers at a price and are engaged in the
"restaurant industry" and "hospitality industry."  Mr. Mabowitz
held himself out as the owner, operator, and manager of KEY CLUB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura R. Reznick, 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
          E-mail: lreznick@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  jbrown@lmblaw.com
                  mtompkins@lmblaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2,900 DePuy ASR(TM) Claims Pending at July 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 as of July 3, in the
U.S. there were approximately 2,900 plaintiffs with direct claims
in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the DePuy
ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing
System.

Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in
numerous product liability claims and lawsuits involving multiple
products. Claimants in these cases seek substantial compensatory
and, where available, punitive damages. While the Company believes
it has substantial defenses, it is not feasible to predict the
ultimate outcome of litigation. The Company has established
accruals for product liability claims and lawsuits in compliance
with ASC 450-20 based on currently available information, which in
some cases may be limited. The Company accrues an estimate of the
legal defense costs needed to defend each matter when those costs
are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For certain of these
matters, the Company has accrued additional amounts such as
estimated costs associated with settlements, damages and other
losses. Product liability accruals can represent projected product
liability for thousands of claims around the world, each in
different litigation environments and with different fact
patterns. Changes to the accruals may be required in the future as
additional information becomes available.

The most significant of these cases include the DePuy ASR(TM) XL
Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System, the
PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System, pelvic meshes, RISPERDAL(R),
XARELTO(R) and JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder. As of July 3, 2016, in
the U.S. there were approximately 2,900 plaintiffs with direct
claims in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the
DePuy ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip
Resurfacing System, 9,100 with respect to the PINNACLE(R)
Acetabular Cup System, 50,100 with respect to pelvic meshes,
13,000 with respect to RISPERDAL(R), 13,900 with respect to
XARELTO(R) and 1,700 with respect to JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder.

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a
worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and
DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement
surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy
and Johnson & Johnson. The number of pending lawsuits is expected
to fluctuate as certain lawsuits are settled or dismissed and
additional lawsuits are filed. Cases filed in federal courts in
the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. Litigation has also been filed in countries
outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom,
Canada, Australia, Ireland, Germany and Italy. In November 2013,
DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-appointed committee of
lawyers representing ASR(TM) Hip System plaintiffs to establish a
program to settle claims with eligible ASR Hip patients in the
United States who had surgery to replace their ASR Hips, known as
revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013. This settlement covered
approximately 8,000 patients. In February 2015, DePuy reached an
additional agreement, which effectively extends the existing
settlement program to ASR Hip patients who had revision surgeries
after August 31, 2013 and prior to February 1, 2015. This second
agreement is estimated to cover approximately 1,800 additional
patients. The estimated cost of these agreements is covered by
existing accruals. This settlement program is expected to bring to
a close significant ASR Hip litigation activity in the United
States. However, many lawsuits in the United States will remain,
and the settlement program does not address litigation outside of
the United States. In Australia, a settlement has been reached
with representatives of a class action lawsuit pending in the
Federal Court of New South Wales that resolves the claims of the
majority of ASR Hip patients in that country. The Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
associated with this recall on a worldwide basis. The Company has
established accruals for the costs associated with the DePuy
ASR(TM) Hip program and related product liability litigation.
Changes to these accruals may be required in the future as
additional information becomes available.

Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy and
Johnson & Johnson relating to DePuy's PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup
System used in hip replacement surgery. The number of pending
product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts
in the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. Litigation has also been filed in countries
outside of the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom. The
Company has established an accrual for defense costs in connection
with product liability litigation associated with DePuy's
PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System. Changes to this accrual may be
required in the future as additional information becomes
available.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc.
(Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse. The number of pending product liability lawsuits
continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated
number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts in the United
States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia. In addition, class actions and individual personal
injury cases or claims have been commenced in countries outside of
the United States, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, England,
Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland and Venezuela, seeking
damages for alleged injury resulting from Ethicon's pelvic mesh
devices. The Company has established an accrual with respect to
product liability litigation associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh
products. Changes to this accrual may be required in the future as
additional information becomes available.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use
of RISPERDAL(R), indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia,
acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder
and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds.
The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to
increase, and the Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.
The Company has established an accrual with respect to product
liability litigation associated with RISPERDAL(R). Changes to this
accrual may be required in the future as additional information
becomes available.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use
of XARELTO(R), an oral anticoagulant. The number of pending
product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in federal courts
in the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana. In addition, cases have been filed in state
courts across the United States and many cases have been
consolidated into a state mass tort litigation in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Class action lawsuits also have been filed in
Canada. The Company has established an accrual for defense costs
in connection with product liability litigation associated with
XARELTO(R). Changes to this accrual may be required in the future
as additional information becomes available.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use
of JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder. The number of pending product
liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases. Lawsuits have been primarily
filed in state courts in Missouri and New Jersey. The Company has
established an accrual for defense costs in connection with
product liability litigation associated with JOHNSON'S(R) Baby
Powder. Changes to this accrual may be required in the future as
additional information becomes available.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2 Baby Powder Class Suits Pending in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 two purported class
actions were filed in May 2014 against Johnson & Johnson and
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc.) alleging violations of state consumer fraud
statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged health risks associated
with talc contained in JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S(R)
Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by Johnson & Johnson).
The cases are pending in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California and United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois. Both cases seek injunctive
relief and monetary damages. Neither case includes a claim for
personal injuries.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Must Defend Against Contact Lens Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 over 30 putative class
action complaints were filed in March and April 2015 by contact
lens patients in a number of courts around the United States
against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI), other contact
lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical
and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact
lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached
agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers
concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold
to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive
relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in
June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
complaint in November 2015, and in December 2015, JJVCI and other
defendants filed motions to dismiss. In June 2016, the Court
denied the motions to dismiss.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Over XARELTO(R) Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 two third-party payors
filed in August 2015 a purported class action in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against
Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain Bayer entities),
alleging that the defendants improperly marketed and promoted
XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than less expensive
alternative medications while failing to fully disclose its risks.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

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


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Defending 2 Class Suits in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending two class action lawsuits in New York.

The Company said, "Two purported class action lawsuits have been
filed against us and certain of our officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, one
captioned Terrell Jackson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 1:16-cv-06131 filed on August 2, 2016, and the other
captioned Richard J. Erickson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al. No. 1:16-cv-06218, filed on August 4, 2016. The Jackson
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased our common stock between February 25, 2016 and August 1,
2016 and the Erickson complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of stockholders who purchased our common stock between March 2,
2016 and July 29, 2016."

"Each complaint generally alleges that we and certain of our
officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false
and/or misleading statements concerning the Company and its
business operations and future prospects in light of the August 1,
2016 announcement of an imminent interruption in our supply of
Auryxia. Each complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.

"We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously
defend against these lawsuits. There is no assurance, however,
that we or the other defendants will be successful in our defense
of either of these lawsuits or that insurance will be available or
adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation
costs of these actions. Moreover, we are unable to predict the
outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this
time. A resolution of either of these lawsuits adverse to us or
the other defendants, however, could have a material effect on our
consolidated financial position and results of operations in the
period in which the particular lawsuit is resolved."

Keryx Biopharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
bringing innovative medicines to people with renal disease.


KING COUNTY, WA: Faces Class Action Over $10 Jury Duty Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Miletich, writing for Seattle Times, reports that a lawsuit
was filed against King County on Aug. 8 alleging its $10-per-day
expense payment to jurors leads to the disproportional exclusion
of the poor and minorities excused for economic hardship because
their employers don't compensate them for jury duty.

The suit, brought by three plaintiffs but which seeks class-action
status for other affected people, was filed in Pierce County
Superior Court to avoid a conflict of interest in King County's
courts, said Toby Marshall, one of the attorneys who filed the
complaint.

The suit says King County's $10 daily payment for mileage or
travel costs hasn't changed since 1959, and that jurors who hear
cases in Superior and District courts without being compensated by
their employers are entitled to be paid at "no less than the
applicable minimum wage rate."

The suit seeks preliminary and injunctive relief, requiring King
County to pay a minimum hourly wage to people who perform jury
service and aren't compensated by their employer.

It also seeks unspecified monetary damages for one plaintiff,
Catherine Selin, and others who served without compensation from
their employers.

Susan Craighead, presiding judge of the King County Superior
Court, said on Aug. 8 she couldn't comment on the merits of the
suit.  But she noted the $10 sum paid by the county is specified
under state law and is the same as in other counties.

That per-day amount is the minimum under state law, which says
jurors may receive up to $25 but no less than $10.

At present, juries tend to be composed of people with moderate or
high incomes -- often who work for Amazon, Microsoft and Boeing
-- who might not understand the backgrounds of many criminal
defendants and civil litigants who have their "fates decided by
people who don't look like them," Mr. Marshall said.

In particular, minorities and the poor represent a
disproportionate number of those who come before King County's
courts in criminal cases, he said.

The current pay model means the poor and people of color, who face
disproportional issues of income inequality and financial
instability, are kept from participating in a vital democratic
function, according to the suit.

"Juries should be drawn from a fair cross-section of the
community," Marshall said in a prepared statement.  "A jury system
that excludes certain segments of society is unfair and
undemocratic."

Or as in the case of Ms. Selin, who last year performed 11 days of
jury service without compensation by her employer, jurors aren't
paid the minimum wage they should receive, the suit says

Jeffrey Needle, another attorney representing the plaintiffs, said
in the statement that jurors shouldn't be treated any differently
than citizens who don't have to give up their incomes to vote.

The two other plaintiffs, Ryan Rocha, who is black, and
Nicole Bednarczyk -- both of whom are of low economic status and
work for employers who wouldn't compensate them -- would be forced
to request financial-hardship exemptions if summoned for jury
duty, despite their desire to participate, according to the suit.

Ms. Bednarczyk previously has been excused for that reason, the
suit says.

In the suit and their statement, the attorneys note a state
commission created in 1999, which included judges, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, court administrators and legislators from
throughout Washington, recommended after a year of study that
special efforts should be made to increase jury participation by
sectors of society that traditionally haven't fully participated,
particularly young people and minority communities.

The commission gave the "highest priority" to increasing
compensation for jurors, deeming it "unacceptable that this
state's citizens are required to perform one of the most important
civic duties at a rate that does not remotely approach minimum
wage," according to the statement.


KORONA PAINTING: "Fillipas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Grigorios Fillipas, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Korona Painting Corp., JMK Painting LLC,
George Kourpas and Dimitrios Kourpas, in their individual and
professional capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04445 (E.D.
N.Y., August 9, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime pay, liquidated
damages, civil penalties, statutory damages, permanent injunction,
prejudgment interest and post-judgment interests, attorney's fees,
costs and such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff was employed by Korona Painting Corp., JMK Painting LLC,
George Kourpas and Dimitrios Kourpas as a construction worker.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LADENBURG THALMANN: Court Denied Underwriters' Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
court has denied the underwriters' motions to dismiss a class
action lawsuit related to American Realty Capital Partners, Inc.

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners,
Inc. ("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's
auditing firm, and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000
common stock offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note
offerings. The complaints have been consolidated. Ladenburg was
named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the May 2014
Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July 2013
offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the offering materials were misleading
based on financial reporting of expenses, improperly-calculated
AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and false and misleading
Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including statements as to ARCP's
internal controls, and that the underwriters are liable for
violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief. In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters' motions
to dismiss the complaint. The Company believes the claims against
Ladenburg are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against them.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Petition for Rehearing Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, 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 30, 2016, that one of the two
objectors to a class action settlement has filed a petition for
rehearing en banc (requesting that all judges rather than the
normal 3 rule on the appeal) remains pending.

Circuit dismissed the remaining two appeals, 1 for failure to post
an appeal bond, and the other because it was untimely filed. One
of the two objectors filed a petition for rehearing en banc
(requesting that all judges rather than the normal 3 rule on the
appeal) on June 29, 2016, which remains pending."

            U.S. Indirect Purchaser Class Action Cases

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in an indirect
purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21,
2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class
action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane
Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers,
brought damages claims under various states' antitrust and
consumer protection statutes, and were seeking three times an
amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged
overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at
least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also sought attorney
fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and
injunctive relief against future violations. We denied all
allegations. The Ohio Court ordered all parties to attend non-
binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing."

           Settlement of U.S. Indirect Purchaser Cases

"We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. Indirect Class
Action cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay an amount not
materially different from the amount previously accrued for this
claim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but
settled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,
uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The Court
preliminarily approved the class settlement on July 31, 2015. The
full settlement amount was paid into escrow in the third quarter
of 2015. The final settlement approval hearing was held on
December 15, 2015 and the Court granted final approval of the
settlement. Several objectors filed notices of appeal of the order
of approving the class settlement to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On April 14, 2016, the Court ordered the objectors to
post an appeal bond by May 13, 2016. Certain of the objectors
filed a motion to reconsider or stay the bond order, which the
Court denied on May 12, 2016. Subsequently, three of the five
objectors voluntarily dismissed their appeals. On June 20, 2016,
the Sixth Circuit dismissed the remaining two appeals, 1 for
failure to post an appeal bond, and the other because it was
untimely filed. One of the two objectors filed a petition for
rehearing en banc (requesting that all judges rather than the
normal 3 rule on the appeal) on June 29, 2016, which remains
pending."


LIFEWAY FOODS: Loses Bid to Strike Class Allegations in "Figy"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Defendant's
motions to dismiss and strike, and granted Defendant's request for
judicial notice in the case captioned, ROBERT E. FIGY, Plaintiff,
v. LIFEWAY FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-04828-TEH (N.D.
Cal.)

Defendant is a producer of retail probiotic dairy beverages and
products similar to yogurt. Plaintiff is a self-proclaimed "health
conscious consumer who wishes to avoid 'added sugars' in the food
products he purchases." Plaintiff purchased five such products
between October 17, 2009 and the present (the Class Period).
Specifically, Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Organic Lowfat Peach
Kefir, Organic Lowfat Pomegranate/Acai Kefir, Organic Lowfat
Raspberry Kefir, Nonfat Strawberry Kefir, and Nonfat Raspberry
Kefir (the Purchased Products).

Plaintiff brings the putative class action on behalf of either a
nationwide class or a statewide class of California consumers who,
since October 17, 2009, purchased any product produced by
Defendant and labeled with the ingredient "Evaporated Cane Juice"
(ECJ). On the basis of these allegations, Plaintiff originally
filed suit in the Court on October 17, 2013, and filed the First
Amended Complaint on December 20, 2013. In the FAC, Plaintiff
asserts 13 causes of action: separate claims for violation of the
unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq. (UCL)
(first through third causes of action); separate claims for
violation of the misleading and untrue prongs of the California
False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17500 et
seq.(FAL) (fourth and fifth causes of action); a claim for
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Sec. 1750 et seq. (CLRA) (sixth cause of action); common law
claims for Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty
of Merchantability, Negligent Misrepresentation, Negligence,
Unjust Enrichment, and Money Had and Received (seventh through
twelfth causes of action); and a claim for Declaratory Judgment
(fourteenth cause of action).

In his Order dated August 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/fkXOBk from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson held that
Plaintiff has undoubtedly alleged a purchase within the Class
Period, and no clarification on the point is necessary and that
Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's nationwide class
allegations is premature. The Court granted the request for
judicial notice of a document because Defendant's incorporation in
Illinois is therefore "not subject to reasonable dispute.

Robert E. Figy is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. --
pgore@prattattorneys.com -- PRATT & ASSOCIATES

Figy is also represented by:

      D'Juana Parks, Esq.
      John Keith Hyde, Esq.
      PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM
      490 Park Street, P.O. Box 4905
      Beaumont, TX 77701
      Tel: (409)203-5030

Lifeway Foods, Inc. is represented by Richard Norman Kessler, Esq.
-- rkessler@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- and -- Joseph John Jacobi, Esq.
-- jjacobi@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC -- Joren
Surya Ayala-Bass, Esq. -- joren@leiderlegal.com -- and -- Philip
A. Leider, Esq. -- philip@leiderlegal.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF
PHILIP A. LEIDER


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals 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 30, 2016, that an appeal
in the securities litigation remains pending.

In 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania alleging that the
Company and its CEO assisted various breaches of fiduciary duties
based on the Company's purchase of a licensing interest in a
development-stage pharmaceutical program from the Genaera
Liquidating Trust in 2010 and the Company's subsequent sale of
half of its interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value
Fund, Inc.  Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in February
2015, which the Company moved to dismiss in March 2015.  The
district court granted the motion to dismiss on November 11, 2015.
The plaintiff has appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
claims against the Company and its CEO.  The outcome of the matter
is not presently determinable.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Defending "Glover" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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
continues to defend the case, Glover v. Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut,
No. 3:16cv00827.

It is a putative class action that was served on The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company ("LNL") on June 8, 2016.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for cost of insurance than permitted
by the policy.  Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life
and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies
containing cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those
of Plaintiff's policy, and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.

"We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company said.


LIONS GATE: Six Investors Suits Filed Over Starz Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment 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 between July 19,
2016 and July 29, 2016, six putative class action complaints were
filed by purported Starz stockholders in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware: Freedman v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12571-
VCG; Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System v. Malone, et
al., C.A. No. 12584- VCG; The Firemen's Retirement System of St.
Louis v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12596-VCG; City of Cambridge
Retirement System v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12598-VCG; and
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Malone, et al., C.A. No.
12599-VCG; and City of Providence v. Starz, et al., C.A. No.
12604. The complaints name as defendants the members of the board
of directors of Starz, Dr. John C. Malone and Robert R. Bennett,
as well as Lionsgate and Orion Arm Acquisition Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Lionsgate. Some of the complaints also name as
defendants Starz, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The
Evan D. Malone Trust A, Deborah J. Bennett, Hilltop Investments,
LLC ("Hilltop"), Dr. Rachesky and LionTree Advisors LLC
("LionTree").

The complaints allege, among other things, that the members of the
Starz board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz
and the holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with
the merger and the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2016 by and among Lionsgate, Starz
and Merger Sub, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and
into Starz (the "Merger"); that Dr. Malone (and, in one action,
Mr. Bennett) is a controlling stockholder who breached fiduciary
duties owed to other Starz stockholders in connection with the
Merger (and, in certain of the actions, by entering into that
certain Exchange Agreement dated as of June 30, 2016); and that
some or all of Starz, Lions Gate, Merger Sub, The Tracey L. Neal
Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Deborah J. Bennett, Hilltop,
and LionTree aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty.
Some or all of the complaints seek, among other relief, rescission
of the proposed Merger, an injunction to prevent the Merger from
proceeding, a judgment declaring the Exchange Agreement is invalid
and void, damages, and/or attorneys' fees. Defendants believe that
the complaints are without merit and intends to defend the actions
vigorously.

On June 30, 2016, Lionsgate and Starz entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") under which Lionsgate
will acquire Starz for a combination of cash and common stock
totaling approximately $4.4 billion enterprise value (the "Starz
Transaction").


LUCKY RESTAURANT: Oster Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH OSTER, on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. LUCKY RESTAURANT
MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a LUCKY DILL DELI, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and KIMBERLY MITOW, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 8:16-cv-02352-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla., Aug. 17, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable
Attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

The Defendants took an unlawful "tip credit" from Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to Plaintiff by taking unlawful
deductions from tips, requiring tipped employees to share tips
with non-tipped employees and paying the tip minimum wage for non-
tip work.

Lucky is a restaurant establishment located in Palm Harbor,
Pinellas County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N. Franklin Street, No. 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


LYFT INC: Refuses to Comply With Statutes, Southern Transpo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHERN TRANSPORTATION, INC., v. LYFT, INC., UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., AND RASIER, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02669-JPM-dkv (W.D. Tenn.,
August 16, 2016), alleges that the Defendants and their drivers
have failed and refused to comply with statutes and ordinances set
by the state of Tennessee, and have operated illegally in defiance
of these statutes and ordinances.

Southern Transportation alleges that, among other laws, the
Defendants violated:

   * Tennessee Code Annotated 6-54-128.  Criminal records of
     vehicle operators transporting the public -- Costs of
     investigation;

   * Tennessee Code Annotated 7-51-1003.  Scope of authority; and

   * Tennessee Code Annotated 7-51-1007.  Regulation of entry
     into the business of providing passenger transportation
     service.

Plaintiff Southern Transportation, Inc., is a Tennessee
corporation with offices located in Memphis, Tennessee.

Lyft, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with a principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.  Uber Technologies, Inc.,
is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in San Francisco.
Rasier, LLC, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Francisco.

The Defendants began providing passenger transportation services
in Memphis and the surrounding area in April 2014.  The
Defendants, either directly or through related entities, operate
transportation network companies that enter into contracts or
business relationships with drivers to provide passenger
transportation services.  They use digital networks to connect
riders to drivers, who provide prearranged rides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas E. Bragorgos, Esq.
          Paul Berry Cooper III, Esq.
          MCNABB, BRAGORGOS & BURGESS, PLLC
          81 Monroe, Sixth Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 624-0640
          Facsimile: (901) 624-0650
          E-mail: nbragorgos@mbb-law.com
                  bcooper@mbb-law.com


MAC'S CHILDREN: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Nurla Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Mac's
Children and Family Services, a California corporation and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 16CIV00845, (Cal.
Super., August 9, 2016), seeks compensation for all unpaid wages,
including minimum, regular, and overtime, wages, penalties,
injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs under the California Labor Code.

Rodriguez was employed by Defendants in their San Mateo County
location. She claims to be denied meal and rest breaks, denied
accurately itemized wage statements and denied the timely payment
of all wages due upon separation of employment.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
      Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
      Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
      Evan S. Gaines, Esq.
      GAINES & GAINES, APLC
      27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
      Calabasas, CA 91301
      Tel: (818) 703-8985
      Fax: (818) 703-8984
      Email: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
             daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
             alex@gaineslawfirm.com
             evan@gaineslawfirm.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Saratoga Advantage Trust's Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Marvell Technology
Group, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss with leave to amend in the case
captioned, SARATOGA ADVANTAGE TRUST TECHNOLOGY & COMMUNICATIONS
PORTFOLIO, Plaintiff, v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-04881-RMW (N.D. Cal.).

Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio
filed a purported shareholder derivative suit against Marvell
Technology Group, Ltd. and certain current and former Marvell
directors and officers. Defendant Marvell is a publicly traded
semiconductor company incorporated in Bermuda. Marvell's operating
subsidiary in the United States is based in Santa Clara,
California.

Plaintiff, an institutional investor based in Arizona, has held
Marvell common stock since May 30, 2014. Plaintiff asserts four
causes of action against the individual defendants: breach of
fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, corporate waste, and aiding
and abetting fiduciary violations.

Plaintiff alleges that between November 20, 2014 and September 11,
2015, Marvell and the individual defendants "either made, caused
to be made, and/or failed to correct statements previously made
while failing to disclose material information concerning
Marvell's business operations, prospects, internal controls and
financial results, thus causing the Company's stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices."

In the motion, Marvell argues that plaintiff lacks standing to
bring the action because the internal affairs doctrine requires
the application of Bermuda law to plaintiff's claims, and Bermuda
law does not permit shareholder derivative suits. Plaintiff argues
that the "internal affairs" doctrine does not apply to derivative
actions alleging securities fraud, and that, even under Bermuda
law, plaintiff has properly stated a derivative claim.

In his Order dated August 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/XKYG4l from Leagle.com, Judge Whyte held Plaintiff's
allegations are insufficient to show misuse of control for
personal benefit by the individual defendants and that Plaintiff
fails to state a claim because it has not established a prima
facie case for any of the Foss exceptions.

Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio is
represented by Mark L. Knutson, Esq. --
mark@consumersadvocates.com -- and William Richard Restis, Esq. --
wrr@classactionlaw.com -- FINKELSTIEN & KRINSK LLP

Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. is represented by Harry Arthur
Olivar, Jr., Esq. -- harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com -- Jason Frank
Lake, Esq. -- jasonlake@quinnemanuel.com -- and Valerie Suzanne
Roddy, Esq. -- valerieroddy@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART AND SULLIVAN, LLP


MASTEC INC: Seeks to Dismiss "Wrigley" Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
MasTec, 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 amended complaint in the case, Wrigley v.
MasTec, Inc., and the District Court has scheduled a two-week
trial period beginning in March 2017 pending its ruling on the
Company's motion to dismiss.

In May 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"),
Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was filed
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida,
naming the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Jose R.
Mas, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer, George L. Pita, as
defendants.

In August 2015, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed, and an amended
complaint was filed in October 2015. The Lawsuit has been
purportedly brought by a shareholder, both individually and on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws arising from alleged false or
misleading statements contained in, or alleged material omissions
from, certain of the Company's filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and other statements, in each case
with respect to accounting matters that are the subject of the
Audit Committee's independent internal investigation. The amended
complaint seeks damages stemming from losses Plaintiffs claim to
have suffered as a result of purchasing Company securities at an
allegedly inflated market price.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
and the District Court has scheduled a two-week trial period
beginning in March 2017 pending its ruling on the Company's motion
to dismiss. The Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against it; however, there can be
no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense.

MasTec is a infrastructure construction company operating mainly
throughout North America across a range of industries.


MATHESON TRI-GAS: Van Kempen Accord Denied for Insufficient Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of collective and
class action settlement in the case captioned, ROY VAN KEMPEN,
Plaintiff, v. MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-
00660-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. (Defendant) employed Plaintiff
Roy Van Kempen as an hourly, non-exempt delivery driver of
industrial and medical gases. In his operative complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant intentionally failed to include
the non-discretionary bonuses he received in calculating his rate
of overtime pay. On that basis, Plaintiff claims that Defendant
systematically underpaid his overtime wages in violation of Sec.
207(a)(1) of the FLSA and California Labor Code Sec. 510.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant had a "use-it-or-lose it"
vacation time policy by which accrued vacation time was
automatically forfeited if not used within a specified time
period. Plaintiff claims that this vacation-time policy violated
California Labor Code Sec. 227.3. These claims are asserted in
both Plaintiff's individual capacity and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated.

Defendant removed the action from state court under federal
question, diversity, and Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction.
In the Court, Plaintiff amended his initial complaint to add new
state law claims and propounded formal and informal written
discovery on Defendant. The parties then participated in a private
mediation before a retired state court judge, and the case
settled. Defendant agreed to pay a gross total of $370,000 less
the requested $103,000 in attorneys' fees and $15,000 in
litigation costs, a $5,000 incentive award for Plaintiff,
settlement administration costs not anticipated to exceed $25,000,
and 75% of the $5,000 penalty under the Private Attorneys General
Act.

In the motion, Plaintiff moves for preliminary approval of a
collective and class action settlement.

In his Order dated August 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mrvoaT from Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. found
that the nationwide FLSA class and the California vacation class
settlements fall within the acceptable range of approval, but
there is insufficient information to make the same determination
about the California overtime class. The FLSA putative class
members are not properly directed to give their consent in writing
and have it filed with the Court in order to join the class. The
parties provide no support for their assertion that having class
members sign, then cash, checks with purported opt-in language
printed on the back, complies with the plain-language requirements
of Sec. 216(b).

The parties may correct the deficiencies and refile their approval
motion for expedited consideration.

Roy Van Kempen is represented by S. Brett Sutton, Esq. --
brett@suttonhague.com -- and Jared Hague, Esq. --
jared@suttonhague.com -- SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION

Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. is represented by Clinton Davis Robison,
Esq. -- clint.robison@leclairryan.com -- and Vickie V. Grasu, Esq.
-- vickie.grasu@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIR RYAN LLP


MCDONALDS CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in "Salazar" Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted in part McDonald
Corp.'s summary judgment motion in the case captioned, GUADALUPE
SALAZAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McDONALD'S CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Civil No. 14-CV-02096-RS (N.D. Cal.)

In 2010, defendants McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's USA, LLC
(McDonalds) entered into a franchise agreement with the Bobby O.
Haynes Sr. and Carol R. Haynes Family Limited Partnership
(Haynes). The agreement allocated control of the franchised
restaurants along a fine contractual line, with McDonalds setting
general operational standards and Haynes in charge of personnel.

Plaintiffs Guadalupe Salazar, Judith Zarate, and Genoveva Lopez
are crew members at Haynes-owned McDonalds franchise restaurants
in Oakland, California. In the putative class action, they seek to
recover wages allegedly owed to them by Haynes and by McDonalds as
franchisor. They aver, among other things, managers edit or delete
time recorded by the punch-in and punch-out system, require off-
the-clock work, and fail to pay meal period, rest period, and
mandated overtime compensation. Plaintiffs specifically assert
various claims under the California Labor Code as well as for
negligence, violation of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA),
Labor Code Sections 2698 et seq., and violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

McDonalds moves for summary judgment on the grounds it does not
jointly employ the named plaintiffs, given it does not retain or
exert direct or indirect control over their hiring, firing, wages,
or working conditions.

In his Order dated August 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/MlReyt from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that
McDonalds did not retain or exert direct or indirect control over
plaintiffs' hiring, firing, wages, hours, or material working
conditions. Nor did McDonalds suffer or permit plaintiffs to work,
engage in an actual agency relationship, participate in a
conspiracy, or aid and abet the alleged wage and hour violations.
Summary judgment for McDonalds therefore is warranted as to those
legal theories. The motion must be denied in part, however,
because plaintiffs' Labor Code claims may proceed under an
ostensible agency theory.

Guadalupe Salazar, et al. are represented by Barbara Jane
Chisholm, Esq. -- bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com -- Matthew J.
Murray, Esq. -- mmurray@altshulerberzon.com -- Michael Rubin, Esq.
-- mrubin@altshuberzon.com -- and -- Patrick Casey Pitts, Esq. --
ppitts@altshuberzon.com -- ALSTHULER BERZON LLP -- Joseph Marc
Sellers, Esq. -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- and -- Miriam Rose
Nemeth, Esq. -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC

McDonald's Corp. et al. are represented by Allison B. Moser, Esq.
-- abmosier@jonesday.com -- Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Esq. --
csnasser@jonesday.com -- Elizabeth B. McRee, Esq. --
ebmcree@jonesday.com -- Fred W. Alvarez, Esq. --
fwalvarez@jonesday.com -- Kelsey Israel-Trummel, Esq. --
kitrummel@jonesday -- Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq. --
ldinardo@jonesday.com -- and -- Matthew W. Lampe, Esq. --
mwlampe@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


MCDONALD'S CORP: Plaintiffs Bar Eyes Franchise Owners
-----------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reports that the National Labor Relations
Board has given unions and plaintiff attorneys a cache of weapons
to target businesses.  Now they've been handed a "two-barreled
joint employer shotgun," as plaintiff attorney Michael Rubin
crowed about the certification of his class-action lawsuit against
McDonald's.

Federal Judge James Donato recently allowed four plaintiffs to
represent 500 McDonald's franchise employees in wage and overtime
claims against the corporation. In 2014 the plaintiffs sued the
franchise owner and McDonald's for incorrectly calculating
overtime -- adding hours worked after midnight during late-night
shifts to the prior day -- and not reimbursing them for washing
their uniforms.

The franchise owner settled with the workers for $700,000.  But
McDonald's disputed its liability as a "joint employer," and
that's an opening for the plaintiffs bar.

In August 2014, the California Supreme Court held in Patterson v.
Domino's Pizza LLC that franchisers were not "vicariously liable"
for how their franchises treat workers if they don't have a
"comprehensive and immediate level of 'day-to-day' authority over
matters such as hiring, firing, direction, supervision and
discipline of the employee."  The court also held that franchisers
may protect their brands with "business plan" standards such as
requiring workers to keep their uniforms neat and clean.

This legal interpretation dovetailed with the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals's landmark 1982 decision in NLRB v. Browning-Ferris
Industries of Pennsylvania, which the NLRB subsequently adopted.
Judge Donato last year threw out claims against McDonald's under a
direct control joint-employer standard.

However, the NLRB has since rewritten its joint-employer standard
to include "indirect control" over workers such as the computer
systems that McDonald's provided to franchises to calculate
overtime.  The NLRB's prosecution of McDonald's as a joint
employer under this new standard could set a legal precedent, and
unions and the plaintiffs bar certainly hope so.

Judge Donato has given plaintiff attorneys more ammo by ruling
that McDonald's could be held liable if its franchise employees
had a "reasonable belief" the franchise owners were McDonald's
"ostensible agents."  This obscure legal theory of "ostensible
agency" has rarely been applied to franchise relationships.  WSH's
legal sources couldn't find any cases involving employment-related
issues.  So the ruling could establish another precedent.

This is the double-barreled shotgun that Mr. Rubin celebrates, and
other franchisers could be collateral damage.  The class-action
certification will encourage more lawsuits against corporations as
"ostensible agents" and joint employers, which will jack up
insurance premiums.  The plaintiffs bar could soon be able to
target multiple businesses with one lawsuit.


MDL 1616: Objections to $835MM Dow Class Settlement Overruled
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John W. Lungstrum of the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas overruled objections to the class
plaintiffs' plan of allocation and distribution of the Dow
settlement fund and to the plaintiff counsel's attorney fee
petition in the case captioned, IN RE: URETHANE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. This document relates to: The Polyether Polyol Cases,
Case No. 1616, Case No. 04-1616-JWL (D. Kan.).

In the multi-district class action, initiated in 2004, the
plaintiff class alleged that Dow and other manufacturers conspired
to fix prices for certain urethane chemical products, in violation
of the Sherman Act. The Court certified a class consisting of
purchasers of the products from any defendant from January 1,
1999, through December 31, 2004.

During the course of the litigation, plaintiffs reached
settlements with the other defendants for amounts totaling
$139,300,000. The claim against Dow, the remaining defendant, was
tried to a jury over a period of four weeks, and on February 20,
2013, the jury awarded plaintiffs damages in the amount of
$400,049,039.00, while finding that such amount did not include
any damages for the period prior to November 24, 2000.

The Court then modified the class to exclude purchases in 2004,
and it eventually entered judgment against Dow in the amount of
$1,060,847,117, an amount that accounted for statutory trebling
and a setoff for the prior settlements. Dow appealed, but the
Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment.

Dow then filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.
While the petition for certiorari was pending, plaintiffs and Dow
reached a settlement in the amount of $835,000,000, which
agreement included a release of all claims by class members based
on purchases within the entire class period.

On April 27, 2016, the Court issued orders by which it
preliminarily approved the settlement and authorized notice to the
class. Plaintiffs then filed their motions regarding approval of
the settlement, a plan of distribution, and attorney fees.

In the motion, PMC Global argues that the allocation cannot be
presumed fair because no class representative had a majority of
its purchases during the 1999-2000 period. As to the proposed
attorney fees in the amount of one-third of the Dow settlement
fund, the Objectors class members Johns Manville and Whirlpool
argue that a one-third fee would be excessive.

The Fairness Hearing to approve the $835 million settlement was
held on July 27, 2016 and the Court approved the Settlement, the
Plan of Allocation, and the request for an award of attorney's
fees, incentive awards, and reimbursement of costs and expenses on
July 29, 2016.

In his Memorandum and Order dated July 29, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/XB9HoL from Leagle.com, Judge Lungstrum concluded
that the proposed allocation precluding recovery for such claims
is reasonable nor is there any basis to delay the approval of
plaintiffs' plan of allocation by requiring additional procedures
to allow for further argument. As to the award of attorney fees,
the Court found that the award at the top end of the range is
warranted and reasonable.

Urethane Antitrust Litigation is represented by George A. Hanson,
Esq. -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- and Norman E. Siegel, Esq. --
siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP; Rex A. Sharp,
Esq. -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- REX A. SHARP, PA; Roy Morrow
Bell, Esq. -- roy.bell@troutmaster.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP;
Steven A. Kanner, Esq. -- skanner@fklmlaw.com -- FREED KANNER
LONDON & MILLEN, LLC -- Susan G. Kupfer, Esq. --
skupfer@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP -- W. Joseph
Bruckner, Esq. -- wjbruckner@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL
NAUEN, PLLP

Alco Industries, Inc. is represented by Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq.
and Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. -- jgrabar@bolognese-law.com --
BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC; Norman E. Siegel, Esq. --
siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP; Rex A. Sharp,
Esq. -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- REX A. SHARP, PA

Arctic-Temp, Inc. is represented by David H. Weinstein, Esq. --
weinstein@wka-law.com -- WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC; Norman
E. Siegel, Esq. -- siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON
LLP -- Rex A. Sharp, Esq. -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- REX A.
SHARP, PA

BASF AG is represented by Andrew Stanley Marovitz, Esq. --
amarovitz@mayerbrown.com -- Jason Brett Fliegel, Esq. --
jfliegel@mayerbrown.com -- and Terri A. Mazur, Esq. --
tmazur@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP; David F.
Oliver, Esq. -- doliver@berkowitzoliver.com -- BERKOWITZ OLIVER
LLP


MDL 2516: Court Narrows Claims in Buyers' Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation et al, Plaintiffs, v.
Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al, Defendants, No. 3:14-md-2516
(SRU) (D. Conn.), District Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in
part and denied in part the defendant's motions to dismiss
indirect-purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint, Humana's amended
complaint and Louisiana Health's complaint.

On March 23, 2015, the court issued a decision on several motions
to dismiss in this complex multidistrict litigation (MDL). The
court later expanded upon and clarified some aspects of that
decision in an order granting a motion to certify it for
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b).The March 23
Order included many subsidiary rulings so its holding was somewhat
complicated.

The IPPs, Humana, and Louisiana Health all plead claims for
injunctive relief, and the defendants move to dismiss them on the
same basis that they moved to dismiss similar claims pleaded by
the retailer plaintiffs.

The defendants argue that the claims for injunctive relief are
moot, because there is nothing left to enjoin.  The plaintiffs
argue vaguely about the ongoing threat that the generics could be
removed from the market and assert that even if the generics are
not removed, the injunctive claims are not moot because the court
has the authority to enjoin bad actors from committing other
similar bad acts in the future.

The defendants move to dismiss the IPPs' and Louisiana Health's
claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act on the dual grounds
that that statute does not reach antitrust conduct and that the
plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded a consumer nexus. The
defendants also move to dismiss the IPPs' claims under the
Illinois Antitrust Act, on the basis that that statute does not
permit indirect-purchaser class actions unless they are brought by
the Illinois Attorney General.

In his Memorandum of Decision and Order dated August 9, 2016
available at https://is.gd/7T2Q7u  from Leagle.com, Judge
Underhill concluded that the indirect purchasers and Humana have
listed claims under very many state laws, but they have not truly
pleaded claims under those laws sufficient to show their
entitlement to recovery under them, as required by Rule 8. The
court granted as to Vermont consumer fraud claims because Humana
has not offered authority for the proposition that the Vermont
Consumer Fraud Act reaches antitrust conduct.

A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Buildings Trade Welfare Plan is represented by
Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq. -- mjasinski@motleyrice.com -- Michael M.
Buchman, Esq. -- mbuchman@motleyrice.com  -- William H. Narwold,
Esq. -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC

Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund is
represented by Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq. --
mjasinski@motleyrice.com -- William H. Narwold, Esq. --
bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC - Mitchell M. Breit,
Esq. -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLP --
Sarah S. Burns, Esq. -- sburns@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS BROWDER
GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC -- Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. --
lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- Marvin A. Miller, Esq. --
mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- MILLER LAW LLC

Miami-Luken, Inc. is represented by Anne Mathilde Schmidt, Esq.
-- aschmidt@odrlaw.com -- Craig Matthew Glantz, Esq --
cglantz@odrlaw.com -- Dan Chiorean, Esq., at Stuart Edward Des
Roches, Esq -- stuart@odrlaw.com --  ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC --
Brian D. Brooks, Esq -- bbrooks@ssrllp.com  -- David C. Raphael,
Jr Esq --- draphael@ssrllp.com  -- Erin R. Leger, Esq. --
eleger@ssrllp.com -- SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP; Ephraim R.
Gerstein, Esq. -- egerstein@garwingerstein.com -- Bruce E.
Gerstein, Esq. -- bgerstein@garwingerstein.com -- Jonathan Michael
Gerstein, Esq. -- jmichael@burkelaw.com -- Joseph Opper, Esq. --
jopper@garwingerstein.com --  GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER, LLP;
Daniel C. Simons, Esq. -- dsimons@bm.net -- David F. Sorensen,
Esq. -- dsorensen@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. -- Miranda Yan
Jones, Esq. --  mjones@hpcllp.com -- Russell Allen Chorush,Esq. --
rchorush@hpcllp.com -- HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP

Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. is represented by Brigid M. Carpenter,
Esq. -- bcarpenter@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BERMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C., Peter J. Carney, Esq. --
pcarney@whitecase.com -- WHITE & CASE; Robert D. Carroll, Esq. --
rcarroll@goodwinlaw.com -- Sarah K. Frederick, Esq. --
sfrederick@goodwinlaw.com -- and Christopher T. Holding, Esq. --
cholding@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP; Assaf Ze'ev Ben-
Atar, Esq. -- abenatar@pullcom.com -- PULLMAN & COMLEY; and James
T. Shearin, Esq. -- jtshearin@pullcom.com --  PULLMAN & COMLEY.

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Defendant is represented
by Jaime M. Crowe, Esq. -- jcrowe@whitecase.com -- Alison
Hanstead, Esq. -- ahanstead@whitecase.com --  J. Mark Gidley, Esq.
-- mgidley@whitecase.com -- Jack E. Pace, III, Esq. --
jpace@whitecase.com -- Matthew S. Leddicotte, Esq. --
mleddicotte@whitecase.com -- Peter J. Carney, Esq. --
pcarney@whitecase.com -- and Robert A. Milne, Esq. --
rmilne@whitecase.com -- WHITE & CASE; Richard P. Colbert, Esq. --
rpcolbert@daypitney.com -- and Bryan James Orticelli, Esq. --
borticelli@daypitney.com --   DAY PITNEY LLP


MDL 2580: Court Narrows End-Payor Purchaser Plaintiffs' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss End-Payor Purchaser Plaintiffs'
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in the case captioned, IN RE
OPANA ER ANTRITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2580, Case No. 14 C 10150
(N.D. Ill.).

In their Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, End-
Payor Purchaser Plaintiffs (EPPs) bring claims under the
antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws of
numerous states against Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. (collectively,
Endo), and Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Impax) (Defendants). EPPs
contend that Defendants delayed the entry of generic versions of
Opana ER to the Oxymorphone ER Market by entering into an illegal
reverse payment agreement to settle ongoing patent infringement
litigation between Endo and Impax.

In its February 10, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court
dismissed EPPs' state law consumer protection and unjust
enrichment claims because EPPs failed to plead sufficiently such
claims under the specific laws of each state. Because the Court
dismissed the claims on that basis, it did not reach the other
substantive arguments Defendants had made in favor of dismissal.
The Court granted EPPs leave to replead all of their state law
consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims in a non-
conclusory fashion.

Defendants seek dismissal of EPPs' unjust enrichment claims under
the laws of California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Utah and EPPs'
consumer protection claim under Missouri law.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 11, 2016
available at https://is.gd/MNQ8bO from Leagle.com, Judge
Leinenweber dismissed with prejudice EPPs' unjust enrichment
claims under the laws of Illinois and Rhode Island holding that
allowing EPPs to maintain their Illinois and Rhode Island unjust
enrichment claims would enable them to sidestep impermissibly
those states' prohibitions on antitrust recovery for indirect
purchasers and denied as to EPPs' unjust enrichment claims under
the laws of Florida, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina,
North Dakota and Utah because Defendants has sufficiently plead to
state a claim of unjust enrichment, EPP's unjust enrichment claim
under New Hampshire law because it would certainly be
unconscionable to allow Defendants to retain the benefit they
received as a result of EPPs' overpayments and EPPs' consumer
protection claim under the Missouri law because it would seem
incongruous to prohibit EPPs' claim under the policy of Illinois
Brick.

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., et al. are represented by
Andrew C. Curley, Esq. -- acurley@bm.net -- David F. Sorensen,
Esq. -- dsorensen@bm.net -- and Zachary David Caplan, Esq. --
zcaplan@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.; Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
-- jlukens@faruqilaw.com -- and Peter R. Kohn, Esq. --
pkohn@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP

Massachusetts Bricklayers & Masons Health and Welfare Fund is
represented by Gregory Asciolla, Esq. -- gasciolla@labaton.com --
Matthew J. Perez, Esq. -- mperez@labaton.com -- and Jay L. Himes,
Esq. -- jhimes@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund is
represented by Donald Lewis Sawyer, Esq. -- dsawyer@fklmlaw.com
-- Michael Jerry Freed, Esq. -- mfreed@fklmlaw.com -- Robert J.
Wozniak, Esq. -- rwozniak@fklmlaw.com -- and Steven A. Kanner,
Esq. -- skanner@fklmlaw.com -- FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is represented by Danielle R. Foley, Esq.
-- drfoley@Venable.com -- Lisa Jose Fales, Esq. --
ljfales@Venable.com -- and James Douglas Baldridge, Esq. --
jdbaldridge@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP; Joanna Rubin Travalini,
Esq. -- jtravalini@winston.com -- Kevin Fitzgerald Wolff, Esq. --
kwolff@winston.com -- Lawrence R. Desideri, Esq. --
ldesideri@winston.com -- and Maureen L. Rurka, Esq. --
mrurka@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

Endo Health Solutions Inc., et al. are represented by Angela M.
Liu, Esq. -- angela.liu@dechert.com -- Christine C. Levin, Esq.
-- christine.levin@dechart.com -- George Gabriel Gordon, Esq. --
george.gordon@dechart.com -- Jennings F. Durand, Esq. --
jennings.durand@dechert.com -- Nathan E. Hoffman, Esq. --
Nathan.hoffman@dechert.com -- and Quinn Colleen Shean, Esq. -
quinn.shean@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP


MEMPHIS, TN: Police Dep't Settles Class Action Over Promotions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Chaney, writing for Local Memphis, reports that a settlement
has been reached in one of the class action lawsuits involving
promotions within the Memphis Police Department.  The legal battle
has lasted more than 14 years.

The lawsuit involves the police promotions testing in 2002. Some
officers claimed the test was racially discriminatory, and filed a
lawsuit against the city of Memphis.  An appeals court ruled in
favor of the city, and the Supreme Court refused to take up the
case.

The officers involved were initially promoted to the rank of
Sergeant by order of the court.  The city says all but one of
those officers have been subsequently been promoted through
completing higher-ranking exams.  Some have even obtained the rank
of Major.

The settlement allows most of the officers to keep their current
rank, which was obtained through testing and seniority.  The city
says the single officer who is currently a Sergeant will have to
pass a new test to keep the rank, or will be subject to demotion.

As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their
appeal.


MG WHOLESALE: "Yu" Suit to Recover OT, Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Yu Sen Chen, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MG Wholesale Distribution Inc.,
"Andy" Zhang, Xiao Min Yang, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04439,
(E.D. N.Y., August 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs, damages for
failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure
to provide wage payment statements pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a truck loader for
Defendants' wholesale business located at 56-71 49th Place,
Maspeth, NY 11378.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOISES GONZALEZ: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARTA RIVERA, individually and as class representative of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. MOISES GONZALEZ
LAWN SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation; and MOISES GONZALEZ,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-81447-DMM (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 17, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Based on Plaintiff's best recollection, she worked approximately
180 hours of overtime for which no overtime premium was paid.
Additionally, Plaintiff is owed her regular hourly rate for 120
hours she worked in excess of 50 per work week for which no wages
were paid at all. The total unpaid overtime wages and overtime
premium due is $2,520.00. Plaintiff is further entitled to
liquidated damages in an equal amount.

The Defendant operates a commercial and residential landscaping
business. It provides general landscaping related services
throughout Palm Beach County and South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher C Copeland, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C COPELAND, P.A.
          824 W. Indiantown Road
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 691 9048
          Facsimile: (866) 259 0719
          E-mail: Chris@CopelandPA.com
                  Carla@CopelandPA.com


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Legal News Line reports that a California woman is suing a health
care provider, alleging telephone harassment.

Carrie Beets filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, July 28 in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against Molina
Healthcare Inc., alleging violation the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, in April, Beets received at least two
calls on her cellular telephone.  The suit says she has suffered
multiple involuntary telephone and electrical charges,
aggravation, nuisance and invasion of privacy.

The plaintiff alleges Molina continued to call her despite her
request to cease all communications, made calls using an auto-
dialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice and that calls
were made without Ms. Beets' prior express written consent.

Ms. Beets seeks a trial by jury, seeks certification for this case
to be a proper class action, compensation for all damages,
attorney fees, legal costs and such other relief the court deems
proper.  She is represented by attorneys L. Timothy Fisher, Annick
M. Persinger and Yeremey O. Krivoshey of Bursor & Fisher PA in
Walnut Creek, and Scott A. Bursor of the same firm in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-05642


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Class Action Mulled Over Hall of Fame Non-Game
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for Profootballtalk, reports that
the NFL's definition of "making it right" may not mesh with Ohio's
definition of the term.

The lawyer who sued on behalf of fans who showed up for Super Bowl
XLV with tickets that didn't correspond to actual seats plans to
sue the NFL for fans who showed up in Canton on Aug. 7 with
tickets for a game that wasn't played.

"We plan on filing a class [action] within days,"
Michael Avenatti said on Twitter.  "$0 for fan expenses is a
disgrace." (Mr. Avenatti has confirmed via email that the
unverified account belongs to him.)

Whether it's a disgrace and whether it's a violation of Ohio law
are two different questions.  Whether the lawsuit can be
maintained as a class action is another question as well.

After Super Bowl XLV, Mr. Avenatti pursued a class action, but the
courts in Texas declined to certify the class, forcing the claims
for reimbursement to be pursued in small chunks.  One group of
seven plaintiffs received $76,000 in litigation that also included
allegations of witness tampering by the league.

That case also included deposition testimony from a Commissioner
who fought not to testify, along with a debate over the meaning of
the term "accountable."

In this case, "accountable" for the NFL currently means refunding
ticket prices only.  Eventually, it could mean a lot more than
that.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Burke" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge James R. Spencer of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted in
part Nationstar Mortgage's motion for judgment on the pleadings in
the case captioned, FLOYD RONALD BURKE, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
EVERBANK, EVERBANK FINANCIAL CORPORATION, EVERHOME MORTGAGE LLC,
and JOHN DOE COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:14CV837 (E.D.
Va.).

On December 16, 2014, Plaintiff Floyd Ronald Burke filed a seven-
count Class Action Complaint in this Court, alleging the
following: "breach of contract for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing," (Count I); a class claim (Count
II) and an individual claim (Count III) for violations of the
Federal and Virginia Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA);
violation of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA)
(Count IV); violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) (Counts V and VI); and breach of contract (Count VII).

On March 13, 2015, Defendants Nationstar and Everbank moved to
dismiss Count I, Count III, Count V, and Count VI of the
Complaint. On April 17, 2015, Burke filed a response and
voluntarily withdrew Counts V and VI, the FDCPA claims alleged in
the Class Action Complaint. The Court subsequently granted the
Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count I.

In the motion, Nationstar seeks to dismiss the remaining claims:
Count II, Count III, Count IV, and Count VII contendind that
Plaintiff Floyd Ronald Burke fails to state a claim against
Nationstar upon which relief can be granted. Burke opposes the
motion.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated August 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/5G8eJE from Leagle.com, Judge Spencer granted the
motion to dismiss as to Counts II and III because Nationstar was
relieved of its "obligation to comply with Subsection 1691(d)(2)'s
adverse action notification requirement and denied as to Count IV
because Nationstar offers nothing in the form of proof that the
letter was, in fact, mailed and Count VII because there is no
basis for the court to address the nature of the appropriate
relief at the stage of the proceeding.

Floyd Ronald Burke is represented by Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
-- leonard@clalegal.com -- and Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. --
susan@clalegal.com -- CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES; Andrew
Joseph Guzzo, Esq. -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- and Kristi
Cahoon Kelly, Esq. -- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- KELLY &
CRANDALL PLC

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and Everbank, Everbank Financial
Corporation are represented by John C. Lynch, Esq. --
john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- and Jennifer Elle Bowen, Esq.
-- jennifer.bowen@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP


NEIL JONES: Settlement in "Valdez" Case Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIL JONES
FOOD COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-00519-SAB,
(Nos. 79-82, 86-87), (E.D. Calif.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A.
Boone entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, ordered the
final approval of the class action settlement and granted
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and incentive awards.

The case involves the Defendant's failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay required
"reporting time", failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to
pay wages due upon termination, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, unfair business practices, conversion, and violation
of the Private Attorneys General Act.

The Court certified these classes for settlement purposes:

     (a) Settlement class A consists of any and all persons who
were employed by the Defendant in an hourly union-represented
position at Neil Jones' Toma-Tek facility located in Firebaugh,
California at any time from January 11, 2009 through May 10, 2014.

     (b) Settlement class B consists of any and all persons who
were employed by Neil Jones in an hourly union-represented
position or hourly non-union position at Neil Jones' Toma-Tek
facility located in Firebaugh, California at any time from January
11, 2009 through December 31, 2014, but excluding anyone whose
employment never ended during the class period by reason of a
layoff.

The Court approved the fees and expenses of CPT Group, Inc., in
administering the settlement, in the amount of $40,215.64, are
fair and reasonable.

Class counsel is awarded attorney fees in the amount of
$212,500.00 and costs of $15,000.00 to be paid from the gross
settlement fund. The same fund shall also be used in awarding the
amount of $3,000.00 as the incentive award to each Class
representatives, named, Luis Valdez and Carolina Martinez.

A full-text copy of Judge Boone's August 10, 2016 Decision is
available at http://goo.gl/R0uuDOfrom Leagle.com.

Luis Valdez, Plaintiff, 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.


NELNET INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss, Wants Suit Revised
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gordon J. Quist of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to all claims, denied Defendant's
motion to strike in the case captioned, Kurt Mirandette,
Plaintiff, v. Nelnet Inc, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-50.
(W.D. Mich.).

On February 29, 2008, Plaintiff Mirandette signed a Master
Promissory Note (MPN) and became a co-borrower on his daughter's
student loans. Mirandette makes all of the loan payments by check,
which he mails to Defendants, who service the loans. Mirandette
alleges that, in the absence of a definition of the term "Payment
Date," the common law requires Defendants to use the date of
mailing as the date that a borrower makes a payment. Mirandette
alleges that Defendants fail to apply the so-called mailbox rule
and instead credit payments much later, resulting in Defendants
obtaining millions of dollars in unearned interest and late fees
from Mirandette and other borrowers.

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Nelnet, Inc. and
Nelnet Servicing, LLC, alleging jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005. In his three-count complaint,
Mirandette alleges claims for violation of the Nebraska Consumer
Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sections 59-1602, 1609, and the
Nebraska Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 87-
302(a)(15), and a claim for breach of contract. Mirandette alleges
that Defendants improperly reap additional interest and late fees
on student loans by failing to timely credit payments.

In the motion, Defendants contend that because a promissory note
is a unilateral contract that the lender fully performs at the
time it disburses the loan proceeds, Defendants could not have
breached any contractual duty to Mirandette. Defendants argue that
the Plaintiff' claim fails because Mirandette does not allege that
Defendants breached any provision of the MPN that obligates
Defendants to credit payments as of a certain date. Defendants
contend that Mirandette's argument that he made partial payments
on the MPN is an affirmative defense to an action on the MPN,
rather than an independent claim that may be asserted against a
lender.

In his Order dated August 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/9tblEt from Leagle.com, Judge Quist held that
Mirandette fails to cite a specific provision in the MPN that
Defendants breached.  The Court gave Mirandette an opportunity to
file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint if he can
discern a valid claim.

Kurt Mirandette is represented by:

      Derek Sebastian Witte, Esq.
      Curt A. Benson, Esq.
      Sean P. Raymond, Esq.
      WITTE LAW PLLC
      40 Pearl St NW #922,
      Grand Rapids, MI 49503
      Tel:(616)350-9924

Nelnet, Inc., et al Defendants is represented by Bradford S.
Moyer, Esq. -- bmoyer@plunkettcooney.com -- Keith Alan Peterson,
Esq. -- kpeterson@plunkettcooney.com -- and Robert A. Callahan,
Esq. -- rcallahan@plunkettcooney.com -- PLUNKETT COONEY

The Defendants are also represented by:

      Charles Freeman Kaplan, Esq.
      Daniel Freeman Kaplan, Esq.
      PERRY, GUTHERY, HAASE & GESSFORD, P.C.
      233 S 13th St #1400,
      Lincoln, NE 68501
      Tel:(412)476-9200


NETVISION: Customer Data Class Action Dismissed, Parent Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Aycock, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that Cellcom
Israel says a class action suit that included its subsidiary
Netvision has been dismissed.  The suit against Netvision and
others ended at the request of the plaintiff.  It had alleged that
another defendant had unlawfully sold private customer data to
Netvision and others.  The suit (had it been certified as a class
action) was seeking 1,000 shekels (about $261.53) for each
customer involved -- estimated by the plaintiff at about 1.5M
customers, for a total liability of 1.5B shekels (about $392.3M).


NEW MIAMI, OH: Speeders' Attorney Seeks $3MM Class Action Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise G. Callahan, writing for Journal-News, reports that the
operative number in the New Miami speed camera case has always
been $1.8 million, but now the speeders are requesting the village
pay more than $3 million.

New Miami's former speed program was deemed unconstitutional in
2014, when a Butler County judge banned its use and granted the
case class-action status, meaning thousands of other motorists who
had been cited could join a lawsuit and seek a legal remedy.
The village contracted with Optotraffic to run the previous speed
camera program and for that service the Maryland traffic camera
people were paid $1.2 million or 40 percent of the total fine
collection amount of $3 million.

Now, the speeders' attorneys have asked a judge to award them the
full amount.

"We're entitled to all the money they collected under this
scheme," attorney Josh Engel said.  "The fact that they paid some
of this money out to Optotraffic, that's their cost of doing
business and that's not our problem."

New Miami's attorney James Englert, who doesn't think the speeders
have a case, said he doesn't believe the judge should hold New
Miami responsible for fines they never received.
"The value the village is enriched by is $1.8 million -- we don't
have the other amount," he said.  "And I don't think it would be
right for the court to hold the village for that other amount.
They could have sued Optotraffic for that other amount."
Engel said they have no intention of suing the former vendor, but
New Miami could if they want to recoup the money.  Mr. Engel said
he is also unconcerned about the fact that the village might not
have the money to refund the $95 speeding ticket fines to his
clients.

He and his partners on the case tried to garnish collections from
the new speeding program -- as of June 30 the village has
collected $162,056 -- with no success. But he said since
Mr. Englert told the judge recently the village has $1.2 million
in unencumbered funds and they have the new speed camera revenue
stream, the judgment, could be paid.

"They can't really claim poverty in this thing," he said.  "They
can come up with the money."

A judge previously ruled the administrative hearing process
New Miami employed did not offer speeders due process rights.  The
case has twice gone to the 12th District Court of Appeals. The
Ohio Supreme Court has declined to take over the case.

Mr. Englert said they will be taking the case back to the high
court.

"Their theory of liability under which they are proceeding, the
claim of lack of due process, we'll certainly be taking that to
supreme court," he said.  "So there are a lot of steps along the
way before the plaintiffs can recover in this.  We feel confident
that we did not deprive the motorists of due process.  They
received very fair administrative hearings."


NEW RESIDENTIAL: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment 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
Company continues intends to vigorously defend the securities
class action lawsuit.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against HLSS
and certain of its current and former officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York entitled:

     (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.,
         et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29,
         2015;

    (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al.,
         No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015;
         and

   (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing
         Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.),
         filed on February 13, 2015.

On April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action, which is referred to as the "Securities Action." On April
28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison counsel were
appointed in the Securities Action. On November 9, 2015, lead
plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On January 27,
2016, the Securities Action was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida and given the
Index No. 16-CV-60165 (S.D. Fla.).

The Securities Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS
Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief
Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial
Officer James E. Lauter. The Securities Action asserts causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on
certain public disclosures made by HLSS relating to its
relationship with Ocwen and HLSS's risk management and internal
controls. More specifically, the consolidated class action
complaint alleges that a series of statements in HLSS's
disclosures were materially false and misleading, including
statements about (i) Ocwen's servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's
contingencies and legal proceedings; (iii) its risk management and
internal controls; and (iv) certain related party transactions.
The consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege
that HLSS's financial statements for the years ended 2012 and
2013, and the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and
misleading based on HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead
plaintiffs in the Securities Action also allege that HLSS misled
investors by failing to disclose, among other things, information
regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen's business
practices. Lead plaintiffs seek money damages under the Exchange
Act in an amount to be proven at trial and reasonable costs,
expenses, and fees. On February 11, 2015, defendants filed motions
to dismiss the Securities Action in its entirety. On June 6, 2016,
all allegations except those regarding certain related party
transactions were dismissed. New Residential intends to vigorously
defend the Securities Action.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Court Denies Plaintiff's Discovery Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff's
motion to compel the production of documents withheld as
privileged in the case captioned, L. ZINGERMAN, D.D.S., P.C. d/b/a
NILES FAMILY DENTAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Civil No. 14 C 7835 (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiff L. Zingerman D.D.S., P.C., individually and on behalf of
a putative class, sues Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.
(Defendant or Nissan) for its alleged misrepresentation of the
availability of certain technology in its 2014 Infiniti Q50
automobile. In particular, Zingerman claims that Nissan
represented that the Q50 contained the "InTouch" interactive
telematics system, which enabled users to access various mobile
applications. Contrary to such representations, however, Zingerman
contends that the system could not perform the tasks Nissan
represented it would.

On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production
of documents or, in the alternative, an in camera review of
documents that total 223 pages of a privilege log. Plaintiff
delayed in filing its motion to compel until after the May 13,
2016 close of discovery even though Judge Kim, the then-
supervising magistrate judge, advised the parties that the
deadline was a "firm deadline."

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 10, 2016
available at https://is.gd/r5efcG from Leagle.com, Judge Wiesman
found that an analysis of the Rule 26 factors demonstrates that
the value of granting Plaintiff the relief it seeks at this
juncture of the litigation -- -an in camera review of hundreds of
documents -- is substantially outweighed by the minimal importance
of the issues at stake; the minimal importance of the discovery
sought in resolving the case; and the extensive burden, expense,
and delay attendant to the relief sought.

L. Zingerman, D.D.S., P.C. is represented by Ben Barnow, Esq. --
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- Erich Paul Schork, Esq. --
e.schork@barnowlaw.com -- and Jeffrey Daniel Blake, Esq. --
j.blake@barnowlaw.com -- BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.; Timothy
Gordon Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST &
O'REARDON, LLP

Nissan North America, Inc. is represented by Peter Justin Brennan,
Esq. -- pbrennan@jenner.com -- and Jonathan Alexander Enfield,
Esq. -- JEnfield@jenner.com -- JENNER & BLOCK LLP


NOTIS GLOBAL: Final Fairness Hearing Moved to Sept. 22
------------------------------------------------------
Notis Global, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2016, that the
Court has issued another Order continuing the final fairness
hearing in the "Crystal" class action lawsuit to September 22,
2106, at 1:30 p.m.

Notis Global and the class plaintiffs in Josh Crystal v. Medbox,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-00426-BRO (JEMx), pending before
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "Court") notified the Court of a settlement. The
Court stayed the action pending the Court's review of the
settlement and directed the parties to file a stipulation of
settlement. On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement that included the
stipulation of settlement.

On February 3, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement provides
for notice to be given to the class, a period for opt outs and a
final approval hearing. The Court had scheduled the Final
Settlement Approval Hearing to be held on May 16, 2016 at 1:30
p.m.

On May 13, 2016, the Court issued an Order continuing the final
fairness hearing to August 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

On August 3, 2016, the Court issued another Order continuing the
final fairness hearing to September 22, 2106, at 1:30 p.m.

The disclosure set forth provides notice to potential objectors of
the change to the hearing date.


NOVA HARDBANDING: "Mishler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Joseph Mishler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nova Hardbanding, LLC and Kenneth Bromley,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00905, (D.N.M., August 9, 2016),
seeks declaratory relief, unpaid overtime pay, liquidated and/or
other damages as permitted by applicable law and attorney's fees,
costs and expenses incurred in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants are into hard-banding for the oil and gas industry
where Plaintiff was employed as a hard-bander.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Loren, Esq.
      George Z. Goldberg, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA
      4801 Lang NE, Suite 110
      Albuquerque, NM 87109
      Office Line: (800) 719-1617
      Direct Line: (505) 369-3699
      Fax: (888) 272-8822
      Email: jloren@lorenlaw.com
             ggoldberg@goldbergdohan.com


OLE MEXICAN FOODS: Settlement in "Guttmann" Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Plaintiff's motions for final approval of class action settlement
and for attorneys' fees and costs in the case captioned, VICTOR
GUTTMANN, Plaintiff, v. OLE MEXICAN FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 14-CV-04845-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Victor Guttman's (Plaintiff) filed the food-labeling
class action on October 31, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
failed to properly disclose that its "Xtreme Wellness" line of
tortillas contain partially-hydrogenated oil, an artificial trans-
fat food additive.  On that basis, Plaintiff asserts six causes of
action against Defendant for violating California's unfair
competition law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and for breaching express warranties.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on federal preemption grounds
and a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of that motion.
But Defendant withdrew both after new case law emerged from the
Ninth Circuit addressing the preemption issue. The parties agreed
to settle the case on a classwide basis shortly thereafter. Before
the parties ceased active litigation, Plaintiff served some
written discovery on Defendant, to which Defendant served
objections and responses.

Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement on July 2, 2015. The proposed settlement would
enjoin Defendant from using any partially-hydrogenated oils in
their Xtreme Wellness line of tortillas for a period of ten years.
In exchange, the putative class would release their claims against
Defendant regarding, among other things, the manufacturing,
advertising, sale, labeling, and the ingredients of these tortilla
products, excepting personal injury claims.

Defendant agreed to pay for class notice, which included: (1)
publishing a long-form class notice in USA Today; (2) displaying
banner advertisements on Facebook (at least 25,000 times); and (3)
creating a bilingual website that provided the settlement
agreement and other case-related documents.  And, upon final
approval, the parties agreed that Plaintiff could seek up to
$1,800 as an incentive and Plaintiff's counsel could seek up to
$85,000 in fees and costs without opposition from Defendant. Id.
The Court granted preliminary approval, provisionally certifying
the proposed nationwide injunctive-relief class under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and directing class notice as agreed
by the parties.

In his Order dated August 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/m8Snri from Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. found
that the settlement class members received adequate notice; and
the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable; and Plaintiff's
request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $82,837.15, class
representative incentive award in the amount of $5,000 and costs
in the amount of $2,162.85 is proper and reasonable.

Victor Guttmann is represented by Gregory Weston, Esq. --
greg@westonfirm.com -- and David Elliot, Esq. --
david@westonfrim.com -- THE WESTON FIRM

Ole Mexican Foods, Inc. is represented by David K. Caplan, Esq.
-- dcaplan@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KEATS MCFARLAND & WILSON LLP
-- James White Faris, VI, Esq. -- Jfaris@kilpatricktownsend.com
-- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND AND STOCKTON LLP


OVASCIENCE INC: Co-Lead Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Ovascience, 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 amended
consolidated complaint filed by co-lead plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend against the
litigation.

The Company said, "On October 9, 2015, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "Superior Court") against us,
several of our officers and directors and certain of the
underwriters from our January 2015 follow-on public offering of
our common stock. The plaintiffs purport to represent those
persons who purchased shares of our common stock pursuant or
traceable to our January 2015 follow-on public offering. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in the Company's January 2015 Registration Statement
and incorporated offering materials. Plaintiffs allege violations
of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act and seek, among
other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-
and post-judgment interest and fees, costs and disbursements.

"On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of
removal with the Federal District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "District Court"). On December 30, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to the Superior
Court.

"Oral argument on the motion to remand was held on February 19,
2016. On February 23, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to remand the action to the Superior Court. On February 26,
2016, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, alleging substantially the same claims against the
same parties as the action filed on October 9, 2015. On April 4,
2016, the Superior Court granted the parties' joint motion to
consolidate the two cases and appoint co-lead plaintiffs, and
ordered the co-lead plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated
complaint within sixty days.

"On June 17, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint asserting similar allegations and alleging
violations of the same sections of the Securities Act of 1933 as
the original complaint. We believe that the amended consolidated
complaint is without merit and intend to defend against the
litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be
successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or
the other defendants could have a material effect on our
consolidated financial position and results of operations in the
period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At present, we are unable
to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit."


PACIFIC PROCESS: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Legal News Line reports that two Pennsylvania men are suing their
employers, alleging violation of their settlement agreement.

Matthew Andrews and Mike Preston, both of Washington,
Pennsylvania, filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, July 28 in U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Pittsburgh Division
against Pacific Process Systems Inc., Alan George and Jerry Wise,
alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Messrs. Andrews and Preston have
incurred damages for not receiving any of the amounts due from the
defendants under their settlement agreement.  As a result, the
suit says, they have been unable to compensate their attorneys.

Messrs. Andrews and Preston seek a trial by jury, an order
allowing this case to proceed as class action, damages, attorney
fees, legal costs and expenses and such relief to which they are
entitled.  They are represented by attorneys Joshua P. Geist of
Goodrich & Geist PC in Pittsburgh, by Richard J. (Rex) Burch and
Matthew S. Parmet of Bruckner Burch PLLC in Houston, and by
Michael A. Josephson and Andrew W. Dunlap of Fibich, Leebron,
Copeland, Briggs & Josephson in Houston.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of of Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh Division Case number 2:16-cv-01135


PARKING REVENUE: Unpaid Parking Fees Are Debts, 7th Cir. Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes of the Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit reversed a trial court's summary judgment order in the
case captioned, CARMEN FRANKLIN and JENIFER CHISM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., and BRYON
BELLERUD II, P.C., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-3774 (7th
Cir.).

Carmen Franklin and Jenifer Chism parked their cars in a Chicago-
area lot owned by Metra, the public commuter railroad, and
operated by CPS Chicago Parking, LLC. (CPS). The lot offers
parking spaces to the public at the rate of $1.50 per day. CPS
says the two failed to pay and sent them violation notices
demanding payment of the $1.50 fee and a $45 nonpayment penalty.
When they still did not pay, CPS referred the matter for
collection to Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. (Parking
Revenue), which sent them collection letters for the $46.50 total
due.

Franklin and Chism responded with this class action against
Parking Revenue alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA). The suit alleges that parking in the lot
was a "transaction" -- Central Parking offers parking to all
comers, which the plaintiffs accepted by parking in the lot -- and
the payment obligation therefore was a debt, the collection of
which is governed by FDCPA.

The district court entered summary judgment for Parking Revenue,
holding that the FDCPA does not apply because the unpaid parking
obligations are not "debts" as that term is defined in Sec.
1692a(5).

In her Decision dated August 10, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/WDuZuQ from Leagle.com, Judge Sykes concluded that
the unpaid parking fees and nonpayment penalties obligations at
issue are "debts" within the meaning of the FDCPA. The obligation
that arises from that transaction is a "debt," and an attempt to
collect it must comply with the FDCPA.

Carmen Franklin and Jenifer Chism are represented by:

      Michael Hilicki, Esq.
      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      Leslie Rice Melman, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW LTD
      55 W. Monroe, Ste. 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (866)726-1092

Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. and Bryon Bellerud II,
P.C. are represented by:

      Stacie E. Barhorst, Esq.
      KAPLAN PAPADAKIS & GOURNIS PC
      180 North LaSalle St., Suite 2108
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312)726-0531


PINNACLE FOODS: "Thornton" Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Ross of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, ERIKA THORNTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated in Missouri, Plaintiff, v.
PINNACLE FOODS GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-CV-00158 JAR
(E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff Erika Thornton brought the putative class action in St.
Louis City Circuit Court against Defendant Pinnacle Foods Group
LLC (Pinnacle), asserting claims for violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (Count I) and unjust enrichment (Count
II). She alleges that on at least one occasion in the five years
preceding the filing of this action (the Class period), including
in January 2016, she purchased a box of Duncan Hines Simple
Mornings Blueberry Streusel Premium Muffin Mix (the Mix).
Plaintiff contends that Pinnacle's representation that the Mix
contains "Nothing Artificial" is false, deceptive, and misleading.

Pinnacle removed the matter to the Court on February 5, 2016 and
has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 8, 9(b) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In his Memorandum and Order dated August 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/QTOMWn from Leagle.com, Judge Ross found that
Plaintiff has alleged a plausible theory of damages, a claim under
the MMPA and that it meets the standards of pleading with
particularity as set forth in Rule 9(b).

Erika Thornton is represented by:

      Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
      ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC
      655 Montgomery St., Suite 1200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415)296-5150

Pinnacle Foods Group LLC is represented by James Muehlberger, Esq.
-- jmuehlberger@shb.com -- SHOOK AND HARDY, LLP


PREMERA BLUE: Court Narrows Claims in Customer Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon granted in part the motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, IN RE: PREMERA BLUE CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Actions,
Case No. 3:15-MD-2633-SI (D. Or.).

Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Defendant
Premera Blue Cross (Premera), a healthcare benefits provider.  On
March 17, 2015, Premera publicly disclosed that its computer
network had been breached. Plaintiffs allege that the breach
compromised the confidential information of approximately 11
million current and former members, affiliated members, and
employees of Premera.

According to Plaintiffs, the breach began in May 2014, and went
undetected for almost a year. Plaintiffs further allege that after
discovering the breach, Premera waited several months before
notifying all affected individuals. Based on these allegations,
among others, Plaintiffs assert that they have been damaged in
several ways and bring various common law claims and state
statutory claims.

Premera moves to dismiss several of Plaintiffs' claims and several
of Plaintiffs' damage theories invoking Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Premera challenges the
allegations of fraud contained in Plaintiffs' First Claim
(Washington CPA), Seventh Claim (other state consumer protection
laws), and Eleventh Claim (Misrepresentation by Omission). Premera
argues that Plaintiffs' allegations of fraud fail to comply with
the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

In his Opinion and Order dated August 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/aACpbv from Leagle.com, Judge Simon granted the
motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' breach of express contract and
breach of implied contract and breach of fiduciary duty since
Plaintiffs insufficiently alleged such claim and by failing
adequately to allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship.
The Court found that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged unjust
enrichment, violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, causation, and damages.

The Court directed Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Consolidated
Class Action Complaint consistent with the Opinion and Order.

Premera Blue Cross, In Re is represented by Daniel R. Warren, Esq.
-- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- James A. Sherer, Esq. --
jsherer@bakerlaw.com -- and Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP; Darin M. Sands,
Esq. -- sandsd@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL, PC

All Plaintiffs are represented by Chase C. Alvord, Esq. --
calvord@tousley.com -- Christopher I. Brain, Esq. --
cbrain@tousley.com -- Jason T. Dennett, Esq. --
jdennett@tousley.com -- and Kim D. Stephens, Esq. --
kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC; Keith S.
Dubanevich, Esq. -- kdubanevich@stollberne.com -- and Steve D.
Larson, Esq. -- slarson@stollberne.com -- STOLL STOLL BERNE
LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.


PROVIDE COMMERCE: Plaintiff Attorney's Fees & Costs Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California adopted the orders of
Judge Anthony Battaglia in their entirety in the case captioned,
In re: EASYSAVER REWARDS LITIGATION, Case No. 09-CV-02094-BAS-WVG
(S.D. Cal.).

According to Plaintiffs, when class members completed a purchase
on one of Provide Commerce Inc.'s retail websites, they were
presented with a pop-up window offering $15.00 off their next
purchase as a "Thank you" gift, and asking them to enter their zip
code and email address and click "Accept" to receive the gift.
Provide Commerce then transmitted this private payment information
to Encore Marketing International (EMI) without consent. EMI
proceeded to enroll class members in a Rewards Program and charged
their credit or debit cards a $1.95 activation fee, followed by a
$14.95 monthly fee.

Provide Commerce and EMI deny these allegations, claiming the
Rewards Program details were adequately disclosed and that
Plaintiffs entered into electronic contracts with EMI for
membership in the Rewards Program.

On February 4, 2013, Judge Battaglia issued a Final Order
approving the class settlement; granting Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs and incentive awards; and overruling
Objector Perryman's objections. Based on the Order, on February
21, 2013, Judge Battaglia entered a Final Judgment dismissing with
prejudice the action and retaining jurisdiction over the
implementation, administration and enforcement of the Final
Judgment, the Settlement Agreement and all matters ancillary
thereto.

Counsel in the case negotiated a class settlement worth as much as
$38 million on behalf of 1,500,000 class members. Class counsel
requests an $8.65 million award in attorneys' fees, which is 22.7%
of the overall recovery, below the typical 25% benchmark.

On appeal, Objector Perryman argues that the $38 million is over-
inflated since it requires class members to use their $20
merchandise credit, and a more realistic assessment of the
recovery is the fund with no merchandise credits included, or
$12.5 million.

In her Order dated August 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/48ezjG from Leagle.com, Judge Bashant found that the
rates billed by the attorneys and the incentive awards are
reasonable and appropriate.

Josue Romero, et al. are represented by Alisa A. Martin, Esq. --
alisa@amartinlaw.com -- AMARTIN LAW, PC; Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. -
- Steckler@CommercialTrialLaw.com -- and Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq.
-- Mazin@CommercialTrialLaw.com -- THE STECKLER LAW FIRM; Gene J.
Stonebarger, Esq. -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com --
STONEBARGER LAW, APC; Isam C. Khoury, Esq. -- ikhoury@ckslaw.com -
- and Michael D. Singer, Esq. -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- COHELAN
KHOURY & SINGER; James Richard Patterson, Esq. --
jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC; Jennie Lee
Anderson, Esq. -- jennie@andrusanderson.com -- ANDRUS ANDERSON
LLP; Kimberly Dawn Neilson, Esq. -- kim@frisellalaw.com -- LAW
OFFICE OF LISA J. FRISELLA, APC

Kimberly Kenyon and Gina Bailey are represented by Bruce W.
Steckler, Esq. -- Steckler@CommercialTrialLaw.com -- and Mazin A.
Sbaiti, Esq. -- Mazin@CommercialTrialLaw.com -- THE STECKLER LAW
FIRM; Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. -- jennie@andrusanderson.com --
ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP;  Alisa A. Martin, Esq. --
alisa@amartinlaw.com -- AMARTIN LAW, PC; James Richard Patterson,
Esq. -- jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC;
Kimberly Dawn Neilson, Esq. -- kim@frisellalaw.com -- LAW OFFICE
OF LISA J. FRISELLA, APC

Provide Commerce, Inc. is represented by Leo P. Norton, Esq. --
lnorton@cooley.com -- Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- and Michelle C. Doolin, Esq., COOLEY
GODWARD

Regent Group, Inc. is represented by Michael L. Kirby, Esq. --
mike@kirbyandkirbylaw.com -- NOONAN LANCE BOYER & BANACH LLP;
Jacie C. Zolna, Esq. -- jzolna@cherry-law.com -- and Myron Milton
Cherry, Esq. -- mcherry@cherry-law.com -- MRYON M. CHEERY &
ASSOCIATES, LLC


QUESTAR CORP: 4 Lawsuits Over Merger Deal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Questar Corporation, Questar Gas Company and Questar Pipeline
Company 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 as of August 3, 2016, six
lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed purportedly on
behalf of Questar shareholders, of which four are pending in the
Third District Court, Salt Lake County, Utah, and two are pending
in the United States District Court of Utah, Central Division.

Questar entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Dominion
Resources, Inc. ("Dominion Resources") and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Diamond Beehive Corp. on January 31, 2016, pursuant to
which Questar shareholders have the right to receive $25.00 per
share in cash, subject to the satisfaction of specified
conditions. If the Dominion Merger is completed, Questar will
become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dominion Resources.

As of August 3, 2016, six lawsuits challenging the Merger have
been filed purportedly on behalf of Questar shareholders, of which
four are pending in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County,
Utah, and two are pending in the United States District Court of
Utah, Central Division. Each of the lawsuits names Questar,
Questar's directors, Dominion Resources and Diamond Beehive Corp.
as defendants. The named plaintiffs in the four lawsuits pending
in Third District Court are John Hansen, Eric Senatori, Shiva
Stein and James E. Toth, and Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and
Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund, respectively. The named
plaintiffs in the two lawsuits pending in U.S. District Court are
Kevin Hessel and Dan Ipson, respectively.

All of the lawsuits are purported shareholder class actions
advancing substantially the same allegations that the Merger
Agreement was adopted in violation of the fiduciary duties of
Questar's directors and seeking injunctive relief to enjoin the
Dominion Merger, as well as other remedies. All of the cases raise
direct claims on behalf of Questar shareholders. In addition, one
of the cases raises derivative claims on behalf of Questar.

On April 21, 2016, the Third District Court granted a request to
consolidate all four cases pending in Third District Court into
Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al. v. Ronald W. Jibson, et
al. (Case No. 160900938). On April 22, 2016, the court appointed
Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the
consolidated matter. The court also appointed lead counsel and
liaison counsel.

On May 5, 2016 the parties of the state action entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding and reached an agreement-in-principle
providing for settlement of the state action, subject to
confirmatory discovery and court approval. The federal plaintiffs
are not signatories to the MOU and their cases remain pending,
although the federal plaintiffs have stated that they intend to
dismiss the federal cases within five days of the approval of the
settlement and entry of an Order and Final Judgment in the state
cases.

The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain, and additional
lawsuits may be brought or additional claims advanced concerning
the Merger. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an
adverse effect on Questar's operations.


RELYPSA INC: "Zavolas" Seeks to Block $1.53 BB Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ZAVOLAS Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RELYPSA, INC., DANIEL K. SPIEGELMAN,
JOHN A. ORWIN, JOHN P. BUTLER, PAUL J. HASTINGS, KENNETH J.
HILLAN, M.B.Ch.B., DAVID W.J. MCGIRR, THOMAS J. SCHUETZ, M.D.,
Ph.D., and HELEN TORLEY, M.B.Ch.B., M.R.C.P., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-04735 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2016), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from closing a tender offer and taking any steps to
consummate a merger between Buyer and Relypsa, and seeks damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act in
the event the merger is consummated.

According to the complaint, Relypsa's board approved a sale of the
Company in order to obtain personal benefits they negotiated with
the Buyer to the detriment of Relypsa's public stockholders. The
Buyer will acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of Relypsa
common stock through an all-cash tender offer followed by a
second-step merger (Proposed Transaction). The Buyer has offered
Relypsa investors $32.00 per share in cash, or a total of
approximately $1.53 billion. The Agreement and Plan of Merger, is
dated July 20, 2016.

Even though the $32.00 Offer Price does not fully value Relypsa's
future standalone prospects, the Company's Board members agreed to
support the Proposed Transaction because it will allow them to
liquidate their Relypsa stock for a significant profit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256 2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256 2885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper OT, "Taylor" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES TAYLOR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-02760-DGC
(D. Ariz., August 16, 2016), alleges that Republic failed to pay
the proper amount of overtime to the Plaintiff and the putative
class members in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act for
the three-year period preceding the filing of the complaint.

Mr. Taylor was employed as a non-exempt waste disposal driver at
Republic's San Antonio, Texas waste disposal facility from
approximately May 1, 2013, until December 1, 2015.

Republic Services, Inc., is a for-profit corporation incorporated
in the state of Delaware and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.
Republic provides waste collection and disposal services to its
customers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Mushkatel, Esq.
          MUSHKATEL, ROBBINS & BECKER, P.L.L.C.
          15249 North 99th Avenue
          Sun City, AZ 85351
          Telephone: (480) 428-0992
          Facsimile: (623) 974-4739
          E-mail: zach@phoenixlawteam.com

               - and -

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


ROCKWELL INT'L: June 1, 2017 Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
John Aguilar, writing for Denver Post, reports that payouts to
property owners in long-running Rocky Flats suit should start in
2017.

For those who lived in the shadow of the former Rocky Flats
nuclear plant -- and for those who still do -- compensation for
loss of property value triggered by the noxious stew of chemicals
and radioactive elements that were produced at the sprawling
facility and dispersed downwind is moving from dream to reality.

A federal judge gave preliminary approval to a $375 million
settlement that was reached in May between thousands of property
owners living east of Rocky Flats and the plant's longtime
operators, Rockwell International Corp. and Dow Chemical Co.

The approval from U.S. District Judge John L. Kane puts into
motion a timeline whereby 13,000 to 15,000 eligible households and
other property owners in neighborhoods surrounding Standley Lake
could see payments for damages as early as next year.  The
deadline to file a claim is June 1, 2017, and payment by Dow and
Rockwell into a settlement fund must be made by July 28, 2017,
according to Kane's order.

Information about the settlement and eligibility for compensation
can be found at a special website set up for claimants --
www.rockyflatssettlement.com -- that went live on Aug. 8.  Merrill
Davidoff, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said within a few
weeks an interactive element will be added to the website whereby
a property owner can type in an address to see if they are
eligible to make a claim.

Property owners, including their heirs, can file a claim of
property devaluation as long as the property was in their hands on
June 7, 1989.  That was the day after the FBI raided the plant to
look for environmental crimes.

"This is by far the largest dollar amount agreed to be paid out by
a nuclear weapons plant to neighboring properties,"
Mr. Davidoff said on Aug. 8.

The judge's order is one of a number of final steps being taken to
put an end to a class action lawsuit, dubbed Cook et al. vs.
Rockwell International, that has dragged on since 1990 and saw an
award of $926 million in 2006 overturned by the 10th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals four years later.

"This shows how difficult and daunting it is to mount a fight
against a U.S. weapons contractor backed up by the U.S.
government," Mr. Davidoff said.

Kathleen Genoff, a 63-year-old Arvada resident who has owned a
condo on the east side of Standley Lake since 1984, said a quarter
century-plus to arrive at a resolution to the case was excessive.

"The wheels of justice move, but in slow motion," she said.  "At
least, we'll get something out of it."

An attorney representing Dow, which ran the plant from 1952 to
1975, and Rockwell, which ran it from 1975 until 1989, declined to
comment on Aug. 8.  Dow spokeswoman Rachelle Schikorra said the
settlement is "the right decision for the company and its
shareholders."

"In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy authorized the
settlement, and Dow fully expects to be indemnified for the full
cost of the settlement," she said.

The 6,500-acre Rocky Flats, 16 miles northwest of Denver,
manufactured plutonium triggers for the nation's nuclear arsenal.
It formally shut down in 1992 and underwent a $7 billion cleanup
that concluded in 2005.

The allocation for the $375 million settlement, according to the
Kane's order, is 81.5 percent for residential properties, 15.3
percent for vacant land and 3.2 percent for commercial properties.
Up to 40 percent of the total -- or $150 million -- could be
awarded as fees to the attorneys in the case.

Property owners should be receiving letters about their legal
rights in the next couple of months while advertisements will be
placed in local newspapers to get the word out, Mr. Davidoff said.

Lillian Halligan, who is 96 and has lived on the south shore of
Standley Lake for three decades, said she isn't surprised a
settlement took so long to reach.

"I'm used to things dragging on," she said.  "I just hope I am
here to collect."


RONKA RESTAURANT: Polanco Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
RAMON MOREL POLANCO and RANULFO ROJAS, on behalf of themselves and
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, v. RONKA RESTAURANT
LLC, KIERAN STAUNTON, ORLAITH STAUNTON,
VORTEX HOSPITALITY LLC, PAUL LONGO and PAUL MCDAID, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04586 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, unpaid spread of hours premium, and statutory
penalties, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants allegedly operated their business with a policy of
not paying Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the FLSA
overtime rate (of time and one-half) or the New York State Law.

The Defendants operate a restaurant by the trade name "Molly
Bloom" located at 43-13 Queens Blvd., Sunnyside, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAN JOSE, CA: Police Dep't Faces Class Action Over Gay Sex Stings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Wright, writing for Towleroad, reports that San Jose police
are facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly singling out gay
men in sex stings at a public restroom.

The Police Department cited dozens of men at Columbus Park in 2014
and 2015, charging them under Section 647(d) of the California
penal code, which prohibits loitering in or around a public
restroom for the purpose of engaging in a lewd or lascivious act.

But famed gay civil rights attorney Bruce Nickerson says the
arrests are invalid because the state Supreme Court ruled in 1979
that lewd conduct is only a crime if it's performed with the
intent to offend.  The Police Department has been using undercover
officers to "honey-trap" the men, which Mr. Nickerson says
generates the "reasonable belief that the decoy is interested and
not likely to be offended."

Mr. Nickerson also says police haven't used decoys to arrest
anyone for male-female sexual encounters, meaning the arrests
violate the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.

"It is the gay equivalent of stopping Jim Crow laws," he told
KPIX-TV.

San Jose Inside has more on Mr. Nickerson's history of winning
similar cases, as well as additional detail on the nature of the
stings.

"A lot of gay rights attorneys turn up their noses at what I do,"
Mr. Nickerson said.  "But there's a reason I do these kinds of
cases.  Because worse than being fired because you're gay is to be
arrested for being gay.  The most fundamental right is to be free
of imprisonment."


SEAWORLD PARKS: Court Narrows Claims in Anderson and Conway Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part
SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, and granted Plaintiffs Marc
Anderson's and Ellexa Conway's motion for leave to file a second
amended class action complaint in the case captioned, MARC
ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. . 15-CV-02172-JSW (N.D. Cal.).

The case is one of four putative class actions that were filed
against SeaWorld regarding alleged misrepresentations about its
treatment of orcas, i.e. killer whales, at its various theme
parks. Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the City and County of San
Francisco.

SeaWorld then removed the action to the Court and asserted the
Court had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
SeaWorld filed its motion to dismiss the FAC.

In their proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that
SeaWorld also engaged in this marketing campaign to induce
merchandise purchases. Plaintiffs allege that SeaWorld represents
that: (1) orca's lifespans in captivity are equivalent to life
spans in the wild; (2) collapsed dorsal fins are normal; (3) it
does not separate orca calves from mothers; and (4) captivity does
not harm orcas. Plaintiffs allege that each of these statements
are false or misleading and that they were "exposed" to these
representations in a variety of ways.

Plaintiffs assert claims for: (1) violations of California's false
advertising law, Business and Professions Code sections 17500, et
seq. (the "FAL claim"); (2) violations of California's unfair
competition law, Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et
seq. (the "UCL claim"); and (3) violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code section 1750, et seq.
(the "CLRA claim").

In the motion to dismiss, SeaWorld argues the Court should dismiss
the FAC, because: (1) Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive
relief under Article III of the United States Constitution; (2)
Plaintiffs fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 9(b); (3)
Plaintiffs fail to allege economic injury or reliance and, thus,
fail to show they have statutory standing to seek relief; (4)
tickets to SeaWorld are neither a good nor a service under the
CLRA; and (5) Plaintiffs have not complied with the pre-suit
notice requirements under the CLRA.

In his Memorandum Order dated August 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/wZzjxa from Leagle.com, Judge White denied in part
as to Ms. Nelson's and Ms. Morizur's finding that they have
standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the class
concluding that the three Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that she has standing to pursue the UCL and FAL claims based on
that representation and granted in part as to Ms. Conway because
she failed to allege that she has statutory standing to pursue the
UCL and FAL claims.

The Court directed the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by
no later than August 22, 2016. In addition, the parties shall
appear for an initial case management conference on October 7,
2016. The parties shall file a joint case management conference
statement on September 30, 2016.

Marc Anderson and Ellexa Conway are represented by Christine
Saunders Haskett, Esq. -- chaskett@cov.com -- Lindsey Catherine
Barnhart, Esq. -- lbarnhart@cov.com -- Tracy Olivia Zinsou, Esq. -
- tzinsou@cov.com -- and Udit Sood, Esq. -- usood@cov.com --
COVINGTON BURLING LLP

SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc. is represented by John
Morgan Simpson, Esq. -- john.simpson@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Michelle C. Pardo, Esq. -- michelle.pardo@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- Rebecca E. Bazan, Esq. -- rebecca.bazan@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- and Rebecca E. Bazan, Esq. --
rebecca.bazan@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
LLP; Lawrence Yale Iser, Esq. -- liser@kwikalaw.com -- Gregory
Steven Gabriel, Esq. -- ggabriel@kwikalaw.com -- and Kristen
Louise Spanier, Esq. -- kspanier@kwikalaw.com -- KINSELLA WEITZMAN
ISER KUMP & ALDISERT LLP


SERVIS ONE: Court Trims Claims in "McCamis" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Moody Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
captioned, RONNIE J. McCAMIS, Plaintiff, v. SERVIS ONE, INC.,
d/b/a BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No.
8:16-CV-1130-T-30AEP (M.D. Fla.).

The class action relates to Defendant's alleged practice of
attempting to collect a discharged debt directly from a debtor
after Defendant was informed that the debt was discharged in
bankruptcy. Specifically, Plaintiff Ronnie J. McCamis alleges that
in February 2015, he filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Plaintiff listed in his bankruptcy petition a mortgage on real
property, provided notice in his bankruptcy case that he intended
to surrender the property, and vacated the property. Plaintiff
received a discharge in bankruptcy that extinguished his personal
liability on the mortgage debt in May 2015.

Defendant Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI Financial Services, Inc.
(BSI) began servicing the mortgage after it was discharged.
Plaintiff was represented by counsel in the bankruptcy case and
was also represented by the law firm of Centrone & Shrader, P.A.
with respect to BSI's continued collection efforts post-
bankruptcy. Plaintiff notified BSI of his bankruptcy discharge and
representation by counsel. Plaintiff alleges that despite BSI's
actual knowledge that Plaintiff was represented by counsel and
that his personal liability on the mortgage debt had been
discharged in bankruptcy, BSI continued to contact Plaintiff
directly in an attempt to collect the mortgage debt from him.

Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of himself and the class, the
following claims: (1) violation of the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act (FCCPA); (2) violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA); and (3) relief under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 105(a)
for BSI's violation of the discharge injunction.

BSI moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. BSI also argues that the Court does not have
jurisdiction to award any relief to Plaintiff related to BSI's
alleged violation of the discharge injunction.

In his Order dated July 29, 2016 available at https://is.gd/f9FAoB
from Leagle.com, Judge Moody concluded that Plaintiff has standing
because Plaintiff alleges a concrete and particularized injury in
fact. The Court granted the motion with respect to the November 4,
2015, and November 23, 2015 notices regarding hazard insurance
because there is no implicit demand for payment.

Ronnie J. McCamis is represented by Brian Lucas Shrader, Esq. --
bshrader@centroneshrader.com -- and Gus M. Centrone, Esq. --
gcentrone@centroneshrader.com -- CENTRONE & SHRADER, PLLC; and
Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq. -- kyanes@kmf-law.com -- KYNES,
MARKMAN & FELMAN, PA

Servis One, Inc. is represented by James Kirby McDonough, Esq. --
kirby.mcdonough@quarles.com -- Steven Douglas Knox, Esq. --
douglas.knox@quarles.com -- and Zachary Foster, Esq. --
zachary.foster@quarles.com -- QUARLES & BRADY, LLP


SHARKNINJA OPERATING: "Rosenthal" Dismissed with Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anne E. Thompson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, MORDECHAI ROSENTHAL, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-1048 (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Mordechai Rosenthal (Plaintiff) purchased one of
SharkNinja Operating LLC's (Defendant) vacuums from a Walmart
store located in Howell, New Jersey. Plaintiff purchased the
vacuum in part due to Defendant's pervasive advertising of the
vacuum as a quality and reliable product. The vacuum came with a
five-year limited warranty.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was aware of this vacuum's
electrical defects and tendency to malfunction but failed to
disclose these facts to Plaintiff and other vacuum purchasers.
Consequently, on February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a class action
complaint against Defendant, claiming that Defendant violated the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the basis of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). Defendant argues that
the complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff's claim under
the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) is subsumed by New Jersey's Product
Liability Act (PLA). In the alternative, Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff fails to plead the elements of a CFA claim.

In her Opinion dated August 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/JPzrqL from Leagle.com, Judge Thompson found that
the Plaintiff has not adequately pled an ascertainable loss and
that the facts in the complaint are not sufficient to show that
Plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief.

Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30
days.

Mordechai Rosenthal is represented by James C. Shah, Esq. --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP

Sharkninja Operating LLC is represented by Lorna A. Dotro, Esq.
-- ldotro@coughlinduffy.com -- COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP


SHELBY COUNTY: Court Narrows Claims in Suit v. School Board
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted in
part a motion for summary judgment with respect to Kristin Hurt's
claims and denied the motion with respect to all other plaintiffs
in the case captioned, Kristin Hurt et al., Plaintiffs, v. Shelby
County Board of Education, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:13-CV-
230-VEH (N.D Ala.).

The case arises from Daniel Acker, Jr.'s horrific 25-year practice
of exploiting his position as an elementary school teacher to
convert the Shelby County school system into his personal sexual
hunting ground. Plaintiffs Kristin Hurt (Hurt) and six Jane Does,
named in the caption Jane Doe #1 - Jane Doe #6 (Jane Does),
alleged sex discrimination and conscience-shocking conduct in
violation of the Constitution of the United States, the failure to
prevent the same, sex discrimination in violation of federal
statutes, and tortious conduct under Alabama law.

The Plaintiffs have named as defendants the Shelby County Board of
Education (the Board), Lee Doebler, Steve Martin, and Dan Acker.
Doebler and Martin are named in both their individual and official
capacities as members of the Shelby County Board of Education.
Doebler, Martin, and the School Board (collectively, Defendants).

The initial complaint in the case was filed on February 1, 2013.
An amended complaint was filed on February 8, 2013, seeking to use
the class action mechanism. Acker answered on March 7, 2013, and
the other defendants answered on March 27, 2013. Plaintiffs moved
to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) which was denied on  August
21, 2014. A second amended complaint adding Jane Does #5 and #6 as
plaintiffs was filed on December 15, 2014.

On January 11, 2016, the Defendants moved to dismiss Jane Doe # 5
for lack of prosecution. The same day, all defendants except Acker
moved for summary judgment.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated July 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/TJCn1E from Leagle.com, Judge Hopkins granted the
motion to dismiss as to Counts I, II-A, II-B, IV, V and VI because
the parties have agreed that loss of consortium is a measure of
damages and not a claim; granted as to all of Kristin Hurt's other
claims; and denied as to Count I, the Title IX claim because
Hurt's allegations are sufficient to allow a jury to find that the
School Board had actual notice of the substantial risk of sexual
harassment.

Kristin Hurt, et al. are represented by Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
-- dea@wigginschilds.com -- Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq. --
jgoldfarb@wigginschilds.com -- and L. William Smith, Esq. --
wsmith@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILD PANTAZIS FISHER &
GOLDFARB

Shelby County Board of Education, et al. are represented by Donald
B. Sweeney, Esq.-- dsweeney@bradley.com -- Anne R. Yuengert, Esq.
-- ayuengert@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP

Dan Acker is represented by Robert M. Ronnlund, Esq. --
Ronnlund@sssandf.com -- SCOTT SULLIVAN STREETMAN & FOX PC


SIRIUSXM: Settles Robo-Dialing Class Action for $35 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Flanagan, writing for Billboard, reports that a settlement
between SiriusXM and Francis W. Hooker, Jr., who brought suit
against the company in 2012, has been submitted to Arenda L.
Wright Allen, the Eastern District of Virginia judge appointed to
the case.

If approved, SiriusXM would establish a $35 million settlement
fund from which "notice, administrative costs, service awards, and
attorneys fees, costs, and other expenses" would be drawn by
Hooker and those appointed to oversee its disbursement among those
eligible to participate in the settlement.  Those eligible must
have: purchased, before April 5, 2016, a vehicle which came with a
SiriusXM trial; received a call from SiriusXM on their cell or
wireless phone between Feb. 15, 2008 and July 5, 2016; and never
paid for the radio service prior to July 5, 2016.

The suit concerned alleged "robo-dialing" that SiriusXM hired a
telemarketing firm to try and convince those using its service
under a trial period to become subscribers by cold-calling them. A
car purchased by Mr. Hooker in 2012 came with a free three-month
trial subscription to the satellite radio service, after which he
began receiving calls on his cell phone in an attempt to make him
a full-time subscriber.

Mr. Hooker's initial complaint says that SiriusXM's telemarketing
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which Mr.
Hooker wrote in 2012 "prohibits the use of autodialers or
artificial or prerecorded voices to make any non-emergency call to
a cellular or wireless phone number in the absence of prior
express consent of the called party."


SMARTE CARTE: Court Dismisses "McCollough" Privacy Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Smarte Carte, Inc.'s motion to dismiss in the case captioned,
ADINA McCOLLOUGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SMARTE CARTE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 16 C 03777 (N.D. Cal.)

Adina McCollough filed a three-count Complaint for damages,
injunctive relief, and unjust enrichment stemming from violations
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
McCollough alleges that she used a Smarte Carte locker at Union
Station in Chicago, Illinois, five times in 2015. The Complaint
alleges that Smarte Carte retained McCollough's fingerprint
biometric information without written consent.

Smarte Carte moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure
to state a claim because McCollough does not allege that she
suffered any injury to satisfy Article III standing. Smarte Carte
also argues that McCollough lacks statutory standing to bring the
claim because she is not an "aggrieved" individual within the
meaning of BIPA.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 1, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/KQQzuu from Leagle.com, Judge Coleman found that
even if a state court would find McCollough to be an aggrieved
person under BIPA a state statute cannot confer federal
constitutional standing.

Adina McCollough is represented by:

      Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
      Mark Anthony Bulgarelli, Esq.
      PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
      140 S. Dearborn, Suite 315
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312)787-2717

Smarte Carte, Inc. is represented by Joseph A. Strubbe, Esq. --
jstrubbe@vedderprice.com -- and Frederic T. Knape, Esq. --
fknape@vedderprice.com -- VEDDER PRICE P.C.


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in "Quinn" Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC's (SLS) motion to dismiss and
denied motion to strike in the case captioned, THOMAS QUINN and
THERESA QUINN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 15-3799 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Thomas and Theresa Quinn (the Quinns) have brought this
suit, individually and on behalf of a purported class, against
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (SLS) for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (ICFA).

In November 2008, the Quinns obtained a loan from Cherry Creek
Mortgage Company for the purchase of their home. After
experiencing a series of misfortunes, they defaulted on their
mortgage payments. The loan was subsequently transferred to Bank
of America (BofA), and the Quinns retained The Residential
Litigation Group (RLG) to negotiate the loan dispute with BofA. In
July 2012, BofA filed a foreclosure action against the Quinns.

The Quinns asserts several causes of action under the FDCPA, some
individually, and some on behalf of a proposed class. Count I is a
class claim alleging that SLS violated FDCPA Sec. 1692c(a)(2) by
communicating with the Quinns directly despite its awareness that
they were represented by counsel; Count II is a class claim
alleging that SLS violated FDCPA Sec. 1692e by using false,
deceptive, or misleading representations in attempting to collect
a debt; Count III asserts an individual claim alleging that SLS
violated FDCPA Sec. 1692d by engaging in harassing, oppressive, or
abusive conduct in attempting to collect a debt. Based on
essentially the same conduct as that alleged in Counts I-III, the
Quinns assert claims under the ICFA, both on behalf of the class
(Count IV) and individually (Count V).

SLS moved to dismiss all of the claims, and has also moved to
strike the class action allegations from Counts I and IV. SLS
argues that the Quinns have failed to allege that it had actual
knowledge that they were represented by counsel. SLS contends that
Count II fails because: (1) the Quinns have failed to allege that
they suffered an injury in fact as a result of the Sec. 1692e
violations and therefore lack standing to bring the claim; (2) the
inspectors' communications were not made "in connection with the
collection of any debt"; and (3) the inspectors' communications
were not materially misleading.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 11, 2016
available at https://is.gd/35tWP4 from Leagle.com, Judge Bucklo
denied motion to dismiss as to Count I and Count III construing
the allegations in the complaint as true and most favorable to the
Quinns, Count II because the challenges to the truth of the
complaint's allegations and are inappropriate at the motion-to-
dismiss stage. Count IV and V are dismissed because the Quinns
cite no authority for the proposition that the pecuniary harm
requirement can be satisfied by seeking attorney's fees in the
same suit in which the ICFA claim is alleged.

Thomas Quinn and Theresa Quinn are represented by Lloyd J. Brooks,
Esq., CONSUMER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.

They are also represented by:

      Al Hofeld, III, Esq.
      Hanan Erikat Van Dril, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF AL HOFELD, JR., LLC
      1525 E. 53rd Street, Suite 832
      Chicago, IL 60615
      Tel:(773)241-5844

Specialized Loan Servicing LLC is represented by Gregg M.
Barbakoff, Esq. -- gbarbakoff@mauricewutscher.com -- MAURICE
WUTSCHER LLP


SPROUTS FARMERS: Motion to Remand Under Consideration
-----------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, 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 plaintiffs'
motion to remand a class action case to state court is currently
under consideration.

On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of Arizona against the Company and certain of its
directors and officers on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock in the
Company's underwritten secondary public offering which closed on
March 10, 2015 (the "March 2015 Offering"). The complaint purports
to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged failure by the Company to
disclose adequate information about produce price deflation in the
March 2015 Offering documents. The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount,
rescission, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 24, 2016, the Company removed the action to federal court
in the District of Arizona. On April 18, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand the case to state court, and that motion
is currently under consideration.

The Company intends to defend this case vigorously, but it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or
any potential liability from, the case.


SPROUTS FARMERS: 4 "Phishing" Scam Actions Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, 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 all four "phishing"
scam actions are currently stayed.

In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal
courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and
one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on
behalf of a purported class of current and former Company team
members whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was
inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that
perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against a Company team
member.  The complaints allege the Company failed to properly
safeguard the PII in accordance with applicable law.  The
complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in
unspecified amounts, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

All four cases are currently stayed pending a ruling on a motion
filed in June 2016 before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer and consolidate all of the cases to the
federal court in the District of Arizona.

The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously, but it is
not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of,
or any potential liability from, the cases.


SQUARE INC: Levin Appeals Court's Order Compelling Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Square, 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 Jeffry Levin filed a
Notice of Appeal of the Court's order compelling arbitration.

The Company is involved in a class action lawsuit concerning
independent contractors in connection with the Company's Caviar
business. On March 19, 2015, Jeffry Levin, on behalf of a putative
nationwide class, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of
California against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Caviar,
Inc., which, as amended, alleges that Caviar misclassified Mr.
Levin and other similarly situated couriers as independent
contractors and, in doing so, violated various provisions of the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code
by requiring them to pay various business expenses that should
have been borne by Caviar.

The Court compelled arbitration of Mr. Levin's individual claims
on November 16, 2015 and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
with prejudice on May 2, 2016. On June 1, 2016, Mr. Levin filed a
Notice of Appeal of the Court's order compelling arbitration. Mr.
Levin also sought an award of penalties pursuant to the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The parties
stipulated that Mr. Levin would no longer pursue this PAGA claim,
and this claim is instead being pursued by a different courier.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Non-Fiduciary Defendants Seek Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 certain non-fiduciary
defendants in the so-called Company Stock Class Action have filed
a motion for summary judgment as it relates to them.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative
class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 15, 2007 to March 30, 2011 and seek to recover
alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result
of their investment in Company stock.

This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26,
2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On
October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs
permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The
Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision
of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which
substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the
Circuit Court decided that appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On
March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the
case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its
decision in The Home Depot case.

On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal
of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of
this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan
fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to
employer stock plans. The Circuit Court remanded the case back to
the District Court for further proceedings in light of
Dudenhoeffer. On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to
dismiss. The discovery process has begun. On August 1, 2016,
certain non-fiduciary defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment as it relates to them.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Mutual Funds Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 discovery is ongoing in
the consolidated mutual funds class action.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on
June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to
dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On
October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action.

Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.

On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014,
the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with
the Eleventh Circuit.

On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the original action filed a
Motion for Consolidation of Appeals requesting that the Court
consider this appeal jointly with the appeal in the second action.
This motion was granted on October 9, 2014 and plaintiffs filed
their consolidated appeal on December 16, 2014.

On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former
officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order
transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay
this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Tibble
v. Eidson International. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided Tibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty,
separate and apart from investment selection, to monitor and
remove imprudent investments.

After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the
District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions
into one case. The Company filed an answer to the consolidated
amended complaint on June 6, 2016 and discovery is ongoing.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss "Felix" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 STM's motion to dismiss
the case, Felix v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., remains pending.

This putative class action was filed against STM on April 4, 2016.
Plaintiff alleges that STM breaches its contract with borrowers
when it collects interest on FHA loans at repayment because STM
fails to use an approved FHA notice form. Plaintiff also alleges
that STM violates the Georgia usury statute by collecting such
interest. Plaintiff attempts to bring the breach of contract claim
on behalf of all borrowers and the usury claim on behalf of
Georgia borrowers. STM filed a motion to dismiss on May 26, 2016,
which remains pending.

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


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Kincaid" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern
Division granted defendant's first motion to dismiss and mooted
the second motion to dismiss in the case captioned, MICHAEL W.
KINCAID, DDS, INC. d/b/a RIVERSIDE FAMILY DENTLAL GROUP,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL, Defendant., Case No. 16-CV-796.
(N.D. Ill.).

Synchrony Financial (Synchrony) offers consumers a credit card
called CareCredit that is designed to be used for charging health
care expenses. Synchrony markets this product by getting
healthcare providers to recommend CareCredit to their patients and
as part of its marketing strategy it sends those providers fax
advertisements. In an attempt to get Michael W. Kincaid, DDS,
Inc., d/b/a Riverside Family Dental Group (Kincaid) to encourage
the patients of his dental practice to apply for CareCredit,
Synchrony sent Kincaid six fax advertisements throughout June,
July, and August 2015. Kincaid did not consent to receive fax
advertisements from Synchrony and the advertisements did not
contain a notice informing him how to opt-out of receiving
additional faxes

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against (Synchrony)
alleging Synchrony violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by sending unsolicited fax advertisements.

In her Order Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 11, 2016
available at https://is.gd/k33OPz from Leagle.com, Judge Coleman
concluded that Kincaid has failed to meet his burden of showing
jurisdiction over Synchrony. Given that the events giving rise to
this lawsuit occurred in 2015, and in light of the TCPA's generous
four-year statute of limitations, the Court observes that there is
no need to transfer rather than dismiss the case in the interest
of justice. Kincaid's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim is stricken as moot.

Michael W. Kincaid, DDS, Inc., Plaintiff is represented by Brian
Kevin Murphy, Esq. -- murphy@mmmb.com -- MURRAY MURPHY MOUL +
BASIL LLP

Lauren E. Snyder, Esq. -- lsnyder@hwglaw.com -- ATTORNEY AT LAW
-- Matthew Mccue, Esq. -- jason.mccue@mccue-law.com -- LAW OFFICE
OF MATTHEW MCCUE


SYNGENTA CORP: "Claas" Files Suit Over GMO Corn Trait
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard Claas, Plaintiff, v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Defendants, Case No. DC-16-
09561, (W.D. Mo., August 9, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent
injunctions providing that Syngenta shall be enjoined from
selling, marketing, distributing, or otherwise disseminating
Viptera corn and Duracade corn, in addition to any other product
featuring MIR162.

Syngenta released a genetically engineered corn trait, MIR162,
into the U.S. market. MIR162 corn has not been approved in China.
It stopped importing U.S. corn when it detected traces of MIR162
in U.S. corn shipments. Claas is engaged in the business of
planting, growing, harvesting, and selling corn and lost
substantially by Syngenta's release of Viptera corn into the U.S.
corn and corn seed supply, which has affected the export of U.S.
corn to China.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
      2500 City Center Square
      1100 Main Street
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Tel: (816) 421-6620
      Fax: (816) 421-4747
      Email: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

             - and -

      Robert A. Horn, Esq.
      Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
      HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
      2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Tel: (816) 421-0700
      Fax: (816) 421-0899
      Email: bhorn@hab-law.com
             jkronawitter@hab-law.com

             - and -

      Paul D. Lundberg, Esq.
      LUNDBERG LAW FIRM, P.L.C.
      600 Fourth St., Suite 906
      Sioux City, IA 51101
      Tel: (712) 234-3030
      Fax: (712) 234-3034
      Email: paul@lundberglawfirm.com

             - and -

      Charles T. Patterson, Esq.
      PATTERSON & PRAHL, LLP.
      25043 Little Water Ln.
      P.O. Box 767
      Custer, SD 57730
      Tel: 605-673-5223
      Email: tpatterson@patterprahl.com


TERE RESTAURANT: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigoberto Ortiz Sandoval, Jaime Hernandez Perez and Patricia
Aldana, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Tere Restaurant Corp. (d/b/a Tehuitzingo Deli),
Miguel Fuentes, Celsa Matilda Lopez (a/k/a Teresa), Miguel Fuentes
Jr. and Abraham Fuentes Lopez, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06306
(S.D. N.Y., August 9, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, spread of hours, overtime wages, applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Laws.

Tere Restaurant Corp. operates Tehuitzingo Deli and is owned by
Miguel Fuentes, Celsa Matilda Lopez, Miguel Fuentes Jr. and
Abraham Fuentes Lopez. Plaintiffs were employed as cook, cashier
and ostensibly employed as delivery worker.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TBC RETAIL: Court Sends Cole Claims to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton of the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina granted in part TBC Retail
Group, Inc.'s (defendant) motion to compel arbitration for
plaintiff Nicholas Cole, motion to compel arbitration for all opt-
in plaintiffs who signed the mutual arbitration agreement, motion
for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion for joinder of
additional parties in the case captioned, ANDREW GORDON, TAVIS
McNEIL, DONALD WRIGHTON, NICHOLAS COLE, JACOB GRISSON, AND DAWN
DEWEY, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TBC RETAIL GROUP, INC. d/b/a TIRE KINGDOM,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-03365-DCN (D.S.C).

On August 20, 2014, Cole joined plaintiffs Andrew Gordon, Tavis
McNeil, Donald Wrighton, Jacob Grissom, and Dawn Dewey (together
with Cole, plaintiffs) in filing the instant action on behalf of
themselves and "all other similarly situated employees."
Plaintiffs allege that defendant violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 201, et seq.(FLSA), by utilizing a compensation plan that did
not provide plaintiffs one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay when they worked more than forty hours in a workweek.

On September 30, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification. As part of that order, the court
ordered defendant to provide the names, address, and telephone
numbers of all potential opt-in plaintiffs, and authorized
plaintiffs to mail a court-approved notice to all potential opt-in
plaintiffs.

Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration against Cole on
August 3, 2015, well before the opt-in period began. On March 7,
2016, defendant filed a second motion to compel arbitration
against all opt-in plaintiffs who signed the Agreement and asked
the court to stay a scheduled hearing on its first motion to
compel arbitration, until both matters could be heard together.
Defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment on April 22,
2016. Plaintiffs responded to the second motion to compel
arbitration on April 29, 2016. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for
the joinder of additional parties on May 6, 2016.

In his Order dated August 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/RkBHXA from Leagle.com, Judge Norton denied
defendant's motion to compel arbitration for Cole and granted in
part defendant's motion to compel arbitration for all other opt-in
plaintiffs who signed the Agreement.

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment with
respect to (1) named plaintiffs Donald Wrighton and Jacob Grissom,
who failed to file a consent form, (2) all opt-in plaintiffs whose
consent was filed over three years after receiving their final
paycheck, and (3) all individuals who cannot be identified or have
failed to demonstrate that they were actually employed as
mechanics at a Tire Kingdom during the class period.

Andrew Gordon, et al. are represented by William Clark Tucker,
Esq. -- jtucker@tlgattorneys.com -- TUCKER LAW FIRM

TBC Retail Group Inc. is represented by:

      Kristin Starnes Gray, Esq.
      Wade Edward Ballard, Esq.
      Louis Percival Britt, III, Esq.
      FORDHARRISON
      Northern Trust
      2049 Century Park E Ste 3600
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310)282-3815


TIBURON FINANCIAL: "Briles" Settlement Granted Preliminary OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Laurie Smith Camp of the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska granted parties' joint motion
and preliminarily approved the settlement of the case captioned,
SHAUNNA BRILES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated; Plaintiff, v. TIBURON FINANCIAL, LLC, a Nebraska Limited
Liability Company; SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE TIBURON, LLC, a Nebraska
Limited Liability Company; JACADA, P.C., LLO, AND a Nebraska
Limited Liability Organization; and JAMES A. CADA, an individual;
Defendants, Case No. 8:15CV241 (D. Neb.).

This class action involves a standardized, debt collection
communication known as a "Stipulation." Plaintiff alleged that
Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA), based on
their efforts to collect consumer debts by unlawfully simulating
legal process, falsely representing the character or legal status
of the debt, and circumventing the protections given to consumers.
Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants intentionally deceived
consumers by sending collection communications (the Stipulations)
designed to give consumers the impression that legal process was
underway.

Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations; dispute that that they
violated the FDCPA or the NCPA; and deny that they deceived
consumers by sending the Stipulation.

In the motion, parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and seek an Order certifying a
settlement class and preliminarily approving the terms of the
proposed Class Action settlement between the parties.

Under the terms of the proposed Settlement, Settlement Class
Members will receive a pro-rata share of the $17,500.00 Settlement
Fund.

In her Memorandum and Order dated August 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Vmzpvg from Leagle.com, Judge Camp found that that
all the elements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) have been satisfied and
certification of the Settlement Class is appropriate. The Court
appointed Shaunna Briles, as class representative of the
Settlement Class, and Burke Smith, Esq., of the Burke Smith Law
firm and Janet R. Varnell, Esq., of the law firm Varnell &
Warwick, P.A. as Counsel for the Settlement Class.

A Final Settlement Fairness Hearing shall be held on December 5,
2016.

Shaunna Briles is represented by  Janet R. Varnell, Esq. --
jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com -- VARNELL, WARWICK LAW FIRM

Tiburon Financial, LLC, et al. are represented by Bradley S.
Levison, Esq. -- blevison@kdvlaw.com -- and Stefan R. Dandelles,
Esq. -- sdandelles@kdvlaw.com -- KAUFMAN, DOLOWICH LAW FIRM;
Kathryn E. Jones, Esq., at KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM


TILE SHOP: Class and Sub-Class Certified in Retirement Fund Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ann D. Montgomery of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota granted Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class, appointed class representatives and class counsel
in the case captioned, Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund;
Erie County Employees' Retirement System; and Luc De Wulf,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc.; Robert A. Rucker; The
Tile Shop, Inc.; Timothy C. Clayton; Peter J. Jacullo, III; JWTS,
Inc.; Peter H. Kamin; Todd Krasnow; Adam L. Suttin; William E.
Watts; Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated; Citigroup Global
Markets Inc.; CJS Securities, Inc.; Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc.;
Piper Jaffray & Co.; Sidoti & Company, LLC; Telsey Advisory Group
LLC; and Wedbush Securities, Inc., Defendants, Civil No. 14-786
ADM/TNL (D. Minn.)

Several Tile Shop shareholders filed putative securities class
actions that were later consolidated and transferred to the
District of Minnesota, and the Consolidated Amended Complaint
(CAC) was filed on May 23, 2014. The CAC asserts five causes of
action, three of which arise under the Securities Act of 1933 and
the remaining two under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 12, 2014, the Court heard argument on Defendants
motions to dismiss. On March 4, 2015, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs' Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims were allowed to proceed against Tile
Shop and Rucker, and control person liability claims under Section
20(a) alleged against Tile Shop, Rucker, and Tile Shop CFO Timothy
Clayton also remain in suit.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Tile Shop common stock between
August 22, 2012, and January 28, 2014" (the Class). Plaintiffs
also seek to certify a subclass of "all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Tile Shop common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the prospectus and registration statement
issued in connection with Tile Shop's public offering of common
stock in December 2012" (the Subclass).

Defendants raise challenges to the typicality and predominance
requirements of Rule 23(a).

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 28, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/mZIbDw from Leagle.com, Judge Montgomery found
that Plaintiffs have fulfilled their burden of establishing each
Rule 23(a) factor and both requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).  The
Court appointed Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, Erie
County Employees' Retirement System, and Luc De Wulf as class
representatives, Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund and Erie
County Employees' Retirement System as subclass representatives
and the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as class counsel.

Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund et al. are represented by
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com  --
Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com --  Karl L.
Cambronne, Esq. -- kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com -- CHESTNUT
CAMBRONNE -- Christopher T. Gilroy, Esq. -- cgilroy@rgrdlaw.com --
Francis P. Karam, Esq. -- frank@fkaramlaw.com -- Joseph F.
Russello , Esq. -- jrussello@rgrdlaw.com -- Mark Samuel Reich,
Esq. -- mreich@rgrdlaw.com -- Samuel H. Rudman, Esq  --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- William John Geddish --
wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP; Kimberly
A. Justice, Esq. -- kjustice@ktmc.com -- Margaret E. Onasch, Esq.
-- monasch@ktmc.com -- Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq. --
mmustokoff@ktmc.com  -- Michelle M. Newcomer, Esq. --
mnewcomer@ktmc.com  -- Paul A. Breucop, Esq. -- pbreucop@ktmc.com
-- Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. -- skaplan@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., et al. are represented by Aaron Knoll,
Esq -- aaron.knoll@FaegreBD.com -- Justin P. Krypel, Esq. --
Justin.krypel@FaegreBD.com -- Staci L. Perdue, Esq. --
staci.perdue@FaegreBD.com -- Wendy J. Wildung, Esq. --
wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
Peter J. Jacullo, III, et al. are represented by David P.
Pearson,Esq.-- dpearson@winthrop.com -- Matthew D. Callanan, Esq.
-- mcallanan@winthrop.com -- Matthew C. Robinson, Esq. --
mrobinson@winthrop.com -- WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, PA
Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated et al, Defendants, represented
by Daniel J. Supalla Esq -- dsupalla@briggs.com -- Frank A. Taylor
Esq -- ftaylor@briggs.com -- BRIGGS & MORGAN, PA

Jed M. Schwartz, Esq. -- jschwartz@milbank.com -- Scott A.
Edelman, Esq. -- sedelman@milbank.com -- MILBANK TWEED HADLEY &
MCCLOY LLP


TIME INC: Appeal from Dismissal of "Coulter-Owens" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time 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 an appeal from a court order
dismissing the complaint by Rose Coulter-Owens remains pending.

On October 3, 2012, Susan Fox filed a class action complaint (the
"Complaint") against Time Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of
Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The VRPA limits the
ability of entities engaged in the business of selling, renting or
lending retail books or other written materials from disclosing to
third parties certain information about customers' purchase, lease
or rental of those materials. The Complaint alleges that Time Inc.
violated the VRPA by renting to third parties lists of subscribers
to various Time Inc. magazines. The Complaint sought injunctive
relief and the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per class
member or actual damages.

On December 3, 2012, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint on
the grounds that it failed to state claims for relief and because
the named plaintiff lacked standing because she suffered no injury
from the alleged conduct.

On August 6, 2013, the court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, Time Inc.'s motion, dismissing the breach of contract claim
but allowing the VRPA and unjust enrichment claims to proceed.

On November 11, 2013, Rose Coulter-Owens replaced Susan Fox as the
named plaintiff. On March 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion
seeking to certify a class consisting of all Michigan residents
who between March 31, 2009 and November 15, 2013 purchased a
subscription to TIME, Fortune or Real Simple magazines through any
website other than Time.com, Fortune.com and RealSimple.com.

On July 27, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify
the class, which the Company estimates to comprise approximately
40,000 consumers. On August 31, 2015, Time Inc. and the plaintiff
moved for summary judgment and on October 1, 2015 both parties
filed briefs in opposition to their adversaries' motions.

On February 16, 2016, the court granted Time Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the case. On March 16, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a notice with the Circuit Court appealing the
District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims.

On May 26, 2016, Time Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on
the ground that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her claims.
Plaintiff filed her opposition brief on June 23, 2016 and Time
Inc. filed its reply brief on July 12, 2016.

Time Inc., is one of the world's leading media companies, with a
monthly global print audience of over 120 million and more than
150 million monthly visitors to its worldwide digital properties,
including over 60 websites.


TIME INC: Motion to Dismiss "Perlin" Video Privacy Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time 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 its reply
brief related to its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by
Susan Fox.

On February 19, 2016, the same law firm representing Rose Coulter-
Owens filed another class action, entitled Perlin v. Time Inc., in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan alleging violations of the Michigan's Video Rental
Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.
This lawsuit was filed on behalf of Michigan residents who
purchased subscriptions directly from Time Inc.

On May 6, 2016 and May 31, 2016, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the
Complaint. Perlin filed an opposition brief on June 27, 2016 and
Time Inc. filed its reply brief on July 11, 2016.

Time Inc., is one of the world's leading media companies, with a
monthly global print audience of over 120 million and more than
150 million monthly visitors to its worldwide digital properties,
including over 60 websites.


TRANS UNION: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in "Larson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the case captioned, BRIAN
DOUGLAS LARSON, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 12-CV-05726-WHO.(N.D. Cal.).

On June 26, 2015, the court issued an order tentatively granting
Larson's motion for class certification but staying the case
pending the outcome in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540
(2016). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the
parties submitted supplemental briefs on how the decision impacts
the tentative class certification ruling. Defendant Trans Union,
LLC contends that Larson cannot establish standing under Spokeo,
and that even if he could, class certification would still be
inappropriate because Spokeo precludes him from establishing
ascertainability, predominance, and superiority.

The court agrees with Larson that his section 1681g(a) claim is
based on something more than a "bare procedural violation" -- such
as the "dissemination of an incorrect zip code" -- that cannot
"cause harm or present any material risk of harm."  To the
contrary, his claim is based on the sort of "informational" injury
that the Spokeo Court implicitly recognized in citing Public
Citizen and Akins, and that a number of other cases, from both
before Spokeo and after, have found sufficient to support Article
III standing.

Further, the court noted that it is not difficult to imagine how
the dissemination of the OFAC disclosure could work some concrete
harm to consumers. Such harm could take the form of emotional
distress, as Larson alleges that he suffered, triggered by the
uncertainty as to whether Trans Union was reporting the consumer
as a match to an individual on the OFAC database and the perceived
inability to dispute the OFAC disclosure.

In her Order dated August 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/8QmyBd from Leagle.com, Judge Orrick held that
article III standing in the case, just like Trans Union's alleged
liability under section 1681g(a), is predicated on the character
of the allegedly misleading information in the credit reports
disseminated to Larson and absent class members, not on Larson's
or absent class members' subjective interpretation of that
information.

A case management conference is set for September 13, 2016 at 2:00
p.m. By September 6, 2016, the parties shall file a joint case
management statement that includes a proposed schedule for
remaining pretrial and trial deadlines.

Brian Douglas Larson, Plaintiff, is represented by Andrew J.
Ogilvie, Esq. -- andy@aiblawyers.com -- Carol McLean Brewer, Esq.
-- carol@aoblawyers.com -- ANDERSON, OGILVIE & BREWER -- David A.
Searles, Esq. -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- Gregory Joseph
Gorski, Esq. -- ggorski@consumerlawfirm.com -- John Soumilas, Esq.
-- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com --  FRANCIS & MAILMAN

Trans Union, LLC, Defendant is represented by Brian C. Frontino --
bfrontino@stroock.com -- Julia B. Strickland, Esq --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stephen J. Newman, Esq --
snowman@Stroock.com -- Benjamin Gary Diehl, Esq --
bdiehl@stroock.com -- STROOCK STROOCK LAVAN LLP


VALIDITY RESEARCH: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Autodialer
----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Los Angeles individual has filed a class-action lawsuit
against a data research company alleging it used an autodialer to
contact him.

Jason Alan filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Aug. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Validity Research Inc. and Does 1
through 10 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in
February, he suffered damages as the result of being contacted on
his cellular telephone by the defendant.  The plaintiff alleges
that he has never provided his information to the defendant.  The
plaintiff holds Validity Research Inc. and Does 1 through 10
responsible because the defendants allegedly used an artificial or
pre-recorded voice to contact plaintiff to solicit its services.

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

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-05758-AB-AJW


VIVUS INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------
Vivus, 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' appeal of the
court ruling granting defendants' motion to dismiss remains
pending.

On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be
purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud
against the Company and three of its former officers and
directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case
No. 114-cv-261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's
securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs
alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for
the Company's success, including with respect to the launch of
Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit.
Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought
damages and other relief.

On June 5, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a
demurrer to the Amended Complaint seeking its dismissal. With the
demurrer pending, on July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No.
5:14-cv-03263. The Jasins' federal complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, based on facts substantially similar to those alleged
in their state court action.

On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the
parties, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice,
the state court action.

In the federal action, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
November 12, 2014. On December 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Complaint in the federal action. On January 21, 2015,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

The court ruled on that motion on June 18, 2015, dismissing the
seven California claims with prejudice and dismissing the two
federal claims with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint on August 17, 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss
that complaint on October 2, 2015.

On September 10, 2015, plaintiffs moved for entry of judgment on
their state claims. Briefing on both defendants' motion to dismiss
and plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment was completed on
December 15, 2015.

On April 19, 2016, the court issued a ruling granting defendants'
motion to dismiss without leave to amend and denying as moot
plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment.  On May 18, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

The Company maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance
that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated cost
of the remaining Jasin action, subject to the use of our financial
resources to pay for our self-insured retention and the policies'
terms and conditions.

The Company and the defendant former officers and directors cannot
predict the outcome of the lawsuit, but they believe the lawsuit
is without merit and intend to continue vigorously defending
against the claims.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Court Aims to Speed Up Emissions Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a German court will adopt a rarely used
class-action style procedure to more efficiently process claims by
investors seeking damages from Volkswagen over a diesel emissions
cheating scandal, according to a ruling.

The regional court in Braunschweig near Volkswagen's (VW)
Wolfsburg headquarters said on Aug. 8 it will pick one case to act
as a model to help resolve as many as 170 other damages claims,
the closest thing Germany has to class-action lawsuits common in
the United States.

Private and institutional investors are suing VW alleging managers
at the carmaker failed to disclose its involvement in a diesel
emissions cheating scandal in a timely manner, a claim VW rejects.

"VW continues to take the view that it has duly complied with
disclosure rules related to securities law," a VW spokesman said
on Aug. 8, adding the court's decision to allow for a model
proceeding is a "normal procedural step" that is also backed by
VW.

Most of the 170 cases have been filed by private investors with
the largest case by lawyer Andreas Tilp filed on behalf of 277
institutional investors and worth EUR3.26 billion ($3.60 billion).

Mr. Tilp has represented investors in many German cases over
capital market-disclosure issues.

The Braunschweig court said the representative plaintiff will be
named at the earliest in the fourth quarter and the model
proceedings will help speed up resolution of the cases.

Germany's legal system does not allow for U.S.-style class action
suits for resolving the consumer claims of Volkswagen owners.

The purpose of model proceedings is to resolve generic or common
issues for other related cases, but unlike in a U.S. class action,
the model proceeding does not have the legal effect of also
resolving all of the individual claims.

Europe's largest automaker is caught up in legal action in the
United States, South Korea and elsewhere and also faces criminal
investigations related to its diesel emissions test manipulations,
its biggest-ever corporate scandal.

Investors say they lost hundreds of millions of euros after United
States regulators revealed VW's manipulation on Sept. 18.

VW knew earlier about the regulatory probe into high levels of car
emissions, but did not admit until Sept. 22 that 11 million cars
worldwide were fitted with illegal software.

Germany introduced model proceedings in mass actions for certain
types of securities fraud in 2005 following a case involving
Deutsche Telekom which became the target of thousands of lawsuits
over alleged prospectus fraud, allegations the company denied.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: DoJ Urged to Raise Compensation for Car Owners
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Autoweek, Consumer Reports has issued a call for the
U.S. Department of Justice to raise the compensation amounts for
owners of diesel Volkswagens that fall under the settlement
reached between the automaker and U.S. authorities at the end of
June.  Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization division of
the publication, wants the settlement to allow owners who get
their cars fixed to later change their minds and sell the cars
back to Volkswagen, in addition to pressing for higher buyback
guarantees.

"Consumers who receive an emissions fix -- if one is approved by
regulators -- should have a period of time to return a modified
car if they are unsatisfied with how it operates," Consumer
reports urges.  "This would give them a second chance to take the
buyback or lease termination.  It would help VW get more consumers
to participate in the recall by protecting them from being stuck
with a car that has worse performance or fuel economy than it did
before."

Consumer Reports is also calling for an extended timeline for
compensation for former owners who sold their cars between
September 2015 and June 2016.  Under the terms of the settlement,
sellers of affected vehicles have just 45 days to identify
themselves in order to be eligible to split the owner restitution
amount 50/50 with the new owners.  Consumer Reports wants the DOJ
to give former VW owners more time to take advantage of this
provision.

The publication also calls for vehicle buyback compensation values
different from those proposed in the settlement -- figures that
would result in payments several hundred dollars higher.

"While recognizing the overall adequacy of the buyback prices that
consumers would receive, Consumer Reports believes it would be
more accurate for the settlement not to use the NADA Clean Trade-
In value as the figure to represent the value of a consumer's car
prior to public knowledge of the VW deceit," Consumer Reports
agues.  "This figure is closer to the wholesale value of the car,
rather than its retail replacement value. Using, at a minimum, an
estimated private sale price (approximately between the Clean
Trade-In and Clean Retail values) would be more consistent with
the Justice Department settlement's definition of Retail
Replacement Value, and would lead to buyback offers for consumers
that would be at least several hundred dollars higher.  Moreover,
using the Clean Trade-In figure instead of a more appropriate one
undermines the value to consumers of the owner restitution under
the Class Action settlement, which is supposed to mean monetary
compensation in addition to the Vehicle Value Payment or Approved
Emissions Modification."

Additionally, the publication wants to see a quicker pace of
vehicle buybacks, with the DOJ using staggered time targets to get
85 percent of the affected vehicles off the road.  Consumer
Reports concedes that the June 2019 deadline is ambitious, but
wants to see a faster buyback regime with appropriate penalties,
presumably to stave off an effort by owners to sell back their
cars at the last minute.

The current settlement agreement is scheduled to be approved by
the U.S. District Court in a matter of weeks, paving the way for
the start of the buyback process.


WAHL CLIPPER: "Javers" Sues Over False Advertisement
----------------------------------------------------
Christina Joy Javers, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wahl Clipper Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01984, (N.D. Ohio, August 9, 2016),
seeks damages, interest and attorneys' fees and expenses, punitive
damages, restitution and/or disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully
charged, injunctive relief, statutory pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such
other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Plaintiff asserts false advertisements regarding the Defendant's
pet care products that claim natural ingredients despite labels
that indicate that it contains synthetic chemicals.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mark Schlachet, Esq.
      3515 Severn Road
      Cleveland, OH 44118
      Telephone: (216) 225-7559
      Facsimile: (216) 932-5390
      Email: markschlachet@me.com


WAHLBURGERS: Ex-Employees File Class Action Over Labor Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that five former employees of the
burger chain founded by celebrity brothers Mark and Donnie
Wahlberg are suing the company over what they call "rampant"
violations of labor laws.

The ex-employees who filed the class-action suit in New York
federal court on Aug. 18 previously worked at a Wahlburgers
location in Brooklyn.  They claim Wahlburgers failed to pay them
the proper minimum wage and regularly kept tips designated for
servers.

The lawsuit claims employees at one time didn't receive a $3,000
tip left for them following a private party for the cast of "Blue
Bloods," the CBS series starring Donnie Wahlberg.

The suit names Wahlburgers and the owners of its Brooklyn
franchise.  The Wahlbergs aren't named.

Wahlburgers said on Aug. 18 that it's working with the franchise
"to better understand the circumstances."


WALKER BROS: Judge Dismisses Waiters' Class Action Over Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashok Selvam, writing for Chicago Eater, reports that a group of
waiters who filed a class-action lawsuit against the Walker Bros.
chain -- which includes The Original Pancake House -- aren't happy
after a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.  A judge ruled
that the restaurant was not breaking federal and state laws after
the servers accused the chain of using tip credits to compensate
them for side duties not pertaining to serving customers.  Those
tasks include cleaning and food prep, something that could take 10
to 45 minutes daily.

The lawsuit, Schaefer v. Walker Bros., could set a precedent for
other Chicago-area restaurants, according to the Cook County
Record.  One attorney said the decision will work to discourage
servers to file similar lawsuits as the ruling clears up confusing
language in the laws.

Robert Schaefer, who worked at three Walker Bros. since 2005, and
11 other workers opted into the suit, which also alleged the chain
paid servers less than minimum wage for the work.  That's despite
state law requiring restaurants to pay at least 60 percent of
minimum wage for those tasks.  The complaint also said Walker
Bros. failed to properly inform workers of how they were to be
paid.  The judge ruled Walker Bros. put up posters with an
adequate explanation and that the servers should have been aware.


WHEELER TRUCKING: Court Declines to Alter Remand Order
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Debra M. Brown of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi denied defendants' motion
for reconsideration in the case captioned, ANTHONY MARTEL
ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. ZACKERY WHEELER, WHEELER SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES, INC., 1 WHEELER TRUCKING COMPANY, LLC, and JOHN DOES
1-10, Defendants, Civil No. 4:15-CV-104-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.)

On February 12, 2016, the Court granted Anthony Martel Robinson's
motion to remand, agreeing with Robinson that the notice of
removal filed by 1 Wheeler Trucking Company, LLC (1 Wheeler),
failed to satisfy the rule of unanimity.

On February 25, 2016, 1 Wheeler Trucking Company, LLC's "Motion
for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, Motion to Vacate Order
on Remand and Deny Remand with Prejudice" was filed, which seeks
reconsideration of the remand order pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the motion, Wheeler advances three arguments in support of its
motion for reconsideration: (1) the unanimity rule does not apply
because Zackery Wheeler was not properly served with process; (2)
the basis for remand was improperly raised in the reply brief
supporting the motion to remand; and (3) the Court erred in
remanding without accepting evidentiary submissions. The Court
will address each argument in turn.

In her Order dated August 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/CrXWWk from Leagle.com, Judge Brown held that 1
Wheeler cannot legitimately claim that it was surprised or
prejudiced in any way by the Court's consideration of Robinson's
argument.

Anthony Martel Robinson is represented by:

      William C. Bell, Esq.
      BELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
      406 S. Pear Orchard Rd
      Ridgeland, MS 39157
      Tel: (601)956-0360

Zackery Wheeler and Wheeler Supportive Services, Inc. are
represented by Roy A. Smith, Jr., Esq. --
art.spratlin@butlersnow.com -- DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL

1 Wheeler Trucking Company, LLC is represented by Arthur D.
Spratlin, Jr., Esq. -- rsmith@danielcoker.com -- and -- Keishunna
R. Webster, Esq. -- keishunna.webster@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER
SNOW LLP


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Aug. 8 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against The WhiteWave Foods Company
("WhiteWave" or the "Company") in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado on behalf of current stock holders of
WhiteWave, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On July 6, 2016, WhiteWave and Danone S.A. jointly announced that
they had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger
("Merger Agreement") whereby WhiteWave will merge with and into
Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with WhiteWave surviving as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Danone.  The Merger was unanimously approved
and adopted by the Board of Directors of WhiteWave.  Pursuant to
the Merger, each issued and outstanding share of WhiteWave common
stock will be cancelled and automatically converted into the right
to receive $56.25 in cash ("Merger Consideration"). However, this
consideration is below at least one analyst's price target of
$58.00 per share and represents virtually no premium over
WhiteWave's 52-week high.

The Complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration and the
process by which Defendants agreed to consummate the proposed
transaction are fundamentally unfair to WhiteWave's public
stockholders.  According to the Complaint, the Company has
consistently announced positive financial results in recent
quarters.  Indeed, for the first quarter 2016, the Company
reported net sales of $1.0 billion, a 14% increase from net sales
of $911 million for the first quarter 2015.  Just last year the
stock was trading over $50 per share and in 2016 the stock price
had increased approximately 30% from the start of the year.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com


WIDENER UNIVERSITY: 3rd Cir. Affirms Class Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Michael Chagares of the Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, affirmed denial of class certification in the case
captioned, JOHN HARNISH; JUSTIN SCHLUTH; ROBERT KLEIN; GREGORY
EMOND; AYLA O'BRIEN KRAVITZ; CHRISTINA MARINAKIS, Appellants, v.
WIDENER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Case No. 15-3888 (3rd Cir.)

Named plaintiffs John Harnish, Justin Schluth, Robert Klein,
Gregory Emond, Ayla O'Brien Kravitz, and Christina Marinakis are
graduates of Widener University School of Law (Widener), a private
law school with campuses in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and
Wilmington, Delaware, who graduated from Widener between 2008 and
2011. In a complaint filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on February 1, 2012, and amended on
April 27, 2012, they claim that Widener violated the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) and the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act
(DCFA) by intentionally publishing and marketing misleading
statistics about the employment of its graduates.

The plaintiffs claim that publishing misleading employment
statistics enabled Widener to charge its students "inflated"
tuition -- that is, higher tuition than what Widener would have
received if full and accurate statistics were published instead.
And they seek damages equal to the amount of tuition that students
allegedly overpaid. Widener moved to dismiss the case, but the
motion was denied on March 20, 2013. The parties then engaged in
discovery related to class certification.

On February 2, 2015, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of
"all persons who enrolled in Widener University School of Law and
were charged full or part-time tuition within the statutory period
for the six-year period prior to the date the Complaint in this
action was filed through the date that this Class is certified."
On July 1, 2015, the District Court denied class certification on
two grounds. First, it found that the plaintiffs could not meet
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)'s requirement that common
questions "predominate" over individual questions because they had
"not shown that they could prove the proposed class members'
damages by common evidence." It also found that some class members
might even have different interests than the named plaintiffs,
insofar as those pursuing legal careers might prefer not to have
Widener's reputation tarnished by the lawsuit.

On appeal, the plaintiffs raised three challenges to the District
Court's finding that Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement was
not met. The plaintiffs' first argument is that the District Court
applied an improperly burdensome legal standard under Rule
23(b)(3) by scrutinizing their class-wide evidence prior to full
merits discovery and demanding that they "conclusively prove
class-wide damages." Next, the plaintiffs argue that the District
Court erroneously attributed significance to the fact that some
Widener graduates do obtain full-time legal employment (meaning
that some class members suffered little, if any, damage to their
career prospects), effectively ignoring that the plaintiffs'
theory of damages is unrelated to class members' actual employment
outcomes. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the District Court
erred in equating their theory with the non-cognizable, reliance-
based "fraud-on-the-market" theory, and contend that they have
sufficient class-wide evidence to support a non-reliance-based
inflated-tuition theory.

In his Opinion dated August 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/yOF2IF from Leagle.com, Judge Chagares found that
the plaintiffs have failed to propose a cognizable theory of
damages that is sufficiently supported by class-wide evidence.

John Harnish, et al. are represented by:

      Danielle F. Moriber, Esq.
      Rachel E. Simon, Esq.
      David S. Stone, Esq.
      STONE & MAGNANINI
      100 Connell Drive, Suite 2200
      Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
      Tel:(973)218-1111

Widener University School of Law is represented by Dennis J.
Drasco, Esq. -- ddrasco@lumlaw.com -- LUM DRASCO & POSITAN


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Court Trims Claims in "Rushing" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, William Rushing, Plaintiff v. Williams -
Sonoma, Inc et al Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-01421-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
defendants' motion to dismiss allegations about products plaintiff
did not purchase.  The court also dismissed defendants not alleged
to be liable for the product plaintiff purchased.

Rushing alleges that defendants do not adhere to industry
practice, standards, or instruction from the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) concerning their calculation of thread count. In
support of this assertion, he relies on the American Society for
Testing and Materials International (ATSM) D3775 standard, which
sets the industry standard for determining thread count, according
to Rushing, and requires that a textile not exceed plus or minus
5% deviation between the textile's declared and actual thread
count. Rushing seeks to represent a class of consumers who
purchased any bedding that was sold by defendants and advertised
as having a "higher thread count," meaning a thread count of 350
or greater.

Rushing purchased bedding from WSI's website labelled "Signature
600-Thread-Count Sateen Bedding." The product was advertised as
being sewn from "lustrous 600-thread-count two-ply Egyptian-cotton
sateen."  He alleged that the thread count of the product he
purchased was not 600, but merely 291, and that as a result he
paid an inflated price for that bedding. He also asserts that the
bedding he bought did not comply with the industry standard of
having plus or minus 5% of the threads advertised because each
two-ply yarn was improperly counted as two threads.

Rushing alleges causes of action for: (i) violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) specifically section
1770(a)(5)'s proscription against representing that goods have
characteristics and qualities they do not have, section
1770(a)(7)'s proscription against representing that goods are of a
particular standard and quality when are not, and section
1770(a)(9)'s proscription against advertising goods with intent
not to sell them as advertised; (ii) violation of California's
False Advertising Law (FAL), for misleading and deceptive
practices; (iii) violation of the FAL by untrue and false
advertising; (iv) violation of California's Unfair Practices Law
(UCL) by committing acts that are unlawful under the Federal Trade
Commission Act (FTCA), CLRA, and FAL; (v) violation of the UCL by
unfair acts; (vi) violation of the UCL by fraudulent acts; (vii)
breach of contract against WSI as to deceptive advertising for the
WSI brands; (viii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing against WSI due to the deceptive advertising for
the WSI brands; and (ix) unjust enrichment against WSI due to the
deceptive advertising for the WSI brands. He also seeks injunctive
relief against all defendants.

In her Order dated August 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/jd9QkY from Leagle.com, Judge Orrick granted
defendants' motion to dismiss allegations about products Rushing
did not purchase, because the legal theories and defenses
regarding thread count in one-ply sheets (which he did not
purchase) are different than in two-ply sheets, which he did
purchase. The Court concluded that Rule 9(b) was not met because
Rushing does not allege how he was misled by the accurate
advertising of the WSH bedding as two-ply, his claim is based on
an alleged violation of an industry standard that he does not
allege he knew of, and he does not allege what he understood two-
ply to mean.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in all other respects.
Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within 30 days of the
date of this Order.

William Rushing is represented by George Richard Baker, Esq. --
richard@bakerlawpc.com -- BAKER LAW PC, Audra Elizabeth Petrolle,
Esq. -- apetrolle@roselawgroup.com  -- Kathryn Honecker, Esq. --
khonecker@roselawgroup.com -- Lauren Marie Nageotte, Esq. --
lnageotte@roselawgroup.com -- ROSE LAW

Williams-Sonoma, Inc., et al are represented by Eric James
DiIulio, Esq. -- ediiulio@sheppardmullin.com -- Benjamin Okhaifo
Aigboboh, Esq. -- baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com -- Dylan John
Price, Esq. -- dprice@sheppardmullin.com -- P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
-- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
LLP


WPX PRODUCTION: Court Denies Renewed Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James O. Brorning of the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico denied Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification in the case captioned, STEVEN J.
ABRAHAM, and H LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WPX PRODUCTION
PRODUCTIONS, LLC, f/k/a WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, WILLIAMS
FOUR CORNERS, LLC, and WILLIAMS ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. CIV 12-0917 JB/CG (D.N.M.).

The Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in federal court on
August 28, 2012.  After several rounds of amended pleadings, the
Plaintiffs filed the current iteration of their Complaint on
October 31, 2013.  The Plaintiffs allege that they are present and
former landowners who own royalties and overriding royalties that
burden oil-and-gas leases and wells in the San Juan Basin.  They
assert that the Defendants underpaid their royalties by: (i)
substituting "natural gas liquids" or NGLs with "less valuable
residue gas in calculating royalty payments"; and (ii) basing the
royalty payments on the price of the gas sold in affiliate
transactions. They seek to obtain class status under rule 23 to
represent themselves and other royalty owners.

The Plaintiffs allege numerous claims, but they do not seek to
certify all of them as class claims:

     -- They allege that WPX Production breached their royalty
        contracts by failing to pay royalty on NGLs.

     -- The Plaintiffs contend that WPX Production breached
        the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
        "intentionally reducing financial value to which the
        plaintiffs and the class members are entitled" by failing
        to pay royalty on all production.

     -- They assert that WPX Production breached the implied duty
        to market by failing to market NGLs, "and in doing so
        obtain the best terms and prices for the benefit of the
        plaintiffs and members of the class."

     -- They allege that the Defendants "combined and conspired
        to cause WPX to unlawfully breach its Royalty agreements
        with plaintiffs and members of the putative class by
        failing to pay and/or underpaying Royalty on residue gas,
        and NGLs."

     -- The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants violated the
        New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, N.M. Stat.
        Ann. Sec. 70-10-1 (NMPPA).

The Plaintiffs also assert claims, which they do not seek to
certify, for declaratory judgment, accounting, and injunction.

WPX Production denies almost all of the Plaintiffs' allegations,
except the jurisdictional and background facts about the parties.

In the renewed motion, the Plaintiffs challenge WPX Production's
royalty payment on the "production gathered to and processed by
WFC." The Plaintiffs contend that commonality exists, because
"none of the leases have language that authorizes WPX to fail to
report and pay royalties on NGLs." They assert that, because each
lease requires payment on all production, all proposed class
members "possess the same interest and suffer the same injury."

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 16, 2016
available at https://is.gd/q9X2PV from Leagle.com, Judge Brorning
found that (1) excluding some of the wells on the Plaintiffs'
Class Well List to conform to the Plaintiffs' class definition
makes the class unascertainable; (2) although the underpayment
claims satisfy rule 23(a)'s other requirements, they lack
commonality under rule 23(a)(2); (3) the underpayment claims do
not satisfy rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, although
they would satisfy the superiority requirement; and (4) the NMPPA
and conspiracy claims fail both rule 23(a)'s and 23(b)(3)'s
requirements.

Steven J. Abraham and H Limited Partnership are represented by:

      Jake Eugene Gallegos, Esq.
      Michael J. Condon, Esq.
      GALLEGOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
      460 St. Michaels Dr. #300
      Santa Fe, NM 87505
      Tel:(505)983-6686

WPX Energy Production, LLC and William Four Corners are
represented by John C. Anderson, Esq. --
jcanderson@hollandhart.com -- Mark F. Sheridan, Esq. --
msheridan@hollandhart.com -- Bradford C. Berge, Esq. --
bberge@hollandhart.com -- Christopher A. Chrisman, Esq. --
cachrisman@hollandhart.com -- and -- Robert J. Sutphin, Esq. --
rsutphin@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART, LLP


XCEL ENERGY: Motion Seeking Clarification Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy 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 e prime and Xcel
Energy's motion seeking clarification of a court order in the Gas
Trading Litigation remains pending.

e prime, inc. (e prime) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel
Energy.  e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and
marketing, but has not engaged in natural gas trading or marketing
activities since 2003.  Thirteen lawsuits were commenced against e
prime and Xcel Energy (and NSP-Wisconsin, in two instances)
between 2003 and 2009 alleging fraud and anticompetitive
activities in conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and
manipulate natural gas prices. Five of the cases have since been
settled and seven have been dismissed. One multi-district
litigation (MDL) matter remains and it consists of a Colorado
class (Breckenridge), a Wisconsin class (NSP-Wisconsin), a Kansas
class, and two other cases identified as "Sinclair Oil" and
"Farmland."

In May 2016, the MDL judge granted summary judgment dismissing
defendants from the Farmland lawsuit. e prime and Xcel Energy have
filed a motion seeking clarification that this order includes
them. This motion is currently pending. The e prime defendants
recently filed a summary judgment motion in the Colorado class
lawsuit (Breckenridge) and oppositions to class certifications in
all the class actions. Trial dates have not yet been set, but are
not expected to occur prior to early 2017. Xcel Energy, NSP-
Wisconsin and e prime have concluded that a loss is remote.


ZAFGEN INC: Court Dismisses "Brenan" Suit, Denies Bid to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss and denied Plaintiff's request for leave to amend in
the case captioned, Terry M. Brenan et al, Plaintiffs, v. Zafgen,
Inc, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-13618-FDS (D. Mass.).

The lead plaintiffs have brought suit, on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, against biopharmaceutical company
Zafgen, Inc. and its CEO Thomas E. Hughes. Plaintiffs contend that
class members were harmed when they purchased Zafgen's common
stock at prices that were artificially inflated by the company's
materially misleading statements and omissions concerning its
anti-obesity drug, Beloranib.

Plaintiff Aviad Bessler filed the original complaint in the case
on October 21, 2015. On February 22, 2016, the lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on behalf of all purchasers of Zafgen's
common stock during the period from June 19, 2014, through October
16, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that Zafgen and Hughes
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 (Count One), and that Hughes violated Section 20(a) of
the 1934 Exchange Act (Count Two).

Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
They contend that Count One should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6), and the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4, for two
principal reasons: (1) failure to plausibly allege an actionable
misstatement or omission and (2) failure to satisfy the PSLRA's
requirement of pleading specific facts giving rise to a strong
inference of scienter. Defendants also contend that Zafgen did not
have a duty to disclose the omitted information, and that the
complaint fails to make adequate allegations of loss causation.
They have moved to dismiss Count Two for failure to state an
underlying Exchange Act violation.

In his Memorandum and Order dated August 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/vClPyD from Leagle.com, Judge Saylor concluded the
complaint presents allegations of scienter that are fairly weak,
and the resulting inference is certainly not cogent and compelling
and the complaint falls short of alleging a strong inference of
intentional or reckless conduct, as required by the heightened
pleading standard of the PSLRA.

The Court did not grant plaintiffs' informal request for leave to
amend after ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss because it
will be inefficient, unfair to defendants, and burdensome to the
Court.

Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff is
represented by Ian N. McCallister, Esq. -- rbaker@rdblaw.net --
ROB LEVINE & ASSOCIATES

Aviad Bessler, et al. are is represented by Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
-- jeff@blockesq.com  -- Jose Anderson Fleming, Esq. --
joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP

Theodore J. Daly is represented by Eugene R. Richard, Esq. --
generichard@hrsllp.com -- RICHARD & SENCABAUGH LLP

Terry Brennan, et al. are represented by Gonen Haklay, Esq. --
ghaklay@rosenlegal.com -- Jacob A. Goldberg --
jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- ROSEN LAW FIRM; -- Jeffrey C. Block,
Esq.-- jeff@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP

Zafgen, Inc. et al Defendants is represented by Adam Slutsky, Esq
-- aslutsky@goodwinlaw.com -- Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq --
dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- Kate Elizabeth MacLeman, Esq --
kmacleman@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP


* D&O Coverage Down 16.5% Despite Class Action Hike
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Ascher, writing for The Insurance Insider, reports that the
price of directors' and officers' (D&O) coverage fell heavily in
the second quarter despite projections of an increase in class
action litigation to levels not seen since the financial crisis.

Broker Aon's quarterly D&O pricing report found that rates for
$1mn of limit had fallen by 16.5 percent compared to the same
three-month period last year, in the 12th consecutive quarter when
its rating index has been in negative territory.


* Four Cases Illustrate IC Structure Implementation Failures
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Reibstein, Esq. -- reibsteinr@pepperlaw.com -- of
Pepper Hamilton LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that four
of the five independent contractor (IC) misclassification cases
reported below from July 2016 illustrate how companies continue to
fail to structure, document, and implement a business's IC
relationships in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of being
targeted by class action lawyers and regulators.  These four cases
involve two types of workers: drivers in the delivery/logistics
and transportation industries, and musicians in the performing
arts industry. Both types of workers can be bona fide ICs if their
relationships are structured, documented, and implemented in a
compliant manner. How can companies in these and other industries
enhance their IC compliance? As noted in Pepper Hamilton LLP's
White Paper on minimizing IC misclassification liability, this
takes a focused effort using diagnostic tools designed to assess
and then enhance IC compliance.

In the Courts (3 cases)

LOGISTICS COMPANY SERVING HOME DEPOT, J.C. PENNY AND SEARS SETTLES
DRIVERS' IC MISCLASSIFICATION LAWSUIT FOR $13.5 MILLION. A
California federal judge has granted preliminary approval of a
$13.5 million class action settlement between logistics company,
Exel Direct Inc. (Exel), and 386 delivery drivers in their class
action IC misclassification lawsuit, subject to a December
fairness hearing.  Exel, now known as MXD Group, provided
retailers such as Home Depot, J.C. Penney and Sears with delivery
drivers to make home deliveries of furniture and other oversized
items purchased in those stores.  The Court concluded that "the
Settlement is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness to
warrant the preliminary approval of the Settlement, certification
of the Class, the scheduling of the Fairness Hearing, and the
mailing of notices to Class Members." Villalpando v. Exel Direct
Inc., Nos. 12-cv-04137-JCS and 13-cv-03091-JCS (N.D. Cal. July 12,
2016).

PORT TRUCKERS SETTLE IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION WITH
TRUCKING COMPANY FOR $5 MILLION.  A class of port truckers has
reached a tentative $5 million settlement with QTS Inc., a
trucking company, and its related entities in an IC
misclassification class action.  The proposed class consists of
almost 400 Latin- and Korean-American truck drivers who are
represented by the Wage Justice Center and Asian Americans
Advancing Justice-LA.  The complaint, first brought in 2013 and
most recently amended on July 7, 2016, alleges that the trucking
companies violated various provisions of California and federal
law by misclassifying drivers as independent contractors, making
unlawful deductions from their pay, failing to reimburse them for
meal and rest breaks and expenses reasonably incurred during their
employment, and engaging in unfair competition.  During the long
course of litigation, QTS also filed for bankruptcy.  The drivers'
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is scheduled to
be heard on August 12, 2016. Talavera v. QTS, Inc., No. BC501571
(Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, July 14, 2016).

UBER UNSUCCESSFUL IN COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF IC
MISCLASSIFICATION CASE IN PENNSYLVANIA. Uber's motion to compel
arbitration and stay the proceedings in an IC misclassification
class action was denied by Pennsylvania federal court on grounds
that the plaintiff limousine drivers demonstrated that they had
"opted out" of Uber's Arbitration Agreement.  Uber, a ride-hailing
company providing on-demand car services to the public,
unsuccessfully argued a highly-technical legal assertion that the
drivers' opt-outs were invalidated by an order issued in another
Uber case being litigated in a California federal court that
"nullified" the arbitration provision and therefore rendered
ineffective the drivers' right to opt out of the Arbitration
Agreement.  The Pennsylvania court rejected that argument and held
that, as a matter of law, the California judge's order did not
render the Arbitration Provision a nullity and that the drivers
did not agree to arbitrate whether a court or arbitrator should
determine this issue because they opted out from the Arbitration
Provision.  The drivers will now continue to litigate their
misclassification claims against Uber in federal court in
Pennsylvania alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law. Razak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-cv-573
(E.D. Pa. July 21, 2016).

Administrative and Regulatory Initiatives (3 matters)

NLRB FINDS MUSICIANS ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT IC'S, AND MAY THEREFORE
CHOOSE TO BE REPRESENTED BY A MUSICIANS UNION. The NLRB ruled in
July that musicians who played in performances for a Massachusetts
production company, Fiddlehead Theatre Company, Inc., are
employees and not independent contractors and that a union
election should proceed where the Boston Musicians' Association is
seeking to represent the musicians for purposes of collective
bargaining.  In reaching its decision, the NLRB found that the
following factors supported employee status: the musicians'
performance of music in Broadway-style musicals constituted the
regular business of the Company; the Company provided the venues
for rehearsals and performances; musicians did not have any input
into scheduling of rehearsals or performances; musicians had to
familiarize themselves "with how the artistic director wanted the
conductor" to have the music played; and a dress code had to be
followed.  Although the NLRB found other factors to support IC
status, such as the work was on a show-by-show basis, the
musicians were highly skilled, the method of payment was a flat
fee-for-service, the musicians supplied their own instruments, and
they had the right to decline engagements, it did not find those
factors to be sufficient. Rather, the NLRB concluded that the
factors in favor of employee status outweighed those favoring IC
status.  The NLRB's decision to issue a complaint may well have
favored the production company if it had used a tool such as IC
Diagnostics.  Fiddlehead Theatre Company, Inc., No. 01-RC-179597
(NLRB, July 26, 2016).

NLRB ISSUES TWO MORE IC MISCLASSIFICATION COMPLAINTS AGAINST
TRUCKING COMPANIES REGARDING DRIVERS ALLEGEDLY MISCLASSIFIED AS
IC'S. The NLRB Regional Office in Los Angeles issued unfair labor
practice complaints against two separate port trucking companies,
XPO Cartage and Laca Express, based on charges filed by the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.  The complaints stem from
the identical argument that the drivers have been misclassified as
independent contractors and not employees "thereby inhibiting them
from engaging in Section 7 activity and depriving them of the
protections of the [National Labor Relations] Act."  The
complaints are not based solely on an allegation of
misclassification; rather, misclassification is alleged in the
context of other unfair labor practices, including claims that
drivers were prohibited from talking about the union during work
hours; drivers were prohibited from displaying union stickers on
their trucks or wearing union insignia at work; drivers were
threatened with job loss and/or other reprisals if the union won;
and that as a condition of employment, the employees had to sign
and be bound by lease agreements and an Independent Contractor
Agreement.  As remedies for the alleged unfair labor practices,
the NLRB General Counsel seeks, among other things, an order
requiring reimbursement of all work-related expenses incurred by
the drivers, including reimbursement for the purchase of trucks.
As noted in the Pepper Hamilton LLP's recent blog post analyzing a
similar complaint issued by an NLRB Regional Office, where an
unfair labor practice complaint includes allegations of other
"classic" violations of the law (threats, interrogations, and
promises), it is not feasible to ascertain if the General Counsel
of the NLRB is taking the position that mere misclassification of
workers as independent contractors violates the National Labor
Relations Act -- or that something more must be done to a worker
whom the General Counsel believes should be classified as an
"employee" under NLRB and court decisions defining that term. XPO
Cartage, Inc., No.21-CA-150873 (July 14, 2016); Laca Express,
Inc., NLRB Region 21, No.21-CA-150928 (June 28, 2016).

NEW YORK EXPANDS IC MISCLASSIFICATION TASK FORCE. New York
Governor Andrew Cuomo has established a permanent Joint Task Force
to develop strategies for systematically investigating employee
misclassification and facilitating the prosecution of employers in
violation of the law. As described more fully in our blog post of
July 21, 2016, Executive Order No. 159 expanded the existing Joint
Enforcement Task Force on Employee Misclassification into a Joint
Task Force on Worker Exploitation and Worker Misclassification.
According to a Press Release issued by the Governor on July 20,
2016, the Joint Task Force is vested with many powers and duties
including facilitating the sharing of information between Task
Force members relating to suspected employee misclassification and
worker exploitation violations in a timely manner; working
cooperatively with labor and community organizations, businesses
and business coalitions, and other advocacy groups to (1) seek and
develop new methods of prevention, detection, and deterrence of
employee misclassification and worker exploitation; (2) enhance or
modify mechanisms for identifying and reporting instances of
alleged employee misclassification and worker exploitation; (3)
receive input on educational needs or compliance opportunities;
and (4) collaborate with federal, state, and local social services
agencies to provide timely assistance to vulnerable populations
that have been misclassified and exploited. Together with the
issuance of the Executive Order, the Joint Task Force issued the
2016 Annual Report, which identified several industries where
independent contractor misclassification and/or worker
exploitation is prevalent, such as nail salons, restaurants,
agriculture, car washes, domestic workers, construction,
landscaping, dry cleaning, supermarkets, home health care, and
retail.  While the Executive Order and 2016 Report focus on the
negative impact of misclassification of ICs, there is no mention
of the value to the U.S. economy from the legitimate use of
independent contractors that has been noted both by U.S. Secretary
of Labor Thomas Perez and Dr. David Weil, Administrator of the
Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor.


                            *********

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  * * *