CAR_Public/160901.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, September 1, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 175




                            Headlines


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: $4MM Accord in Denver Case Awaits Court OK
ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss N.D. Cal. Suit Pending
ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Stay San Mateo Case Pending
AMS INC: Faces "Keller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ANGLOGOLD: Spoor Taps Motley Rice to Help in Silicosis Litigation

APOLLO RESIDENTIAL: To Defend Against Shareholder Litigation
ATHENS ORTHOPEDIC: Class Action Mulled Over Data Breach
AUSTRALIA: Manus Detainees False Imprisonment Claim Can Proceed
AUSTRALIA: Waterloo Public Housing Residents Mull Class Action
B&B CONTRACTING: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

BERNARD FREUNDEL: Beth Din Added as Defendant in Class Action
BICYCLE CASINO: Unjustly Deducts $75 From Paychecks, Ramirez Says
BP: Ontario Court Appeal Lifts Stay in Cross Border Class Action
CAH ACQUISITION: Yadkinville Employees' WARN Class Action Okayed
CAMERERO INC: Faces "Sermuks" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CANADA: MLA Pres. Says Class Action Won't Help Fix Flooding Woes
CANDLEBROOK MANAGEMENT: Sued in N.J. Over Racial Discrimination
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suits
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Sept. 23 Hearing in Electrical Workers' Action
COLONY STARWOOD: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Action Underway

COLORADO PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Rood" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Sanford Heisler Files ERISA Class Action
CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action
COUNTRY WAY: Faces "Lynch" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
CEED SECURITY: Faces "Burnell" Wage and Hour Suit in California

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Dao" Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Hirzel" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DENVER, CO: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Homeless Sweeps
DIAMOND FOODS: Judge Defers Picking Securities Case Class Counsel
DING DOCTOR: Does Not Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Says "Flores" Suit

ECOLAB INC: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FERRARA CANDY: Court Denies Bids to Certify in "Vazquez" Suit
GENERAL MILLS: Must Face Cherrios Deceptive Marketing Case
GENIE ENERGY: Still Defends "Ferrare" Class Action in E.D. Pa.
GENIE ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Amended "Aks" Complaint Pending

GENIE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "McLaughlin"
GOODMAN GLOBAL: Bid to Certify Class in "Kotsur" Suit Denied
GOOGLE INC: Must Face Class Action Over Gmail Scanning
GRANITE CITY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Greene" Suit Says
GRIFFIN ORGANICS: "Artiega" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

HARRIS COUNTY: Faces "Wilkerson" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Guic Post Suit Over Appraisal Policies
HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Intercontinental Suit Over Appraisal Policy
HGS COLIBRIUM: Faces "Albert" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
J.G. WENTWORTH: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by Sept. 2

JANSSEN RESEARCH: "Detroia" Files Suit Over Xarelto Drug
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Lockridge Grindal Files Merger Class Action
KELLEY PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Patton" Suit Claims
KNOWLES CORPORATION: $6MM Settlement in Audience IPO Suit Okayed
KNOWLES CORPORATION: Settlement in Audience Acquisition Suit OK'd

LA WEB: Fails to Pay All Wages and Overtime, "Acosta" Suit Claims
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Court Snubs Class Settlement in "Bailes" Suit
LIPOCINE INC: Defending David Lewis Class Action in N.J.
MARKUM ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "McNeal" Suit Says
MARS INC: Falsely Marketed M&M's Minis, "Ohlweiler" Suit Claims

MARY ANN MORSE: Faces "Ryan" Suit in Mass. Over Community Fees
MATCH GROUP: Class Action Parties Propose Schedule
MEDPARTNERS INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Slavin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MINNESOTA: Denial of Gamble's Bid for Release From MSOP Affirmed

MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Faces "Fowler" Suit for Not Paying Drivers
MVM HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime to Care Givers, "David" Suit Says
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Reserved Right to Appeal
NELNET: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Student Loan Payments
NEW MILLENIUM: Accused by Asrorov of Not Paying Overtime Wages

NEW YORK REIT: Faces Combination Class Action in Maryland
NEW ZEALAND: Council Defends Response to Havelock Water Crisis
NIJJAR REALTY: Appeals Court Reverses Arbitration Ruling
NORTHERN TIER: Faces "Kendig" Suit Over Western Refining Merger
ON DECK: Plaintiff's Time to File Opposition Extended to Sept. 2

ORBITAL ATK: Sued in S.D. Fla. Over Share Price Drop
ORBITAL ATK: October 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PERCHERON ENERGY: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Fletcher" Suit Says
PIPE PROS: Faces "Scogin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Amended Complaint Filed in "Dillard" Case

POWER SOLUTIONS: Sued in Ill. Over Misleading Financial Reports
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Refuses to Cover Repairs to Vehicle's Brakes
PRUDENTIAL BANCORP: Defending Parshall v. Andruczyk Case
QUEST NUTRITION: Perez Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
RELAY DELIVERY: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SAMUEL FESTINGER: "Mikhlov" Seeks to Enforce Judgment
SIENTRA INC: Lead Plaintiffs Oppose Motion for Reconsideration
SIENTRA INC: Seeks to Stay Proceedings in C.D. Calif. Case
SIMON SHOES: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, "Cadena" Suit Asserts
SKULLCANDY INC: Court Consolidated 2 Securities Actions in Utah

SKULLCANDY INC: Faces Lawsuits Related to Incipio Merger
SLM STAFFING: "White" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOLARCITY: Faces Securities Class Action in California
SUNRISE TRANSPORTATION: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SUPER NICE: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

TURTLE BEACH: Nevada Supreme Court Review Remains Pending
TRUMP NATIONAL: Eric Trump to Appear in Class Action Trial
TUMI STORES: "Panos" Seeks Overtime Premium Pay Under FLSA
TWILIO INC: Class Action Discovery to Continue Until August 2017
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: "Kauffman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

US SECURITY: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Prosecutors Find Criminal Liability in Dieselgate
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Feds Discusses Dieselgate Settlement Details
WALGREEN CO: 7th Reverses Approval of Settlement in Merger Case
WESTSIDE BRAKE: Gomez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code

* ERISA Class-Action Lawyers Target Colleges & Universities


                            *********


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: $4MM Accord in Denver Case Awaits Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
settoement in the securities class action lawsuit, United Food and
Commercial Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc.,
No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.), remains
pending.

A class action lawsuit against ADES and certain of its current and
former officers is pending in the federal court in Denver,
Colorado ("U.S. District Court"). This lawsuit and a companion
case were originally filed in May 2014. On February 19, 2015, the
U.S. District Court consolidated these cases and appointed the
United Foods and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food
Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and
approved its selection of the law firms. The consolidated case is
now captioned United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Advanced
Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District
Court, D. Colo.) (the "Denver Securities Litigation").

The lead plaintiff filed "Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Class
Action Complaint" on April 20, 2015 (the "Consolidated
Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the
Company and certain current and former Company officers.
Plaintiffs allege that ADES and other defendants ("Defendants")
misrepresented to the investing public the Company's financial
condition and its financial controls to artificially inflate and
maintain the market price of ADES's common stock. The Consolidated
Complaint alleges two claims for relief for: 1) alleged violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, and 2) control person liability under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages
together with costs and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
the class action, among other relief, and alleges a class period
covering all purchasers or acquirers of the common stock of ADES
or its predecessor-in-interest during the proposed class period
from May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on
June 19, 2015, contending the Consolidated Complaint: 1) fails to
meet the strict pleading standards required for Section 10(b)
claims; and 2) fails to establish the primary violation required
for any claim of secondary (control person) liability. Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition to this motion on July 2, 2015 and
Defendants filed their reply brief on July 16, 2015.

On March 7, 2016, the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay
the case while the parties mediated the matter. On March 8, 2016,
the motion to stay was granted, and the Defendants' motion to
dismiss was denied without prejudice with the option to refile
should mediation fail. The case was stayed until further order of
the U.S. District Court.

Following the mediation, which occurred in May of 2016, the
parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the Denver
Securities Litigation, and on June 30, 2016, the parties entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Denver
Settlement") to resolve the action in its entirety.

Under the terms of the Denver Settlement, a payment of $4.0
million will be made in exchange for the release of claims against
the defendants and other released parties by the lead plaintiff
and all settlement class members, and for the dismissal of the
action with prejudice. The Denver Settlement remains subject to
the approval of the U.S. District Court.

Prior to any final U.S. District Court approval of the Denver
Settlement, potential settlement class members (i.e., all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock
during May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015 ((both dates
inclusive), with limited exclusions), will have an opportunity to
exclude themselves from participating in the Denver Settlement or
to raise objections with the U.S. District Court regarding the
Denver Settlement or any part thereof.

On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Denver Securities
Litigation filed the Denver Settlement and related exhibits with
the U.S. District Court and moved, among other things, for the
U.S. District Court to preliminarily approve the Denver
Settlement, to approve the contents and procedures for notice to
potential settlement class members, to certify the Denver
Securities Litigation as a class action for settlement purposes
only, and to schedule a hearing for the U.S. District Court to
consider final approval of the Denver Settlement.

The Denver Settlement contains no admission of liability, and all
of the Defendants in the Denver Securities Litigation have
expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of
wrongdoing or improper conduct. If the Denver Settlement is
approved by the U.S. District Court, the Company's insurance
carriers will fund the $4.0 million Denver Settlement. In the
event the Denver Settlement is not approved by the U.S. District
Court or otherwise does not become effective for any reason, the
Denver Settlement will become null and void, all things of value
will be returned to the party providing them, and the case will
move forward. Under those circumstances, all of the Defendants
intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.

The Company recorded a liability as of June 30, 2016 in connection
with the Denver Settlement for $4.0 million as the losses in
connection with this matter are probable and reasonably estimable
under U.S. GAAP. The liability was recorded in the Legal
settlements and accruals line item of the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet. A related receivable was also recorded in
connection with the Denver Settlement for $4.0 million as the
Company's insurance carriers will fund the full settlement.


ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss N.D. Cal. Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action complaint
is pending.

The Company said, "In July 2015, three putative securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, each on behalf of a purported class of
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired its
publicly traded securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15,
2015. The lawsuits assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (Exchange Act) and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(Securities Act) and allege that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and omitted allegedly material
information related to, among other things, the Phase 2a clinical
trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints
seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. An
amended consolidated complaint was filed in February 2016, and the
Company's motion to dismiss that consolidated complaint is
pending."


ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Stay San Mateo Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to stay or to dismiss a securities class action is pending.

The Company said, "In December 2015, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us, our board of directors,
underwriters of our January 13, 2015, follow-on public stock
offering, and two of our institutional stockholders, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo. The complaint alleges that, in connection with our follow-
on stock offering, the defendants violated the Securities Act in
essentially the same manner alleged by the consolidated federal
action: by allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements and by allegedly omitting material information related
to the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of
AVA-101. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and
rescissory damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. The plaintiff
has dismissed the two institutional stockholder defendants, and
the Company's motion to stay or to dismiss this action is
pending."


AMS INC: Faces "Keller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Keller, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. AMS, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00645-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., August 22,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

AMS, Inc. operates an agricultural service company in Pompano
Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
      Conor P. Foley, Esq.
      JASON L. GUNTER, PA
      1625 Hendry Street, Suite 103
      Fort Myers, FL 33901
      Telephone: (239) 334-7017
      Facsimile: (239) 244-9942
      E-mail: jason@gunterfirm.com
              conor@gunterfirm.com


ANGLOGOLD: Spoor Taps Motley Rice to Help in Silicosis Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Crowley and Jef Feeley, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that responding to an appeal from South African lawyer Richard
Spoor, Motley Rice LLC is financing an effort that could upend the
country's signature industry.

Historic Settlements

Motley Rice isn't just any law firm.  Its late co-founder,
Ron Motley, helped invent mass-tort litigation in the 1970s by
bringing the first suits against makers of asbestos, a cancer-
causing substance used in insulation.  He spearheaded litigation
against the tobacco industry that resulted in a $246 billion
settlement in 1998.  More recently, co-founder Joseph Rice --
jrice@motleyrice.com -- helped put together more than $12 billion
in settlements of lawsuits against BP Plc over the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

While it's taken more than seven years, the unlikely combination
of deep-pocketed U.S. lawyers and impoverished Africans is finally
having some success.  Miners and families of deceased workers were
certified as a class in May by a judge in Johannesburg, paving the
way for the country's biggest class-action suit.  While both sides
say it's too early to speculate on the size of any payout, a
recent settlement suggests it could run as high as $2 billion --
20 times the 2015 profit at the country's biggest producer.

That would make it worth the lawyers' investment.  The winning
attorneys will get either twice their normal fee or 15 percent of
any award, South Africa's High Court has ruled.  Mr. Spoor said he
would then reimburse Motley Rice's costs; the split of the rest
remains to be negotiated, Spoor said.

Some 32 companies, which include AngloGold Ashanti Ltd., Harmony
Gold Mining Co. and Sibanye Gold Ltd., are the defendants. While
denying liability, the six biggest defendants say a "settlement
that will be fair to the claimants and sustainable for the
industry" is preferable to litigation that could take as long as
15 years, according to a joint statement by their Johannesburg-
based spokesman Alan Fine of Russell & Associates.

The legal wrangling is where Motley Rice comes in.

Michael Elsner -- melsner@motleyrice.com -- was at his desk in an
office outside Charleston when he got a call from Spoor, who
wanted to know if Mr. Elsner would be interested in helping with
cases he'd filed on behalf of some stricken gold miners.  That was
in 2009.

"He needed a partner for strategic advice and funding," Mr. Elsner
said in an interview.

After doing his own research and getting the law firm's blessing
for its first dive into a case outside the U.S. or Canada, Elsner
agreed to serve as Spoor's consultant.

The firm also assigned Mr. Elsner's wife, Liza, to the case,
making the litigation part of their everyday life.  "As she likes
to put it, we're working on things 24 hours a day," he joked.

Relying on his asbestos-litigation experience, Mr. Elsner helped
Spoor set up systems for collecting and storing information from
prospective clients and gearing up for pre-trial information
exchanges with the mining companies.  The cost is running at about
500,000 rand a month -- about $450,000 a year.

"We couldn't do it without their support," Mr. Spoor said in an
interview.

With millions of migrant laborers recruited to South Africa's gold
mines in the past 50 years, the eventual number of claimants could
swell to as many as 500,000, Judge Phineas Mojapelo said in the
May ruling.  Mr. Spoor reckons between 100,000 and 200,000 is a
more realistic number.

The miners claim that they were negligently exposed to vast
amounts of silica dust for decades, causing silicosis and
pulmonary tuberculosis.  Silica dust is found almost exclusively
in gold mines, indicating a strong connection with mining.

Despite their successes, the clock is ticking on the legal battle.
At least 20 percent of Mr. Spoor's claimants have died in the past
decade.  Thembekile Mankayi, whose application to sue AngloGold
for 2.6 million rand led to the courts overturning the ban in
2011, passed away just days before the ruling.

Both sides say a settlement would be best.  Mr. Elsner envisions
setting up a trust financed by the companies.  The trust would
fund a system of "mobile medical facilities or some other way to
offer access to medical testing and treatment," he said.  Such
trusts have overseen billions in payments to U.S. asbestos victims
in the past 25 years.

The companies favor current and future employees being compensated
by a government-backed fund and are working with department
officials to achieve this, Mr. Fine said.  They also want to help
fix a second, government compensation fund and to top-up statutory
payments, he said.

A separate case between 4,365 former mineworkers and Anglo
American Plc and AngloGold Ashanti was settled for 500 million
rand in March. That gives a payout ratio of $8,600 per person at
the current exchange rate. (This is a theoretical figure because
medical and administrative costs will be deducted and each miner
will be individually assessed for compensation).

Those figures "set a minimum standard," Mr. Spoor said.  Using his
assumptions for between 100,000 and 200,000 people affected, that
would bring an eventual payout to between $860 million and $1.7
billion.

While saying it's too early to speculate on a final sum, "some of
the numbers that are being quoted are way outside the realm of any
fair actuarial valuation," AngloGold Chief Executive Officer
Srinivasan Venkatakrishnan said in an interview.

Lawyers for the companies -- which include Norton Rose Fulbright,
Webber Wentzel and ENSafrica -- and the former employees have held
preliminary settlement discussions.  Mr. Elsner sees his boss,
Rice, as a key weapon in the miners' arsenal when talks get
serious.  "He's one of the most creative negotiators ever, so we'd
benefit from having him involved," Mr. Elsner said.  If a deal
can't be reached quickly, Mr. Elsner said Spoor and other South
African lawyers should press ahead with the class action as
aggressively as possible to get some silicosis suits to trial as
test cases.


APOLLO RESIDENTIAL: To Defend Against Shareholder Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company intends to defend against the case, Apollo Residential
Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

After the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement,
two putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed First
Merger (as defined in the Merger Agreement), captioned Aivasian v.
Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532 and
Wiener v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-
001837, were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (or,
the Court). A putative class and derivative lawsuit was later
filed in the Court captioned Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage,
Inc., No. 24-C-16-002610.

Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders among
other things, consolidating the three actions under the caption In
Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case
No.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have designated the Crago
complaint as the operative complaint. The operative complaint
includes both direct and derivative claims, names as defendants
the Company, the Board, Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance,
Inc. (or, ARI), Arrow Merger Sub, Inc. (or, Merger Sub), Apollo
and Athene Holdings LTD. (or, Athene) and alleges, among other
things, that the members of the Board breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders and that the other corporate
defendants aided and abetted such fiduciary breaches.

The operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that
the proposed First Merger involves inadequate consideration, was
the result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and
includes unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers. It also alleges that the transactions
with Athene are unfair and that the registration statement on Form
S-4 filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains materially
misleading disclosures and omits certain material information.

The operative complaint seeks, among other things, certification
of the proposed class, declaratory relief, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the
First Merger, unspecified damages, and an award of other
unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a
stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel,
which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016. The
defendants believe that the claims asserted in the complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits.


ATHENS ORTHOPEDIC: Class Action Mulled Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Jim Thompson, writing for Online Athens, reports that the hacker
who infiltrated Athens Orthopedic Clinic's computer system and
gained access to more than 200,000 patient records is being
identified in published reports as "The Dark Overlord," who claims
to have broken into a number of healthcare databases and obtained
millions of personal records.

At least some of those records, those reports say, were offered
for sale on the so-called "dark web," an internet network not
indexed by search engines like Google, for payment via Bitcoin, a
digital payment system that bypasses traditional banking
institutions.

The records are valuable for the personal information they
contain, which in the case of the Athens Orthopedic hack,
according to a letter from the clinic to its current and former
patients, includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers,
birth dates, telephone numbers and, in some cases, diagnoses and
medical histories. Much of that information can facilitate
identity theft, leading to credit card fraud and other financial
and personal difficulties for victims.

According to InfoSecurity magazine online, just part of the recent
hacks attributed to The Dark Overlord could net the hacker (or
hackers, as some outlets suggest that The Dark Overlord may refer
to a group of people) "upwards of a half a million dollars."

According to media and online sources, at least some of the Athens
Orthopedic records may, in fact, be among the records already
offered for sale by The Dark Overlord.  The website Healthcare IT
News, quoting a Seattle law firm that is soliciting interest in a
class-action lawsuit against Athens Orthopedic, reported recently
that approximately 500 of the records obtained in the Athens
Orthopedic hack have been put up for sale on the internet.  That
data came, in turn, from databreaches.net, a blog dedicated to
detailed reporting on data breaches like the Athens Orthopedic
Clinic hack.

Thus far, all Athens Orthopedic has said about the hack is that it
occurred on June 14, was first noticed on June 27 and confirmed
several days later.  The clinic says it then began working to
determine which of its patients were affected by the breach and
subsequently began to check for correct addresses before mailing
the letters out, as required by federal law, in an effort that
recently concluded.

Additionally, the clinic confirmed, as some early information on
the hack noted, that it was asked for a "ransom" to prevent
release of the data.  In a prepared statement issued on Aug. 12
through the clinic's CEO, Kayo Elliott, the clinic notes the data
breach was the work of "a hacker who has attempted to extort the
Clinic for ransom money."

Details of that ransom request have not been made available, and
Athens Orthopedic indicated it is working with the FBI in
connection with the data breach.

In the Aug. 12 statement, the clinic reiterated it was working
with information technology and security experts prior to the
breach "to maintain, test and improve its system," and that
immediately upon learning of the breach, Athens Orthopedic Clinic
"began working with a cyber security team to determine the source
and extent of the breach."

According to the clinic, the hacker gained access to its digital
database by using the log-in credentials of an unidentified
"third-party vendor" which was subsequently terminated by the
clinic.  The clinic identified the third-party vendor only as a
"nationally-known healthcare information management contractor."
"To find ourselves the victim of a sophisticated crime like this
is extremely unfortunate and challenging," the clinic's Aug. 12
statement quotes Elliott as saying, "especially given the impact
it is having on our patients.  Our emphasis right away was to
ensure the patient records at AOC are safe, and continue to
provide the high-quality patient care our communities depend
upon."

Because the data breach at Athens Orthopedic Clinic involved more
than 500 patients, the clinic was required to report it to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under terms of the
2009 federal Health Information Technology for Economic and
Clinical Health Act.

According to the HHS's HITECH Act database, the Athens Orthopedic
hack, which the clinic says affected 201,000 current and former
patients, is the fifth-worst healthcare data breach thus far in
2016.

According to the HITECH database:

   -- a March-reported breach at Florida's 21st Century Oncology
involving the hacking of a computer server affected 2,213,597
patient records;

   -- a February-reported breach at Florida's Radiology Regional
Center related to the loss of paper and film records affected
483,063 patients;

   -- a May-reported incident involving a laptop theft compromised
the records of 400,000 people associated with California
Correctional Health Care Services;

   -- a March-reported incident at Indiana's Premier Healthcare
resulting from the theft of a laptop affected 205,748 people.

Also according to the HITECH database, 30 reportable breaches
occurred in July alone, and five breaches were reported since the
Athens Orthopedic breach was posted to the Health and Human
Services website.


AUSTRALIA: Manus Detainees False Imprisonment Claim Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gordon, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that lawyers pursuing a class action on behalf of asylum seekers
on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea have been given a go-ahead to
expand their claim to include false imprisonment.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Michael McDonald has ruled that
the claim can be widened to allow the lawyers to argue that the
detainees have been unlawfully held on Manus.

The landmark case alleges the detainees suffered serious physical
and psychological injuries as a direct result of the conditions in
which they were held.  It accuses both the Australian government
and service providers of acting unlawfully.

"This has been a very dark period of Australian history and it's
about time a light was shone on it -- and this case provides the
main opportunity for that to be done," Rory Walsh, principal
lawyer with Slater and Gordon told Fairfax Media.

"This is not going to be an inquiry that is rushed, can be spun by
politicians to suit their aims or can be chewed up in the media
cycle in 24 hours."

Mr. Walsh said the firm sought to amend the claim after the Papua
New Guinea Supreme Court ruled in April that the detention of
asylum seekers on Manus Island was illegal and in breach of PNG's
constitution.

"We argued, and Justice McDonald accepted, that in light of the
PNG ruling, our clients should be given the opportunity to argue
their detention amounts to false imprisonment and to seek
additional damages on that basis."

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton was in Port Moresby on Aug. 10
to discuss PNG's decision in April to close down the Manus
detention centre in the light of the PNG court's ruling, though
the fate of the detainees remains uncertain.

More than 850 asylum seekers remain in the centre, some four
months after the court decision.  "Both Papua New Guinea and
Australia are in agreement that the centre is to be closed," PNG
Prime Minister Peter O'Neill said after meeting with Mr Dutton.

The talks came as 180 senior Catholic sisters endorsed the call
from academics for refugees for a summit to discuss new approaches
to the treatment of asylum seekers.  Malcolm Turnbull is yet to
respond to the call.

The class action, to be heard early next year, promises to be the
most forensic examination yet of the treatment of around 1800
asylum seekers who were sent to the island after it was re-opened
by the Gillard government late in 2012.

It has been brought in the name of an Iranian asylum seeker who
was transferred to Manus in September 2013, on behalf of almost
all of those detained in the centre since it was re-opened. Sixty-
one asylum seekers have opted not to be part of the action.

The Iranian, Majid Karami Kamasaee, suffered serious burns in
Tehran as a teenager and maintains his condition was aggravated by
the hot and humid conditions in detention and the lack of
appropriate care.  He was a victim of the violence at the centre
in February 2014, when Reza Barati was murdered, and continues to
suffer mental trauma.

The class action was set to begin this month but has been
postponed, in large part because the Commonwealth opposed the
release of many hundreds of documents, primarily on grounds that
their release would not be in the national interest or could harm
bilateral relations with PNG.

The Commonwealth has warned that the case could represent the
largest public interest immunity challenge in Australian legal
history.

"We are challenging these claims as we don't accept that the
Commonwealth has the legal basis to withhold these documents from
scrutiny in this litigation, on the present evidence available,
and in light of the likely significance of this material to the
central issues in the dispute," Mr. Walsh said.

"It is our case that the Commonwealth and its service providers
have failed in their duty to prevent foreseeable harm to the men
held on Manus Island and that the detainees are entitled to be
compensated for their injuries.

"Further we allege that the Commonwealth deliberately held our
clients in conditions which they knew were harmful, both as a
means to coerce our clients to return to the countries from which
they fled seeking refuge, but also to deter others from seeking
refuge in a similar manner."

Mr. Walsh said Slater and Gordon is running the class action on a
"No-win, No-fee" basis.  If successful, the firm will seek to
recover costs from the defendants.


AUSTRALIA: Waterloo Public Housing Residents Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Baird, writing for altmedia, reports that Waterloo public
housing residents are preparing to take class action against the
state government in what could be a landmark case as the community
digs their heels in.

Waterloo Public Housing Action Group (WPHAG) has told City Hub
that several residents have been subject to "unlivable" conditions
in the dwellings due to poor maintenance for several years.

WPHAG claim that they felt they were driven to action due to the
"cloudy" information afforded to them by the state government
regarding the Waterloo redevelopment project which will see them
displaced from their current dwellings.

"We are running with a petition now and also the threat of a class
action of failing the duty of care, a financial claim on some of
these people through their [the state government's] maintenance
[of the dwellings]," said WPHAG Chairman, Richard Weekes.

"They haven't been able to use a percentage of their directed
premises and under the act, if you rent a four bedroom house and
one of the bedrooms is unlivable . . . you have the right to claim
25 per cent of your rent back."

Mr. Weekes said that he has the case prepared to present to the
Civil Administrative Tribunal and said the case could be a
Pandora's Box.

The possibility of a class action comes at a time when many in the
community is unsure about their future of social housing in the
suburb.

REDWatch community group is also scrutinizing the state government
about the redevelopments as they seek to get answers from
UrbanGrowth NSW.

REDWatch collected questions from a community meeting in May and
put them to the government agency in an attempt to ease the minds
of the community.

However, REDWatch convenor, Geoff Turnbull, told City Hub that
none of those questions had been answered and claimed that
residents felt "burned" by the vague information that had been
given by the government.

"The interactions with Land and Housing Corp[oration], Housing NSW
and UrbanGrowth really aren't throwing any light onto what the
government is proposing for Waterloo."

"Six months after the event [Waterloo Metro Announcement]. . .
They [residents] don't know when they are moving, what they are
doing, and there is no clarity around how the government is going
to do this with a whole pile of issues."

A spokesperson for UrbanGrowth NSW said that they had already
answered a number of the communities questions when they attended
a REDWatch meeting in May and said there will consultation with
the community throughout the master planning process.

The spokesperson also said that they would be happy to attend
another community meeting to further answer questions if asked by
REDWatch.


B&B CONTRACTING: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Otis James Wright, and all others similarly situated v. B&B
Contracting, Inc. and Walter Beaton, Case No. 0:16-cv-62020-WPD
(S.D. Fla., August 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a tile, granite, marble, and brick
installation company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
      2847 Hollywood Blvd.
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (305) 308-5619
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      MAMANE LAW LLC
      1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 773-6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


BERNARD FREUNDEL: Beth Din Added as Defendant in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler, LLP, and Chaikin Sherman Cammarata Siegel P.C. on
Aug. 16 filed an amended complaint in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia on behalf of victims of Rabbi Bernard "Barry"
Freundel, the rabbi currently serving a prison sentence for
recording naked women at a Jewish ritual bath called a mikvah.
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia recently appointed
Sanford Heisler, LLP as interim class counsel in this class action
litigation, which is the only pending class action lawsuit in the
country stemming from Rabbi Freundel's mikvah voyeurism.

The mikvah is used primarily as the last step in conversions to
Judaism and by Orthodox married women who are religiously required
to immerse after their monthly menstruation.  The amended
complaint details the intimacy of the mikvah ritual, in which
women are required to disrobe completely and clean themselves
thoroughly before immersing themselves.  Rabbi Freundel has
already admitted that he "defiled [this] space that was supposed
to be private, sacred and healing" and has pleaded guilty to 52
counts of criminal voyeurism; prosecutors identified many more
recordings showing female mikvah users partially or completely
naked.

"The women who came to the mikvah were promised -- both implicitly
and explicitly -- a private space free from male onlookers," said
David Sanford, Chairman of Sanford Heisler, LLP and lead counsel
for the proposed classes.  "Defendants flagrantly broke their
promises, egregiously breached their duties to the women who used
the mikvah, and let Rabbi Freundel's crimes go unchecked for
years.  We will ask a D.C. jury to hold all defendants liable and
impose punitive damages in order to send a strong message that
even institutions draped in the cloak of spirituality won't escape
punishment when they violate their legal obligations."

In addition to suing Rabbi Freundel, the lawsuit brings claims
against the religious institutions that enlisted Rabbi Freundel's
services and put him in positions of authority over the vulnerable
women who used the mikvah.  The amended complaint names four of
these institutions as Defendants: the National Capital Mikvah,
Inc., the Jewish ritual bath that served as the site of Rabbi
Freundel's crimes; the Georgetown Synagogue -- Kesher Israel
Congregation, the prominent D.C. Modern Orthodox synagogue that
employed Rabbi Freundel for twenty-five years and purported to
provide Orthodox rabbinic supervision for the mikvah; the
Rabbinical Council of America, the organization of Orthodox rabbis
that empowered Rabbi Freundel to direct Orthodox practices
nationwide regarding religious conversion; and as an additional
Defendant, the Beth Din of America, the religious court that
authorized Rabbi Freundel to oversee the Orthodox conversions that
he used to target victims.

The amended complaint brings claims on behalf of two classes of
women: (1) all women who used the National Capital Mikvah prior to
Rabbi Freundel's arrest, and (2) the women who used the National
Capital Mikvah prior to Rabbi Freundel's arrest specifically in
connection with religious conversion.

The amended complaint presents damning details about these
religious institutions that gave Rabbi Freundel authority over the
mikvah despite repeated warning signs.  The complaint charges that
the Kesher Israel synagogue overlooked complaints that Rabbi
Freundel behaved inappropriately with female congregants and
expressly discouraged congregants from speaking out against Rabbi
Freundel; additionally, the complaint alleges that the National
Capital Mikvah endorsed suspicious "practice dunks" -- an act with
no basis in Orthodox Judaism -- that Rabbi Freundel used as a ruse
to record naked female conversion students; and further, the
complaint alleges that the Rabbinical Council of America and the
Beth Din of America broke their promise to ensure the "modesty" of
female converts, despite complaints accusing Rabbi Freundel of
sexual improprieties and the exploitation of conversion students.

"The complaint accuses Orthodox religious institutions of sitting
idly by as Rabbi Freundel committed his crimes," said
Ira Sherman, Managing Partner with Chaikin Sherman Cammarata
Siegel P.C. "Rather than preventing or investigating Rabbi
Freundel's crimes early on, these religious institutions
repeatedly endorsed Rabbi Freundel as a religious leader whom
vulnerable women were required to defer to and obey."

The amended complaint seeks damages in excess of $100 million,
including actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees.  The two classes bring claims against
Defendants for intrusion upon seclusion; negligent hiring,
training, retention, and supervision; negligent infliction of
emotional distress; breach of warranty; premises liability; and
negligence.  Additionally, several female mikvah users and their
husbands bring individual claims for loss of consortium.

For more information on the case, or to see if you may be eligible
to participate in the proposed class action, please go to:
http://www.sanfordheisler.com/cases/rabbi-freundel-voyeurism-
class-actions/ or http://www.chaikinandsherman.com/Freundel-Class-
Action.aspx

For more information, contact Jamie Moss, newsPRos, 201-788-0142,
Jamie@newspros.com


BICYCLE CASINO: Unjustly Deducts $75 From Paychecks, Ramirez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RAMIREZ an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. THE BICYCLE CASINO, INC.; and DOES 1 thru
50, inclusive, Case No. BC631507 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., August 23, 2016), accuses the Defendants of having a
consistent policy of failing to pay wages to the Plaintiff and the
proposed class because they deduct $75 from the paychecks of their
employees to reimburse the Defendants for the cost of
fingerprinting required as a condition of employment.

Bicycle Casino is a California corporation operating within the
state of California and with a place of business in Bell Gardens,
California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BP: Ontario Court Appeal Lifts Stay in Cross Border Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fleming, Esq., and Andy McDonnell, Esq., of Dentons, in an
article for JDSupra, report that in Kaynes v. BP [1] (referred to
herein as "Kaynes") the Court of Appeal for Ontario ("ONCA")
recently lifted a stay of a class proceeding in which the
Plaintiff is seeking damages for alleged misrepresentations made
to shareholders by BP.  The alleged misrepresentations centred on
the 2010 Deep Horizons Oil spill.

Class actions were commenced in both Canada and the U.S. which led
the Court to grant the order to stay proceedings at first
instance, finding Ontario to be forum non conveniens.  The ONCA
was forced to revisit the stay due to developments in the U.S.
proceedings.

Background

The proposed representative Plaintiff in the Canadian proceeding,
Mr. Kaynes, purchased his BP securities on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE").  The Plaintiff alleged that BP misrepresented
its operational and safety programs in its public disclosure prior
to the Deep Horizons oil spill.  Mr. Kaynes contends that the
explosion and spill constituted "corrective disclosure" revealing
the deficiencies in the earlier disclosure.  He further maintains
that BP misrepresented its clean-up efforts following the spill.

Canadian Action Stayed

BP brought a motion to stay the action on the grounds of forum non
conveniens, which was granted on appeal.[2] The Court of Appeal
concluded that while Ontario has jurisdiction to hear claims
relating to securities purchased on the NYSE (and other foreign
exchanges), BP had shown Ontario to be an inconvenient forum.  The
basis for this conclusion was the existence of the U.S. class
action and the fact that the US Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 (the "US Act") asserted exclusive jurisdiction over claims
such as those brought by the Plaintiff. The US action and the
assertion of exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to the US Act, was
enough to convince the Court to stay the action on the grounds of
forum non conveniens, despite jurisdiction not otherwise being an
issue.

US Proceedings

In the US District Court, BP accepted the Plaintiff's position
that the action was based on Ontario law, and as such, the US Act
did not provide for jurisdiction.  The US District Court dismissed
the class proceeding on two grounds:

1. The pre-explosion claim was based on the Ontario Securities
Act[3] (the "OSA"), and in the Court's opinion, this claim was
statute barred; and

2. The Court made an order in December 2010 which appointed lead
plaintiffs to represent the class; however, these lead plaintiffs
had not brought a pre-explosion claim based upon the OSA.  As the
Canadian plaintiffs were part of the same class as the lead
plaintiffs, they would be required to bring a separate class
action for the pre-explosion misrepresentations under the OSA.
The ONCA Decision

Following the decision in the US the Plaintiff moved to have the
stay of the class proceeding in Ontario lifted.  The ONCA
considered whether the dismissal of the pre-explosion claim in the
US constituted facts arising after its initial decision which
justified lifting the stay.

Ultimately, the Court referenced the dismissal of the US claim
coupled with BP's acceptance of Ontario law as being sufficient
grounds to lift the stay:

"In our view, these developments taken as a whole, are sufficient
to justify lifting the stay.  It was certainly not brought to our
attention or in our contemplation that the moving party's claim
would be dismissed by the US District Court . . . It is also
significant that BP now accepts that the moving party's claim is
governed by Ontario law and therefore does not assert that it
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the US courts."[4]

The Court noted that if the stay was not lifted, the Plaintiff in
Ontario faced a "purely procedural barrier" and would be prevented
from having his claim heard on the merits.  Accordingly, the Court
lifted the stay, and in doing so declined to comment upon whether
the Plaintiff's claim may be time-barred, as found by the US
District Court.

Commentary

The Court of Appeal's decision demonstrates the inter-related
nature of cross-border class proceedings.  In appropriate
instances, Courts in both Canada and the U.S. will look to the
substantive and procedural law in each jurisdiction in considering
the conduct in class proceedings.  In Canada, the existence of a
foreign class action may be sufficient to stay Canadian claims,
unless a Plaintiff will be prevented from pursuing its substantive
rights.


CAH ACQUISITION: Yadkinville Employees' WARN Class Action Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
federal judge has granted class-action status to a WARN lawsuit
filed by three former employees of the closed Yadkinville
hospital.

Yadkin Valley Community Hospital was shut down May 22, 2015, by
CAH Acquisition 10 LLC.  CAH remained in the hospital until Yadkin
County took possession through a federal court agreement on July
15, 2015.

In September, the three former employees -- Carrie Hutson, Jeanna
Simmons and Jenifer Swanner -- filed the class-action request
pursuing salaries and benefits tied to the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.  The potential number
of class-action members could be as high as 150.

CAH Acquisition has never filed a notice with Yadkinville
officials or the N.C. Commerce Department, as required by law.
Employees must file a lawsuit in federal court to assert WARN
rights.

The act requires companies planning large job cuts -- defined as
more than 50 employees -- to notify their state and local
governments, as well as affected workers, at least 60 days in
advance.

The plaintiffs are suing CAH, HMC/CAH Consolidated Inc., which
held the hospital license, and parent company Rural Community
Hospitals of America LLC.  Ms. Hutson worked at the hospital for
more than three years, while Ms. Simmons worked there eight years
and Ms. Swanner more than 13 years.

The defendants have fought the class-action motion, claiming the
plaintiffs are not qualified to lead such a lawsuit.  They have
argued that employees should be required to file individual
claims.

Judge William Osteen Jr. ruled on Aug. 15 that the plaintiffs
"will adequately represent the class" and that separate individual
proceedings for each class member "would be a waste of both
judicial resources, as well as both plaintiffs' and defendants'
time and money."

He approved Taibi Kornbluth Law Group PA and the Zachary Law
Offices as co-class counsel.

A tentative trial date has been set for April 3.

The employees accuse CAH of not meeting the federal law's
requirements, such as 60 days of pay and benefit contributions if
the closing is immediate, as well as access to COBRA insurance
benefits for 60 days.

CAH said it gave a WARN notice to employees on Feb. 27, 2015,
telling them that it planned to close the hospital on April 30,
2015.

CAH and Yadkin County officials reached an agreement on April 2,
2015, for CAH to continue to provide services through July 31,
2015, to give Yadkin officials more time to negotiate for a new
hospital operator.

The plaintiffs said CAH officials told department heads to tell
employees on Feb. 28, 2015, to disregard the notice out of concern
that key employees would look for jobs elsewhere.
CAH denied making that statement.

CAH said it began to lose hospital personnel after issuing the
WARN notice to employees.  An attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael
Kornbluth of Taibi Kornbluth Law Group PA of Durham, has said that
one purpose of a WARN notice is to allow employees to begin job
searches before the 60-day period ends, "thus employers should
expect to lose employees during that process."

Even though the Feb. 27, 2015, notice apparently never went beyond
employees, CAH contends that it fulfilled its WARN obligations.
It said Shawn Bright, its top executive at Yadkin Valley, kept
employees up to date on negotiations, including as late as nine
days before the hospital was shut down.

Judge Osteen ruled that federal law required CAH to issue another
WARN notice once the hospital remained open past April 30.

"Whether or not certain individuals were told to disregard the
notice provided on Feb. 27, 2015, is immaterial to this court's
inquiry because that notice ceased to be valid when the
termination date it specified passed with no termination," Osteen
wrote.

The defendants reached an unrelated financial settlement with
Yadkin County officials April 1, 2016.

They agreed to pay about $716,000 in financial commitments and
cede all rights to hospital property and assets.  They also agreed
to retain all hospital liabilities -- estimated between $1.7
million and $5 million -- with the federal Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services.


CAMERERO INC: Faces "Sermuks" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edgars Sermuks, Artur Landani, Stanislav Ferenchuk, Kaspars
Sagbazjans, Tohirjon Qodirov, Erkindzhin Fayzulaev, Mohamed Dali
Rhouma, Maksym Fesler, Pavel Manza, and Iurii Bataiev,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Camerero, Inc., Greenwald Caterers, Inc., and Isaac Greenwald,
Case No. 3:16-cv-05106 (D.N.J., August 22, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a food catering company in
Lakewood, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
      1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


CANADA: MLA Pres. Says Class Action Won't Help Fix Flooding Woes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Cooper, writing for Bracebridge Examiner, reports that the
president of the Muskoka Lakes Association said he has concerns
about the impact a possible class-action lawsuit may have on their
plans to have the government address flooding in the region.

Robert Ensor said he thinks if a lawsuit goes forward it would
"adversely affect" the association's efforts as lawyers would
"likely restrict availability of data needed by us to be
effective."

"MLA does not support a class action lawsuit against (Ministry of
Natural Resources and Forestry) relating to the 2016 flood," said
Mr. Ensor.  "Our reasoning is that in order to find real
solutions, if in fact there are solutions available, it is better
to work co-operatively with MNRF, bringing all available data and
expertise to the table, rather than to threaten or support
lawsuits."

Mr. Ensor, who is also a member of the MLA's Water Level Task
Force, made the comments days after it was announced an Aug. 21
public meeting had been scheduled at the Port Carling Community
Centre at 10:00 a.m., inviting property owners on Lake Muskoka,
Lake Rosseau, and Lake Joseph to participate in a class-action
lawsuit against the Ontario government for damages caused by this
spring's flooding

The MLA had been working the past few months with the District of
Muskoka and other municipal officials to have the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Forestry make changes to the Muskoka
Watershed Management Plan, after the flood caused, what the
association estimates was, hundreds of millions of dollars in
uninsurable damage to structure and property.

"Our position is unchanged from April, when we began to tackle the
flood issue," Mr. Ensor said.  "We have met again with MNRF,
shared our concerns, and we are waiting for some information and
feedback from MNRF.  As you can appreciate, progress is not easy
or quick."

As for the lawsuit, Mr. Ensor said it would take forever to
resolve and the MLA would like to get this problem addressed in
the short term if possible.

He added that the litigants would be unlikely to succeed, as a
similar 2013 class action went nowhere, and the suit would have
"the effect of closing the door on sharing of data and
communications necessary to move forward to find solutions."

The MLA represents around 2,500 cottage families across west
Muskoka and south Parry Sound with a mission to promote the
responsible use, enjoyment and conservation of the unique Muskoka
environment.


CANDLEBROOK MANAGEMENT: Sued in N.J. Over Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kregg Saddler v. Candlebrook Management Company LLC, Luke
Mussleman and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-3108-16 (N.J.
Super. Ct., August 24, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD")
alleging harassment based on race.

The Defendants operate a real estate company located at 225
Echelon Road, Voorhees, New Jersey 08043.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Clovis Defendants,
along with the Underwriter Defendants and the Venture Capital
Defendants, have filed a Motion to Dismiss securities class action
lawsuits.

On November 19, 2015, Steve Kimbro, a purported shareholder of
Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kimbro
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
Kimbro Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and
November 15, 2015. The Kimbro Complaint generally alleges that
Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities
laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market
success of rociletinib. The Kimbro Complaint seeks unspecified
damages.

Also on November 19, 2015, a second purported shareholder class
action complaint was filed by Sonny P. Medina, another purported
Clovis shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set
forth in the Kimbro Complaint, also in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina Complaint"). The
Medina Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and
November 13, 2015.

On November 20, 2015, a third complaint was filed by John Moran in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Moran Complaint"). The Moran Complaint contains
similar allegations to those asserted in the Kimbro and Medina
Complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff
class who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and
November 13, 2015.

On December 14, 2015, Ralph P. Rocco, a fourth purported
shareholder of Clovis, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Rocco
Complaint"). The Rocco Complaint contains similar allegations to
those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock
between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015.

On January 19, 2016, a number of motions were filed in both the
District of Colorado and the Northern District of California
seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one
matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff. All lead plaintiff
movants other than M. Arkin (1999) LTD and Arkin Communications
LTD (the "Arkin Plaintiffs") subsequently filed notices of non-
opposition to the Arkin Plaintiffs' application.

On February 2, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a motion to
transfer the Moran Complaint to the District of Colorado (the
"Motion to Transfer"). Also on February 2, 2016, the defendants
filed a statement in the Northern District of California
supporting the consolidation of all actions in a single court, the
District of Colorado. On February 3, 2016, the Northern District
of California court denied without prejudice the lead plaintiff
motions filed in that court pending a decision on the Motion to
Transfer.

On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a memorandum in support
of the Motion to Transfer, and plaintiff Moran filed a notice of
non-opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On February 17, 2016,
the Northern District of California court granted the Motion to
Transfer.

On February 18, 2016, the Medina court issued an opinion and order
addressing the various motions for consolidation and appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the District of Colorado
actions. By this ruling, the court consolidated the Medina, Kimbro
and Rocco actions into a single proceeding. The court also
appointed the Arkin Plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman as lead counsel for the
putative class.

On April 1, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants filed a
stipulated motion to set the schedule for the filing of a
consolidated complaint in the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions
(the "Consolidated Complaint") and the responses thereto,
including the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"), and to stay discovery and
related proceedings until the District of Colorado issues a
decision on the Motion to Dismiss. The stipulated motion was
entered by the District of Colorado on April 4, 2016. Subject to
further agreed-upon extensions by the parties, the Arkin
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on May 6, 2016.

The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company and
certain of its current and former officers (the "Clovis
Defendants"), certain underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants")
for a Company follow-on offering conducted in July 2015 (the "July
2015 Offering") and certain Company venture capital investors (the
"Venture Capital Defendants"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges
that defendants violated particular sections of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). The purported misrepresentations
and omissions concern allegedly misleading statements about
rociletinib. The putative class action is purportedly brought on
behalf of investors who purchased the Company's securities between
May 31, 2014 and April 7, 2016 (with respect to the Exchange Act
claims) and investors who purchased the Company's securities
pursuant or traceable to the July 2015 Offering (with respect to
the Securities Act claims). The Consolidated Complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and recessionary damages.

On May 23, 2016, the Medina, Kimbro, Rocco and Moran actions were
consolidated for all purposes in a single proceeding in the
District of Colorado.

The Clovis Defendants, along with the Underwriter Defendants and
the Venture Capital Defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss on July
27, 2016; the Arkin Plaintiff's opposition is due on September 23,
2016; and the defendants' replies are due on October 14, 2016.

The Clovis Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations contained in the Kimbro, Medina, Moran and Rocco
Complaints, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be
successful.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing cancer treatments in the United
States, Europe and other international markets.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Sept. 23 Hearing in Electrical Workers' Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing on
defendants' motion to stay the Electrical Workers action is
scheduled for September 23, 2016.

On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and
Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed
a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors,
investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical Workers Complaint
purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased stock in Clovis' July 8, 2015 follow-on offering. The
Electrical Workers Complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated the Securities Act because the offering documents for the
July 8, 2015 follow-on offering contained allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval
and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The
Electrical Workers Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On February 25, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and thereafter moved to transfer the case to the
District of Colorado ("Motion to Transfer"). On March 2, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to San Mateo County
Superior Court ("Motion to Remand"). Following briefing on the
Motion to Transfer and the Motion to Remand, the Northern District
of California held a hearing on April 18, 2016 concerning the
Motion to Remand, at the conclusion of which the court granted to
the Motion to Remand. On May 5, 2016, the Northern District of
California issued a written decision and order granting the Motion
to Remand the case to the Superior Court, County of San Mateo and
denying the Motion to Transfer as moot.

While the case was pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, the parties entered into a
stipulation extending the defendants' time to respond to the
Electrical Workers Complaint for 30 days following the filing of
an amended complaint by plaintiff or the designation by plaintiff
of the Electrical Workers Complaint as the operative complaint.
Following remand, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo so-ordered the stipulation on June 22, 2016.

On June 30, 2016, the Electrical Workers Plaintiffs filed an
amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint
names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, certain underwriters for the July
2015 Offering and certain Company venture capital investors. The
Amended Complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities
Act based upon alleged misstatements in Clovis' offering documents
for the July 2015 Offering. The Amended Complaint includes new
allegations about the Company's rociletinib disclosures. The
Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On July 28, 2016, the court ordered the following briefing
schedule: defendants' motion to stay the Electrical Workers action
pending resolution of the Medina, Kimbro, Moran and Rocco actions
in the District of Colorado ("Motion to Stay") and demurrer to the
Amended Complaint are due on August 15, 2016; plaintiff's
oppositions are due on August 31, 2016; and the defendants' reply
briefs are due on September 15, 2016. A hearing on both motions is
scheduled for September 23, 2016. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the
Electrical Workers Amended Complaint, but there can be no
assurance that the defense will be successful.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing cancer treatments in the United
States, Europe and other international markets.


COLONY STARWOOD: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colony Starwood Homes said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit remains pending.

On October 30, 2015, a putative class action was filed by one of
our purported shareholders ("Plaintiff") against us, our trustees,
the Manager, SWAY Holdco, LLC, Starwood Capital Group and CAH
("Defendants") challenging the Merger and the Internalization. The
case is captioned South Miami Pension Plan v. Starwood Waypoint
Residential Trust, et al., Circuit Court for Baltimore City, State
of Maryland, Case No. 24C15005482.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that some or all of our
trustees breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
and the Internalization, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches. The complaint also challenged the
adequacy of the public disclosures made in connection with the
Merger and the Internalization.

Plaintiff sought, among other relief, an injunction preventing our
shareholders from voting on the Internalization or the Merger,
rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, and damages, including attorneys' fees and experts'
fees.

On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a
preliminary injunction preventing our shareholders from voting on
whether to approve the Merger and the Internalization. On December
16, 2015, the day before the shareholder vote, the Court denied
Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiff thereafter
notified the Defendants that it intended to file an amended
complaint.

Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on February 3, 2016,
asserting substantially similar claims and seeking substantially
similar relief as in its earlier complaint. In response,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 21, 2016, on which the Court held a hearing June 1, 2016.

"We believe that this action has no merit and intend to defend
vigorously against it," the Company said.


COLORADO PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Rood" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Rood, Christopher Abaire, and Floyd Smith, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Pamela K. Brummit
d/b/a Colorado Professional Security Services, Copss, LLC, and
Robert Rodgers, Case No. 1:16-cv-02122 (D. Col., August 22, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Security
Guards overtime compensation at their proper regular rates of pay.

The Defendants operate a security guard service company located at
902 N Circle Dr #204, Colorado Springs, CO 80909.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary M. Kramer, Esq.
      GARY KRAMER LAW LLC
      1465 Kelly Johnson Blvd, Suite 210
      Colorado Springs, CO  80920
      Telephone: (719) 694-2783
      Facsimile: (719) 452-3622
      E-mail: gary@garykramerlaw.com


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Sanford Heisler Files ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Contemporary retirement plans have become the primary tool for
retirement planning and savings for millions of working Americans.
Employers who fail to offer their employees prudent investment
choices place employees' hard earned retirement savings at risk of
loss because of poor investment performance. What was meant to be
the golden period for employees becomes a retirement nightmare.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a
federal law that sets minimum standards for retirement and health
benefit plans in private industry. ERISA provides that those
individuals who manage plans must meet minimum standards of
conduct in order to protect employee funds.

Sanford Heisler, LLP on Aug. 16 filed a class complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
detailing the many ways in which Columbia University breached its
obligation under ERISA to prudently invest its employees'
retirement savings.

In a class complaint alleging one hundred million dollars in
damages, Plaintiff Jane Doe, a faculty member at Columbia
University and a participant of the University's retirement plans,
sued on behalf of herself and a class of 27,000 current and former
Columbia University employees who participated in Columbia
University's retirement plans.  The complaint alleges that the
University breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA.  Columbia
University, as well as University Vice President of Human
Resources Dianne Kenney, who administers the deficient plans, are
named as Defendants.

According to the complaint, Columbia University retained expensive
and poor-performing investment options that consistently
underperformed their benchmarks.  This caused its 401(k) plans and
their participants to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in
losses of retirement savings.  As a result, the University's
401(k) plan included $4.6 billion of investment options that were
primarily poor to mediocre performers.  Among the plans' poor-
performers, the complaint points to the plans' retention of the
TIAA-CREF Stock Account R3, which, it alleges, has historically
underperformed its benchmarks and other lower-cost investments
that were available for inclusion in its retirement plans.

David Sanford, chairman of Sanford Heisler and lead counsel for
Plaintiff, stated, "Columbia was on notice that TIAA-CREF was a
deficient investment.  It wasn't merely that TIAA-CREF performed
poorly in a single year or two.  In fact, the TIAA-CREF Stock
Account has been poor for many years compared to both available
lower-cost index funds and the index benchmark."

Charles Field, a partner of Sanford Heisler, and co-lead counsel
for Plaintiff, observed that, "the fund was recognized as
imprudent in the industry.  By retaining such funds, the
University breached its fiduciary duties to 27,000 plan
beneficiaries."

In addition to retaining poorly performing funds, the lawsuit
charges that the University's plans offer excessively duplicative
investments to beneficiaries.  According to the complaint, this
selection of funds violates the industry principle that too many
choices harm participants, and can lead plan participants to
"decision paralysis" and selection of inferior investments.  In
addition, the plans charge excessive fees for recordkeeping,
administrative, and investment services, and retain excessively
expensive retail share class options despite the lower-cost
options available to their plans.

As relief, Plaintiff and the class seek (1) damages for financial
losses to plan beneficiaries resulting from the plans'
underperforming investments and excessive fees; (2) reform to
Columbia's retirement plans that would remove imprudent
investments and ensure only reasonable recordkeeping expenses; and
(3) the removal of the University's fiduciaries who have violated
their duties to plans beneficiaries under ERISA. Plaintiff demands
a trial by jury.

                   About Sanford Heisler, LLP

Sanford Heisler, LLP -- http://www.sanfordheisler.com--is a
national public interest class-action litigation law firm, which
has offices in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and San
Diego.  Sanford Heisler focuses on employment discrimination, wage
and hour, qui tam, and other civil rights matters.  The firm
represents select individual clients such as executives, lawyers
in employment disputes, and whistleblowers.  The firm has
recovered over $1 billion for its clients.


CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 17
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Concordia International Corp securities (CXRX) from
November 12, 2015 through August 12, 2016, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Concordia investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Concordia class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-939.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Concordia was experiencing a substantial
increase in market competition against Concordia's drug, Donnatal,
and other products; (2) as a result, Concordia's financial results
would suffer, and Concordia would be forced to suspend its
dividend; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
Concordia's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 14, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-939.htmlfor more
information.  You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


COUNTRY WAY: Faces "Lynch" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Noris Lynch v. Country Way Bridal and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case
No. L-3107-16 (N.J. Sup. Ct., August 24, 2016), alleges
discrimination in a place of public accommodation, specifically by
denying the Plaintiff to shop at the Defendants' retail location
because of her race.

The Defendants operate a bridal boutique located at 200 Kings
Highway East, Haddonfield, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CEED SECURITY: Faces "Burnell" Wage and Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER BURNELL, DIEGO ZAMUDIO, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly v. CEED SECURITY CORP., A California Corporation;
CEED SECURITY SERVICES, INC., A California Corporation; ED
IHENACHO, An Individual; CARL IHENACHO, An Individual; ESOBEL
NKHOMA, An Individual; and DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive, Case No.
BC631175 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 23, 2016), is
a civil wage and hour class action seeking equitable and
injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and other
relief for alleged violations of the Labor Code.

CEED Security Corp. is a California corporation located in Los
Angeles, California.  Ed Ihenacho and Carl Ihenacho are owners of
the Company.  Esobel Nkhoma is an employee of the Company.
According to its own Web site, CEED Security provides unarmed and
armed security in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM
          3440 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 915
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (310) 601-3131
          Facsimile: (310) 388-8444
          E-mail: daniel@slfla.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Dao" Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tuoc Dao and Calvin Chan v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10402 (D. Tex., August 24, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Hirzel" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hollee Hirzel and Zachary Hirzel v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-103399 (D. Tex., August 24, 2016), seeks
to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal
value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of
appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DENVER, CO: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Homeless Sweeps
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Walker, writing for Westword, reports that ever since the
March 8 and 9 sweeps of homeless encampments near the Denver
Rescue Mission, the city has engaged in a sustained crackdown on
uprooted and displaced individuals throughout the city.  These
actions have been documented by "camping ban" statistics kept by
the Denver Police Department, as well as by anecdotal evidence,
such as information provided by eyewitnesses of a large-scale
operation along the Platte River on July 13.

Even before the current wave of sweeps began, however, the city
faced criticism for its treatment of homeless people's property.
In December 2015, dozens of individuals claimed to have had their
belongings thrown into a Department of Public Works dump truck
with no prior warning.  And as recently as the July 13 sweep along
the Platte, there were reports that tents, cooking equipment and
other personal items belonging to homeless people were trashed by
the city without any means to retrieve them.

Such reports have led a local civil-rights lawyer to prepare a
class-action lawsuit against the city.

On Aug. 11 at 4:00 p.m., attorney Jason Flores-Williams is holding
a meeting at the central branch of the Denver Public Library for
individuals interested in participating in the suit.

"We're looking for representative plaintiffs," explains
Mr. Flores-Williams.  "We need to have four or five
representatives of the class who can adhere to a meeting schedule
and who we can bring into court to testify in a class
certification hearing.  They will represent the other thousands of
individuals who have been deprived of their constitutional rights
and who also happen to be homeless."

In particular, Mr. Flores-Williams believes that Denver has been
violating equal protection, property and due-process rights of the
city's homeless population.

"Like an authoritarian state, Denver has decided to deprive
homeless people of their property without any due process, and
that violates their constitutional rights," he says, pointing to
the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against
unlawful searches and seizures.  The lawyer additionally cites
violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal
protection under law and the First Amendment's guarantees of
speech and assembly (one could argue that encampments are a form
of expression or protest).

Mr. Flores-Williams tells Westword that some of his motivation to
get involved is personal.  "I grew up with a father in prison, and
so I was homeless for a bit.  So I know some of the suffering
that's involved here."

But the lawyer also has experience in the field of assets
forfeiture law.  "We've won several landmark cases dealing with
the violation of due-process rights when it comes to white-collar
criminal defendants and corporations," he explains.  "There's a
lot of fantastic law that has been issued recently safeguarding
the property of corporations (that are treated as persons), and so
we want to apply that to homeless persons."

Mr. Flores-Williams also highlights an important precedent:
Fresno.

In 2008, the city of Fresno, California, settled a class-action
suit that involved hundreds of homeless individuals who claimed to
have had their belongings destroyed in sweeps.  After their class-
certified suit w,as filed in 2006 by a team of lawyers, including
ACLU of Northern California members, Fresno and the California
Department of Transportation agreed to pay out $2.35 million to
individual plaintiffs and create a fund that provided housing and
medical care to that city's homeless.

Mr. Flores-Williams says that such litigation is also possible in
Denver using "42 U.S. Code 1983," which allows for suits to be
filed in federal court against a city for violating citizens'
constitutional rights.

The code also allows for monetary damages, which, if awarded,
would compensate his firm with up to 30 percent of the total
reward.  But Mr. Flores-Williams says the suit isn't about the
money.

"If the city were to come back and say, 'We just want to fix the
problem,' then we will be doing this pro bono, because that's what
we want: to fix the problem," he says.

This will include a letter that his firm will send to the city 72
hours before filing a suit, "to give [Denver] the opportunity to
avoid ligation.

"If they respond in good faith, then we will hold on to the
injunction lawsuit and attempt to work with them," Mr.
Flores-Williams says.  Otherwise, the firm will go forward with
its filings for class certification, injunction and damages -- a
process that could take many months.

Ultimately, though, the lawyer says that he wants to see justice
for Denver's homeless population.

"This is exactly the kind of the group that a class action is
designed for" he says.  "It's a group of people who have a
commonality of issues and whose rights are being violated, but who
the courts would have a difficult time recognizing on an
individual level."


DIAMOND FOODS: Judge Defers Picking Securities Case Class Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District
Judge William Alsup of San Francisco refuses to bow to orthodoxy
when it comes to selecting plaintiffs' firms to lead securities
class actions.

A few years back, you may remember, the judge was in charge of a
case against Diamond Foods.  After some nasty briefing between two
competing pension funds, he appointed a Mississippi state
employees' fund as lead plaintiff -- but didn't immediately
appoint the fund's chosen lawyers as lead counsel.  Instead, Judge
Alsup ordered the fund to conduct a separate due diligence
investigation of prospective lead counsel and pick the one that
offered "the overall best deal for the class." (As it happened,
the fund selected two of the firms that had represented it in the
lead plaintiff fight.)

In May, Judge Alsup was assigned a securities class action against
Lending Club, the online marketplace connecting borrowers to
investors.  This time, he made clear from the beginning that he
intended to separate the processes of picking a lead plaintiff and
picking a shareholder law firm to represent the class. In an order
in June, the judge set a schedule (and separately provided a
questionnaire) for investors to apply to be appointed lead
plaintiff.  He explicitly said he would "defer" picking lead
counsel until he appointed a plaintiff.

Judge Alsup was as good as his word.  On Aug. 15, he issued an
order selecting the death and disability fund for Los Angeles
water and power workers as the lead plaintiff.  Six other
plaintiffs, including three other institutional investors, had
submitted leadership motions, but all of them either withdrew
their motions or assented to the Los Angeles fund's leadership
after its lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd disclosed the
fund's nearly $13 million loss in Lending Club shares.
(Shareholders accuse the online platform of hiding the company's
investment, as well as its former CEO's investment, in a
third-party fund that allegedly purchased notes sold in the
Lending Club marketplace.)

In the order appointing the lead plaintiff, the judge elaborated
the lead counsel selection process, which he called the most
important fiduciary duty of the lead plaintiff.  Judge Alsup
instructed lead counsel candidates to send applications to the Los
Angeles fund's chief investment officer, detailing "their fee
proposal, their track record, the particular lawyers assigned to
the case, their ability and willingness to finance the case and
their proposals for the prosecution of the case."  The fund and
the L.A. City Attorney's Office, which is advising it, have until
the middle of September to make a choice, which they must explain
to Judge Alsup via sealed declarations explaining the due
diligence process and "why the counsel selected was favored over
other potential candidates."

The judge said the Los Angeles fund is welcome to consider its
current lawyers at Robbins Geller but may not favor the firm when
it comes to a final selection.  Kirby McInerney, which represented
the U.S. Equity Fund in a competing lead counsel motion in the
Lending Club class action, argued that Robbins Geller was
conflicted because it represented an investor in a parallel suit
against Lending Club board members in California state court.
Robbins Geller and its client in that case, a union pension fund,
subsequently withdrew from the state litigation.

Firms that filed lead plaintiff motions on behalf of Lending Club
investors Robbins Geller and Kirby McInerney, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Pomerantz
and Chimicles & Tikellis.  Jerry Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- at
Bernstein Litowitz and Kimberly Donaldson Smith --
KimDonaldsonSmith@chimicles.com -- at Chimicles said they are
considering whether to apply to be lead counsel.


DING DOCTOR: Does Not Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Says "Flores" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS FLORES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. THE DING DOCTOR, INC., a California corporation; THE DING
DOCTOR, INC. dba DANNY'S DETAIL, a California corporation; DANNY'S
DEALER SOLUTIONS, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. BC631490 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., August 23, 2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
wages for all time worked at minimum wage and to pay proper
overtime wages, in violation of the Labor Code.

The Ding Doctor, Inc., doing business as Danny's Detail, is
authorized to do and is doing business within the state of
California with a principal place of business in Glendora,
California.  Danny's Dealer Solutions is authorized to do and is
doing business within the state of California with a principal
place of business in Santa Ana, California.  The Doe Defendants
are officers, directors, or shareholders of the Corporate
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com


ECOLAB INC: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Campos v. Ecolab Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 4:16-cv-04829-DMR (N.D. Cal., August 22, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ecolab Inc. offers water, hygiene and energy technologies and
services that provide and protect clean water, safe food, abundant
energy and healthy environment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Strauss, Esq.
      Andrew C. Ellison, Esq.
      Rabiah A. Rahman, Esq.
      STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
      121 North Fir Street, Suite F
      Ventura, CA  93001
      Telephone: (805) 641-6600
      Facsimile: (805) 641-6607
      E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com
              andrew@strausslawyers.com
              rabiah@strausslawyers.com


FERRARA CANDY: Court Denies Bids to Certify in "Vazquez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Maria Valdez entered a memorandum opinion and order in
the lawsuit styled SATURNINO Z. VAZQUEZ v. FERRARA CANDY COMPANY
and THOMAS P. POLKE individually, Case No. 14 C 4233 (N.D. Ill.),
denying:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification under the
      Fair Labor Standards Act; and

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action for his claims
      under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage
      Payment Collection Act.

The Plaintiff's proposed collective action covers:

     All persons who are or have been employed by defendant
     Ferrara Candy Company in Illinois, who were not paid at a
     rate equal to one and one half times his or her regular rate
     of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per
     workweek because the individual performed work for the
     Company that was uncompensated, in the form of unpaid
     donning and doffing (putting on and taking off) of uniforms
     and/or safety equipment (including time spent walking to
     obtain the uniforms and/or safety equipment and time spent
     walking to employee work stations).

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://goo.gl/TFgxsQfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valentin Tito Narvaez, I, Esq.
          Raisa Alicea, Esq.
          Susan Jane Best, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com
                  ralicea@yourclg.com
                  sbest@yourclg.com

               - and -

          Amit Singh Bindra, Esq.
          Kristen E. Prinz, Esq.
          THE PRINZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 550
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 212-4450
          E-mail: abindra@prinz-lawfirm.com
                  kprinz@prinz-lawfirm.com

Defendants Ferrara Candy Company and Thomas P. Polke are
represented by:

          James J. Convery, Esq.
          Antonio Caldarone, Esq.
          LANER MUCHIN, LTD.
          515 North State Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 467-9800
          Facsimile: (312) 467-9479
          E-mail: jconvery@lanermuchin.com
                  acaldarone@lanermuchin.com


GENERAL MILLS: Must Face Cherrios Deceptive Marketing Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge has ruled that General Mills Inc. must face a lawsuit
claiming it tricked consumers by marketing Cheerios Protein as a
high-protein alternative to regular Cheerios, when the main
difference was that it contained 17 times more sugar per serving.

In a decision on Aug. 10, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson in
San Francisco said consumers may pursue a claim that General Mills
violated the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act since it
"misbranded" Cheerios Protein, which is sold in Oats & Honey and
Cinnamon Almond flavors.

Though "skeptical" it would succeed, Judge Henderson also refused
to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim that reasonable consumers would
likely be deceived by packaging for the cereal, noting that text
mentioning its sugar content and being "sweetened" appeared in
small print on the boxes.

Mike Siemienas, a General Mills spokesman, said the Minneapolis-
based company does not discuss pending litigation.

Though Cheerios Protein has 7 grams of protein per serving versus
3 grams for regular Cheerios, the plaintiffs said the real
difference was negligible because the serving size of Cheerios
Protein, and the calorie content per serving, was twice as big.

The plaintiffs also called the Cheerios Protein name misleading
because it said nothing about the 16 or 17 grams of sugar in a
serving, versus a single gram in regular Cheerios.

A Washington-based nonprofit group, the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, filed the lawsuit last November on behalf of
consumers in California and New York.

"We know that consumers are deceived to their detriment by this
product," CSPI litigation director Maia Kats said in an email,
"and look forward to the opportunity now to prove so in court."

The case is Coe et al v. General Mills Inc, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, No. 15-05112.


GENIE ENERGY: Still Defends "Ferrare" Class Action in E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit by Anthony Ferrare.

On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The
complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named
plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and
current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with
variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of
IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices.

On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On
October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively,
dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff. On
November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy's motion
to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in
further support of its motion to dismiss.

On June 10, 2015, the Court granted IDT Energy's motion to stay
and denied its motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.


GENIE ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Amended "Aks" Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that defendants' motion to
dismiss an amended complaint remains pending.

On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New
Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other
class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's alleged
unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed
the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents
who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008
and the present.

On November 6, 2014, the Court denied IDT Energy's motion to
dismiss the complaint and the parties are currently engaged in
discovery. On April 20, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of herself and all IDT Energy customers in New
Jersey against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy
International Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd.

On June 27, 2016, defendants Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy
International Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd. filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes that the
claims in the amended complaint are also without merit and intends
to vigorously defend the action.


GENIE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "McLaughlin"
----------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties are
awaiting a decision from the Court on IDT Energy's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
contending that he and other class members were injured as a
result of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself
and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a
variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT
Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy's rebate program
from July 2, 2008. On December 19, 2014, IDT Energy filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint. On December 9, 2015, the Court denied
IDT Energy's motion to dismiss without prejudice so as to allow
McLaughlin to file an amended complaint.

On January 22, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of himself and all IDT Energy customers in New
York State against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie
Energy International Corporation, and Genie Energy Ltd.
(collectively, "IDT Energy").

Subsequently, on February 22, 2016, IDT Energy moved to dismiss
the amended complaint. The named plaintiff opposed that motion and
the parties are currently awaiting a decision from the Court. In
the meantime, the parties are engaged in limited discovery. The
Company believes that the claims in the amended complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.


GOODMAN GLOBAL: Bid to Certify Class in "Kotsur" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum opinion, the Hon. Wendy Beetlestone denies the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendants'
motion to exclude opinions of the Plaintiff's metallurgical
engineering expert, Paul J. Sikorsky in the lawsuit captioned
ROBERT KOTSUR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GOODMAN GLOBAL, INC., GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
L.P., and GOODMAN COMPANY, L.P., Case No. 14-1147 (E.D. Pa.).

The Case is a putative class action against a heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) manufacturer.  Defendant
Goodman Global Inc. is the parent company of the other two
Defendants, Goodman Manufacturing L.P. and Goodman Company L.P.;
the latter two "are in the business of designing, manufacturing,
and selling to distributors and dealers heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning [HVAC] components for use in residential
applications."  The Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses to
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Mr. Kotsur alleges HVAC units built with a Goodman-manufactured
evaporator coil malfunction -- cease to adequately heat or cool
air -- because a defect causes the coil to "prematurely leak
refrigerant during normal use."  He notes formicary corrosion -- a
particular type of corrosion in copper caused by exposure to air,
moisture, and certain organic acids -- as a "potential cause" of
the alleged malfunction.  He argues he need not identify a
specific, common defect because a high rate of malfunction in
Goodman's HVAC units shows such a defect exists.

Judge Beetlestone denies the Motion to Certify because Mr. Kotsur
fails to satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule
23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
ascertainability and predominance requirements for the proposed
damages class.  The injunctive relief class also cannot be
certified because class members lack standing and the relief
proposed is a disguised request for individualized damages, Judge
Beetlestone opines.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available at no charge at
http://goo.gl/aNG4Jkfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Silver, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          Lorenzo B. Cellini, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: asilver@tzlegal.com
                  jtycko@tzlegal.com
                  lcellini@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: enafisi@wbmllp.com
                  gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Scott A. George, Esq.
          TerriAnne A. Benedetto, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LP
          1515 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
                  tbenedetto@seegerweiss.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kimberly A. Brown, Esq.
          Louis A. Chaiten, Esq.
          Richard J. Bedell, Jr., Esq.
          Sharyl A. Reisman, Esq.
          Theodore M. Grossman, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Delmedico, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2514
          Telephone: (412) 391-3939
          Facsimile: (412) 394-7959
          E-mail: kabrown@jonesday.com
                  lachaiten@jonesday.com
                  rjbedell@jonesday.com
                  sareisman@jonesday.com
                  tgrossman@jonesday.com
                  jdelmedico@jonesday.com


GOOGLE INC: Must Face Class Action Over Gmail Scanning
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullin, writing for ars technica, reports that thanks to a
judge's order, Google must face another proposed class-action
lawsuit over its scanning of Gmail.  The issue is a lingering
headache for the search giant, which has faced allegations for
years now that scanning Gmail in order to create personalized ads
violates US wiretapping laws.

In a 38-page order, US District Judge Lucy Koh rejected Google's
argument that the scanning takes place within the "ordinary course
of business."

"Not every practice that is routine or legitimate will fall within
the scope of the 'ordinary course of business'," Judge Koh wrote.

Judge Koh noted that while Google has to scan for other reasons,
like virus and spam prevention, the company didn't have to scan
for advertising purposes.  She noted that in April 2014, Google
"ceased intercepting, scanning, and analyzing, for advertising
purposes, the contents of emails transmitted via Google Apps for
Education."

According to Judge Koh, that shows that Google is able to provide
Gmail, at least to some users, without scanning email for ad
purposes.

The order was published on Aug. 12 and first reported earlier on
Aug. 17 by Courthouse News.  The ruling means that Google won't be
able to get the lawsuit, which was filed in September, thrown out
at an early stage.

However, the plaintiffs are a long way from seeing a payday.
Google will likely fight hard to defend the way it has long run
its Gmail service.  The plaintiffs still have yet to pass key
hurdles, including forming a class, which proved impossible in an
earlier lawsuit.

Judge Koh's order reviews the history of those earlier privacy
cases, the first of which was filed in 2010.  They were filed in
various districts and ultimately consolidated in Judge Koh's court
as In re Google Inc. Gmail Litigation.

While Google wasn't able to get that suit thrown out either, the
individual plaintiffs all dismissed their cases with prejudice
after they failed to form a class.  In that case, Judge Koh ruled
that the question of whether the plaintiffs had provided consent
to scan their Gmail needed "individualized inquiries" and couldn't
be addressed as a class action.

In the case Judge Koh ruled on Aug. 12, Matera v. Google, the
plaintiffs are seeking to represent only users who do not use
Gmail and have never had a Gmail account, but have still had the
content of their emails scanned because they interacted with Gmail
users.  The plaintiffs in Matera say the scanning violates both
the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California
state privacy laws.


GRANITE CITY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Greene" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Domonik Greene, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. Granite City Food & Brewery, Ltd., d/b/a
Granite City Food and Brewery, Case No. 0:16-cv-02834 (D. Minn.,
August 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay the Plaintiff and other tipped employees all earned minimum
wages.

Granite City Food & Brewery, Ltd. owns and operates approximately
35 namesake restaurants in 14 states -- Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
      Jason P. Hungerford, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN  55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
              jhungerford@nka.com

         - and -

      Brian Schaffer, Esq.
      Jeffrey H. Dorfman, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              jdorfman@fslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Justin Swartz, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
      3 Park Ave., 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2057
      E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


GRIFFIN ORGANICS: "Artiega" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mauricio E. Zavala Artiega, on behalf of himself v. Griffin
Organics, Inc., Griffin's Landscaping Corp., Hilltop Nursery and
Garden Center, Inc., and Glenn Griffin, Case No. 7:16-cv-06613-CS
(S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a lawn, tree and shrub care business, a
landscaping business, and a nursery and lawn care center in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces "Wilkerson" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Wilkerson v. Harris County Appraisal District, Case No.
2016-56423 (D. Tex., August 24, 2016), is an action for damages as
a result of the Defendant's failure to appraise the Plaintiff's
property at its market value.

Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising
taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory J. Dalton, Esq.
      GREGORY J. DALTON, P.C.
      PO Box 109
      Katy, TX 77492
      Telephone: (281) 391-1985
      Facsimile: (281) 391-1987
      E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Guic Post Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Guic Post Oak Center, Ltd. v. Harris County Appraisal District,
Case No. 2016-56388 (D. Tex., August 24, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to appraise the
Plaintiff's property at its market value.

Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising
taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory J. Dalton, Esq.
      GREGORY J. DALTON, P.C.
      PO Box 109
      Katy, TX 77492
      Telephone: (281) 391-1985
      Facsimile: (281) 391-1987
      E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Intercontinental Suit Over Appraisal Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Enterprises LLC, et al. v. Harris County
Appraisal District, Case No. 2016-56435 (D. Tex., August 24,
2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's
failure to appraise the Plaintiff's property at its market value.

Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising
taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond Gray, Esq.
      Lorri Michel, Esq.
      Shane Rogers, Esq.
      MICHEL GRAY LLP
      812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 477-0200
      Facsimile: (512) 477-6636
      E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com
              lorri@michelgray.com
              shane@michelgray.com


HGS COLIBRIUM: Faces "Albert" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Albert, Patrick Kniery, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HGS Colibrium, Inc., Case No. 1:16-
cv-03072-WSD (N.D. Ga., August 22, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

HGS Colibrium, Inc. is a provider of technology services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Hunt, Esq.
      STOKES WAGNER, ALC
      One Atlantic Center
      Suite 2400, 1201 W. Peachtree Street
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 766-0076
      Facsimile: (404) 766-8823
      E-mail: jhunt@stokeswagner.com


J.G. WENTWORTH: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by Sept. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has ordered
the plaintiffs in the Illinois class action proceedings to file a
third amended complaint by September 2, 2016.

The Company said, "As noted in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2015, in February 2014, a purported
class action filing was made against the Company and various
subsidiaries, which was removed to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and later transferred
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division; Case No.: 1:14-cv-09188. Based on
amendments to the Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act
providing that where the terms of the structured settlement
agreements prohibit sale, assignment, or encumbrance of such
payment rights, a court is not precluded from hearing an
application for transfer of the payment rights and ruling on the
merits of such application, and a declaration that the amendment
was "declarative of existing law", we believe that the original
ruling in Illinois which commenced the continuing Illinois
proceedings was not consistent with precedent and existing law,
and we filed updates with the court accordingly."

"On July 27, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division entered an order
granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint.  The court dismissed with prejudice any
claims based on allegations that the transfer approval orders were
void.  The court held that Illinois courts that approved the
original transfers had jurisdiction to approve the transfers
and/or claims based on those orders being void ab initio were
dismissed, as well as claims based on allegations that the venue
was improper for the approval petitions or that the disclosures
were inadequate.

"The court held that anti-assignment provisions in the original
settlement agreements can be waived, but because the plaintiffs
did not plead that they waived the anti-assignment clauses, the
motion to dismiss those claims were denied.  The court dismissed
without prejudice plaintiffs' claims under RICO because plaintiffs
failed to allege two predicate acts as to each defendants.  The
court also dismissed claims against entities that were not in
existence at the time of the transfers.  The court dismissed with
prejudice claims for unjust enrichment and joint enterprise. The
court denied the motion to dismiss the claims based on a breach of
fiduciary duty, parts of the conversion claims and the defense of
statute of limitations because plaintiffs' complaint stated a
claim.

"The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a third amended
complaint by September 2, 2016 consistent with the order and set a
status hearing for September 21, 2016.  At that time, the court
will determine what actions to take with Settlement Funding, LLC's
Petitions to Compel Arbitration as to all but one plaintiff."


JANSSEN RESEARCH: "Detroia" Files Suit Over Xarelto Drug
--------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EDWARD DETROIA, v. JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
f/k/a Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development,
LLC; JANSSEN ORTHO LLC; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., f/k/a
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.: BAYER PHARMA AG; BAYER
CORPORATION; BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC; BAYER HEALTHCARE AG; and BAYER
AG, Case No.  2:16-cv-14068-EEF-MBN, In Re: Xarelto (Rivaroxaban)
Product Liability Litigation MDL No. 2592 (E.D. La., August 23,
2016), alleges that Defendants negligently and/or fraudulently
misrepresented the safety and efficacy of Xarelto, also known as
rivaroxaban.

JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC is involved in the research,
development, sales, and marketing of pharmaceutical products
including Xarelto and rivaroxaban.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph D. Lane, Esq.
     J. Farrest Taylor, Esq.
     Angela J. Mason, Esq.
     THE COCHRAN FIRM
     111 E. Main Street
     Dothan, AL 36301
     Phone: (334) 673-1555
     Fax: (334) 699-7229
     E-mail: JoeLane@CochranFirm.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Lockridge Grindal Files Merger Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. on Aug. 16 disclosed that it
filed a class action lawsuit against Johnson Controls Inc.
("JCI"), and certain individuals, officers and directors
associated with JCI in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin (Case No. 2:16-cv-01093-NJ), on
behalf of JCI shareholders who held their shares in taxable
accounts and will be injured by the capital gains taxes and other
taxes that they will be forced to pay as a result of the merger;
and on behalf of all JCI shareholders who will be injured by
dilution as a result of the merger, for violations of Secs. 14(a)
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that in pursuing the merger, each of the
Defendants have violated, and will continue to violate, applicable
law by breaching and/or aiding and abetting the other Defendants'
breaches of their fiduciary duties of due care, disclosure, good
faith, loyalty, and fair dealing and by engaging in other wrongful
conduct under federal and Wisconsin statutory and common law.

The Complaint seeks to compel Defendants to comply with the
Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"), to determine and disclose whether
JCI or the JCI shareholders are to pay the merger-dependent taxes
required by the IRC, and, if the latter, to require JCI to pay
damages to those JCI shareholders forced to pay for JCI's merger,
and to disclose Defendants' scheme to protect themselves from
merger-related taxes by diluting JCI shareholders' equity interest
after the merger.

If you are a JCI shareholder affected by either the capital gains
taxes or the dilution, you may move the Court to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the Class on or before October 17, 2016.  You do not
need to be a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery that
may be obtained.


KELLEY PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Patton" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua A. Patton, individually and as the class representative of
others similarly situated v. Kelley Plumbing, Enterprises Inc. and
Barbara Harpe, Case No. 8:16-cv-02438-CEH-MAP (M.D. Fla., August
24, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate a plumbing company located at 910 Harbor
Lake, Safety Harbor, Florida 34965.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter A. Sartes, Esq.
      TRAGOS, SARTES & TRAGOS, PLLC
      601 Cleveland Street, Suite 800
      Clearwater, FL 33755
      Telephone: (727) 441-9030
      Facsimile: (727) 441-9254
      E-mail: peter@greeklaw.com
              linda@greeklaw.com


KNOWLES CORPORATION: $6MM Settlement in Audience IPO Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Knowles Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Audience IPO-
Related Litigation, the court has approved a settlement by which
Audience's insurance carriers paid $6.0 million to the class in
exchange for releases and attorney's fees and other costs in the
cumulative sum of $1.9 million.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against Audience, the members of its board
of directors, two of its executive officers and the underwriters
of Audience's initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaint
sought, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission and
attorney's fees and costs.

On January 16, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
certify a class.

A trial had been scheduled for January 25, 2016 however, on July
23, 2015, an agreement in principle to settle the action was
reached, subject to approval of the court.

On October 19, 2015, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement.

On June 10, 2016, the court entered an order which approved the
settlement by which Audience's insurance carriers paid $6.0
million to the class in exchange for releases and attorney's fees
and other costs in the cumulative sum of $1.9 million.


KNOWLES CORPORATION: Settlement in Audience Acquisition Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Knowles Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Audience
Acquisition-Related Litigation, the court has entered a final
order approving the settlement and awarded attorney's fees to the
plaintiffs in the amount of $0.4 million.

Between May 15 and May 29, 2015, five substantially similar class
action lawsuits challenging the proposed acquisition of Audience
were filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara
County, against the members of Audience's board of directors and
the Company, among others. The lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated into a single action. The complaints allege that the
members of Audience's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Audience shareholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition and that the Company aided and abetted these alleged
violations. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the acquisition, as
well as, among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's
fees and costs.

In June 2015, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle
providing for the settlement of the litigation on the terms and
conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU").
Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, without agreeing that any of the
claims in the litigation have merit or that any supplemental
disclosure was required under any applicable statute, rule,
regulation or law, Audience agreed to make certain supplemental
and amended disclosures in its statement in support of the
acquisition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Notices summarizing the terms of the settlement had been
circulated to Audience shareholders and on July 29, 2016 the court
entered a final order approving the settlement and awarded
attorney's fees to the plaintiffs in the amount of $0.4 million.

The Company will have ten business days from the date that the
court enters its final order approving the settlement to pay the
fees.

As of June 30, 2016, the Company has accrued $0.5 million of legal
reserves on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.


LA WEB: Fails to Pay All Wages and Overtime, "Acosta" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NIMIA OSIRIS ACOSTA, an individual v. L.A. WEB, INC., a California
Corporation, d.b.a. L.A. WEB PRINTING, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC631608 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
August 23, 2016), is brought by the Plaintiff against his former
employer for alleged failure to pay all wages, to provide meal and
rest periods, and to pay overtime wages.

L.A. WEB, INC., a California Corporation, is a private printing
company in the County of Los Angeles, state of California.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
          LA W OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC
          3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 738-5225


LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Court Snubs Class Settlement in "Bailes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Daniel D. Crabtree entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit titled BRYAN BAILES, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-02457-DDC-TJJ (D.
Kan.):

   -- denying, without prejudice to future submissions, the
      Plaintiff's amended joint motion for preliminary approval
      of class action settlement;

   -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's joint motion for
      preliminary approval of class action settlement; and

   -- directing the parties to notify the Court on or before
      October 19, 2016, of their intention either to:

      * file a revised settlement agreement and supporting
        documentation in accordance with the Memorandum and
        Order; or

      * abandon settlement and proceed to litigate this dispute.

Plaintiff Bryan Bailes brings the lawsuit on behalf of himself and
putative class members alleging that Defendant, Lineage Logistics,
LLC, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The parties met,
negotiated, and have agreed to a compromise.

The parties have agreed to settle counts two and three of the
Plaintiff's Complaint for a total of $149,205.  They propose to
distribute this sum as follows: attorneys' fees and costs of
$49,237 (should the court approve the amount); costs of the
settlement administrator, expected to be about $18,000; a $5,000
incentive award for Bryan Bailes, the named plaintiff; and then
the remaining (estimated) $76,968 will be distributed among the
estimated 3,430 class members.  The parties have not yet named
settlement administrator, but they agree that the administrator
will locate correct addresses for class members and, if necessary,
run one skip trace to find any missing class members.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
http://goo.gl/W1cSUHfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
          Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
          BROWN AND WATKINS LLC
          301 US 169 Hwy.
          Gower, MO 64454
          Telephone: (816) 505-4529
          Facsimile: (816) 424-1337
          E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com
                  watkins@brownandwatkins.com

Defendant Lineage Logistics, LLC, is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Place, Esq.
          Uzoamaka Nwonwu, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          1201 Walnut Street, Suite 1450
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 627-4400
          Facsimile: (816) 627-4444
          E-mail: jplace@littler.com
                  unwonwu@littler.com


LIPOCINE INC: Defending David Lewis Class Action in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------
Lipocine Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and certain
of its officers were named on July 1, 2016, as defendants in a
purported shareholder class action lawsuit, David Lewis v.
Lipocine Inc., et al., filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey. This initial action was followed
by additional lawsuits also filed in the District of New Jersey.
The lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and
allege that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that our filing of the NDA for LPCN 1021
to the FDA contained deficiencies and as a result the defendants'
statements about our business and operations were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of
federal securities laws. The lawsuits seek certification as a
class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and
unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

"We believe that the claims in the lawsuits are without merit and
will defend against them vigorously. We maintain insurance for
claims of this nature, which management believes is adequate.
Moreover, we believe, based on information currently available,
that the filing and ultimate outcome of the lawsuits will not have
a material impact on our financial position, although we will have
to pay up to the insurance retention amount in connection with the
lawsuit," the Company said.


MARKUM ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "McNeal" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan McNeal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Markum Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Floor Removal King and
Flood Out Restoration, McWhiney & Markum, LLC d/b/a Floor Removal
King and Flood Out Restoration, and Wesley G. Markum, Case No.
6:16-cv-01118 (E.D. Tex., August 22, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for the hours
in excess of 40 hours in a single week.

The Defendants operate a flooring removal company located at 906
Delia Drive, Longview, Texas 75601.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARS INC: Falsely Marketed M&M's Minis, "Ohlweiler" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ohlweiler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mars, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:16-cv-06295 (C.D. Cal., August 22, 2016), is brought on behalf
of all purchasers of M&M's Minis tube products, where the quantity
of candies contained in each unit of product is falsely and
deceptively misrepresented by the Defendant by way of its
packaging.

Mars, Inc. is a manufacturer of confectionery, pet food, and other
food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
      Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
      CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
      The Pershing Square Building
      448 S. Hill St., Suite 701
      Los Angeles, CA 90013
      Telephone: (213) 788-4050
      Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
      E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
              sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com


MARY ANN MORSE: Faces "Ryan" Suit in Mass. Over Community Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Ryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp., d/b/a Heritage at
Framingham, Case No. 16-2433 (Mass. Cmmw., August 24, 2016), seeks
to recover amounts paid by current and former tenants of Heritage
towards so-called "community fees" which were payments required by
Heritage prior to the commencement of a tenancy.

Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp. operates a nursing home located at
747 Water Street, Framingham, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK, PC
      100 Trade Center, Suite G-700
      Woburn, MA 01801
      Telephone: (617) 600-7520
      E-mail: Joshua@Garicklaw.com


MATCH GROUP: Class Action Parties Propose Schedule
--------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
securities class action litigation against Match Group have
submitted to the Court a joint status report proposing a schedule
for the plaintiffs' filing of a consolidated amended complaint and
the parties' briefing of the defendants' contemplated motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed
in federal court in Texas against the Company, five of its
officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering in November 2015.  See David M. Stein v.
Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas).

The complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with its initial public
offering were materially false and misleading given their failure
to state that: (i) the Company's Non-dating business would miss
its revenue projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015,
and (ii) ARPPU (as defined in "Item 2-Management's Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-General-
Key Terms") would decline substantially in the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.

The complaint asserts that these alleged failures to timely
disclose material information caused the Company's stock price to
drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleads claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's
alleged violations.  The complaint seeks class certification,
damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff.  See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).  On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an
order granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to
Judge Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.

On April 27, 2016, various current or former shareholders in the
Company and their respective law firms filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for
the putative class.

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the
Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties'
stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the
complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the
plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants'
response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel
for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for
determination.

On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing
two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel.  In
accordance with this order, the consolidated case is now captioned
Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV-
549-L.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint
status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  The Company believes that the allegations in these
lawsuits are without merit and will defend vigorously against
them.


MEDPARTNERS INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
An Alabama Circuit Court Judge granted final approval on Aug. 15
to a $310-million class action settlement that seeks to rectify a
fraud committed on more than 20,000 individuals, entities and
pension plans who owned stock in MedPartners, Inc., in the late
1990s.

This settlement is one of the largest fraud recoveries in Alabama
legal history.  The lawsuit claims that Birmingham-based
MedPartners, Inc., a physician practice management company once
led by former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, lied to its
shareholders about how much the company could pay to settle
securities-fraud lawsuits in 1999.  The plaintiffs serving as
representatives of the class are Mr. Sam Johnson of Birmingham and
the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System.

MedPartners changed its name in 2000 to Caremark Rx and merged
with CVS Health in 2007.

"This case is the extraordinarily rare one in which Class Counsel
both detected the wrong-doing and then single-handedly enforced
the law," said a leading national expert on class action law.
Retained by class counsel to provide his opinion to the Court on
counsel's request for attorneys' fees, he noted that Class Counsel
achieved these "stunning results" despite litigating "against some
of the largest corporations in the world."

Jefferson County Ala., Circuit Judge Pat Ballard presided over the
case and issued an order on August 15, 2016, granting final Court
approval to the $310-million settlement.

"This class has waited patiently for more than 12 years for their
investment losses to be recovered," said Scott Powell, attorney at
Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton and lead counsel for the class. "They
were victims of MedPartners stock fraud in the 90s and then were
further cheated by the companies' hiding of its unlimited
insurance policy.  Sam Johnson and the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System tirelessly served this class for
which we all are very grateful."

The class is made up of more than 20,000 investors who purchased
MedPartners securities from 1996-1998.

Legal counsel for the class are Scott Powell (Lead Counsel), John
Haley, Ralph Cook, Bruce McKee, Brian Vines and Tempe Smith of
Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, LLP; (www.hwnn.com), John Somerville
of Somerville, LLC; and Tim Francis of Francis Law, LLC.

More than 20 securities-fraud lawsuits were filed by investors in
1998 against MedPartners.  Those lawsuits alleged that MedPartners
made false and misleading statements to the public about its
financial condition and prospects.  The lawsuits were combined and
settled in 1999 for $56 million after MedPartners and its insurer,
AIG, claimed MedPartners was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy
and that $56 million exhausted the limits of its insurance
coverage.

In 2003, a new class action lawsuit was filed against MedPartners
(Caremark) and AIG for not disclosing the true fact that in 1999,
AIG provided unlimited insurance coverage to MedPartners for the
1998 securities-fraud lawsuits.  This claim alleged that Caremark
and AIG committed fraud in the 1999 settlement.

A trial was set to begin in early 2016, but was postponed and both
sides worked out a settlement.  Under the terms of the settlement,
the defendant AIG insurance companies will pay $230 million and
Caremark (a subsidiary of CVS Health) will pay $80 million.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Slavin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Slavin and Denise Horsford, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, Metlife, Inc., Metlife Securities, Inc., Metlife Group,
Inc., Does 1-50 (said names being fictitious individuals), and ABC
Corporations 1-50, Case No. 1:16-cv-06615 (S.D.N.Y., August 22,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide financial advice, recommendations and
service to its customers in connection with their purchase of
insurance and other financial services from the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Halebian, Esq.
      Adam C. Mayes, Esq.
      LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
      420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440
      New York, NY 10170
      Telephone: (212) 500-5010
      Facsimile: (212) 208-6806
      E-mail: jhalebian@lshllp.com
              amayes@lshllp.com


MINNESOTA: Denial of Gamble's Bid for Release From MSOP Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
David Leroy Gamble, Jr., No. A15-1980 (Minn. Ct. App.), the Court
of Appeals of Minnesota affirmed the state district court's denial
of David Gamble Jr.'s motion to vacate his commitment and for
release from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).

Gamble was civilly committed by the district court to the MSOP in
2010.  In 2015 Gamble moved to vacate his commitment and sought
release from the program after a federal district court found
constitutional deficiencies in the Minnesota Commitment and
Treatment Act.  The state district court denied Gamble's motion,
finding that the federal district court's order was not final or
binding.  Gamble appealed.

The appellate court agreed with the state district court and
affirmed, finding that Gamble's motion is barred by the exclusive
transfer-or-discharge remedies of the act.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's August 15, 2016 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/IfKYYF from Leagle.com.

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Stephen P. McLaughin,
Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota, for respondent.


MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Faces "Fowler" Suit for Not Paying Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUINTON FOWLER, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, INC., and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. BC631495 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., August 23, 2016), is brought on behalf of a class of non-
exempt delivery truck drivers, employed or formerly employed by
Monterey, alleging violations of the Labor Code.

Monterey is a California Corporation.  The Plaintiff is ignorant
of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.  Monterey
grows, harvests, packages, and distributes mushrooms to retailers,
ingredient manufacture operations, supermarkets, and foodservice
operators in North America and internationally. It also develops
seeds.  The Company offers white mushrooms, portabella mushrooms,
specialty mushrooms, organic mushrooms, and processed mushrooms,
as well as canned and frozen mushroom products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Morgan Glynn, Esq.
          Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  mglynn@mahoney-law.net
                  awilson@mahoney-law.net


MVM HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime to Care Givers, "David" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARCEL DAVID, JR., On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys
General v. MVM HOME, INC, a California corporation; LIN-ROS BEST
HOMES, INC. a California corporation and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive, Case No. BC631439 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
August 23, 2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees earned wages in
the form of, including but not limited to, overtime wages.

Mr. David was employed by the Defendants as a care giver.

MVM Home, Inc., is a California corporation with a principal place
of business located in Carson, California.  Lin-Ros Best Home
Care, Inc., is a California corporation with a principal place of
business located in Lakewood, California.  The Corporate
Defendants treated the other entity as its "alter ego," rather
than as separate entities, and dominated the affairs of the
entities.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
          555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562)432-8933
          Facsimile: (562)435-1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Reserved Right to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
plaintiffs in a shareholder class action lawsuit have expressly
reserved their right to appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit.

The Company said, "On June 2, 2015, a shareholder class action
complaint captioned City of St Clair Shores Police and Fire
Retirement System v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., 15 Civ.
61170. (S.D. Fla.) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against us and certain of our
executive officers asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On October 16,
2015, an amended class action complaint was filed that added (i)
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended and (ii) additional defendants, comprising our
former Chief Financial Officer, certain directors and underwriters
for our secondary public offering of our common stock on March 26,
2015.

"The amended complaint alleged that the offering materials
contained materially false and misleading statements and material
omissions regarding the negative impact of declining interest
rates on our overall financial results and the contrasting impact
of declining interest rates on our servicing business on the one
hand and our originations business on the other. The amended
complaint also alleged that between May 8, 2014 and May 4, 2015,
the Company and certain of the individual defendants made
materially false and misleading statements to investors designed
to create the perception of growth in our originations business.
The plaintiff sought class certification for purchasers of our
common stock and unspecified damages and other relief.

"On June 21, 2016, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the action but permitted the plaintiffs opportunity to
file an amended complaint. On July 22, 2016, the plaintiffs
notified the court that they would not file an amended complaint.
On July 25, 2016, the District Court entered an order dismissing
the case, from which the plaintiffs have expressly reserved their
right to appeal."


NELNET: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Student Loan Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Olberding, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that a
federal judge in Michigan has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Nelnet
of padding its earnings by failing to credit student loan payments
in a timely manner.

However, the dismissal was mostly due to technical reasons, and
Judge Gordon Quist gave the plaintiff 14 days to file an amended
complaint.

The plaintiff, Kurt Mirandette, argued in the lawsuit that
Lincoln-based Nelnet delays crediting student loan payments made
by mail to increase its interest and late-fee income.

In his suit, Mr. Mirandette said his mailed payments should be
credited as of the postmark date on the envelope.  He alleged
breach of contract and violations of the Nebraska Consumer
Protection Act and the Nebraska Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Quist, in his dismissal ruling, cited the lack of statutory
language as to when Nelnet must post the payments, the passing of
a four-year statute of limitations for filing a Deceptive Trade
Practices Act claim and a lack of case law that supports the claim
that payments should be considered made and received when they are
mailed.

He did, however, leave an opening for Mirandette to bring an
amended claim.

"There may be a cognizable claim lurking in the factual scenario
that Mirandette alleges -- i.e., delaying posting of checks in
order to pump up interest and penalty income -- but it is not this
court's responsibility to find it and plead it," Quist wrote in
his ruling.

He gave Mirandette two weeks to file an amended complaint, "if he
can discern a valid claim."

Derek Witte, one of the attorneys representing Mirandette, said
they are reviewing their options and may either file an amended
complaint or appeal the dismissal.

"We are concerned that the court did not actually address when the
lender and/or servicer must give credit for student payments," Mr.
Witte said in an email.  "Thus, this opinion may be read to give
the massive student loan servicers, like Nelnet, carte blanche to
charge millions of dollars in unearned interest to America's
student borrowers -- students who are already struggling to pay
all of the money they actually do owe."

Nelnet spokesman Ben Kiser said in response to the development:
"We are obviously pleased with the decision.  We believed there
was no basis for the claims, and the court agreed."


NEW MILLENIUM: Accused by Asrorov of Not Paying Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MASHRAB ASROROV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NEW MILLENIUM NY, INC. d/b/a NEW MILLENIUM
HOME CARE, Case No. 710082/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty.,
August 23, 2016), arises out of the alleged systematic failure of
the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
for all hours worked, time and one half the minimum wage rate for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week, spread of hours pay
for the days in which the Plaintiff and the Class Members worked
in excess of 10 hours, and to provide pay stubs and other wage
notices that conform with the requirements of the New York Labor
Law and applicable regulations.

New Millenium NY, Inc., doing business as New Millenium Home Care,
is a New York business corporation with an office located in
Flushing, New York.  New Millenium provides home health care to
frail elderly individuals, who live in New York City.  The
Plaintiff worked as a Home Health Aide and Home Attendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 808-2224
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


NEW YORK REIT: Faces Combination Class Action in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------
New York Reit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Irene Jacobs and Marvin
Jacobs (the "Plaintiffs") filed a class action complaint related
to a combination transaction.

On May 25, 2016, the Company and New York Recovery Operating
Partnership, L.P. (the "OP") entered into a Master Combination
Agreement (the "Combination Agreement") with JBG Properties, Inc.
and JBG/Operating Partners, L.P., and certain pooled investment
funds that are affiliates of the JBG Management Entities,
providing for a series of transactions pursuant to which certain
of JBG's real estate interests and management business interests
would be contributed to the Company and the OP in exchange for an
aggregate of up to approximately 319.9 million newly issued shares
of common stock of the Company and newly issued units of limited
partner interests in the OP, subject to certain adjustments.

During June 2016, Irene Jacobs and Marvin Jacobs (the
"Plaintiffs") filed a class action complaint (the "Complaint") on
behalf of public stockholders of the Company against the Company,
the OP, Michael Happel, the Company's chief executive officer, and
its board of directors. The Complaint was originally filed in New
York Supreme Court, New York County on June 17, 2016, but the New
York action was discontinued and re-filed in Maryland Circuit
Court on July 12, 2016.

The Complaint seeks to enjoin the Combination Transactions
pursuant to the Combination Agreement. The Complaint alleges,
among other things, that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the public stockholders of the Company by
causing the Company to enter into the Combination Agreement, and
that the Company, the OP and JBG knowingly assisted in those
alleged breaches.

On August 2, 2016, the Company and the OP entered into the
Termination Agreement with JBG providing for termination of the
Combination Agreement. The Company has not recognized a liability
with respect to this claim because the Company does not believe
that it is probable that it will incur a related material loss.


NEW ZEALAND: Council Defends Response to Havelock Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
RNZ reports that the local council and health board are defending
their response to Havelock North's water contamination crisis,
after suggestions the problem was dealt with too late.

An estimated 2400 households in the Hawke's Bay town have been hit
by an outbreak of gastric illness linked to campylobacyter.

The water supply was chlorinated on Aug. 12 to kill the bacteria
but a "boil water" notice remains in place as health authorities
wait to rule out a potential second source of illness,
cryptosporidium.

The Hastings District Council and Hawke's Bay District Health
Board have denied accusations they acted too slowly, and said the
first they knew about it was on Aug. 12.

Even though test results had not been confirmed at that point,
they imposed chlorination on water supplies.

In an update on Aug. 17, the DHB said 3348 people from 2409
households in the town were likely to have been affected by the
gastric illness.

Most of them were able to receive treatment and recover in their
homes, it said.

Seventeen people were in hospital -- down from 22 on Aug. 16 --
and one person remained in intensive care, with the other moved to
a ward.

About 700 people had visited GPs with symptoms of the gastric
illness, and scores of cases had so far been confirmed as caused
by campylobacyter.

The DHB said the number of patients presenting to the hospital's
emergency department was dropping, and so was the number of sick
patients in retirement homes and aged care facilities.


NIJJAR REALTY: Appeals Court Reverses Arbitration Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GERMAINE JUDGE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NIJJAR REALTY, INC., et
al., Real Parties in Interest, No. B267694 (Cal. Ct. App.), the
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven
issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its
order vacating an award that did not qualify as an arbitration
award under Code of Civil Procedure 1283.4.

The litigation arose out of two actions filed by Judge against
Pama Management Company, Nijjar Realty Inc., Mike Nijjar,
Swaranjit Nijjar, and several other individuals.  The first case,
filed on May 6, 2011 (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BC460592; the
individual/PAGA action), alleged various Labor Code violations and
other employment-related causes of action, including claims for
unpaid compensation, meal and rest period premiums, waiting time
penalties, wage statement violations, failures to maintain
adequate workplace temperature, unlawful business practices, and
wrongful termination.  Judge alleged similar causes of action
under the PAGA on behalf of "herself and other persons who are or
were employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more
of the alleged violations was committed."

The second case, filed on February 14, 2012 (Super. Ct. L.A.
County, No. BC478836; the class action), was a class action also
against the Nijjar defendants.  Judge's class action complaint
alleged six similar employment and Labor Code claims on behalf of
herself and the members of the class.

The Nijjar defendants filed a petition in the individual/PAGA
action to compel arbitration of Judge's claims and to stay the
action pending completion of arbitration.  The Nijjar defendants
also filed a petition to compel arbitration of and to stay the
class action.

On September 11, 2012, the trial court determined that the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) governed the arbitration agreement, and
granted the Nijjar defendants' petition to compel arbitration and
to stay proceedings in the individual/PAGA action.  The court also
granted the Nijjar defendants' petition in the class action to
compel arbitration "only as to Judge's individual claims" and to
stay proceedings.

On December 7, 2012 the arbitrator, after noting that the trial
court had "found the arbitration agreement to be enforceable
pursuant to the [FAA]," ruled as follows: "Except as provided to
the contrary in the arbitration agreement, the proceeding will be
governed by the FAA, California substantive law, the Employment
Dispute Resolution Rules of the [AAA], and the AAA's Supplementary
Rules for Class Arbitrations."  In a section of her ruling
entitled "Clause Construction Award," the arbitrator stated that
she would be issuing a "partial final award on the construction of
the arbitration clause."

On January 21, 2013, after the parties had briefed the issue, the
arbitrator issued a lengthy clause construction award, and
concluded that the arbitration agreement permitted arbitration of
class and PAGA claims.  The arbitrator ruled, however, "[t]his
does not mean that this matter will proceed on a class and/or
representative basis. At the appropriate time, [Judge] will have
an opportunity to seek class certification, which may or may not
be granted. . . . Also, at the appropriate time, [the Nijjar
defendants] will have an opportunity to argue that the PAGA claims
cannot proceed on a representative basis because of manageability
or other issues."

On March 8, 2013 the Nijjar defendants filed a petition in the
individual/PAGA action to vacate the clause construction award.
On April 2, 2013 the trial court granted the Nijjar defendants'
petition to vacate the clause construction award.

Judge appealed the trial court's April 2, 2013 order.  The
appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial
court's order vacating the clause construction award did not
vacate an arbitration "award," as California law defines that
term, and thus, holding that "[b]ecause the clause construction
award does not qualify as an 'award under section 1283.4, the
trial court's order is not an order vacating an arbitration award,
and it is not appealable."

Judge filed a petition for writ of mandate asking the appellate
court to direct the trial court to vacate its order vacating the
clause construction award and "refusing to order the PAGA claims
to arbitration and instead severing them and staying them."

The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not have
jurisdiction to vacate the arbitrator's clause construction award
in the individual/PAGA action under section 1285 because the
clause construction award is not an arbitration award under
section 1283.4.  The appellate court also concluded that the trial
court did not have jurisdiction to vacate the arbitrator's clause
construction award in the class action because the Nijjar
defendants did not file a petition to vacate the award in that
case, and, even if they had, the trial court would not have had
jurisdiction to grant it.  Lastly, the appellate court concluded
that the trial court also erred in granting (but really denying)
Judge's motion for reconsideration of the order compelling
arbitration of her PAGA claims.

Thus, the appellate court issued a peremptory writ of mandate
directing the respondent superior court:

     (1) to vacate its April 2, 2013 order vacating the
arbitrator's clause construction award and its September 29, 2015
order denying Judge's motion for reconsideration, and to enter a
new order denying the petition filed by the Nijjar defendants to
vacate the clause construction award;

     (2) to vacate its September 29, 2015 order granting in part
Judge's motion for reconsideration of the court's order compelling
"individual" arbitration of Judge's claims under the PAGA; and

     (3) to assign a different judge to hear the case on remand.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's August 15, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/cv6GLT from Leagle.com.

The Dion-Kindem Law Firm, Peter R. Dion-Kindem --
peter@dion-kindemlaw.com -- The Blanchard Law Group and Lonnie C.
Blanchard III for Petitioner.

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Ronald W. Novotny --
rnovotny@aalrr.com -- Christopher S. Andre -- candre@aalrr.com --
and Amber S. Healy -- ahealy@aalrr.com -- for Real Parties in
Interest.


NORTHERN TIER: Faces "Kendig" Suit Over Western Refining Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Kendig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Northern Tier Energy LP, Northern Tier Energy GP LLC,
David L. Lamp, Paul L. Foster, Lowry Barfield, Timothy Bennett,
Rocky L. Duckworth, Thomas Hofmann, Dan F. Smith, Jeff A. Stevens,
Scott D. Weaver, Western Refining, Inc., Western Acquisition Co.,
LLC and Evercore Group L.L.C., Case No. 2:16-cv-02844-ROS (D.
Ariz., August 24, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the  Securities Exchange Act, in connection with the
on going private transaction between Northern Tier Energy LP and
Western Refining, Inc., whereby Western acquired 61.6% of
outstanding Northern Tier common units it did not already own in
exchange for an inadequate consideration.

Northern Tier Energy is an independent downstream energy limited
partnership with refining, retail and logistics operations that
served the PADD II region of the United States.

Western Refining, Inc. is an independent refining and marketing
company that operates in El Paso, and Gallup, New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Urman, Esq.
      DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.
      2525 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 200
      Tucson, AZ 85716-5300
      Telephone: (520) 322-5000
      E-mail: gurman@dmyl.com


ON DECK: Plaintiff's Time to File Opposition Extended to Sept. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Deck Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiff's time to
file his opposition to the motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit has been extended to September 2, 2016.

The Company said, "Two separate putative class actions were filed
in August 2015 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us, certain of our executive
officers, our directors and certain or all of the underwriters of
our initial public offering. The suits allege that the
registration statement and prospectus for our initial public
offering contained materially false and misleading statements
regarding, or failed to disclose, certain information in violation
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The suits seek a
determination that the case is a proper class action and/or
certification of the plaintiff as a class representative,
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and/or unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs."

"On February 18, 2016, the court issued an order (1) consolidating
the two cases, (2) selecting the lead plaintiff and (3) appointing
lead class counsel.  On March 18, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint. On April 14, 2016, the court approved a
schedule allowing the defendants 60 days to file a motion to
dismiss, allowing the plaintiff to file any opposition within 60
days of the filing of the motion to dismiss and allowing the
defendants to file a reply within 30 days after the filing of
plaintiff's opposition.

"On June 13, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the case. On
August 4, 2016, the court approved an extension of plaintiff's
time to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss from August
12, 2016 to September 2, 2016. We intend to defend ourselves
vigorously in these consolidated matters, although at this time we
cannot predict the outcome."

On Deck is an online platform for small business lending.


ORBITAL ATK: Sued in S.D. Fla. Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
ALONA STRAIT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ORBITAL ATK, INC., DAVID W. THOMPSON,
and GARRETT E. PIERCE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06563
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks 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, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Around February 9, 2015 Alliant Techsystems, Inc. (ATK) merged its
aerospace and defense operations with Orbital Sciences Corporation
(Orbital Sciences) to create an entity named Orbital ATK, Inc.
Orbital ATK purportedly designs, builds and delivers space,
defense and aviation-related systems to customers around the world
both as a prime contractor and as a merchant supplier. Its main
products include tactical missiles, subsystems and defense
electronics; and precision weapons, armament systems and
ammunition.

On August 10, 2016, Orbital ATK announced that it was delaying the
filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the second quarter
of 2016 due to "an ongoing review of accounting matters related to
a Defense Systems Group contract. " The Company further disclosed
that the Company made misstatements related primarily to a $2.3
billion long-term contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and
supply small caliber ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army
Ammunition Plant. As a result, the Company disclosed that it
expects to restate its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2015 (fiscal 2015), the nine month transition
period ended December 31, 2015, the quarters in fiscal 2015 and
the 2015 transition period, and the quarter ended April 3, 2016.
The Company also stated that it believes that the misstatements
that caused the need for a restatement indicate the existence of
one or more material weaknesses in its internal control over
financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures during
the relevant periods.

On that news, Orbital ATK's stock price fell $17.98 per share,
over 20%, to close at $70.79 per share on August 10, 2016, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Orbital ATK is an aerospace and defense company that operates in
the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884 0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com


ORBITAL ATK: October 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC on Aug. 16 disclosed that a securities class
against lawsuit has been filed against Orbital ATK, Inc. on behalf
of investors that purchased its common stock between
June 1, 2015 and August 9, 2016.  Investors who wish to file a
motion to become the lead plaintiff in the litigation must do so
not later than October 11, 2016.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company failed
to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in
connection with recording losses on a long-term contract.

If you purchased Orbital ATK common stock between June 1, 2015 and
August 9, 2016 and suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to contact Holzer & Holzer attorneys Corey D.
Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Marshall P. Dees, Esq.,
at mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-
6832, to discuss your legal rights before the lead plaintiff
deadline of October 11, 2016.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an Atlanta,
Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide.


PERCHERON ENERGY: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Fletcher" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynda Fletcher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Percheron Energy, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-02564 (S.D.
Tex., August 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
in each work week.

Percheron Energy, LLC provides contract land services to oil and
gas exploration and production companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      BOHRER BRADY, LLC
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA  70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com

         - and -

      Michael T. Tusa Jr., Esq.
      SUTTON & ALKER
      4080 Lonesome Road, Suite A
      Mandeville, LA  70448
      Telephone: (985) 727-7501
      Facsimile: (985) 727-7505
      E-mail:  mtusa@sutton-alker.com


PIPE PROS: Faces "Scogin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Scogin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pipe Pros, LLC, Gary Edwards, and Mando Valdez, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00359 (S.D. Tex., August 22, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pipe Pros, LLC provides superior underground sewer line video
inspection, utility line detection, leak detection, and smoke
detection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
      Southlake, TX 76092
      Telephone: (817) 416-5060
      Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
      E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Amended Complaint Filed in "Dillard" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Platform Specialty Products Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint with an expanded class
period.

In March and April 2016, a class action lawsuit entitled Dillard
v. Platform Specialty Products Corporation, et al. and a
shareholder derivative action entitled Tuttelman v. Platform
Specialty Products Corporation, et al., respectively, were filed
against Platform, certain of its former and current executive
officers and, in the case of the derivative action, its directors
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging that the defendants made material false and misleading
statements relating to the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies in light of certain matters discovered and
reported by the Company itself in connection with a Company
internal investigation into certain past business practices of the
Company's Arysta West Africa business.

In June 2016, the shareholder derivative action was dismissed by
the Court. On June 29, 2016, the Court appointed joint lead
plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, and on July 20, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with an expanded class
period but stating substantially similar claims to those contained
in the original complaint.

The class action lawsuit, which remains pending, is seeking
unspecified damages. The Company believes this proceeding is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.


POWER SOLUTIONS: Sued in Ill. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sumit Gupta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Power Solutions International, Inc., Gary S.
Winemaster, Michael P. Lewis, and Daniel P. Gorey, Case No. 1:16-
cv-08253 (N.D. Ill., August 22, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, manufactures,
distributes, and supports power systems and custom engineered
integrated electrical power generation systems for industrial
original equipment manufacturers of off-highway industrial
equipment and on-road medium trucks and buses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail:  lcludwig@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      Brian Schall, Esq.
      GOLDBERG LAW PC
      1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (800) 977-7401
      Facsimile: (800) 536-0065
      E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com
              brian@goldberglawpc.com


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Refuses to Cover Repairs to Vehicle's Brakes
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT DEVANE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO., LYNDON
PROPERTY INSURANCE CO., and WESTERN GENERAL DEALER SERVICES, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2016CV279062 (Ga. Super. Ct., Aug. 18,
2016), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' breach
of a service contract.

The complaint says the Plaintiff purchased a service contract's
Level II coverage plan, paying $2,500. The coverage plan covers
mechanical breakdown of brakes, and specifically brake calipers,
for 36 months or 36,000 miles from the time of sale. The service
contract became effective on May 14, 2015.

On May 9, 2016, one year after Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle and
at an odometer reading of 42,832, the Vehicle had a mechanical
breakdown. However, the Defendants refused to cover the repairs to
the Vehicle's brakes in breach of the Service Contract.

Protective has a business segment named Protective Asset
Protection, which sells Mileage Plus contracts, like the one sold
to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444 0773
          Facsimile: (770) 217 9950
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                  Franklin@WebbLLC.com


PRUDENTIAL BANCORP: Defending Parshall v. Andruczyk Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative shareholder
derivative and class action lawsuit, Parshall v. Eugene Andruczyk
et al., was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland on July 21, 2016.

On June 2, 2016, the Company announced the entering into of a
definitive merger agreement with Polonia Bancorp, Inc.
("Polonia"); pending receipt of the necessary shareholder and
regulatory approvals, Polonia will merge with and into the
Company, and Polonia Bank, Polonia's wholly owned subsidiary, will
merge with and into the Bank.

The lawsuit names as defendants the directors of Polonia Bancorp,
Inc. ("Polonia"), Polonia and the Company. The lawsuit alleges a
breach of fiduciary duty by the directors and Polonia by approving
the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between the Company and
Polonia dated as of June 2, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant
to which Polonia will merge with and into the Company (the
"Merger") for (i) inadequate merger consideration and (ii) the
inclusion of preclusive deal protection measures in the Merger
Agreement. The lawsuit also alleges that Prudential aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought
includes preliminary and permanent injunction against the
consummation of the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages if
the Merger is completed, costs and attorney's fees.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend against this suit vigorously. However, at this time, it
is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceeding or the
impact on the Company or the Merger.


QUEST NUTRITION: Perez Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. QUEST NUTRITION, LLC, an
active Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. BC630914 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2016),
seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's failure to pay
employees minimum wages for all hours worked, to compensate for
overtime work, to provide meal periods, to provide rest periods,
to provide proper wage statements, and to pay all wages owed to
terminated or separated employees in a timely manner, pursuant to
the Labor Code.

The Defendant engaged in the business of production, distribution,
and sale of nutrition foods, including protein bars and powders.

The Plaintiff was hired in March 2014, and was terminated on
September 23, 2015. At all times during her employment, the
Plaintiff had a non-exempt classification. The Plaintiff was
working at the Quest Nutrition facility located at 1100 John Reed
Court in City of Industry, California. At the time of her
termination, the Plaintiff was not paid all her wages. The
Plaintiff was also deprived of lawful meal and rest periods, and
failed to receive accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
          Haik Hacopian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZORIK MOORADIAN
          5023N. Parkway Calabasas
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 876 9627
          Facsimile: (888) 783 1030
          E-mail: orik@mooradianlaw.com
                  haik.hacopian@gmail.com


RELAY DELIVERY: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Eduardo Joj Perez, Inocente Joj Sacuj, Juan Rivera-Raymundo,
Pablo Ruiz Garcia, and Orlando De La Torre, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Relay Delivery, Inc.,
Alex Blum and Michael Chevett, Case No. 1:16-cv-06599 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide on-demand delivery services for
restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAMUEL FESTINGER: "Mikhlov" Seeks to Enforce Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------
ILYA MIKHLOV a/k/a M. MIKHAILOV, ON HIS BEHALF AND AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF JUDGMENT CREDITORS OF SAMUEL
FESTINGER, the Petitioner, v. SAMUEL FESTINGER AND CHARNIE
ROSENBAUM, the Respondents, Case No. 156960/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Aug. 18, 2016), seeks money and assets necessary to enforce a
judgment and restitution order that he, along with a class of
Judgment Creditors, hold against the Respondents.

The Petitioner seeks judgment against Respondents jointly and
severally in the sum of $1,835,936.00, plus interest and
penalties, less any payments made to date, together with the costs
and disbursements of the proceedings.

The Petitioner commenced this proceeding both in his individual
capacity and on behalf of all those individuals and businesses who
had purchased oil fuel from Festinger's business between 1982 and
1994, who were overcharged for the sale of oil actually delivered,
and were identified as victims of Mr. Festinger in "Court Ex. A.
of April 6, 1995."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Fortuna, Esq.
          ALLYN & FORTUNA LLP
          1010 Avenue of the Americas, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 213 8844


SIENTRA INC: Lead Plaintiffs Oppose Motion for Reconsideration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Sientra Defendants
have moved the court to reconsider its June 9, 2016 order and
grant the Motions to Dismiss in full.  The lead plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.

On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action of the
Company's stockholders was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit names
the Company and certain of its officers as defendants, or Sientra
Defendants, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects.  The
plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On November 24, 2015, three stockholders (or groups of
stockholders) filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and to
approve their selection on lead counsel.  On December 10, 2015,
the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs and
approving their selection of lead counsel.

On February 19, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint, which added a claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act and named as defendants the underwriters associated
with the Company's follow-on public offering that closed on
September 23, 2015, or the Underwriter Defendants. On March 21,
2016, the Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each
filed a motion to dismiss, or the Motions to Dismiss, the
consolidated amended complaints.

On April 20, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
Motions to Dismiss, and the Sientra Defendants and Underwriter
Defendants filed separate replies on May 5, 2016. On June 9, 2016,
the court granted in part and denied in part the Motions to
Dismiss.

On July 14, 2016, the Sientra Defendants moved the court to
reconsider its June 9, 2016 order and grant the Motions to Dismiss
in full. On August 4, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the motion for reconsideration.


SIENTRA INC: Seeks to Stay Proceedings in C.D. Calif. Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that defendants filed motion
to stay all proceedings in favor of the class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

On October 28, November 5, and November 19, 2015, three lawsuits
styled as class actions of the Company's stockholders were filed
in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo.
The lawsuits name the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters associated with the Company's
follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as
defendants. The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements in the Company's
offering documents associated with the follow-on offering
concerning its business, operations, and prospects.

The plaintiffs seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees. On December 4, 2015,
defendants removed all three lawsuits to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On December 15 and December 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to
remand the lawsuits back to San Mateo Superior Court, or the
Motions to Remand.  On January 19, 2016, defendants filed their
opposition to the Motions to Remand, and plaintiffs filed their
reply in support of the Motions to Remand on January 26, 2016.

On May 20, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California granted plaintiffs' Motions to Remand, and
the San Mateo Superior Court received the remanded cases on May
27, 2016.  On July 19, 2016, the San Mateo Superior Court
consolidated the three lawsuits.  On August 2, 2016, plaintiffs
filed their consolidated complaint.

On August 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to stay all
proceedings in favor of the class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.


SIMON SHOES: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, "Cadena" Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA CADENA, LILIANA BAXIN, ESMERALDA CHARROS, and AMANDA
JACOBO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
SIMON SHOES II, INC. d/b/a SIMON SHOES #2, INC., SIMON SHOES #5,
INC., SIMON SHOES #6, INC., SIMON SHOES #7, INC., SIMON SHOE #8,
INC., and SALIM ANBEH a/k/a SIMON ANBEH, Case No. CV16-4689
(E.D.N.Y., August 23, 2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay the Plaintiffs' premium rate of pay of time and half their
regular rate of pay for 20 hours per week, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Simon Shoes II, Inc., doing business as Simon Shoe #2, Inc., is a
New York corporation with a registered address in Ridgewood, New
York.  The other Simon Shoes are also New York corporations.
Salim Anbeh, also known as Simon Anbeh, is a New York resident and
owner of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mathew W. Beckwith, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          31-19 Newtown Avenue, 7th Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 746-3440
          Facsimile: (718) 425-9625
          E-mail: mbeckwith@saccofillas.com


SKULLCANDY INC: Court Consolidated 2 Securities Actions in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skullcandy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has
consolidated two securities class action lawsuits.

On February 12, 2016, an alleged shareholder filed a putative
securities class action complaint against the Company and certain
Company officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the District of Utah, captioned Davis v. Skullcandy, Inc., et
al., No. 2:16-cv-00121-RJS. The complaint purports to be brought
on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock between
August 7, 2015 and January 11, 2016. It asserts that the Company
and certain officers and directors violated sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly
false or misleading statements concerning positioning and
expectations for future growth. The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and equitable relief against the defendants.

March 28, 2016, an alleged shareholder filed a substantially
similar putative securities class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, captioned Oswald
v. Skullcandy, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-00246-CW.  The Oswald
Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased common stock between May 5, 2015 and January 11, 2016.
The court has consolidated the two lawsuits.


SKULLCANDY INC: Faces Lawsuits Related to Incipio Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Skullcandy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending lawsuits related to the merger with Incipio LLC.

On June 23, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Original Merger Agreement") with Incipio, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Incipio"), and Powder Merger
Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of Incipio ("Acquisition Sub"), which was amended on
August 3, 2016, pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Amendment" and together with the "Original
Merger Agreement, the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, and on the terms and subject to the conditions thereof,
among other things, Acquisition Sub commenced a tender offer
("Offer") to acquire all of the outstanding shares (the "Company
Shares") of common stock of the Company, at a purchase price of
$6.10 per Company Share, net to the holder thereof in cash,
subject to reduction for any applicable withholding taxes, without
interest (the "Offer Price"). The Offer is not subject to any
financing condition.

Following the announcement of the Offer and proposed Merger, two
alleged shareholders filed putative securities class action
complaints against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah: Paprakis v. Skullcandy, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-00810-BCW
(filed July 19, 2016); Bernicke v. Darling, et al., No. 2:16-cv-
00831-DN (filed July 26, 2016) (together, the "M&A Securities
Actions").

The M&A Securities Actions assert that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors violated sections 14(e), 14(d)(4), and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
forcing a sale of the Company to Parent and Purchaser at an unfair
price and by providing incomplete and misleading disclosures
regarding the Offer and proposed Merger.

The Bernicke complaint also alleges that the proposed Merger is
the result of preclusive deal protection devices and self-
interested decisions made by the Company's officers and directors.

The M&A Securities Actions seek to enjoin the Offer and any steps
taken to consummate the Merger, as well as damages in the event
that the Merger is consummated.


SLM STAFFING: "White" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ellie White, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
SLM Staffing, LLC and Senior Living Properties, III, LLC, Case No.
8:16-cv-02413-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., August 22, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, retaliation, and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an assisted living facility located at 4661
Johnson Rd, Coconut Creek, FL 33073.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING
      2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste. 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


SOLARCITY: Faces Securities Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Aman Jain, writing for ValueWalk, reports that SolarCity has
landed in legal trouble as a class-action lawsuit has been filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of persons and entities
that acquired its securities between May 5, 2015, and February 9,
2016, announced the Wagner Firm, which filed the lawsuit.  Anyone
who is a member of the class described above and intends to serve
as lead plaintiff is required to move to the court within 60 days
from the date of the notice.

SolarCity accused of making false statements

On October 29, 2015, SolarCity announced that it would lower its
full-year 2015 guidance, following which the company's stock price
fell 22% ($8.42 per share) to close at $29.65 on
October 30, 2015.  Then on February 9, 2016, the company revealed
that it could not meet the installation guidance it had previously
issued for fiscal 2015.

This led to a further decline of 29% or $7.72 per share in the
stock price, after which it was noted at $18.63 on February 10,
2016, and this harmed investors.  SolarCity and some of its
officers have been accused of violating federal securities laws in
the complaint.

The complaint specifically alleges that the defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose some
things: "(1) that demand for the Company's products was weakening;
(2) that the Company was concealing the weakening demand from
investors."  Thirdly, because of all this, the statements that the
defendants made about SolarCity's operations, business and
prospects were allegedly not only false and misleading but also
lacked a reasonable basis.

Hedge fund investor drops SolarCity

SolarCity's latest quarterly filings show that a large hedge fund
investor cut most of his stake during the second-quarter -- the
period when the company received a buyout offer from Tesla.
According to a recent securities filing, Gilder Gagnon Howe & Co.
owed 43,840 shares of SolarCity at the end of June, down from
832,139 shares at the end of the first quarter.  In the same
period, Gagnon boosted its stake in Tesla by 24%.

Earlier this month, SolarCity accepted the $2.6 billion offer from
Tesla.  This deal was first announced on June 21 and is a step
ahead in Elon Musk's plan of creating a carbon-free energy and
transportation company.  Tesla's stock dropped 10% on the first
trading day after the merger was announced, and this made some
skeptical of the deal.  SolarCity has seen its shares decline by
more than 50% this year.


SUNRISE TRANSPORTATION: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Danger Gonzalez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Sunrise Transportation, Inc., Jorge Rodriguez and Kenia Rodriguez,
Case No. 1:16-cv-23599-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 22, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate transportation company in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
              ed@saenzanderson.com


SUPER NICE: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Niurka Atanacia Torres, and all others similarly situated v. Super
Nice STS, Inc. d/b/a Transportation America, Raymond Gonzalez, and
Rene Gonzalez, Case No. 1:16-cv-23614-FAM (S.D. Fla., August 22,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a transportation company that regularly
transacted business within Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
      2847 Hollywood Blvd.
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (305) 308-5619
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      MAMANE LAW LLC
      1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 773-6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


TURTLE BEACH: Nevada Supreme Court Review Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Nevada Supreme
Court's review of the order denying the motion to dismiss
shareholders class action remains pending.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. ("VTBH"), and the Company
(f/k/a Parametric) announced that they had entered into the Merger
Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately
80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an
approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company.
Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class
action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the
Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders by agreeing to a Merger that allegedly
undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as
defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided
and abetted the Company's Board of Directors in allegedly
violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both cases
sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of the
Merger, which, by agreement, was heard by the Nevada court with
the California plaintiffs invited to participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and
sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger.
The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was
granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial
is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court, which held
a hearing on the Company's petition for review on September 1,
2015. After the hearing, the Nevada Supreme Court requested
supplemental briefing, which the parties completed on October 13,
2015. The Nevada Supreme Court also invited the Business Law
Section of the Nevada State Bar to submit an amicus brief by
December 3, 2015 and briefing was completed on that date. The
Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims against it are
without merit.

Turtle Beach Corporation, headquartered in San Diego, California
and incorporated in the state of Nevada in 2010, is a premier
audio technology company with expertise and experience in
developing, commercializing and marketing innovative products
across a range of large addressable markets under the Turtle
Beach(R) and HyperSound(R) brands.


TRUMP NATIONAL: Eric Trump to Appear in Class Action Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Forester, writing for CBS12, reports that Donald Trump is
not expected to make an appearance in day two of his class action
suits presented by residents of Trump National.

He appeared on Aug. 15 at the federal courthouse in a video taped
deposition.

In the second day of the trial, more witnesses will take the
stand, including Donald Trump's attorney Michael Cohen and his son
Eric Trump, who oversees the course at Trump National.

The trial is expected to last for at least three days.


TUMI STORES: "Panos" Seeks Overtime Premium Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PANOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TUMI STORES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. CACE-16-015241 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendant and for Defendant's
benefit in excess of 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendant
has a policy, pattern, or practice of not paying overtime wages to
employees who regularly performed work in excess of 40 hours.

Tumi Stores is an international retail chain that operates
approximately 140 retail and outlet stores throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton. FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447 8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831


TWILIO INC: Class Action Discovery to Continue Until August 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery in a class action
lawsuit has already begun, and will continue until August 2017,
when the plaintiff must file their motion for class certification.

On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled
Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the
Company's products permit the interception, recording and
disclosure of communications at a customer's request and in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint
seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.

On May 27, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint. On
August 2, the court issued an order denying the demurrer.

Following the denial of the demurrer, the plaintiffs must file an
amended complaint by August 18, 2016. Discovery has already begun,
and will continue until August 2017, when the plaintiff must file
their motion for class certification.

The Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits and
believes it has meritorious defenses to each.  It is too early in
these matters to reasonably predict the probability of the
outcomes or to estimate ranges of possible losses.


U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: "Kauffman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kauffman v. U-Haul International, Inc., Collegeboxes, LLC,
and eMove, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-04580-JFL (E.D. Penn., August
22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a moving equipment and storage rental
company located at 2727 North Central Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
              nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      James E. Miller, Esq.
      Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      65 Main Street
      Chester, CT 06412
      Telephone: (860) 526-1100
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
              lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

         - and -
      Thomas E. Duckworth, Esq.
      Monique Olivier, Esq.
      DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
      100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-0333
      Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
      E-mail: tom@dplolaw.com
              monique@dplolaw.com


US SECURITY: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anecicia Parker, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Case No.
8:16-cv-02403-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla., August 22, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

U.S. Security Associates, Inc. provides uniformed security
services, consulting and investigations and specialized security
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
      BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.L.
      6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
      Fort Myers, FL 33912
      Telephone: (239) 332-1650
      Facsimile: (239) 322-1663
      E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com

         - and -

      David H. Grounds, Esq.
      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: mnephew@johnsonbecker.com
              jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 266-2536
      E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
              kstoops@sommerspc.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Prosecutors Find Criminal Liability in Dieselgate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Stern, writing for Torque News, reports that prosecutors,
approaching a major milestone in the Dieselgate emissions scandal,
have found criminal liability in the action.  They are now
weighing the type of sanctions that may be used.

Investigators for the Department of Justice (DOJ), looking into
the circumstances surrounding Volkswagen's admission of long-term
cheating on diesel emissions tests, have found evidence of
criminal wrongdoing, sources close the probe told The Wall Street
Journal on Aug. 15.  And, even though they are seeking a
settlement, DOJ still hasn't discussed specific any charges with
the automaker.

In other car-related cases, the department has charged other
automakers with wire fraud or concealing information. Prosecutors
are still uncertain about the direction to take.  They could seek
a guilty plea from the automaker, on one hand.  On the other, they
could ask for a deferred-prosecution agreement.  Prosecutors who
seek deferred-prosecution usually aim to dismiss charges later on,
providing, of course, that the automaker sticks to the terms of
any settlement.

Deferred-prosecution Used by DOJ

In two major automotive cases, DOJ prosecutors have used deferred-
prosecution as part of the agreements for Toyota's unintended
acceleration and General Motors' ignition switch problems.  As
parts of their agreements, both companies apologized for the
actions and have pledged reforms.

Meantime, the only settlement reached so far is in the class-
action civil lawsuit that is in its final phases in US District
Court in San Francisco.  Judge Charles Breyer has set Oct. 18 as
the date of the final, approval hearing in the civil settlement.
In settling this class action, VW admitted that it had installed
emission cheatware in about 482,000 four-cylinder diesel-powered
cars.  The automaker agreed to buy back or fix the vehicles and
set aside $10 billion to take care of the chore.  VW also set
aside another $5 billion for environmental remediation projects
that include building an electric charging infrastructure in
California, as well as encouraging governments and tribal councils
to replace their old, inefficient buses with new, cleaner vehicles

VW Dieselgate Class-Action Payments Outlined

According to the civil settlement, car owners will receive the
value of their vehicles plus from $7,000 to $10,000, if they opt
for a buyout.  Volkswagen can also repair the vehicles.
VW and plaintiffs are now working out the second part of the
Dieselgate civil action, a settlement involving the automaker's
3.0-liter V-6 powerplant.  VW used the 3.0-liter powerplant in VW-
branded and subsidiary crossovers made by Porsche and Audi. Some
85,000 vehicles are involved in this phase of the settlement
talks.

Meantime, in the criminal case, VW is expected to be hit with a
massive financial penalty.  Though the exact figure is still
undetermined, prosecutors are focusing on a fee that would combine
criminal and civil penalties.  Whether any VW employees will face
criminal sanctions is still not clear as many of them live in
Germany and would have to extradited to the U.S. for prosecution.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Feds Discusses Dieselgate Settlement Details
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Stern, writing for Torque News, reports that Volkswagen and
Justice officials are discussing details of a settlement in the
Dieselgate emissions scandal.  Initial reports say it could exceed
a record $1.2 billion.

Volkswagen could be facing record fines and penalties as the
automaker and Justice Department have renewed talks aimed at
settling the criminal phase of Dieselgate, the automaker's self-
inflected diesel emissions scandal.  Published reports on Aug. 15
indicated the penalties could be more than the $1.2 billion record
fine paid by Toyota in 2014.  The penalty was assessed against
Toyota for unintended acceleration issues.

Meanwhile, the settlement of the class-action law suit is cruising
ahead toward a successful Oct. 18 finish.  The U.S. District Court
in San Francisco has given tentative approval to the settlement
negotiated by Volkswagen and attorneys that was initially
announced in June.  The court set the October date for final
action in the class-action suit.  Initially, more than 100
lawsuits were consolidated into one class-action suit to
facilitate matters.  Judge Charles Breyer successfully shepherded
the case with some prodding toward its goal.  The settlement sets
a $10 billion set aside by VW to buy out 482,000 vehicles equipped
with 2.0-liter diesel engines that have been equipped with
emissions-cheating software.  Figures mentioned so far range from
$5,000 to $10,000, plus the value of the vehicle.
VW owners of Dieselgate vehicles may see increased awards.
In addition to the potential fine, VW has agreed to pay $10
billion to buy back diesel VW vehicles.  And, the automaker has
agreed to spend a total of $4.7 billion for California- and EPA-
backed projects that build out an electric charging
infrastructure; encourage the development of zero-emission ride-
sharing fleets, and to help increase sales of non-petroleum-
burning vehicles.  Another program would fund the replacement of
older buses or to pay for diesel-reducing infrastructure.

VW, Feds Renew Dieselgate Talks
That the automaker and Justice Department authorities are sitting
back down to talk about the DOJ (Department of Justice) criminal
investigation indicates there has been a slowdown in the overall
process.  Sources told Reuters that VW's internal investigation
and suits filed by three states have slowed talks on reaching a
settlement in the criminal case.


WALGREEN CO: 7th Reverses Approval of Settlement in Merger Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit reversed a trial court's approval of the settlement in the
case captioned, IN RE: WALGREEN CO. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION (HAYS,
et al. v. WALGREEN CO., et al.) APPEAL OF: JOHN BERLAU, Objector,
Case No. 15-3799 (7th Cir.), and remanded the action to the
district court.

Judge Posner found that there is no indication that members of the
class have an interest in challenging the reorganization that has
created Walgreens Boots Alliance.  On remand, the district court
is directed to give serious consideration to either appointing new
class counsel or dismissing the suit since the class counsel has
failed to represent the class fairly and adequately, as required
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(B) and (g)(4).

In 2012 Walgreen Co. acquired a 45% equity stake in a Swiss
company named Alliance Boots GmbH, plus an option to acquire the
rest of Alliance's equity, beginning in February 2015, for a
mixture of cash and Walgreens stock. In 2014 the two companies
altered the deal to allow the option to be exercised earlier.
Walgreens announced its intent to purchase the remainder of
Alliance Boots and then engineer a reorganization whereby
Walgreens (having swallowed Alliance Boots) would become a wholly
owned subsidiary of a new Delaware corporation to be called
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

The suit sought additional disclosures to the shareholders,
disclosures alleged to be likely to affect the shareholder vote.
The settlement required Walgreens to issue several of the
disclosures to the shareholders -- that was the entire benefit of
the settlement to the class -- and released the company from
liability for the other disclosure-related claims made in the
suit. It also authorized class counsel to ask the district judge
to award them $370,000 in attorneys' fees, without opposition from
Walgreens.

The district judge approved the settlement, including a narrow
release of claims and the fee for the plaintiff's lawyers that the
company had agreed not to oppose. A shareholder named John Berlau
appealed.

In his Decision dated August 10, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/dN2P0P from Leagle.com, Judge Posner said the
district judge was handicapped by lack of guidance for judging the
significance of the disclosures to which the parties had agreed in
order to settle the class action at nominal cost to the defendant
(because class counsel's fees were small potatoes to the giant new
company and the disclosures irrelevant to the shareholders and
thus incapable of preventing the reorganization) and sweet fees
for class counsel, who devoted less than a month to the
litigation, a month's activity that produced no value.

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

Judge Posner said the case, In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, 129 A.3d 884, 894 (Del. Ch. 2016), adopted a clearer
standard for the approval of similar settlements, and is
applicable in the present case.

Judge Posner, citing Trulia, noted that "Delaware's Court of
Chancery sees many more cases involving large transactions by
public companies than the federal courts of our circuit do, and so
we should heed the recent retraction by a judge of that court of
the court's 'willingness in the past to approve disclosure
settlements of marginal value and to routinely grant broad
releases to defendants and six-figure fees to plaintiffs' counsel
in the process.' The result has been to 'cause[] deal litigation
to explode in the United States beyond the realm of reason. In
just the past decade, the percentage of transactions of $100
million or more that have triggered stockholder litigation in this
country has more than doubled, from 39.3% in 2005 to a peak of
94.9% in 2014.'"

Berlau is represented by:

      Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
      Melissa Ann Holyoak, Esq.
      COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
      1310 l. Street NW, 7th Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel:(202)331-1010

Walgreen Co. et al. are represented by James W. Ducayet, Esq. --
jducayet@sidley.com -- Elizabeth Yvonne Austin, Esq. --
laustin@sidley.com -- Benjamin D. Klein, Esq. -- jklein@sidley.com
-- and -- Kristen R. Seeger, Esq. -- kseeger@sidley.com -- SIDLEY


WESTSIDE BRAKE: Gomez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE GOMEZ, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. WESTSIDE BRAKE and
TIRES INC., a California Corporation; PEDRO LOPEZ, an individual;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC631017 Cal.
Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, statutory penalties, interest, costs, and attorney's fees,
and for injunctive relief pursuant to Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and each of them failed to
provide Plaintiff with: (l) proper payment of overtime wages due
to his; (2) uninterrupted meal periods as required by law and
regulation; (3) uninterrupted rest periods as required by law and
regulation; and (4) complete written statements to Plaintiff
itemizing the precise number of regular and overtime hours he
labored during each pay period as well the applicable rate of pay
for the regular and overtime hours labored in addition to lawful
deductions and other withholdings, otherwise known as pay stubs.

Westside is an automobile repair & service company.

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.esg@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


* ERISA Class-Action Lawyers Target Colleges & Universities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ropes & Gray LLP reports that class-action lawyers have now set
their sights on retirement savings plans offered by colleges and
universities, focusing  on  "jumbo"  plans, often with assets of
more than $1 billion (though that amount may decline as the
pickings become slimmer).  These lawsuits are founded in claims of
ERISA breaches of fiduciary duty.

Colleges and universities need to understand these claims, and
know what they need to do to prepare.

THE ISSUES AT HAND

The theories for each case vary slightly, but the common core is
an allegation of "excessive fees" paid on investment options
offered under the plan -- focusing on the lower cost of index
funds compared to traditionally managed sector- or strategy- based
funds.  According to plaintiffs' counsel in the recent suits, the
plan fiduciaries' purported failure to choose these "better and
cheaper" options means that they have violated ERISA.  Even in
instances where a university changed its investment options in
2015, touting the lower fees to participants, plaintiffs' counsel
has  used that change  as  an admission in its complaint that the
university's prior actions had somehow allegedly violated ERISA.

THE FIRM BEHIND THE CASES

A class-action law firm out of St. Louis, Missouri, Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, is engineering these cases, touting its history
of representing 15 other classes in actions against for-profit
corporations as the basis for its appointment as class-action
counsel.  As of now, lawsuits have been filed against eight major
universities.  This firm has been relatively successful,
extracting settlements of between $117 and $1,145 per participant.
This firm seeks its named plaintiffs through Facebook ads.

ADDRESSING THE THREAT

Given these developments, plan fiduciaries need to keep several
basic considerations in mind:

PROCESS AND PRUDENCE Contrary to the allegations, ERISA does not
require the best and the cheapest, determined after the fact. Not
every plan in the ERISA universe needs to offer index funds. What
is important is that the evidence show that, among other things,
the fiduciaries acted with "care, skill, prudence and diligence"
in selecting investment options and engaging in monitoring
activities. This determination is made at the time that the
fiduciaries acted (not looking at comparative returns after the
fact). Plaintiffs' counsel has lost in instances where the courts
have concluded that it failed to prove that fiduciary decisions
resulted from a "lack of prudence or poor process."

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Plan fiduciaries should know that their
communications with attorneys on matters of plan administration
are generally discoverable by plan beneficia ries.  Under the
ERISA "fiduciary exception" to the attorney-client privilege, a
plan fiduciary is viewed as acting on behalf of plan participants
and beneficiaries, so the participants and beneficiaries are the
attorneys' true clients. This includes any communications, whether
in writing, by e-mail or even by text message.

THE IMPACT OF PENDING LITIGATION ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE The
fiduciary exception noted above does not apply in connection with
pending or threatened litigation.  In these instances, attorney
communications with fiduciaries remain privileged.  This means
that any college or university that is the target of a class-
action law firm can and should seek help even before litigation
actually commences.




                            *********

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  * * *