CAR_Public/160906.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, September 6, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 178




                            Headlines


489 DRY: Faces "Hipolito" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AECOM: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in August
ALLERGAN PLC: Mass. Court Narrows Indirect Buyers' Claims
ALLERGAN PLC: Defending Asacol Direct Purchasers' Lawsuits
ALLERGAN PLC: Class Cert. Motion Filed in Botox(R) Litigation

ALLERGAN PLC: Oral Argument Held in Mylan's Appeal
ALLERGAN PLC: Motion to Dismiss Loestrin(R) Claims Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Motion to Dismiss Namenda(R) Claims Remains Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Case Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Meijer, Inc.'s Antitrust Suit Moved to D. Mass.

ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Disbursements of Settlement Funds Begin
ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Martin"
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Suit Pending
AMERIDIAL INC: Faces "Ouellette" Suit Alleging Labor Law Breach
ARCIA LAW: Faces "Ferro" Suit Over Disability Discrimination

AXA EQUITABLE: Defending "Sivolella" and "Sanford" Suits in N.J.
AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal on Dismissal of "Shuster" Action Pending
BANKRATE INC: Preliminary Settlement Approval Sought
BIG CITY: "Robinson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
BLAZIN' WINGS: Faces "Zeledon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BTI INC: "Publicover" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
DALLAS CENTRAL: Diamond A Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: BGP Tollway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Brown Colinas Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: BSP Bluffview Sued Over Excessive Appraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: BT Hotel Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: CVS Files Suit Over Excessive Appraised Value
DALLAS CENTRAL: DTX Meadows Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
DALLAS CENTRAL: Exeter 2304 Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
DALLAS CENTRAL: Fountain Valley Sues Over Excessive Appraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: Frontline Oak Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: 4311 Partners Claims Excessive Property Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: AF 1 Northwest Protests "Excessive" Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: C2 LAND Claims Excessive Property Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: "Mccutchin" Claims Excessive Property Valuation

DALLAS CENTRAL: Glen TX Alleges Excessive Property Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Avondale Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Dallas Main Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces PNP Hospitality Suit Over Appraisal Policy
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Vrec Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces WIP Serendipity Suit Over Appraisal Policy
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Belvedere Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Highland Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Piedmont-Las Colinas Sues Over Appraisal Policies
DEAN'S SAFETY: Faces "Lund" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA

DSD CONTAINER: Illegally Terminates Workers, "Portillo" Suit Says
EBIX INC: Discovery Commenced in Merger Action
EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Court Urged to Dismiss Securities Suit
FIRST CLOVER: Facing Class Action Related to First-Mid Merger
HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Arrowrock Suit Over Appraisal Policies

HARRIS COUNTY: Arrowrock Champions Sues Over Appraisal Policies
HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Int'l Bank Suit Over Appraisal Policies
HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Arrowrock II Suit Over Appraisal Policies
INSURANCE MARKETING: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
JOY GLOBAL: Shareholders Sue Over Planned Komatsu America Merger

JPMORGAN CHASE: Transferred "Dahlgren" Suit to C.D. California
KELLY SERVICES: Still Defends "Hillson" Class Action
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Karth" Shareholder Litigation
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Hearing Date on Bid to Dismiss Not Yet Set
MERILU PIZZA: "Mayoral-Climico" Suit Claims Labor Laws Violations

NGM INSURANCE: Faces AES Demolition Class Suit in Florida
PERRIGO COMPANY: Securities Action in New Jersey Still Pending
PERRIGO COMPANY: "Schwieger" Action Remains Stayed
PERRIGO COMPANY: Motion to Appeal in Eltroxin Remains Pending
PINGTAN MARINE: New York Class Action Lawsuit Closed

PUNA GEOTHERMAL: "Douvris" Class Suit Removed to Hawaii Dist. Ct.
REMIX T-SHIRT: Faces "Lipski" Class Suit in Florida Cir. Court
RESONANT INC: Scheduling Conference Set for October 24
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Defends Morning Song Bird Food Case
SPARK NETWORKS: "Werner" Class Action Settlement Approved

SPARK NETWORKS: Sept. 12 Hearing for Ben-Jacobs Settlement Set
TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: Settlement in "Thompson" Case Approved
YIRENDAI LTD: Faces "Lefter" Securities Suit in Calif. Court




                            *********

489 DRY: Faces "Hipolito" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernestina Sanchez Hipolito a/k/a Christina v. 489 Dry Cleaners
Inc. d/b/a La Mode Cleaners and Kwang Ho Choi, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06748 (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

489 Dry Cleaners Inc. operates a dry cleaning business in New
York.

Ernestina Sanchez Hipolito is a pro se plaintiff.

AECOM: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in August
-------------------------------------------------
AECOM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that the Federal Court of Australia was
scheduled to conduct a hearing on August 10, 2016, to hear an
application by the class action applicants for approval of a
proposed settlement.

In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM
Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast
assignment for a client consortium as part of the client's project
to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in
Australia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, the
client formed certain special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that raised
approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial
public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an
additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank
loans. The SPVs went into insolvency administrations in February
2011.

KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs (the RCM Applicants),
caused a lawsuit to be filed against AECOM Australia by the RCM
Applicants in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012.
Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of the lending banks to the
SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against
AECOM Australia on May 18, 2012. Separately, a class action
lawsuit, which has been amended to include approximately 770 of
the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM Australia in the
Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.

All of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from
AECOM Australia's role in connection with the above described
traffic forecast. On July 10, 2015, AECOM Australia, the RCM
Applicants and Portigon AG entered into a Deed of Release settling
the respective lawsuits for $205 million (U.S. dollars).

On May 31, 2016, AECOM Australia and other parties to the class
action lawsuit entered into a conditional settlement aggregating
to $91 million (U.S. Dollars) with the class action applicants on
a "no admissions" basis. The Federal Court of Australia will
conduct a hearing on August 10, 2016 to hear an application by the
class action applicants for approval of the proposed settlement,
which is the only unfulfilled condition. AECOM Australia cannot
provide assurance that the class action participants will be
successful in seeking the approval of the proposed settlement.

The RCM Applicants/Portigon settlement did not, and the class
action settlement (if approved) will not, have a material effect
on the Company's financial results.


ALLERGAN PLC: Mass. Court Narrows Indirect Buyers' Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Allergan Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Asacol(R)
Litigation, a court in Massachusetts issued a decision granting
the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims.

On June 22, 2015, two class action complaints were filed in
federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers. In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they
paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and
Delzicol(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's alleged
actions preventing or delaying generic competition in the market
for Warner Chilcott's older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S.
federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district
court.

On September 21, 2015, three additional complaints were filed on
behalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers, each raising
similar allegations to the complaints filed in June 2015.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the indirect purchasers'
complaint.

A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss on May 11, 2016.  On
July 20, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion in
part, dismissing the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims based
on purported reverse payments and dismissed several of plaintiffs'
claims based on state laws.


ALLERGAN PLC: Defending Asacol Direct Purchasers' Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of Asacol(R).

A complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of direct
purchasers of Asacol(R) in federal court in New York on April 26,
2016.  On April 26, 2016, a direct purchaser, Meijer, Inc., filed
a complaint in federal court in New York. The direct purchaser
complaint makes similar allegations to the complaints filed by the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

On May 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to transfer the direct
purchaser action to the federal court in Massachusetts where it
could be consolidated with the indirect purchaser cases.
Defendants do not have to respond to this direct purchaser
complaint until the motion to transfer is decided.

Two additional direct purchaser putative class action complaints
were filed in federal court in New York on June 29, 2016.  The
Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the
Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Class Cert. Motion Filed in Botox(R) Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed a
motion for class certification in the Botox(R) Litigation.

On February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in
federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market
allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec.1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Sec.1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market
power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec.2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright
Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and
violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200
et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 29, 2015. On June 29,
2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On
October 20, 2015, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint.

On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial
summary judgment or adjudication. The Company filed a response to
the motion for judgment on the pleadings on February 11, 2016.

The court held oral argument on plaintiff's motion on March 4,
2016 and took the matter under submission. On May 31, 2016, the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial judgment on the
pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment or
adjudication.

On June 14, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of
the court's denial of the motion.  On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Oral Argument Held in Mylan's Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Allergan Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Doryx(R)
Litigation, Mylan is appealing the district court's decision to
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the appeal is fully briefed
and an oral argument was held on July 14, 2016.

In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a
complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International
Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that
Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's generic
competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of
U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's
prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law.
In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive
damages and attorneys' fees. Following the filing of Mylan's
complaint, three putative class actions were filed against Warner
Chilcott and Mayne by purported direct purchasers, and one
putative class action was filed against by purported indirect
purchasers.

In addition, four retailers filed in the same court a civil
antitrust complaint in their individual capacities against Warner
Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx(R). In each of the class and
individual cases the plaintiffs allege that they paid higher
prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products as a result of
Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged actions preventing or
delaying generic competition in violation of U.S. federal
antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. All of
the actions were consolidated in the federal district court.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion to dismiss was denied without
prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott
and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual
retailer plaintiffs. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for
summary judgment on March 10, 2014.

On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order granting Warner
Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment, denying Mylan's
summary judgment motion and entering judgment in favor of Warner
Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan is appealing the district
court's decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the
appeal is fully briefed and an oral argument was held on July 14,
2016.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar
suits will be filed.


ALLERGAN PLC: Motion to Dismiss Loestrin(R) Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Loestrin(R) 24
Litigation, defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss the claims of
the direct purchaser class plaintiffs, end-payor class plaintiffs
and individual direct purchaser plaintiffs remains pending.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement
with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets,
"Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was
an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages.

Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs
seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors. In
addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on
behalf of a class of direct payors.

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations. After a hearing on September 26,
2013, the JPML issued an order transferring all related
Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District of
Rhode Island.

On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the district
court's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and oral
argument was held on December 7, 2015.

On February 22, 2016 the First Circuit issued its decision
vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the
district court.  On June 11, 2016, defendants filed an omnibus
motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchaser class
plaintiffs, end-payor class plaintiffs and individual direct
purchaser plaintiffs.


ALLERGAN PLC: Motion to Dismiss Namenda(R) Claims Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Forest and its co-
defendants' motions to dismiss the pending complaints of the
putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers in the
Namenda(R) Litigation remain pending.

On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office
of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging that Forest is acting to prevent or delay
generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product
Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and
committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial
plans for Namenda(R) XR.

In the complaint, the state seeks unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief. On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion
for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing
or otherwise limiting the availability of immediate-release
Namenda(R) until the conclusion of the litigation.

A hearing was held in November 2014 on the state's preliminary
injunction motion. On December 11, 2014, the district court issued
a ruling granting the state's injunction motion and issued an
injunction on December 15, 2014.

On May 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the preliminary injunction. On June 5, 2015, Forest filed
a petition with the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc which was
denied. Forest and the New York Attorney General reached a
settlement on November 24, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative
class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect
purchasers. Since that time, additional complaints have been filed
on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers.
The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted
by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between Forest and
generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.

On December 22, 2015, Forest and its co-defendants filed motions
to dismiss the pending complaints of the putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers. These motions remain pending.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities
vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action appeal
in the Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Litigation remains pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a
complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju
Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging
monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in
the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which
includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3%
and ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products.

On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries
occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex
obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan
and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also
filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related
patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay
the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent
dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to
renew. On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to
dismiss the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed
Allergan's motion on May 2, 2015. Thereafter, Allergan filed an
answer to Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015.

On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was
filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same
defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that
defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in
the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions
of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)).

On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On August 19, 2015, the
court granted Allergan's motion to dismiss. On September 18, 2015,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.  The Third Circuit oral argument was held
on June 13, 2016.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Meijer, Inc.'s Antitrust Suit Moved to D. Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEIJER, INC. and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
ALLERGAN PLC (f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC); ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN USA,
INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT LIMITED; WARNER
CHILCOTT (U.S.), LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT SALES (U.S.), LLC; ZYDUS
PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; and CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-11740-DJC (April 27, 2016), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

The case is a civil antitrust action seeking treble damages and
other relief for the Defendants' unlawful impairment of
competition to drugs in Warner Chilcott's Asacol franchise (Asacol
(400mg), Asacol HD, and Delzicol).

Allergan plc markets branded and generic pharmaceuticals
throughout the United States and has commercial operations in the
United States and approximately 100 countries around the world.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Miles Greaves, Esq.
     Barry Taus, Esq.
     Brett Cebulash, Esq.
     TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
     80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: (212) 931-0704
     E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com
             btaus@tcllaw.com
             bcebulash@tcllaw.com

        - and -

     Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
     D. Sean Nation, Esq.
     Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
     HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
     919 Congress Ave., Suite 1325
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 993-3070
     E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             sean@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

        - and -

     Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
     David P. Germaine, Esq.
     John P. Bjork, Esq.
     VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
     55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 224-1500
     E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
             dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
             jbjork@vaneklaw.com

        - and -

     Paul E. Slater, Esq.
     Matthew T. Slater, Esq.
     SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
     55 W. Monroe, Suite 3200
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 641-3200
     E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com
             mslater@sperling-law.com


ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Disbursements of Settlement Funds Begin
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that disbursements of the
Rothal settlement proceeds was to take place on and after August
31, 2016.

ALP accrues legal liabilities when it is probable that the future
costs will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated.
Such accruals are based upon developments to date, management's
estimates of the outcome of these matters and its experience in
contesting, litigating and settling other matters. Based on
evaluation of the Partnership's litigation matters and discussions
with internal and external legal counsel, management believes that
an adverse outcome on one or more of the matters set forth below,
against which no accrual for loss has been made at June 30, 2016
and 2015 unless otherwise noted, is reasonably possible but not
probable, and that the outcome with respect to one or more of
these matters, if adverse, is reasonably likely to have a material
adverse impact on the accompanying financial statements of ALP.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties were named defendants in an
action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit
that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs
purported to bring a class action allegedly arising out of
construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia
Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Plaintiffs complained, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems. The case went to
mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not settle then. The
Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint. The court concluded its hearings on the motion to
certify the class covering the homes in Camellia Island and
certified the class by order dated September 16, 2010.

On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal
challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the
appellate court affirmed the trial court's order certifying the
class. The case was returned to the trial court for further
proceedings including trial. The parties and their insurers
entered into various agreements in principle to settle this case
and the related cases discussed hereafter, some of which
agreements have been finalized.

On June 22, 2016, the court gave final approval of the settlement
of the Rothal class action. No appeal has been taken from the
court's order approving the settlement and it is now final.
Disbursements of Rothal settlement proceeds was to take place on
and after August 31, 2016.

The related agreements that Arvida has with various other parties
and their insurers related to the funding of the settlement have
not yet all been fully executed. There are no assurances that such
agreements will in fact be consummated. The amounts associated
with ALP's share of the settlement are reflected in ALP's
financial statements.


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Martin"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in the case, Martin v.
Altisource Residential Corporation et al., remains pending.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the
caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-
cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, Mr. Erbey
and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by,
among other things, making materially false statements and/or
failing to disclose material information to the Company's
shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions
with AAMC, Ocwen and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These
alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that the
defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on
Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen,
including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans,
that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating
state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's
lack of proper internal controls.

The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the
Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because
they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain
asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that
allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's
shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of
monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount
and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses.

The Company said, "In May 2015, two of our purported shareholders
filed competing motions with the court to be appointed lead
plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel in the action.
Subsequently, opposition and reply briefs were filed by the
purported shareholders with respect to these motions. On October
7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi
to be lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead
plaintiff."

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20,
2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

"We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action. At this time, we are not able to
predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate
the range of possible loss, if any," the Company said.


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company is awaiting a decision from the court on the motion to
dismiss the case, City of Cambridge Retirement System v.
Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al.

On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City
of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management
Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC,
William Erbey and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged
conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's
relationship and transactions with Residential, Altisource, Home
Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation,
NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen, including allegations
that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature of
relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii)
that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair
process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action
seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the
putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's
and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only
defendants who have been served with the complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of
Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff. On May 15,
2015, the court entered a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to
file an amended complaint on or before June 19, 2015, and setting
a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on June 19, 2015. On July 20, 2015, AAMC and Mr.
Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

"Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 3,
2015, and we are awaiting a decision from the court on the
motion," the Company said.

"We believe the amended complaint is without merit. At this time,
we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter,
nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any."


AMERIDIAL INC: Faces "Ouellette" Suit Alleging Labor Law Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA OUELLETTE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. AMERIDIAL, INC., an Ohio corporation,
Defendant, Case: 5:16-cv-02144 (N.D. Ohio, August 26, 2016),
alleges willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Maine Minimum Wage and Overtime Law, the Maine Employment
Practices Act, and common law.

AMERIDIAL, INC. -- http://www.ameridial.com/about/-- is an Ohio
corporation that is headquartered in North Canton, Ohio. It is a
call center outsourcing company that provides call center services
(i.e., customer acquisition and customer service) to large and
mid-size clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 East Broad Street
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: 614-221-4221
     E-mail: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com
             bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

        - and -

     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: 248-355-0300
     E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
             kstoops@sommerspc.com

        - and -

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
     JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
     155 2nd Street, Suite 4
     Jersey City, NJ 07302
     Phone: (201) 630-0000
     E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
             nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


ARCIA LAW: Faces "Ferro" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Ferro v. The Arcia Law Firm, P.L., Case No. CACE-16-015750
(Fla. Cir. Ct., August 25, 2016), is an action for discrimination
based upon Plaintiff's disability and status as a pregnant female
pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act.

The Arcia Law Firm, P.L. operates a law firm located at 3350 SW
148th Ave #100, Miramar, FL 33027.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler Street Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305)416-5000
      Facsimile: (305)416-5005


AXA EQUITABLE: Defending "Sivolella" and "Sanford" Suits in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend the "Sivolella" and "Sanford"
lawsuits.

A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the
District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds
Management Group, LLC ("AXA Equitable FMG") ("Sivolella
Litigation"). The lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of
eight funds. The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment
Company Act"), for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable
and AXA Equitable FMG for investment management services. In
November 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims
under Sections 47(b) and 26(f) of the Investment Company Act, as
well as a claim for unjust enrichment.

In addition, plaintiff purports to file the lawsuit as a class
action in addition to a derivative action. In the amended
complaint, plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged overpayments,
rescission of the contracts, restitution of all fees paid,
interest, costs, attorney fees, fees for expert witnesses and
reserves the right to seek punitive damages where applicable.

In December 2011, AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2012, the
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claim under Section 26(f)
seeking restitution and rescission under Section 47(b) of the 1940
Act. In September 2012, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as it related to the Section 36(b) claim and granted the
defendants' motion as it related to the unjust enrichment claim.

In January 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Sanford et
al. v. AXA Equitable FMG ("Sanford Litigation"). The lawsuit was
filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds, four of which are
named in the Sivolella lawsuit as well as four new funds, and
seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act
for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable FMG for
investment management services. In light of the similarities of
the allegations in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations, the
parties and the Court agreed to consolidate the two lawsuits.

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Sivolella and Sanford
Litigations amended the complaints to add additional claims under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for recovery of
alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable FMG in its capacity
as administrator of EQ Advisors Trust. The Plaintiffs seek
recovery of the alleged overpayments, or alternatively, rescission
of the contract and restitution of the excessive fees paid,
interest, costs and fees.

In January 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as
well as various motions to strike certain of the Plaintiffs'
experts in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations. Also in January
2015, two Plaintiffs in the Sanford Litigation filed a motion for
partial summary judgment relating to the EQ/Core Bond Index
Portfolio as well as motions in limine to bar admission of certain
documents and preclude the testimony of one of defendants'
experts.

In August 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motions in limine and
also denied both parties motions for summary judgment. The non-
jury trial commenced in January 2016 and testimony concluded in
February 2016. Closing arguments occurred on June 1, 2016
following a post-trial briefing.


AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal on Dismissal of "Shuster" Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden
County, filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal of the Complaint,
and the appeal remains pending.

A lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Westchester, Commercial Division ("New York state
court") in June 2014, entitled Jessica Zweiman, Executrix of the
Estate of Anne Zweiman, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all persons who
purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently
became subject to the ATM Strategy, and who suffered injury as a
result thereof." Plaintiff asserts that AXA Equitable breached the
variable annuity contracts by implementing the volatility
management tool. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

In July 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. In September 2015, the New York federal district court
granted AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the Complaint. In
October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In February
2016, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her appeal.

In November 2014, one of the plaintiff's law firms in Zweiman
filed a separate lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden
County ("New Jersey state court"). This lawsuit is a putative
class action on behalf of "all AXA [Equitable] variable life
insurance policyholders who allocated funds from their Policy
Accounts to investments in AXA's Separate Accounts, which were
subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who
suffered injury as a result thereof" and asserts a claim for
breach of contract similar to the claim in Zweiman. In February
2016, the New Jersey State Court dismissed the Complaint. In March
2016, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

In August 2015, another of the plaintiff's law firms in Zweiman
filed a third lawsuit entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division
of New Haven ("Connecticut state court"). This lawsuit purports to
cover the same class definition, makes substantially the same
allegations, and seeks the same relief as in Zweiman. In November
2015, the Connecticut federal district court transferred the
action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


BANKRATE INC: Preliminary Settlement Approval Sought
----------------------------------------------------
Bankrate Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that papers requesting
preliminary approval of a class action settlement were filed on
July 18, 2016, and notice of the proposed settlement is being
given to the class.

Plaintiffs sought relief (including damages and rescission or
rescissionary damages) under the Securities Act of 1933 based on a
March 2014 secondary offering and under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all
persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's
securities between August 1, 2012 and October 9, 2014, inclusive.

On May 17, 2016, the Company announced a proposed agreement,
subject to Court approval, to settle this private securities class
action against all defendants. Bankrate would pay a total of $20
million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve all claims
asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Bankrate stock between October 27, 2011 and October 9,
2014.

The Company has accrued for this settlement amount as of June 30,
2016. The proposed settlement further provides that Bankrate
denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability. Approximately 70% of
the settlement fund is expected to be reimbursed from insurance
proceeds. The Company has not recorded the benefit of any
insurance proceeds as of June 30, 2016.

Papers requesting preliminary approval of the settlement were
filed on July 18, 2016, and notice of the proposed settlement is
being given to the class. The Court will then hold a hearing to
determine whether to give the settlement final approval.


BIG CITY: "Robinson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
FRANK ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and HENRY ALCANTARA, BARRY ALKINS, RAFAEL BOITER,
MAURICE DESRIVIERES, JAY GILBERT, ROGER JONES, ROUSSO MEDE, JOSE
PERALTA, NIEVE QUEZADA, MAXIMINO ROSA, and TYRELL STEWART,
individually, the Plaintiffs, v. BIG CITY YONKERS, INC. d/b/a BIG
CITY AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSES, KKLDS, INC. d/b/a BIG CITY AUTOMOTIVE
WAREHOUSES, and 2015 ATLANTIC AVE. CORP. d/b/a BIG CITY AUTOMOTIVE
WAREHOUSES, the Defendants, Case No. 600159/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Aug. 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wage
compensation for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-
workers who have worked for Defendants in the State of New York as
delivery drivers, based upon Defendants' violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and New York Labor law (NYLL).

While employed by Big City, the Plaintiffs consistently worked
over 40 hours per week without receiving premium overtime pay for
all the hours they worked. Throughout the relevant period, it was
Big City's policy to deprive Plaintiffs of all of their earned
overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL.

Big City offers extensive array of automotive parts and
accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Marijana Matura, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100


BLAZIN' WINGS: Faces "Zeledon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yajaira Elizabeth Zeledon, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Blazin' Wings, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Case
No. BC631828 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 25, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Blazin' Wings, Inc. owns and operates Buffalo restaurants in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Starr, Esq.
      Adam M. Rose, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STARR
      23901 Calabasas Road, #2072
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 225-9040
      Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
      E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
              adam@starrlaw.com


BTI INC: "Publicover" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE PUBLICOVER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BTI INC., OF ALPHARETTA, GA,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03069-RWS (N.D. Ga., Aug. 22,
2016), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff worked hours in excess of 40 hours within a work
week for Defendant, and he was entitled to be compensated for
these overtime hours at a rate one-half times his individual
regular hourly rates.

The Defendant operates a retail merchandise installation business
in Alpharetta, located in Fulton County, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 386 0995
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
                  tstrawter@wfclaw.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Diamond A Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------
DIAMOND A ADMINISTRATION COMPANY, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10251,
filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22,
2016, seeks to recover $300,000 worth of damages including
interest, attorney's fees, and court costs, plus non-monetary
relief.

On May l, 2016, the Plaintiff was notified by Defendant that the
value of the Property had been appraised for 2016 at $ll,268,290.

The Plaintiff timely filed with the Dallas county Appraisal Review
Board a notice of protest of the valuation given the property by
the chief Appraiser because the determination of the appraised
value of the property was excessive and unequal in comparison with
other similar properly in the appraisal district.

Thereafter, the Dallas county Appraisal Review Board determined
the protest and made its order in which the appraised value of the
Property was determined to be $10,243,900 for the 2076 tax year.

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

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
                  NGandhi@estesgandhi.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: BGP Tollway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
BGP TOLLWAY, LLC (Tollway Plaza I & II), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10255,
filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22,
2016, seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees)
and non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it
pertains to Plaintiffs property).

In May, 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District
had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for
use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in
assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District
appraised the value of the Property at $86,785,000, an amount in
excess of the appraised value required by law.

The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of
fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and
discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use
and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan,
method and formula of valuation and assessment.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Brown Colinas Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------------
BROWN COLINAS POINTE, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10209, filed in
the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22, 2016,
asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's
Property in accordance with the law.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property by the
District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax
year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336
          E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: BSP Bluffview Sued Over Excessive Appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------------
BSP BLUFFVIEW, L.P. (Bluffview Towers), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10256,
filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22,
2016, seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees)
and non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it
pertains to Plaintiff's property).

The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of
fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and
discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use
and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan,
method and formula of valuation and assessment.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: BT Hotel Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
------------------------------------------------------
BT HOTEL LAS COLINAS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-, filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22, 2016, asks
the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's Property
in accordance with the law.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the property by the
District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax
year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336
          E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: CVS Files Suit Over Excessive Appraised Value
-------------------------------------------------------------
CVS AS LESSEE, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10232, filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22, 2016, seeks
the Court to reduce the value of the Property to the true market
value for the 2016 tax year.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 2016 value of the Property
constitutes an unequal appraisal of the Property in that the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the
median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative
sample of other properties or a sample of other properties
consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly
situated to or of the same general kind or character as the
Property.

The Defendant 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.
          Natalie A. Maloney, 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
                  natalie@michelgray.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: DTX Meadows Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
DTX MEADOWS REALTY LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10237, filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22, 2016, asks
the Court to reduce the appraised value of its property to the
true market value for the 2016 tax year.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 2016 value of the Property
constitutes an unequal appraisal of the Property in that the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the
median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative
sample of other properties.

The Defendant 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.
          Natalie A. Maloney, 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
          natalie@michelgray.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Exeter 2304 Sues Over Excessive Appraised Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
EXETER 2304 TARPLEY LP, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10281, filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22, 2016, asks
the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's property
in accordance with the requirement of law.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that Defendant had made an
appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the
relevant taxing units in Dallas County, Texas, in assessing 2016
ad valorem property taxes.

The Plaintiff alleges that both the value placed on the Property
by Defendant and the value stated in the Appraisal Regulatory
Board's order represent a value in excess of fair market value for
tax year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rhett Warren, Esq.
          THE WARREN FIRM, PLLC
          4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (972) 885 0852
          Facsimile: (972) 525 2321
          E-mail: rhett@thewarrenfirm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Fountain Valley Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------------
FOUNTAIN VALLEY COMMERCE CENTER, INC., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10218,
filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22,
2016, asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's
property in accordance with the law.

In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property by the
District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax
year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336
          E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Frontline Oak Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRONTLINE OAK RUN, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-, filed in the District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22, 2016, asks the Court
to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's property in
accordance with the law.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the property by the
District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax
year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336
          E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: 4311 Partners Claims Excessive Property Valuation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4311 PARTNERS LTD. (Hampton Court), Plaintiff, V. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case DC-16-10595, filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016,
protests as excessive the appraised value placed on property at
Hampton Court located at 4311 Oak Lawn Avenue, in Dallas, Dallas
County, Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: Ddonovan@.gpd.com
             Asallusti@.gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: AF 1 Northwest Protests "Excessive" Valuation
-------------------------------------------------------------
AF 1 NORTHWEST CROSSING LLC, (Northwest Crossing Office Building),
Plaintiff, V. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No. DC-16-
10597, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on
August 26, 2016, protests as excessive the appraised value placed
on property known as the Northwest Office Building located at 2152
West Northwest Highway, in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: Ddonovan@.gpd.com
             Asallusti@.gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: C2 LAND Claims Excessive Property Valuation
-----------------------------------------------------------
C2 LAND, L.P. (Courtyard Dallas Richardson at Spring Valley),
Plaintiff, V. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, DC-16-
10535, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on
August 26, 2016, protests as excessive the appraised value placed
on property known as Courtyard Dallas Richardson at Spring Valley
located at 1000 South Sherman Street in Richardson, Dallas County,
Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: Ddonovan@.gpd.com
             Asallusti@.gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: "Mccutchin" Claims Excessive Property Valuation
---------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL MCCUTCHIN PROPERTIES, LTD. and DALLAS HOSPITALITY, INC.,
Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case
No. DC-16-10566, filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 26, 2016, protests as excessive the appraised
value placed on real property and improvements in 6055 LBJ
Freeway, Dallas, Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Lang, Esq.
     Heather H. Long, Esq.
     LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     P.O. Box 261330
     Plano, TX 75026
     Phone: (972) 73l-6758
     Fax: (469) 854-3336
     E-mail: mike@langlawtx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Glen TX Alleges Excessive Property Valuation
------------------------------------------------------------
GLEN TX PARTNERS, LLC (Aleo at North Glen), Plaintiff, V. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10534, filed
in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016,
protests as excessive the appraised value placed on real property
known as Aleo at North Glen located at Irving, Dallas County,
Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Carolyn Chinn Maly, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Phone: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
             cmaly@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Avondale Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avondale Apartments, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10547, filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 25, 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:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Frtarshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Dallas Main Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Main, LP (Bank of America Plaza) v. Dallas Central
Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-, filed in the District Court
of Dallas County, Texas, on August 25, 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:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces PNP Hospitality Suit Over Appraisal Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
PNP Hospitality, Inc. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10511, filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 25, 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:

      Michael R. Boling, Esq.
      Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. BOLING
      2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
      Plano, TX 75023
      Telephone: (214) 378-8788
      Facsimile: (214) 378-8988
      E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com
              chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Vrec Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vrec Bayou, LP d/b/a Bayou Bend v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-, filed in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, on August 25, 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:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Frtarshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces WIP Serendipity Suit Over Appraisal Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
WIP Serendipity, LLP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10542, filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 25, 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:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Frtarshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Belvedere Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Belvedere Owner LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-10467, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas,
on August 25, 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:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Frtarshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Highland Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Highland Crest Ltd. (Woodland Hills) v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10493, filed in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, on August 25, 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:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Piedmont-Las Colinas Sues Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont-Las Colinas Corporate Center I LP and Piedmont Las
Colinas Corporate Center II LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10498, filed in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, on August 25, 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:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972)931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
              kdonovan@gpd.com
              jtobin@gpd.com


DEAN'S SAFETY: Faces "Lund" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Lund, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated; Plaintiff, v. Dean's Safety Consultants, Inc.;
Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-08193-DLR (D. Ariz., August 26, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant employs individuals with the job title of "safety
consultant" and "field technician" to customers in the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Don J. Foty, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713-523-0001
     Fax: 713-523-1116
     E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com

        - and -

     Meredith Regan Harrison, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713-523-0001
     Fax: 713-523-1116
     E-mail: mharrison@kennedyhodges.com

        - and -

     Michelle R. Matheson, Esq.
     MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C.
     15300 N. 90th Street, Suite 550
     Scottsdale, AZ 85260
     Phone: (480) 889-8951
     E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com


DSD CONTAINER: Illegally Terminates Workers, "Portillo" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Portillo v. DSD Container Freight Station, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, Inclusive, Case No. BC631935 (Cal. Super. Ct., August
25, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' wrongful termination
practices on the basis of disability.

DSD Container Freight Station, Inc. operates a freight company in
Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      V. James De Simone, Esq.
      Carmen D. Sabater, Esq.
      V. JAMES DESIMONE LAW
      13160 Mindanao Way, Suite280
      Marina del Rey, CA 90292
      Telephone: (310)693-5561
      Facsimile: (323)544-6880
      E-mail: yjdesimone@gmail.com


EBIX INC: Discovery Commenced in Merger Action
----------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery has commenced in a
consolidated class action lawsuit related to a merger agreement.

Following the announcement on May 1, 2013 of the Company's
execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs &
Co., twelve putative class action complaints challenging the
proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
These complaints name as Defendants some combination of the
Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated
entities.

On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were consolidated by the
Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In re Ebix, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCN. On June 19, 2013, the
Company announced that the merger agreement had been terminated
pursuant to a Termination and Settlement Agreement dated June 19,
2013. After Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
proceeding, Lead Plaintiffs amended their operative complaint to
drop their claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and focus their
allegations on an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") between the
Company and Robin Raina.

On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint. On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its
Memorandum Opinion that granted in large part the Company's Motion
to Dismiss and narrowed the remaining claims.

On September 15, 2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its
Memorandum Opinion. On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an
Order permitting Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and
Supplemented Complaint.

On February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which was granted in
part and denied in part in a January 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion
and Order. The remaining claims are as follows: (i) a purported
class and derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty by the
individual Defendants for improperly maintaining the ABA as an
unreasonable anti-takeover device; (ii) a purported class claim
against the individual Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty
of disclosure to the stockholders with respect to the Company's
2010 Proxy Statement and 2010 Stock Incentive Plan; (iii) a
purported derivative claim against the individual Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duty to the Company in causing incentive
compensation to be awarded to themselves and others under the 2010
Stock Incentive Plan; (iv) a purported class and derivative claim
for breach of fiduciary duty by the individual Defendants in
adopting certain bylaw amendments on December 19, 2014; and, (v) a
purported class and derivative claim seeking invalidation of the
December 19, 2014 bylaw amendments under Delaware law. Lead
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief with respect to the 2010 Stock
Incentive Plan, the 2010 Proxy Statement, and the bylaw
amendments. Lead Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The parties have filed answers to the remaining claims in the
Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint and discovery has
commenced. The Company denies any liability and intends to defend
the action vigorously.


EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Court Urged to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants
have filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss a
securities class action lawsuit in California.

In July 2015, three putative securities class action complaints
(captioned Fialkov v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-1458-
AJB-DHB, Lorusso v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-1501-L-
JLB and Jacobs v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-1529-AJB-
MDD) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against Celladon and certain of Celladon's
current and former officers. The complaints generally allege that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the clinical
trial program for MYDICAR, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Celladon's common stock. The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees.

On September 1, 2015, six stockholders (or groups of stockholders)
filed motions to consolidate the three putative securities class
actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs (the "Motions to
Consolidate"). A hearing on the Motions to Consolidate was held on
December 3, 2015. On December 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the
three putative securities class actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff to represent the putative class. The lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 29, 2016.

On April 29, 2016, the defendants, including Eiger, filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated amendment complaint. On June 28, 2016,
lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On July 28, 2016, the defendants filed their reply in support of
the motion to dismiss. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses and intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the
Company is not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate
outcome or possible losses relating to these claims.


FIRST CLOVER: Facing Class Action Related to First-Mid Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Clover Leaf Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company is defending against lawsuits related to the merger with
First-Mid Illinois Bancshares, Inc.

On April 26, 2016, the Company and First-Mid Illinois Bancshares,
Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal office in Mattoon,
Illinois ("First Mid"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (as amended by the First Amendment to Agreement and Plan of
Merger entered into as of June 6, 2016, and as may be further
amended, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, among other
things, First Mid will acquire the Company and the Bank through
the merger of the Company with and into First Mid, with First Mid
as the surviving entity (the "Merger"). Consummation of the
transaction remains subject to customary closing conditions,
including receipt of requisite stockholder approvals. The Merger
is anticipated to be completed in the second half of 2016.

First Clover Leaf, certain executive officers of First Clover
Leaf, certain members of First Clover Leaf's board of directors,
and First Mid are named as defendants in one purported class
action lawsuit brought by an alleged individual First Clover Leaf
stockholder challenging the Merger (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit is
captioned Raul v. Highlander, et al, Case No. 16-L-703, and was
filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois, Third Judicial District.

The Lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
officers and directors of First Clover Leaf relating to the
process leading to the proposed Merger of First Clover Leaf and
First Mid. The Lawsuit alleges that the Merger consideration is
inadequate and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus does not
contain sufficient disclosures and detail. The Lawsuit also
alleges that First Clover Leaf and First Mid aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants.
The relief sought includes class certification, declaratory
relief, an injunction enjoining consummation of the Merger,
rescission of the Merger should it be consummated, interest on any
monetary judgment, costs, and attorneys' fees.

First Clover Leaf, First Mid and the individual defendants believe
that the factual allegations in the Lawsuit are without merit and
legally unfounded and they intend to vigorously defend against
these allegations.


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Arrowrock Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arrowrock Tres-Industrial, LP v. Harris County, Appraisal
District, Case No. 2016-56864 (D. Tex., August 25, 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:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq,
      LANG LAW OFFICE, PC
      PO Box 261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
      E-mail: mike@langlawtx.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Arrowrock Champions Sues Over Appraisal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowrock Champions Stonebridge, LP v. Harris County Appraisal
District, Case No. 2016-56881 (D. Tex., August 25, 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:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq,
      LANG LAW OFFICE, PC
      PO Box 261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
      E-mail: mike@langlawtx.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Int'l Bank Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
International Bank of Commerce v. Harris County Appraisal
District, Case No. 2016-56830 (D. Tex., August 25, 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:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq,
      LANG LAW OFFICE, PC
      PO Box 261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
      E-mail: mike@langlawtx.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Arrowrock II Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowrock II North Junction, LLC v. Harris County Appraisal
District, Case No. 2016-56873 (D. Tex., August 25, 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:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq,
      LANG LAW OFFICE, PC
      PO Box 261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
      E-mail: mike@langlawtx.com


INSURANCE MARKETING: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kai Strickland Walker, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. Insurance Marketing Solutions, LLC, Christian L.
Smith and Frank Pellegrino, Case No. CACE-16-015713 (Fla. Cir.
Ct., August 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Insurance Marketing Solutions, LLC operates an insurance company
in South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott M. Behren, Esq.
      BEHREN LAW FIRM
      2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 636-3802
      Facsimile: (772) 252-3365
      E-mail: Scott@behrenlaw.com


JOY GLOBAL: Shareholders Sue Over Planned Komatsu America Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA GORDON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. JOY GLOBAL INC., EDWARD L. DOHENY II,
STEVEN L. GERARD, MARK J. GLIEBE, JOHN T. GREMP, JOHN NILS HANSON,
GALE E. KLAPPA, RICHARD B. LOYND, P. ERIC SIEGERT, and JAMES H.
TATE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-1153 (E.D. Wis., alleges
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act in connection with
the proposed merger between Joy and Komatsu America Corp., the
U.S.-based subsidiary of the Japanese multinational corporation
Komatsu Ltd.

JOY GLOBAL INC. is a leading provider of advanced equipment,
systems and direct services for the global mining industry.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

        - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: 212-983-9330
     Fax: 212-983-9331


JPMORGAN CHASE: Transferred "Dahlgren" Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jonas Dahlgren, Stuart Farber,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., Case No. 3:12-
cv-02367 GPC BGS, was transferred from the Southern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
06417-BRO-FFM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff Jonas Dahlgren is represented by:

      Joshua B. Swigart, Eq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Daniel R. Forde, Esq.
      HOFFMAN AND FORDE ATTORNEY AT LAW
      3033 Fifth Avenue Suite 225
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 546-7880
      Facsimile: (619) 546-7881
      E-mail: dforde@hoffmanforde.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ashley R. Fickel, Esq.
      Christopher David Lee, Esq.
      Jason T. Riddick, Esq.
      DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
      333 South Grand Avenue Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 457-1800
      Facsimile: (213) 457-1850
      E-mail: afickel@dykema.com
              clee@dykema.com
              jriddick@dykema.com

         - and -

      Joseph Duffy, Esq.
      MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
      300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 612-2500
      Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
      E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com

         - and -

      Tricia A. Takagi, Esq.
      DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
      1761 E. St. Andrew Place
      Santa Ana, CA 92705
      Telephone: (714) 247-6245
      E-mail: tricia.takagi@db.com


KELLY SERVICES: Still Defends "Hillson" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2016, that the Company is a party
to a pending nationwide class action lawsuit entitled Hillson
et.al. v Kelly Services. The suit alleges that current and former
temporary employees of Kelly Services are entitled to monetary
damages for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act requirement
that the notice and disclosure form provided to employees for
purposes of conducting a background screening be a standalone
document.

On April 20, 2016 the parties entered into a formal settlement
agreement. The parties still must secure court approval of the
settlement. In light of amounts previously expensed and
anticipated recoveries from third parties, Kelly recorded an
accrual in the fourth quarter of 2015 of $4.1 million to reflect
the expected cost of the tentative settlement.

The Company is continuously engaged in litigation arising in the
ordinary course of its business, such as matters alleging
employment discrimination, alleging wage and hour violations or
enforcing the restrictive covenants in the Company's employment
agreements. The Company has recently experienced an increase in
its litigation volume, including cases where claimants seek class
action certification. While there is no expectation that any of
these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations, financial position or cash flows,
litigation is always subject to inherent uncertainty and the
Company is not able to reasonably predict if any matter will be
resolved in a manner that is materially adverse to the Company.


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Karth" Shareholder Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIM KARTH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., RON
BENTSUR, SCOTT A. HOLMES, GREGORY P. MADISON, and JAMES F.
OLIVIERO, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-11745 (D. Mass., August 26,
2016), was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Defendant Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
securities between September 2, 2013 through August 1, 2016
inclusive.

Keryx BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on bringing therapies to market to treat people with
kidney disease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Steven P. Harte, Esq.
     Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617) 398-5600
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
             steven@blockesq.com
             bradley@blockesq.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a New York
court has taken the motions to dismiss a consolidated class action
lawsuit under submission.

On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("S.D. of New York"). This action was
consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints
subsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno. The
complaints asserted violations of federal securities laws based on
allegations that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh)
made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or
misleading statements in the Company's press releases and public
filings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts,
costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified
relief.

On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company's
motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. of
California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted
the Company's motion to deem the consolidated cases related to the
Saratoga litigation.

On February 8, 2016, the N.D. of California granted an unopposed
motion to appoint Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
as Lead Plaintiff. On March 19, 2016, Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint. On April 29, 2016, Marvell and
each of the individual defendants each filed motions to dismiss.
The hearing on the motions to dismiss took place on July 29, 2016
and the court took the matter under submission.


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Hearing Date on Bid to Dismiss Not Yet Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxpoint Interactive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing date for the
Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit in New York has
not yet been set.

The Company said, "We, certain of our officers and directors, and
certain investment banking firms who acted as underwriters in
connection with our initial public offering, have been named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed August 31,
2015 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act by not including
information regarding customer concentration, which the complaint
characterizes as a known trend and/or significant factor required
to be disclosed under federal securities regulations. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and other costs."

"The Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff on November 18, 2015, and on
January 19, 2016 the Lead Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint that repeats the same substantive allegations included
in the initial complaint and continues to seek unspecified
damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
on March 24, 2016. The Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to that
motion on May 9, 2016, and we filed a reply brief on June 8, 2016.
A hearing date for our motion to dismiss has not yet been set,
however, the Court may rule on the motion without hearing oral
arguments.

"We dispute the claims alleged in the lawsuit and are defending
this matter vigorously."


MERILU PIZZA: "Mayoral-Climico" Suit Claims Labor Laws Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRO MAYORAL-CLIMICO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MERILU PIZZA AL METRO, INC. d/b/a Merilu
Pizza Al Metro; and MARILENA GRANATO, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-
06762 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law, arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

MERILU PIZZA AL METRO, INC. d/b/a Merilu Pizza Al Metro is a New
York Pizza Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324
     E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


NGM INSURANCE: Faces AES Demolition Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against NGM Insurance
Company, Transtar Motors LLC, Unknown Insurance Company Four,
Unknown Insurance Company One, Unknown Insurance Company Three,
and Unknown Insurance Company Two.

The case is captioned AES Demolition Inc., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. NGM Insurance Company, Transtar
Motors LLC, Unknown Insurance Company Four, Unknown Insurance
Company One, Unknown Insurance Company Three, and Unknown
Insurance Company Two, Case No. 16-005588-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
August 25, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger D. Mason II, Esq.
      ROGER D MASON II PA
      5135 W Cypress St., Suite 105
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 304-2131

PERRIGO COMPANY: Securities Action in New Jersey Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the securities class
action lawsuit in New Jersey remains pending.

The Company said, "On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a
securities case against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph
Papa, in the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v.
Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purports to represent a class of
shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11,
2016, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Securities
Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 14(e) against
both defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr.
Papa. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by us
and the former executive to defend against the hostile takeover
bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November
13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleges that we provided inadequate
disclosure concerning alleged integration problems related to the
Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015 through May
11, 2016. The case is in an early stage."

"Four different plaintiff groups have sought appointment as lead
plaintiff/lead counsel. The court will decide in the near term who
will represent the purported class. Once the court has chosen a
lead plaintiff, the plaintiff will likely file an amended
complaint and the defendants will then have an opportunity to make
a motion to dismiss the case.

"A substantially similar case making virtually the same
allegations for the same class period against the same defendants
was filed in the Southern District of New York on June 21, 2016
(AMI - Gov't Employees Provident Fund Mgmt Co. v. Papa, et al.).
The plaintiff in the AMI case voluntarily dismissed its action on
July 12, 2016.


PERRIGO COMPANY: "Schwieger" Action Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the class action
lawsuit, Schwieger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., remains
stayed pending the case in New Jersey.

The Company said, "On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a
securities class action against us and five individual defendants
Mr. Papa, our former Executive Vice President and General Manager
of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, our Chief Executive Officer John
Hendrickson and our Board members Gary Kunkle, Jr. and Laurie
Brlas alleging violations of Israeli law in the District Court of
Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Schwieger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.).

On June 15, 2016, Perrigo filed a motion to stay the case pending
the outcome of the securities class action pending in the New
Jersey federal court. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
The Israeli court granted the motion on the same day, and the
action is stayed.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Motion to Appeal in Eltroxin Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that Perrigo's motion to
appeal the decision to certify the class action related to the
Eltroxin product remains pending.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by our
subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included
our subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or
Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product,
and various healthcare providers who provide healthcare services
as part of the compulsory healthcare system in Israel.

One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight
applications were consolidated into one application. The
applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version
of Eltroxin in Israel.

The consolidated application generally alleges that the
respondents: (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and
physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to
inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the
new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the
appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they
incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that
otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware
of the reformulation; (b) adverse events to some patients
resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have
been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patients' lack of
informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May
17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining
respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

On June 16, 2015, Perrigo submitted a motion for permission to
appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court
together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action
until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. Perrigo
has filed its statement of defense to the underlying proceedings
and the underlying proceedings have been stayed pending a decision
on the motion to appeal.

The hearing on Perrigo's motion to appeal the decision to certify
the class action was held on July 11, 2016.

"At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome or the
liability, if any, associated with this claim," the Company said.


PINGTAN MARINE: New York Class Action Lawsuit Closed
----------------------------------------------------
Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has
entered final judgment on July 20, 2016 and closed a class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "On January 14, 2015, Paul Fila, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against us and certain of our executive officers and directors,
entitled Fila v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. et al, No. 15 Civ.
267 (AJN)."

"On July 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that our public
securities filings in 2013 and 2014 contained materially false and
misleading statements that we received 100% of the annual net
income and net profit from Fujian Provincial County Ocean Fishing
Group, Ltd. when it allegedly did not. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

"On September 11, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, arguing that the amended complaint fails to state a
claim against the defendants.

"On July 19, 2016, the court entered an order granting our motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, and ordering that the case be
closed. The court entered final judgment on July 20, 2016 and
closed the case. Plaintiffs have the right appeal the dismissal of
their amended complaint.

"We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, given the
unpredictability of litigation, there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit."


PUNA GEOTHERMAL: "Douvris" Class Suit Removed to Hawaii Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned George Douvris, Stephanie
Douvris, Michael Hale, Cheryl Carocci, Hillary E. Wilt, Christina
Bryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Puna Geothermal Venture and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 16-1-
0290 was removed from Third Circuit Court, State of Hawaii to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00472-BMK-NONE to the proceeding.

Puna Geothermal Venture operates a commercial geothermal power
plant located at 14-3860 Pohoiki Rd, Pahoa, HI 96778.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles M. Heaukulani, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES M HEAUKULANI
      P.O. Box 4475
      Hilo, HI 96720
      Telephone: (808) 895-0615
      E-mail: bigislandlaw@earthlink.net

         - and -

      Gary Charles Zamber, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GARY C. ZAMBER
      21 Waianuenue Avenue, Suite 3
      Hilo, HI 96778
      Telephone: (808) 969-3600
      E-mail: gzamber@gmail.com

         - and -

      Patrick Kyle Smith, Esq.
      LYNCH, HOPPER, SALZANO & SMITH
      970 N. Kalaheo, Pali Palms, Ste A301
      Kailua, HI 96734
      Telephone: (808) 791-9555
      Facsimile: (808) 791-9556
      E-mail: kyle@lynchhoppersmith.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Judy A. Tanaka, Esq.
      Maile Osika, Esq.
      Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Esq.
      Paul Alston, Esq.
      ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING
      American Savings Bank Tower
      1001 Bishop St Ste 1800
      Honolulu, HI 96813
      Telephone: 524-1800
      Facsimile: (808) 441-6524
      E-mail: judy.tanaka@ahfi.com
              maos@ahfi.com
              nkacprowski@ahfi.com
              palston@ahfi.com

REMIX T-SHIRT: Faces "Lipski" Class Suit in Florida Cir. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Remix T-Shirt
Company, LLC, Fred Olivo, and Christina Goffe.

The case is captioned Deborah Lipski, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated employees v. Remix T-Shirt Company, LLC, Fred
Olivo, and Christina Goffe, Case No. CACE16015704 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
August 26, 2016).

The Defendants operate a screen printing company in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott M. Behren, Esq.
      BEHREN LAW FIRM
      2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 636-3802
      Facsimile: (772) 252-3365
      E-mail: Scott@behrenlaw.com


RESONANT INC: Scheduling Conference Set for October 24
------------------------------------------------------
Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has set a
scheduling conference to take place on October 24, 2016, in the
securities class action litigation.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, naming us, Terry
Lingren and John Philpott as defendants. The three lawsuits were
consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (VBKx), and
the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs."

"On September 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal securities
laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter
of our May 29, 2014 IPO. On February 8, 2016, the court granted
our motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

"On February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second
amended complaint. In the consolidated second amended complaint,
the plaintiffs purport to be acting on behalf of a class
consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between
November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015, or the Class Period, as well
as a class of persons or entities who purchased or acquired our
shares in (or traceable to) our IPO. The plaintiffs allege that,
as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations,
prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but
have not specified the amount of damages being sought in the
action.

"On March 22, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
second amended complaint. On July 11, 2016, the court entered an
order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss.
The court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to
plaintiffs' claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
court also granted our motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised on alleged
misstatements made on February 26, 2015.

"The court denied our motion to dismiss with respect to
plaintiffs' claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
and with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the
extent those claims are premised on alleged misstatements made in
November and December of 2014 and January of 2015. The court also
granted plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint.

"As a result of the court's order, there are no remaining claims
pending against the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO.

"On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs notified the court that they have
elected not to further amend the complaint.

"On August 8, 2016, we filed a motion asking the court to certify
for immediate appeal its order denying our motion to dismiss, and
to stay the proceedings pending any such appeal. It is not known
when the court will rule on that motion. The court has set a
scheduling conference to take place on October 24, 2016."


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Defends Morning Song Bird Food Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the Company
remains a defendant in the case, In re Morning Song Bird Food
Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB.

The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims
associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and
a plea agreement entered into in previously pending government
proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, a purported class action on behalf of all
persons and entities in the United States who purchased certain
bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of millions of
dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential,
and restitution), punitive and treble damages; injunctive and
declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to
vigorously defend the consolidated action. At this point in the
proceedings, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate a
probable loss, if any, associated with the action and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's
condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to the
action. There can be no assurance that this action, whether as a
result of an adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense
costs, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


SPARK NETWORKS: "Werner" Class Action Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a judge has approved
the settlement in the case, Werner, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc.
and Spark Networks USA, LLC and Wright, et al. v. Spark Networks,
Inc., Spark Networks USA, LLC, et al.

On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action
Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks,
Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks").
The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website
ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of
sexual orientation.  The Werner Complaint requests the following
relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment
interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just
and appropriate.

On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class
Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco against Spark
Networks, Inc.  The Wright Complaint alleges that Spark Networks,
Inc.'s commercial dating services including ChristianMingle.com,
LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com,
MilitarySinglesConnection.com and AdventistSinglesConnection.com
violate the Unruh Act by allegedly intentionally and arbitrarily
discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  The Wright
Complaint requests the following relief: a declaratory judgment, a
preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory penalties,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and
an award for any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.

A motion filed by Spark Networks to coordinate the two matters in
Los Angeles Superior Court was granted. The parties have reached a
settlement including the following terms:  (1) individual
settlement payments of $4,000 each in statutory damages and $5,000
each in service awards to plaintiffs Werner and Wright, and (2)
$450,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to compensate Werner and
Wright's counsel for their time and out-of-pocket expenses.

On April 19, 2016, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for an
order granting approval of the settlement. On June 27, 2016, the
judge approved the settlement during the hearing on the Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

As of June 30, 2016, the Company has reduced its accrual to
$230,000 for the probable loss related to resolving this matter,
which reflects insurance recoveries from Scottsdale Insurance
Company ("Scottsdale"). All amounts have been paid subsequent to
June 30, 2016.


SPARK NETWORKS: Sept. 12 Hearing for Ben-Jacobs Settlement Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Israeli
Consumer Actions Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd., Gever
vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland vs. Spark Networks
(Israel) Ltd., a court has set a date for a hearing on September
12, 2016 regarding the parties' motion to approve the settlement
agreement and the Consumer Council's objection.

Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging
inter alia violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of
1981.  Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark Israel") was served
with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class
Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014.  The plaintiff
alleges that Spark Israel refused to cancel her subscription and
provide a refund for unused periods and claims that such a refusal
is in violation of the Consumer Protection Law.

Spark Israel was served with a Statement of Claim and a motion to
Certify it as a Class Action in the Gever action on January 21,
2014.  The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel renewed his one
month subscription without receiving his positive agreement in
advance and claims that such renewal is prohibited under the
Consumer Protection Law and its regulations.

Spark Israel was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to
Certify it as a Class Action in the Korland action on February 12,
2014.  The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel refused to give her
a full refund and charged her the price of a one month
subscription to the JDate website in violation of the Consumer
Protection Law.

In each of these three cases, the plaintiff is seeking personal
damages and damages on behalf of a defined group. On May 8, 2014,
the Court granted Spark Israel's motion to consolidate all three
cases. All three cases are now consolidated and will be litigated
jointly. Spark Israel's combined response to these motions to
certify the class actions was filed November 1, 2014, and the
plaintiffs responded to the combined response. The parties had a
hearing before the judge on December 24, 2014.

Following the hearing the judge ordered that the pleadings filed
by the parties be transferred to the Israel Consumer Council
("ICC") so that the ICC can provide its position as to the
parties' allegations within 90 days. The ICC issued its opinion on
April 1, 2015.  Following the filing of the ICC opinion, the
parties filed briefs addressing the ICC opinion.

On January 7, 2016, the parties advised the Court that they have
agreed on the terms of a settlement agreement, and jointly moved
to approve the agreement and give it the effect of a judgment.
According to the terms of the settlement agreement, clients who
bought a subscription to JDate.co.il on October 12, 2008 or later
will be entitled to receive certain benefits. The settlement
agreement, which provides for compensation and legal fees, will
only come into effect if the court approves it.

On January 14, 2016 the Court ordered the parties to publish the
terms of the proposed settlement agreement. The Court allowed for
the Attorney General or any person who wishes to object to the
settlement or exclude himself from the class to file their
position with the Court through March 10, 2016.

On March 10, 2016, the Consumer Council filed an objection to the
settlement agreement, arguing inter alia that the benefits offered
to the clients are insufficient, and that the Company's new
business model does not comply with certain legal requirements.
The Company and the plaintiffs filed their responses on March 24,
2016.

On April 14, 2016, the Attorney General notified the Court that it
has no objection to the settlement agreement. The court set a date
for a hearing on September 12, 2016 regarding the parties' motion
to approve the settlement agreement and the Consumer Council's
objection. As of June 30, 2016, the Company has recorded an
accrual of $52,000 for the probable cost related to resolving this
matter.


TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: Settlement in "Thompson" Case Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
Trimble Navigation Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2016, that the Court has issued a
final order and judgment granting approval of the proposed
settlement, and awarded plaintiffs $250,000 in fees and costs as
agreed to by the parties in the class action lawsuit by Rachel
Thompson.

The Company said, "On March 12, 2015, Rachel Thompson filed a
putative class action complaint in California Superior Court
against us, the members of our Board of Directors, and JP Morgan
Chase Bank.  The suit alleged that our Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary obligations to our shareholders by entering into a
credit agreement with JP Morgan Chase Bank that contains certain
change of control provisions that plaintiff contends are
disadvantageous to shareholders.  The complaint sought declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, and costs of the action but did not
seek monetary damages."

"By order filed February 1, 2016, the Court granted preliminary
approval of a proposed settlement reached by the parties, which
would modify one provision of the credit agreement and permit the
named plaintiff to seek recovery of attorney's fees. The Court
also ordered that notice be provided to shareholders, and
scheduled a hearing on June 10, 2016 to consider any objections to
the settlement.

"On June 10, 2016, without any objections, the Court issued a
final order and judgment granting approval of the proposed
settlement, and awarded plaintiffs $250,000 in fees and costs as
agreed to by the parties."

From time to time, we are also involved in litigation arising out
of the ordinary course of our business. There are no other
material legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation
incidental to the business, to which we or any of our subsidiaries
is a party or of which any of our or our subsidiaries' property is
subject.


YIRENDAI LTD: Faces "Lefter" Securities Suit in Calif. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRU LEFTER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YIRENDAI LTD., YIHAN FANG, and
YU CONG, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-06437 (C.D. Cal., August 26,
2016), was filed on behalf of persons and entities that acquired
Yirendai securities between May 11, 2016, and August 24, 2016,
inclusive.

YIRENDAI LTD. is a peer-to-peer lending company headquartered in
China that purportedly connects investors and individual
borrowers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

        - and -

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Phone: (215) 638-4847
     Fax: (215) 638-4867




                            *********

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  * * *