CAR_Public/161114.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 14, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 227




                            Headlines

ACORD CORP: Appeal in "Snyder" Class Action Underway
ADEPTUS HEALTH: Faces Okla. Law Enforcement Retirement Sys. Suit
AGRIBANK FCB: Diverse Partners Sues Over Note Redemption Practice
AIRBNB INC: "Selden" Suit Sent to Arbitration
ALIMAR SECURITY: Court Rejects Settlement of "Williams" Suit

AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Removes "Sanchez" Suit to S.D. California
APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Plaintiffs Oppose Motion to Dismiss
ARS NATIONAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Mizrahy Alleges
AUJLA FREIGHT: Faces "Abid" Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
BANK OF AMERICA: "Brill" Sues Over Excessive Debit Card Charges

BEL-AIR DINER: "Zamorano" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
BHRAC LLC: Faces "Pascale" Lawsuit Under California Labor Code
BIG LEAGUE DREAMS: Appeals Court Sends Eaton Suit to Arbitration
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CANTON'S PEARLS: "Jackson" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Ohio Supreme Court Nixes "Lutz" Suit
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING: Baclaan et al. Suits Remanded
CONSOL ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in "Hale" Remains Pending
CONSOL ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in "Addison" Underway
CRISPY DELIGHT: Faces "Romano" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA

CRYSTAL SPOON: Faces "Wilson" Suit Under NY Labor Law, Wage Act
CUCAGNA LTD: Faces "Rowland" Suit in California Superior Court
CVS PHARMACY: Bolin Dismissed as Plaintiff in "Corcoran" Suit
CV SCIENCES: Titus' Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
DRILL-CHEM LLC: Faces "Woodruff" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE: Court Won't Stay Waste Away Suit
FCA US LLC: "Lynd" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2744
FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEMORIAL: M.D. Fla. to Hear State Law Claims
GAL BI MA EUL INC: Violates FLSA, "Buestan" Class Suit Alleges
GEICO GENERAL: A&M Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to S.D. Florida

GENERAL MILLS: "Scott" Suit Transferred From Calif. to Minnesota
HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: "Halloran" Plaintiffs Want to Amend Suit
HEALTH CARE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Sawyer" Suit Says
INTELLICORP RECORDS: "Legrand" Class Action Remains Pending
INTELLICORP RECORDS: Ohio Court Remanded "DiSalvo" Class Action

INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Lanier Asks 2nd Circuit for Rehearing
INTERSIL CORPORATION: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Sale to Renesas
INTERTHINX INC: Still Defending "Webber" Class Action in Missouri
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: "Depianti" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
JANSSEN RESEARCH: "Haynes" Files Suit Over Xarelto Drug

JONATHAN'S GRILLE-GREEN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KRACO ENTERPRISES: Faces "Succi" Class Suit in C.D. California
L & M FOOTWEAR: Sued Over Failure to Provide Wage Statements
MANPOWERGROUP US: "Francis" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay
MEXICAN GASTRONOMY: "Luperon-Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

MUENNICHOW & ASSOCIATES: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued by Simms in Arizona for Violating FCRA
NAVIOS MARITIME: Sued Over Failure to Pay Share Holders Dividend
NEW YORK: "Puscher" Sues Board of Elections Over NVRA Violation
NORDSTROM INC: Protective Order Entered in "Aghdasy" Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
NOVA RESTAURANTS: "Ojeda" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
OMEGA EXPRESS: "Luckey" Action Alleges Discrimination
PACE OPPORTUNITY: "Ellison" Sues Over Overtime, Unpaid Premiums
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Offer of Judgment Doesn't Moot "Conway" Suit

PRISONER TRANSPORTATION: Randle Sues Over Civil Rights Violations
PROFESSIONAL CLEANING: Faces "Kirtman" Class Suit in New York
PTG ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in "Stevenson" Case Has Final OK
RECONTRUST COMPANY: Dutcher et al. Fail to Revive Class Suit
SENTRY INSURANCE: Settlement in "Coleman" Case Has Final Approval

SHR TRANSPORT: Faces "Abid" Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
SJP FRAMERS: "Fernando" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SLOMINS INC: "Boyle" Suit Removed to New Jersey District Court
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Removes "Williams" Suit to Mass. District Court
STELLA ORTON: "Troshin" Suit Alleges NY Labor Law Violations

STICK MAN: "Brite" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Decision in Owner-Operator Suit Forthcoming
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Misclassification Suit Remains Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Burnell" Class Action Still Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Rudsell" Class Action Remains Stayed

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Parties Engaging in Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Mares" Suit to Proceed into Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "McKinsty" Class Suit Remains Stayed
TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Garfield" Suit Over DTS Merger
TOPCO HOLDINGS: Falsely Marketed Granola Products, Action Claims

TREMONT TOWING: "Tapanes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
WELLS FARGO: BlackRock Plaintiffs' New Complaint Dismissed
WESTERN UNION: "Douglas" Case Settlement Awaiting Court Approval
WESTERN UNION: Pincus' Class Certification Motion Still Pending
WHEATON FRANCISCAN: Bid to Transfer Curtis & Bowen Suits Denied

WORKERS' CREDIT: Faces "Velleman" Suit Over Repossession Policies


                            *********


ACORD CORP: Appeal in "Snyder" Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the appeal in the
case, Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al., remains pending.

On August 1, 2014 the Company was served with an Amended Complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action
is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120
defendants, including the Company and Insurance Services Office,
Inc.  Except for the Company, ISO and the defendant Acord
Corporation, which provides standard forms to assist in insurance
transactions, most of the other defendants are property and
casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim conspired to
underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that the Company
and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state
and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state
common law.

On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the
Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a
new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct
errors as the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint
similarly alleges that the defendants conspired to underpay
property damage claims, but does not specifically allege what role
the Company or ISO played in the alleged conspiracy. It claims
that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants,
violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well
as state common law, and seeks all available relief including
injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as
attorneys' fees.

On January 15, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss all claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal on
February 16, 2016. The Court granted defendants' motion to strike
the motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2016 and gave
plaintiffs leave to file another motion for reconsideration in
accordance with the rules which plaintiffs filed on March 11, 2016
and, which was denied by the Court on April 25, 2016.

On April 1, 2016, plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's January 15, 2016 Order, which dismissed all claims in the
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs also filed an appeal of the
Court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, which the Court
of Appeals for the 10th Circuit consolidated with the appeal of
the Court's January 15, 2016 dismissal.

Appellants filed their brief in support of the consolidated appeal
on July 21, 2016 and Appellees filed their brief in response on
September 21, 2016.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides its customers proprietary data
that, combined with analytic methods, create embedded decision
support solutions.


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Faces Okla. Law Enforcement Retirement Sys. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adeptus Health Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, that a
complaint was filed on October 27, 2016, by the Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  The
complaint also names as defendants, among others, the members of
the Company's board of directors, Sterling Partners and the joint
book-running managers in the Company's secondary public offering
of shares of its Class A common stock completed in July 2015 (the
"SPO").  The lawsuit, a putative class action filed on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, alleges material misstatements and
omissions in the registration statement relating to the SPO and in
the Company's SEC filings and other corporate reports and public
announcements in violation of the federal securities laws.  The
action seeks relief on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
shares of Class A common stock in the SPO under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's shares of Class A common
stock between April 23, 2015 and November 16, 2015 under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Company
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the action.


AGRIBANK FCB: Diverse Partners Sues Over Note Redemption Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIVERSE PARTNERS, LP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AGRIBANK, FCB, Defendant, INDEX
NO. 655819/2016 (N.Y. Sup., November 4, 2016), alleges untimely
and impermissible Par Call Redemption of Subordinated Notes, which
breached the terms of a Fiscal Agency Agreement and Form of
Security.


AgriBank is a Farm Credit System bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
     Gordon Z. Novod, Esq.
     Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
     Jonathan D. Park, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: 646-722-8500
     Fax: 646-722-8501
     E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
             gnovod@gelaw.com
             cmoyna@gelaw.com
             jpark@gelaw.com


AIRBNB INC: "Selden" Suit Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher R. Cooper granted Airbnb Inc.'s motion to compel
arbitration of the case captioned GREGORY SELDEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AIRBNB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00933 (CRC)
(D.C.).

Gregory Selden, who is African American, filed suit against Airbnb
for race discrimination on behalf of himself and fellow African-
American travelers.  Likening Airbnb to a hotel and its hosts to
rental agents or hotel employees, Selden sought to hold the
company responsible under federal civil rights laws for the
discriminatory conduct of those who offer accommodations on its
website.

Airbnb moved to compel arbitration of Selden's claims because the
company's standard Terms of Service -- which it claimed Selden
accepted by signing up to use the site -- contain a clause
requiring all disputes to be resolved by an arbitrator.  Civil
lawsuits with a potential jury trial were prohibited.  As are
class actions.

Selden responded that no contract exists -- and therefore the
arbitration clause does not apply -- because the sign-up process
did not place him on adequate notice that he was agreeing to
Airbnb's Terms of Service, including mandatory arbitration.  He
further argued that, even if a contract was formed, the
arbitration provision does not apply to discrimination suits and
is unconscionable in any event.

Judge Cooper granted Airbnb's motion.  The judge explained that no
matter one's opinion of the widespread and controversial practice
of requiring consumers to relinquish their fundamental right to a
jury trial -- and to forego class actions -- as a condition of
simply participating in today's digital economy, the applicable
law is clear: Mutual arbitration provisions in electronic
contracts -- so long as their existence is made reasonably known
to consumers -- are enforceable, in commercial disputes and
discrimination cases alike.  Judge Cooper found that Airbnb's
sign-up procedures were sufficiently clear to place Selden on
notice that he was agreeing to the company's Terms of Service when
he created an account.

A full-text copy of Judge Cooper's November 1, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/KUHndu from Leagle.com.

GREGORY SELDEN, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Nyombi --
anyombi@enylaw.com -- EMEJURU AND NYOMBI, LLC, Ikechukwu Emejuru -
- iemejuru@enylaw.com -- EMEJURU & NYOMBI LLC.

AIRBNB, INC., Defendant, represented by Ellen S. Kennedy --
ellen.kennedy@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP & Sean
Marotta -- sean.marotta@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP.


ALIMAR SECURITY: Court Rejects Settlement of "Williams" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARCUS WILLIAMS, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and AARON
BRADFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALIMAR SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Civil
Case No. 13-12732 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker denied
without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for approval of class
settlement.  The judge also denied as moot the defendant's motion
to decertify collective action class.

The plaintiffs filed the putative collective action on June 30,
2013, claiming that Alimar Security, Inc. violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay its alarm response security
officers time and a half for overtime work.  The Honorable Bernard
Friedman, to whom this case originally was assigned, conditionally
certified the matter as a collective action on November 21, 2013.
On April 28, 2016, Alimar filed a motion for decertification.
Thereafter, the parties engaged in a settlement conference before
Magistrate Judge David Grand, where a settlement was reached.  The
plaintiffs therefore filed a Motion for Approval of Class
Settlement on August 16, 2016, and submitted a settlement
agreement for in camera review.  Alimar has not responded to the
motion and presumably does not object to the motion.

Judge Parker found that the plaintiffs offered no reasons why the
settlement is fair and reasonable.  The judge noted that the
plaintiffs did not provide the Court with sufficient information
to make that determination.  As such, Judge Parker concluded that
the Court has no means for analyzing whether the settlement is a
reasonable compromise of their claims.

Judge Parker also found that the plaintiffs have not provided the
Court with adequate information to assess the reasonableness of
the attorney's fee award, and presented no argument as to why the
settlement agreement should remain confidential and the
presumption of public access to that document should not apply.

Because Judge Parker cannot conclude at this time that the
parties' agreement is fair and reasonable, the judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion without prejudice.  Further, in light of the
terms of the settlement agreement, Judge Parker also denied as
moot Alimar's Motion to Decertify Collective Action Class.

A full-text copy of Judge Parker's October 31, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/43JJjr from Leagle.com.

Marcus Williams, Michael Taylor, Aaron Bradford, Plaintiffs,
represented by David A. Hardesty, Gold Star Law.

Alimar Security, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brett J. Miller -
- millerbr@butzel.com -- Butzel Long.


AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Removes "Sanchez" Suit to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Sanchez v. Ameriflight, LLC, et al., Case No.
37-02014-00023517-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02733-
MMA-BGS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

Plaintiff David Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          AMARTIN LAW, PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308-6880
          Facsimile: (619) 308-6881
          E-mail: alisa@pattersonlawgroup.com

Defendant Ameriflight, LLC, is represented by:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com


APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Plaintiffs Oppose Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the plaintiffs filed an opposition brief against the
defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit.

On August 31, 2016, the Company, pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 26,
2016 (as amended, the "Merger Agreement") acquired Apollo
Residential Mortgage, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("AMTG"). AMTG
merged with and into the Company ("Merger") with the Company
continuing as the surviving entity. As a result, all operations of
AMTG and its former subsidiaries are consolidated with the
operations of the Company. As of September 30, 2016, substantially
all of the assets acquired from AMTG had been sold.

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

A putative class and derivative lawsuit was later filed in the
Court captioned Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., No.
24-C-16-002610.

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

The operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that
the proposed First Merger involves inadequate consideration, was
the result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and
includes unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers. It also alleges that the transactions
with Athene are unfair and that the registration statement on Form
S-4 filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains materially
misleading disclosures and omits certain material information. The
operative complaint seeks, among other things, certification of
the proposed class, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the First
Merger, unspecified damages, and an award of other unspecified
attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a
stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel,
which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016.  On
August 18, 2016, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated action, and the plaintiffs filed an opposition brief
on October 6, 2016. The defendants believe that the claims
asserted in the complaints are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuits.

The Company primarily originates, acquires, invests in and manages
performing commercial first mortgage loans, subordinate
financings, commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") and
other commercial real estate-related debt investments. These asset
classes are referred to as the Company's target assets.


ARS NATIONAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Mizrahy Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sigalit Mizrahy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06079
(E.D.N.Y., November 2, 2016), is brought over alleged violations
of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services.  The Escondido, California-based Company caters to
financial services organizations; banks; and credit card
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
          2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 339-0856
          Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
          E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


AUJLA FREIGHT: Faces "Abid" Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mudasar Abid, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aujla
Freight Carrier Inc. and Does 1 - 10, Case No. 34-2016-00202855-
CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., November 3, 2016),
arises from employment-related disputes.

Aujla Freight Carrier Inc. is an asset based trucking company in
Elk Grove, California.  The Company operates both dry van and
refrigerated van freight manufacturing and warehousing industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

BANK OF AMERICA: "Brill" Sues Over Excessive Debit Card Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daria Brill, Andrea Morales and Gale Zylstra, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank
Of America, N.A. and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03817
(D. Ariz., November 3, 2016), seeks monetary damages, restitution,
declaratory relief and injunctive relief resulting from unjust
enrichment, conversion and violation of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act and Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Bank of America is the exclusive provider of debit cards issued to
Arizona inmates upon their release from an Arizona corrections
facility. Plaintiffs were former inmates at various Arizona
corrections facilities. They were issued debit cards and accuse
Defendants of excessive fees and charges for the use of the said
card.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jo Ann Niemi, Esq.
      ANAPOL WEISS
      8700 E. Vista Bonita Drive, Suite 268
      Scottsdale, AZ 85255
      Telephone: (480) 515-4745
      Facsimile: (480) 515-4744
      Email: lcoben@anapolweiss.com
             jniemi@anapolweiss.com
             ME@anapolweiss.com

             - and -

      Ruben Honik, Esq.
      David J. Stanoch, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Phone: (215) 985-9177
      Fax: (215) 985-4169
      Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com
             dstanoch@golombhonik.com


BEL-AIR DINER: "Zamorano" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Ambrosio Zamorano, Pablohern Andez, Sergio Hernandez, Juan Juarez
and Sergio Juarez, individually and on behalf of all putative
class members, Plaintiffs, v. Bel-Air Diner, Inc., 62 375 Main
Road LLC, Argyris Dellaportas, Patricia Dellaportas, Peter
Dellaportas and Kalergis Dellaportas, jointly and severally,
defendants, Case No. 713232/2016, (N.Y. Sup., November 3, 2016),
seeks compensatory damages, liquidated and/or punitive damages for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation and spread-of-
hours premium, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' and expert's fees, and such other and further relief as
the Court deems just and proper pursuant to New York Labor Laws.

Plaintiffs are former cooks, kitchen helpers and delivery
employees at Defendants' 24-hour service diner in Astoria, Queens,
New York and at their restaurant in Southold, New York. Defendant
allegedly did not compensate them at minimum wage for all hours
worked or provide overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40
hours in a given workweek.

Bel-Air Diner, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business at 31-91 21st Street, Long Island City, New York
11106 and operates as Bel Aire Diner.

62 375 Main Road LLC is a New York limited liability company with
its principal place of business at 62375 Route 25 Southold, New
York 11971 and operates as Six Three One Restaurant.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BHRAC LLC: Faces "Pascale" Lawsuit Under California Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Pascale, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, and as a private attorney general; Plaintiff, vs. BHRAC,
LLC dba BEVERLY HILLS RENT-A-CAR; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CCW-CAC-D-307 (Cal. Super., County
of Los Angeles, November 4, 2016) alleges, among others, violation
of the California Labor Code.

Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car offers a variety of luxury and exotic
vehicles for rent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
     Heather Davis, Esq.
     Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
     PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
     136 Main Street, Suite A
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Phone: (424) 290-3095
     Fax: (866) 264-7880


BIG LEAGUE DREAMS: Appeals Court Sends Eaton Suit to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEREK EATON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
BIG LEAGUE DREAMS MANTECA, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, No.
C079374 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Third
District, San Joaquin, reversed the trial court's order denying
Big League Dreams Manteca, LLC's (BLD) petition to compel
arbitration.

Derek Eaton brought a representative action under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) against BLD, his
former employer.  BLD moved to compel arbitration of Eaton's
claims based on an arbitration agreement Eaton signed upon
becoming a BLD employee.  The trial court denied the motion.

BLD appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying the
motion in reliance upon the anti-waiver rule announced in Iskanian
v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348
(Iskanian).

The appellate court found that unlike the arbitration agreement in
Iskanian, BLD's arbitration agreement with Eaton does not contain
an express waiver of the right to bring a representative claim.
Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that Iskanian's anti-
waiver rule is inapplicable, and reversed the trial court's order.

On remand, the appellate court directed the trial court to conduct
such further proceedings as may be required to determine whether
the parties' arbitration agreement encompasses representative PAGA
claims and whether incorporation of the Employment Dispute
Resolution Rules of the American Arbitration Association
constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of their intent to
delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  The
appellate court further said that if the trial court answers the
latter question in the affirmative, the court shall stay the
entire action pending the arbitrator's determination of the scope
of his or her jurisdiction to decide Eaton's representative PAGA
claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's November 2, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/9uTGCS from Leagle.com.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Smith, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. BJ'S Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01645-AJS (W.D. Penn.,
October 31, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BJ'S Restaurants, Inc. operates a fast, casual restaurant chain
with nearly 200 locations across the United States, including
several in California and Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
      ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      707 Grant Street Suite 2500
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
      Telephone: (412) 281-7229
      E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

         - and -

      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      JASON S. RATHOD, ESQUIRE MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
      412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 470-3520
      E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
              jrathod@classlawdc.com


CANTON'S PEARLS: "Jackson" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Jackson and Megan Blankenship, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Canton's Pearls,
LLC, Eric K. Hamilton, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03625 (D. Md.,
November 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs for
violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jackson and Blankenship worked as full-time servers at the
Defendants' Canton Dockside Crab House in Baltimore, Maryland.
They claim to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
      600 Jefferson Plaza, Ste. 304
      Rockville, MD 20852
      Tel: (301) 251-3752

            - and -

      Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq.
      401 Washington Avenue, Ste. 200
      Towson, MD 21204
      Tel: (410) 337-5411


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Ohio Supreme Court Nixes "Lutz" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Lutz et al. v. Chesapeake Appalachia,
L.L.C., No. 2015-0545  (Ohio), the Supreme Court of Ohio declined
to answer the question of law submitted by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
and dismissed the cause.

The action in the federal court is a putative class action in
which Regis and Marion Lutz, Leonard Yochman, Joseph Yochman, and
C.Y.Y., L.L.C., the landowner-lessors, claim that Chesapeake
Appalachia, L.L.C., the lessee, underpaid gas royalties under the
terms of their leases.  The leases in this case were signed in
1970 and 1971.  Both petitioner and respondents agreed that by the
early 1990s, deregulation had significantly changed the natural-
gas market.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, certified the following question to
Supreme Court of Ohio: "Does Ohio follow the 'at the well' rule
(which permits the deduction of post-production costs) or does it
follow some version of the 'marketable product' rule (which limits
the deduction of post-production costs under certain
circumstances)?"

The lessors asserted that under the language of the leases, which
specifies that royalties are to be paid based on "market value at
the well" or the "field market price," postproduction costs should
not be deducted from the sale price before the royalty payments
are calculated.

The lessee asserted that the plain language of a lease controls
and that when a lease specifies that the owner's royalty is based
on the value of the product at the well, any postproduction costs
must be deducted from the sale price to arrive at the well price
before the agreed-upon royalty can be calculated.

The Supreme Court held that under Ohio law, an oil and gas lease
is a contract that is subject to the traditional rules of contract
construction.  Because the rights and remedies of the parties are
controlled by the specific language of their lease agreement, the
Supreme Court declined to answer the question of law submitted by
the district court and dismissed the cause.

A full-text copy of the Court's November 2, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/RsrkwJ from Leagle.com.

Kirkland & Ellis L.L.P. and Daniel T. Donovan --
daniel.donovan@kirkland.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease,
L.L.P., and John K. Keller -- jkeller@vorys.com -- and Reed Smith,
L.L.P., Kevin C. Abbott -- kabbott@reedsmith.com -- and Nicolle R.
Snyder Bagnell -- nbagnell@reedsmith.com -- for petitioner.

Lowe, Eklund, & Wakefield Co., L.P.A., and James A. Lowe --
jlowe@lewlaw.com -- Law Office of Robert C. Sanders and Robert
Sanders -- rcsanders@rcsanderslaw.com -- for respondents.

Lija Kaleps-Clark, in support of petitioner for amici curiae Ohio
Oil and Gas Association, Artex Oil Company, Eclipse Resources I,
L.P., Enervest Operating, L.L.C., NGO Development Corporation,
Inc., Rex Energy Corporation, and Sierra Resources, L.L.C.

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., L. Bradford Hughes --
bhughes@porterwright.com -- and Christopher J. Baronzzi --
cbaronzzi@porterwright.com -- and Matthew A. Haynie, in support of
petitioner for amicus curiae American Petroleum Institute.

McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore and Bruce M. Kramer --
bkramer@mcginnislaw.com -- in support of petitioner for amicus
curiae Bruce M. Kramer.

Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., William J.
Williams, Scott M. Zunakowski, Gregory W. Watts, and Aletha M.
Carver, in support of neither side for amici curiae Sam Johnson,
Zehentbauer Family Land, L.P., Hanover Farms, L.P., and Bounty
Minerals, L.L.C.


COMBUSTION ENGINEERING: Baclaan et al. Suits Remanded
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LORENZO BACLAAN and NAOMI BACLAAN,
Plaintiffs, v. COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, ET AL., Defendants. GEORGE
H. TORO and VIVIAN TORO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. COMBUSTION
ENGINEERING, ET AL., Defendants. THEODORE K. HOPKINS and RUBY
HOPKINS, Plaintiffs, v. COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, ET AL.,
Defendants, Civil Nos. 03-00325 LEK-KSC, 03-00326 LEK-KSC, 03-
00401 LEK-KSC (D. Haw.), Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi granted the
plaintiffs' motion to remand and/or abstain and motion for leave
to name a new party defendant, and remanded the cases to state
court.

Class actions were initiated in state court on behalf of asbestos
disease personal injury or wrongful death plaintiffs who entered
into settlements with Combustion Engineering, Inc. (CE) from
approximately 1982 to 2000 in the Hawaii Asbestos Litigation.  The
plaintiffs alleged that they were induced to accept nuisance value
settlements through a scheme designed by the defendants to
withhold information during discovery.  The plaintiffs argued
that, because they entered into settlements based on fraudulent
discovery, they can sue those responsible for that fraud to
recover the difference between the settlement amounts and what the
fair value of the settlements would have been without the fraud.

The plaintiffs Lorenzo Baclaan; Naomi Baclaan; Eleanor C.
Benedict, individually, and as Special Administrator of the Estate
of Francis Benedict, deceased; Peter M.Y. Kim; and Lida Mae Kim
(collectively "the Baclaan Plaintiffs") filed their motion
("Baclaan Motion") on July 5, 2016.

The plaintiffs George H. Toro; Vivian Toro; Zeke H. Sakurai; Masae
Sakurai; Lolita F. Apo, individually and as Special Administrator
of the Estate of John K. Apo, deceased; and Violet Maii,
individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Samuel
K. Maii, deceased (collectively "the Toro Plaintiffs"), and
Plaintiffs Theodore K. Hopkins and Ruby Hopkins, et al.
(collectively "the Hopkins Plaintiffs") also filed similar motions
in their respective cases ("Toro Motion" and "Hopkins Motion,"
respectively).

Baclaan and Toro are class actions, and Hopkins has individual
plaintiffs.

The defendants The Travelers Insurance Company and The Travelers
Indemnity Company removed Baclaan and Toro to the Hawaii district
court based on: diversity jurisdiction; "related-to" bankruptcy
jurisdiction; and supplemental jurisdiction.

The Travelers Defendants removed the Hopkins case to the District
of Hawai'i bankruptcy court.  Because the removal was to the
bankruptcy court, the Travelers Defendants did not include
diversity jurisdiction as one of the bases for removal.  The
Travelers Defendants later filed a motion to withdraw the
reference to the bankruptcy court, and the motion was granted on
September 15, 2003.

The Baclaan Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand and/or abstain and
a motion for leave to name a new party defendant.  The Toro
Plaintiffs and Hopkins Plaintiffs also filed similar motions in
their respective cases.

The Baclaan Plaintiffs argued that diversity jurisdiction did not
exist at the time of removal because Peter C.-P. Char -- who was a
defendant in the original complaint -- was a Hawai'i resident.
They also argued that Char's death after the filing of the Baclaan
Complaint did not extinguish their claims against him.  However,
even if their claims against Char were extinguished, they
contended that the addition of Char Hamilton as a defendant is
appropriate, breaking complete diversity and requiring remand.

The Baclaan Plaintiffs also argued that "related-to" jurisdiction
did not exist at the time of removal because there was not enough
of a connection between their claims and CE's bankruptcy
proceeding.  Further, the Baclaan Plaintiffs added that even if
the district court would be inclined to conclude that there was
related-to jurisdiction, it should decline to exercise
jurisdiction on equitable grounds.

Finally, the Baclaan Plaintiffs argued that, because neither
diversity jurisdiction nor related-to jurisdiction existed, there
was no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims.

The Toro Plaintiffs and the Hopkins Plaintiffs raised the same
arguments, except that the Hopkins Plaintiffs did not raise
diversity arguments because diversity jurisdiction was not one of
the bases for removal in Hopkins.  The Hopkins Plaintiffs also
sought leave to add Char Hamilton as a defendant.

Judge Kobayashi concluded that, under Hawai'i law, the Baclaan
Plaintiffs' and the Toro Plaintiffs' claims against Char were
personal actions that they could not pursue after his death.  The
judge therefore concluded that, at the time of removal, there was
complete diversity amongst the parties, and that diversity
jurisdiction existed.

However, Judge Kobayashi, in the exercise of the court's
discretion, also concluded that the joinder of Char Hamilton in
Baclaan and Toro is in the interests of justice, and granted the
Baclaan Plaintiffs' and the Toro Plaintiffs' requests to join Char
Hamilton as a defendant.  Judge Kobayashi also granted the Hopkins
Plaintiffs' request to join Char Hamilton.

In light of the joinder of Char Hamilton in Baclaan and Toro,
Judge Kobayashi concluded that diversity jurisdiction no longer
exists because Char Hamilton is a Hawai'i resident, and there is
no longer complete diversity.

Judge Kobayashi also concluded that related-to bankruptcy
jurisdiction existed over the Plaintiffs' claims against CE at the
time of removal in all three cases.  The judge found that
equitable remand is appropriate in each case, considering that
these cases would not have an effect on the administration of CE's
bankruptcy estate.

Because Judge Kobayashi has concluded that equitable remand is
appropriate, the judge -- in the exercise of the court's
discretion -- declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in
the three cases.

A full-text copy of Judge Kobayashi's October 31, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/2Ls3Cs from Leagle.com.

Theodore K. Hopkins, Ruby Hopkins, Cecelia Ash, Esther Brown,
Karen Ann Moore, Cindy Willard, Claudia Cutsinger, Harriet K.
Chan, Debra Ann K. Chan, Jody Ann K. Chan, Clayton K. Chan, Sylvia
Chun, George T. Eguchi, Wallace T. Eguchi, Susan C. Saarela,
Sharon P. Kennedy, Pamela M. Umiamaka, Charles H. Ferreira, Deann
R. Ferreira, Teri G. Ferreira, Ronald A. Fial, Sheila A. Pearson,
Terrance J. Fial, Dianna J. Pacheco, Marlene Fisher, Beverly J.
Fleming, Elbert Fraticelli, Geraldo Guerrero, Sr., Constance P.
Guerrero, Christopher Guerrero, Donna J. Villafuerte, Gerard D.
Guerrero, Jamie M. Walters, Leeann R. Kangas, Martha Koenig-
Wolkoff, Estrella Larioza, Estrellita Chee, Tierina Larioza,
Carmelisa Larioza, Adriano Larioza, Martimiano Larioza, Doris
Leone, Sebastian Leone, Irwin Malzman, Lillian A. Malzman, Leslie
Malzman, Cynthia K. Coleman, James R. Farmer, Patricia J.
Ferreira, Beatrice R. Fial, Iris A. Hayata, Enid E. Kuchler,
Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony P. Takitani, Takitani, Agaran &
Jorgensen, Derek S. Nakamura, Central Pacific Plaza, Gary O.
Galiher, Galiher DeRobertis Ono & L. Richard DeRobertis, Galiher
DeRobertis Ono.

The Travelers Insurance Companies, Travelers Indemnity Company,
Defendants, represented by Andrew T. Frankel --
afrankel@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Barry R.
Ostrager, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Chet A. Kronenberg --
ckronenberg@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Deborah
L. Stein -- dstein@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,
Jeffrey S. Portnoy -- jportnoy@cades.com -- Cades Schutte &
Theodore D. C. Young -- tyoung@cades.com -- Cades Schuttle LLP.

Arter & Hadden, LLP, Defendant, represented by April A. Otterberg
-- aotterberg@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Donna C. Marron --
dmarron@bfrhawaii.com -- Bronster Fujichaku Robbins, Jeffrey D.
Colman -- jcolman@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice,
Kenneth S. Robbins -- krobbins@bfrhawaii.com -- Bronster Fujichaku
Robbins & Leighton M. Hara, Ota & Hara LLLC.

Robert B. Preston, Defendant, represented by Donna C. Marron,
Bronster Fujichaku Robbins, Kenneth S. Robbins, Bronster Fujichaku
Robbins & Leighton M. Hara, Ota & Hara LLLC.


CONSOL ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in "Hale" Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the Hale
Litigation, Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification
remains pending.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, and on June 23, 2015 CNX Gas Company filed its
Opposition to same. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on
September 18, 2015 and has not yet ruled.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


CONSOL ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in "Addison" Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the Addison
Litigation, Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification
remains pending.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class consists
of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict. The lawsuit
seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and damages
based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed to either pay
royalties due to these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them
less than required because of the alleged practice of improper
below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production
deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On August 19,
2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the
Order certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, and on June 23, 2015 CNX Gas Company filed its
Opposition to same. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on
September 18, 2015 and has not yet ruled.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


CRISPY DELIGHT: Faces "Romano" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Ortega Romano, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Crispy Delight Corp. and Juda Normatova, Case No.
1:16-cv-06041 (E.D.N.Y., November 1, 2016), alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Crispy Delight Corp. is a corporation based and does business in
New York.


CRYSTAL SPOON: Faces "Wilson" Suit Under NY Labor Law, Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kareem Wilson, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Crystal Spoon Corp.,
Defendant, INDEX NO. 159314/2016 (N.Y. Sup., November 4, 2016),
alleges that the Defendant continues to violate the payment
requirement for manual workers under the New York Labor Law and
Minimum Wage Act.

The Crystal Spoon Corp. -- http://thecrystalspoon.com/-- was
engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling meals
including dog food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Phone: 718-740-1000
     Fax: 718-740-2000
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


CUCAGNA LTD: Faces "Rowland" Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Santell Rowland and Kameron Burroughs, as individuals and
on behalf of others similarly situated, commenced a purported
class action lawsuit against Cucagna, Ltd., in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Francisco.

Cucagna Ltd. is a California corporation doing business as Zuni
Cafe in San Francisco.

The case is entitled ROWLAND, TRAVIS SANTELL, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, and BURROUGHS, KAMERON, AS
AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
CUCAGNA, LTD. DBA ZUNI CAFE, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Case No. CGC
16 555127 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., November 1, 2016).


CVS PHARMACY: Bolin Dismissed as Plaintiff in "Corcoran" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Christopher Corcoran, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03504-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogerers granted the parties'
stipulation to the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff Ken Bolin,
without prejudice.

The condition of the stipulation provides that:

     (a) Mr. Bolin reserves the right to proceed in the matter
          as an absent class member;

     (b) CVS Pharmacy, Inc. reserves the right to argue that Mr.
         Bolin does not qualify as a member of any class that may
         be certified in the matter; and,

     (c) Mr. Bolin shall not bring any new action against CVS
         Pharmacy, Inc. or its affiliates concerning the subject
         matter.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 27, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/4Oi9sI from Leagle.com.

CVS Health, et al., Defendants, represented by August P. Gugelmann
-- august@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP, David Michael
Horniak -- dhorniak@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP, Edward W.
Swanson -- ed@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP, Enu A. Mainigi
-- emainigi@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, pro hac vice,
Frank Lane Heard, III -- lheard@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly
LLP, Grant A. Geyerman -- ggeyerman@wc.com -- Williams Connolly,
LLP, pro hac vice & Luba Shur -- lshur@wc.com -- Williams and
Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.


CV SCIENCES: Titus' Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Defendant Stuart
Titus has recently completed briefing his motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit by Tanya Sallustro.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro
alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares
of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791.

The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current
Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014
and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously
disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were
restated to $1,082,375 - reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).

Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent
to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a
motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the
litigation.

On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve
Schuck as lead plaintiff.  Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a
"consolidated amended complaint" on September 14, 2015. On
December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

After requesting several extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016.  The
Company's reply brief was filed on April 25, 2016.

Defendant Stuart Titus was served with the Summons & Complaint in
the case and he has recently completed briefing his motion to
dismiss, through separate counsel. No hearing date has been set by
the Court at this time with respect to the motions to dismiss.

Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an
estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time.

The Company operates two distinct business segments: a consumer
product segment in manufacturing, marketing and selling plant-
based Cannabidiol ("CBD") products to a range of market sectors;
and, a specialty pharmaceutical segment focused on developing and
commercializing novel therapeutics utilizing synthetic CBD. The
specialty pharmaceutical segment began development activities
during the second quarter of 2016.


DRILL-CHEM LLC: Faces "Woodruff" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WOODRUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, vs. DRILL-CHEM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00474 (S.D. Tex., November 6, 2016), alleges that the Defendant
maintained a practice and policy of hiring independent contractors
in order to avoid paying overtime compensation as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and/or state overtime laws.

Drill-Chem, LLC -- http://drillchemllc.com/-- is a full-service,
retail drilling, production fluids and specialty chemicals company
servicing the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE: Court Won't Stay Waste Away Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, WASTE AWAY CONSULTING, LLC, ET AL., v. ENVIRONMENTAL
WASTE SOLUTIONS, ET AL., Civil Action No. 16-389-JWD-RLB (M.D.
La.), Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. denied the
Defendant's Motion to Stay all deadlines set in the Court's Order
dated August 25, 2016, pending the resolution of its previously
filed Motion to Dismiss.

The Court noted that the Defendant has not advanced sufficient
good cause to warrant a stay of all discovery and all deadlines
pending the resolution of its Motion to Dismiss.

In the case, the stay action does not identify any discovery
conducted or sought by the Plaintiff that would subject the
Defendants to undue burden or expenses. Discovery is limited to
class certification issues. The same discovery may resolve the
current jurisdictional dispute as well. The Court noted that,
should the Defendants be confronted with undue burden or expenses,
or otherwise unreasonable discovery, they may object or seek
appropriate relief at that time.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 26, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/pYgizk from Leagle.com.

Waste Away Consulting, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Paul
Vicknair, Scott, Sevin & Vicknair, APLC.

Waste Away Consulting, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher A. Meeks, Scott, Sevin & Vicknair, Gary J. Gambel --
ggambel@mrsnola.com -- Murphy, Rogers, Sloss & Gambel & Jennifer
N. Willis -- Jenniferwblaw@bellsouth.net -- Willis & Buckley, APC.

Environmental Waste Solutions, LLC, et al., Defendants,
represented by Van R. Mayhall, Jr. -- van.mayhall.jr@bswllp.com --
Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, David Robert Kelly --
david.kelly@bswllp.com -- Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson & Sunny
Mayhall West -- sunny.west@bswllp.com -- Breazeale, Sachse &
Wilson, L.L.P..


FCA US LLC: "Lynd" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2744
------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled John Lynd, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00984,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan (Detroit).  The Michigan District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-13913-DML-DRG to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: FCA US LLC Monostable Electronic Gearshift Litigation, MDL
No. 2744.

The litigation arises out of an investigation by the National
Highway Transportation Safety Administration into certain vehicles
manufactured by FCA US LLC that were equipped with an allegedly
defective gearshift.  The actions share complex factual questions
arising out of allegations that the monostable electronic
gearshift installed in certain vehicles manufactured by FCA is
defective and unreasonably dangerous in that it allegedly fails to
provide the driver with an adequate indication of whether the
vehicle is in the "park" position and lacks a safety override
function that would place the vehicle in "park" automatically when
a driver exits the vehicle while it is in another gear.


FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEMORIAL: M.D. Fla. to Hear State Law Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
through District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., elected to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claims in
the case styled, RICHARD GEIGER; and DENIS TWOMEY, Plaintiffs, v.
FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER; ACCELERATED CLAIMS,
INC.; and HALIFAX HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER OF DAYTONA BEACH,
Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-1477-Orl-37GJK (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiffs' claims arise from the collection efforts of the
Defendants, Florida Hospital, Accelerated Claims, and Halifax
Health Medical Center, in connection with a hospital lien filed
against the Plaintiffs for unpaid medical charges that they
incurred following an automobile accident.

Following the October 13, 2016 hearing on the Court's Order to
show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' Florida's Consumer
Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) claims, the Court ruled that it
has a discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state
law claims.

The supplemental jurisdiction of the Court pertains to Counts II
and IV of the Complaint, that is, on Plaintiff Geiger's FCCPA
claim against Accelerated Claims and Plaintiff Twomey's FCCPA
claim against Halifax.

Should the Court dismiss Counts II through IV, at least three
parties to the action would be subjected to the inconvenience of
litigating almost identical actions in two separate forums.
Additionally, the separation of Plaintiffs' claims in multiple
forums would open all parties to the possibility of inconsistent
rulings.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 27, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/Ayr615 from Leagle.com.

Richard Geiger, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Matthew Lewis --
jordan@jml-lawfirm.com -- Jordan Lewis, P.A..

Richard Geiger, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Michael D.
Walrath, Medical Bill Clinic, P.A. & Steven Leslie Sands, Sands,
White & Sands, PA.

Florida Hospital Memorial Medical Center, Defendant, represented
by Ernest H. Kohlmyer, III, Urban Thier & Federer, PA & Rachel
Malkowski Ortiz, Urban Thier & Federer, PA.

Accelerated Claims, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ella Aliza
Shenhav -- EShenhav@shutts.com -- Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Suzanne
Youmans Labrit -- SLabrit@shutts.com -- Shutts & Bowen, LLP &
Kathleen M. Krak -- KKrak@shutts.com -- Shutts & Bowen, LLP.

Halifax Health Medical Center of Daytona Beach, Defendant,
represented by Judith M. Mercier -- judy.mercier@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight, LLP, Lauren Lynn Millcarek --
lauren.millcarek@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP & Suzanne E.
Gilbert -- suzanne.gilbert@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP.


GAL BI MA EUL INC: Violates FLSA, "Buestan" Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Segundo Jose Buestan, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Gal Bi Ma Eul, Inc., doing business as: Galbi Ma Eul,
Yun Kil Kim and Jing Shu Kim, Case No. 1:16-cv-06123 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 3, 2016), is brought over alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Gal Bi Ma Eul, Inc., is a licensed liquor authority in the county
of Queens.  The Defendants operate the Korean restaurant Galbi Ma
Eul in Flushing, New York.


GEICO GENERAL: A&M Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. GEICO General
Insurance Company, Case No. CACE 16-016813, was removed from the
17th Judicial Circuit of Florida to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-62610-BB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related issues.

Plaintiff A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq.
          Michael Trent Lewenz, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
                  Mlewenz@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE,WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: mark@pathtojustice.com
                  steve@pathtojustice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Omar Andres Giraldo, Esq.
          Peter David Weinstein, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          Lakeside Office Center, Suite 500
          600 North Pine Island Road
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 343-3951
          Facsimile: (954) 474-7979
          E-mail: omar.giraldo@csklegal.com
                  peter.weinstein@csklegal.com


GENERAL MILLS: "Scott" Suit Transferred From Calif. to Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled Scott, et al. v. General
Mills, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-02090, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The Minnesota
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-03800-PAM-TNL to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from fraud-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are James Carroll Scott, Nesha Ritchie and Gabriel
Adkins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, General Mills, Inc.,
manufactures and markets branded and packaged consumer foods
worldwide.  The Company also supplies branded and unbranded food
products to the foodservice and commercial baking industries.


HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: "Halloran" Plaintiffs Want to Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs in
the case, Halloran et al. v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co.,
intend to move for leave to file a third amended complaint in
order to drop certain additional defendants and to add other named
plaintiffs.

On February 19, 2016, the Company was served with a notice of a
summons and complaint filed on January 29, 2016 against Insurance
Services Office, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut titled Halloran et al. v. Harleysville Preferred
Insurance Co. et al.   As alleged in the First Amended Complaint,
the putative class action is brought by four policyholders on
behalf of a class of similarly situated policyholders in eastern
Connecticut who allege that their homeowner's insurance carriers
have denied or will deny their claims for damage to their homes
caused by defective concrete.  The lawsuit alleges a breach of
contract claim against certain insurers and seeks declaratory
relief as to more than 100 other insurers. It also alleges that
ISO as the drafter of the standardized policy language at issue
violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices ("CUTPA") and the
Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act ("CUIPA").

The plaintiffs ask that the Court certify a class of persons
similarly situated and seek relief in the form of the cost for the
replacement of their concrete foundations, and a declaratory
judgment that all of the defendant insurance carriers are
obligated to provide coverage for claims resulting from the
defective concrete as well as, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest.

On March 17, 2016 plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint
asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act, adding a number of insurer defendants and amending their
damages claim to include punitive damages.

After defendants indicated that they would be filing motions to
dismiss the first amended complaint at a Rule 16 Conference on
April 12, 2016, the Court gave plaintiffs until May 6, 2016 to
move for leave to file a second amended complaint.

On May 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Motion to amend the first
amended complaint with a proposed second amended complaint, which
did not name ISO or the Company as a defendant. No opposition was
filed to the motion to amend, which was granted on October 4,
2016.

Instead of filing a second amended complaint, plaintiffs, in a
joint motion for the modification of the case schedule filed on
October 13, 2016, expressed their intention to move for leave to
file a third amended complaint in order to drop certain additional
defendants and to add other named plaintiffs.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides its customers proprietary data
that, combined with analytic methods, create embedded decision
support solutions.


HEALTH CARE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Sawyer" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Sawyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Health Care Solutions At Home Inc. and Lincare Inc.,
Case No. 5:16-cv-05674-JKG (E.D. Penn., October 31, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants operate a company that sells oxygen and infusion
systems for in-home respiratory therapy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
      JBT LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (877) 561-0000
      E-mail: jbt@jbtlawgroup.com
              nicholasconlon@jbtlawgroup.com


INTELLICORP RECORDS: "Legrand" Class Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend the case, Sherri Legrand v. Intellicorp
Records, Inc. and The Cato Corporation et al.

On September 9, 2015, the Company was served with a nationwide
putative class action complaint filed in the Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County in Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary
Intellicorp Records, Inc. ("Intellicorp.") titled Sherri Legrand
v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. and The Cato Corporation et al.
Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio on October 8, 2015.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on
November 5, 2015 ("Amended Complaint"), which like the prior
complaint claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and alleges two putative class claims against
Intellicorp, namely (i) a  section 1681k(a)  claim on behalf of
all individuals  who were the subjects of  consumer reports
furnished  by Intellicorp, which contained  public record
information in the "Government Sanctions" section of the report on
or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the date the
class list is prepared, and (ii) a section 1681e(b) claim  on
behalf of all individuals  who were the subjects of  consumer
reports furnished  by Intellicorp, which contained  public record
information in the "Government Sanctions" section of the report
where the address or social security number of the subject of the
report do not match the social security number or address
contained in the government database on or after September 4, 2013
and continuing through the date the class list is prepared.

Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges that defendant Cato
violated the FCRA by procuring  consumer reports on the plaintiff
and other class members without making the stand-alone disclosure
required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Counts II and III
allege that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section 1681e (b) by
failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy
of the adverse information included in its consumer reports and
FCRA section 1681k (a) by failing to maintain strict procedures to
assure that the public record information reported, which was
likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer was complete and
up to date, respectively.

The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants acted willfully and
seeks statutory damages for the classes in an amount not less than
one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per
violation, punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and
attorney's fees.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries enable
risk-bearing businesses to better understand and manage their
risks. The Company provides its customers proprietary data that,
combined with analytic methods, create embedded decision support
solutions.


INTELLICORP RECORDS: Ohio Court Remanded "DiSalvo" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the
complaint by Frank DiSalvo for failure to allege Article III
standing and remanded the case to Ohio state court.

On February 1, 2016, the Company was served with a nationwide
putative class action complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina naming
Intellicorp. The complaint titled Frank DiSalvo v. Intellicorp
Records, Inc. claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and alleges a section 1681b(b)(1) claim on behalf of all
individuals residing in the United States who were the subjects of
consumer reports furnished  by Intellicorp for employment purposes
within the period prescribed by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p
without first obtaining from the user of the report a
certification that such user had complied with the obligations
under Section 1681b(b)(2) as to the subject of the consumer
report. The  class complaint alleges that Intellicorp violated the
FCRA section 1681b(b)(1) by failing to obtain the required
specific certification from its customers to whom Intellicorp
furnished consumer reports as to each consumer report provided
before providing the specific consumer report that was the subject
of the certification. The complaint alleges that the violations
were willful or in the alternative negligent and seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation,
punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees.

On April 18, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all
proceedings pending the resolution of the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339. After Spokeo
was decided on May 16, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their federal court complaint and filed a virtually identical
complaint in Ohio State court on May 27, 2016.

Defendants removed that complaint to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 1, 2016, which on
defendant's motion dismissed the complaint for failure to allege
Article III standing and remanded the case to Ohio state court on
September 27, 2016.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries enable
risk-bearing businesses to better understand and manage their
risks. The Company provides its customers proprietary data that,
combined with analytic methods, create embedded decision support
solutions.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Lanier Asks 2nd Circuit for Rehearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Harold
Lanier has filed a petition in the Second Circuit seeking a
rehearing by the panel of judges.

Three purported class action lawsuits were filed in May 2014 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
Harold Lanier against various national securities exchanges,
including three of our subsidiaries. These lawsuits were dismissed
with prejudice by the district court in April 2015, and on
September 23, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, or the Second Circuit, entered an order affirming the
dismissal of the lawsuits.

On October 7, 2016, Mr. Lanier filed a petition in the Second
Circuit seeking a rehearing by the panel of judges that decided
the appeal or, in the alternative, for review by the full Second
Circuit. The petition relates only to the lawsuit involving the
Options Price Reporting Authority plan, and not the other two
lawsuits filed by Mr. Lanier.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. is a global operator of regulated
exchanges, clearing houses and listings venues, and a provider of
data services for commodity and financial markets.


INTERSIL CORPORATION: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Sale to Renesas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Paskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Intersil Corporation, Necip Sayiner, Donald
Macleod, Mercedes Johnson, Sohail Khan, Greg Lang, Ernie Maddock,
Forrest Norrod, Chapter One Company, And Renesas Electronics
Corporation, Case No. 12861 (Del. Ch. Ct., October 31, 2016), is
brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Intersil
Corporation, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Intersil by
Renesas Electronics Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Chapter One Company, through a flawed process and inadequate
consideration.

Intersil Corporation is a provider of power management and analog
semiconductor solutions.

Renesas Electronics Corporation is a Japanese semiconductor
manufacturer headquartered in Tokyo.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERTHINX INC: Still Defending "Webber" Class Action in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case, John
Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc., remains
pending.

On April 20, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics,
Inc. The plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former
subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of all review appraisers and
individuals holding comparable positions with different titles who
were employed by Interthinx for the last three years nationwide
and who were not paid overtime wages. The class complaint claims
that the review appraiser employees were misclassified as exempt
employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits
that would have been received if they were properly classified as
non-exempt employees. It pleads a Collective Action under section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and
seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx, Inc. At this time, it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this
matter.


JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: "Depianti" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Giovani Depianti, Grasielle Regina Dos Santos,
Hyun Ki Kim, Kyu Jin Roh, Gerardo Vazquez, Gloria Roman, Juan
Aguilar, Nicole Rhodes, Mateo Garduno, Chiara Harris, Todor
Sinapov and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jan-Pro
Franchising International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:08-cv-10663
(D. Mass., December 12, 2008) was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco)
under Case No: 3:16-cv-05961.

Plaintiffs seek to recover minimum wage, overtime pay, other wage
protections and other benefits of employment, such as eligibility
for unemployment and workers' compensation, statutory enhancement
of damages as allowed by law, and attorneys' fees and costs under
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, California Business and
Professions Code, New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. is a domestic corporation
with its principal place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia. It
operates a franchise system by which franchisees sell and
administer Jan-Pro cleaning workers including the work of the
Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon E. Liss-Riordan
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: sliss@llrlaw.com

             - and -

      Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Fax: (617) 994-5801
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher M. Pardo, Esq.
      CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLP
      535 Boylston Street, Suite 902
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 849-7884
      Email: cpardo@constangy.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey M. Rosin, Esq.
      CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP
      Suite 902, 535 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 849-7882
      Fax: (617) 849-7872
      Email: jrosin@constangy.com


JANSSEN RESEARCH: "Haynes" Files Suit Over Xarelto Drug
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CELIA HAYNES, Individually And on Behalf of the
Estate of OAKIE HAYNES, Deceased, Plaintiff, vs. JANSSEN RESEARCH
& DEVELOPMENT LLC f/k/a JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICAL
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LLC; JOHNSON AND JOHNSON; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. f/k/a
COMPLAINT AND ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
ORTHO LLC; BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; BAYER PHARMA
AG, f/k/a BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AG; BAYER CORPORATION; BAYER
HEALTHCARE LLC; BAYER HEALTHCARE AG; BAYER AG; and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-16093-EEF-MBN, (E.D. La., November 4,
2016), In Re: Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Product Liability Litigation
MDL No. 2592, alleges that Defendants negligently and/or
fraudulently misrepresented the safety and efficacy of Xarelto,
also known as rivaroxaban.

The suit alleges injuries suffered as a direct result of
Decedent's ingestion of the pharmaceutical product Xarelto.

Initial case assignment was to Judge Eldon E. Fallon and
Magistrate Judge Michael North, according to the case's Nov. 4,
2016 docket entry.

JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC -- http://www.janssen.com--
discovers, develops, and deliveries medicines and solutions for
patients worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-346-2222
     Fax: 312-346-0022
     E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com


JONATHAN'S GRILLE-GREEN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Spencer v. Jonathan's Grille-Green Hills, LLC, Case No.
3:16-cv-02813 (M.D. Tenn., October 31, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jonathan's Grille-Green Hills, LLC operates a restaurant located
at 7135 S. Springs Dr., Franklin, TN 37067-1616.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
      MICHAEL D.PONCE & ASSOCIATES,PLLC
      1000 Jackson Road, Suite 225
      Goodlettsville, TN 37072
      Telephone: (615) 851-1776
      Facsimile: (615) 859-7033
      E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com


KRACO ENTERPRISES: Faces "Succi" Class Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J. Succi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, commenced a purported class action lawsuit against Kraco
Enterprises, LLC, and S. C. Johnson and Son, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The nature of suit is stated as "190 Contract: Other."

The case is captioned Anthony J. Succi, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Kraco Enterprises, LLC, and S. C.
Johnson and Son, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-08125-R-SK (C.D. Cal.,
November 1, 2016).

Compton, California-based Kraco Enterprises LLC engages in the
manufacture and distribution of mats, covers, sun shades, seat
covers, steering wheel covers, organizers, cushions, sun
protection products, and air fresheners for retailers, fleet
operators, and volume purchasers.

S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., manufactures, markets, and sells
household products to customers.  The Company was formerly known
as S. C. Johnson Wax Inc. and changed its name to S. C. Johnson &
Son, Inc. in 1906.  The Company was founded in 1886 and is based
in Racine, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374-4555
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com


L & M FOOTWEAR: Sued Over Failure to Provide Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Ortiz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. L & M Footwear, Inc. and Does 1-50, Case No. BC639316
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 31, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide wage statements in conformity
with the strictures of the California Labor Code.

L & M Footwear, Inc. operates an online and storefront retail
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth A. Goldman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. GOLDMAN, PC
      15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1650
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 287-7689
      E-mail: ken@kengoldmanlaw.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
      18520 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807

MANPOWERGROUP US: "Francis" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Francis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Manpowergroup US Inc. and Experis US,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01477 (E.D. Wis., November 3,
2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs for violation of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.

ManpowerGroup US INC. is an international staffing agency that
provides staffing services to companies throughout the United
States, and has its principal place of business in Wisconsin and
is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Experis US, Inc. is an
affiliate of ManpowerGroup US Inc.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a home-based recruiter, calling
potential candidates and interviewing them over the phone.
Defendants paid Plaintiff a fixed weekly salary regardless of the
number of hours she reported into their timekeeping system. In
order to meet her quota of submissions for further review, she
often made calls after her 8-hour shift.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


MEXICAN GASTRONOMY: "Luperon-Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Luperon-Garcia v. Mexican Gastronomy
International, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-008420-CA-01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-24598-JEM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ricardo Luperon-Garcia and all others similarly situated
are represented by:

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

Defendants Mexican Gastronomy International, LLC, and Alberto
Cinta are represented by:

          Fabian A. Ruiz, Esq.
          Devand Anthony Sukhdeo, Esq.
          CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH , PROPHETE, LLC
          1801 NE 123 Street, Suite 314
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (786) 629-6047
          Facsimile: (786) 629-6070
          E-mail: fruiz@constangy.com
                  DSukhdeo@Constangy.com


MUENNICHOW & ASSOCIATES: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ondine Fink, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated v. Muennichow & Associates, LLP, Hermann Muennichow,
Helayne Muennichow and Does 1-10, Case No. BC639198 (Cal. Super.
Ct., October 31, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
unpaid overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate an accounting and bookkeeping
service firm located in North Hollywood, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Moss, Esq.
      Dennis Moss, Esq.
      MOSS BOLLINGER, LLP
      15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (310) 982-2984
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0389
      E-mail: ari@mossbollinger.com

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued by Simms in Arizona for Violating FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Simms, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-03800-MHB
(D. Ariz., November 2, 2016), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing
business as Champion Mortgage Company, provides mortgage services.
The Company offers various solutions to meet the reverse mortgage
needs of its customers.  The Company provides its services through
its representatives.  The Company operates as a subsidiary of
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 265-3332
          Facsimile: (602) 230-4482
          E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 900-1288
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com


NAVIOS MARITIME: Sued Over Failure to Pay Share Holders Dividend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Verthelyi, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
shareholders v. Navios Maritime Holdings, Inc., Case No.
655749/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 31, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all current holders of Navios 8.75% Series G Cumulative
Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock and the 8.625% Series H
Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock, for the
Defendant's breach of express or implied contractual duties,
specifically by not taking commercially reasonable steps to amend
the Company's Articles of Incorporation when it first missed its
dividend payment to the American depositary shares Holders.

Navios Maritime Holdings, Inc. is a world-wide maritime shipping
and logistics company that focuses on the transport of dry bulk
commodities, including iron ore, coal, and grain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq.
      Herman Cahn, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4672
      E-mail: kolker@whafh.com

         - and -

      Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
      Kimberly Donaldson Smith, Esq.
      Catherine Pratsinakis, Esq.
      Jessica Titler, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Square
      361 Lancaster Ave.
      Haverford, PA 19041-1554
      Telephone: (610)642-8500
      Facsimile: (610)649-3633
      E-mail: cp@chimicles.com


NEW YORK: "Puscher" Sues Board of Elections Over NVRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Common Cause New York, as an organization and on behalf of its
members, Benjamin Buscher and Sean Hennessey, Plaintiffs, v. Board
of Elections in the City of New York, Maria R. Guastella, Frederic
M. Umane, Jose Miguel Araujo, John Flateau, Lisa Grey Michael
Michel, Michael A. Rendino, Alan Schulkin, Simon Shamoun, Rosanna
Vargas, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Board
of Elections in the City of New York and Michael J. Ryan, in his
official capacity as the Executive Director of the Board of
Elections in the City of New York, Defendants, Case No. CV166122
(E.D. N.Y., November 3, 2016), seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief resulting from disenfranchisement of registered voters who
were removed from the New York City voter registration rolls in
violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Plaintiffs allege that they have been unlawfully purged from the
voters list. This collective action seeks reinstatement to the
voter's roster.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Juan Cartagena, Esq.
      Jose Perez, Esq.
      Joanna E. Cuevas Ingram, Esq.
      LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
      99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Tel: (212) 219-3360
      Email: jcartagenca@latinojustice.org
             jcuevas@latinojustice.org

             - and -

      Neil A. Steiner, Esq.
      Mauricio A. Espana, Esq.
      May K. Chiang, Esq.
      Jamie Hacker, Esq.
      Negin Hadaghian, Esq.
      DECHERT LLP
      1095 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212)698-3822
      Email: neil.steiner@dechert.com

             - and -

      Ezra D. Rosenberg, Esq.
      John Powers, Esq.
      LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
      1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 400
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 662-8389
      Email: erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org


NORDSTROM INC: Protective Order Entered in "Aghdasy" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VAHDAT AGHDASY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORDSTROM, INC.; HAUTELOOK,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01829-DSF (KSx), (C.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson granted the parties'
Stipulated Protective Order, which provides guidelines for
designating information obtained from discovery as confidential.

The Protective Order notes that much of the discovery sought in
the case will concern the business practices, policies,
procedures, and supplier relationships of the flash-sale website
HauteLook. The flash-sale website industry is highly competitive,
and HauteLook contends that the documents are confidential,
proprietary and/or trade secret, and that disclosure of the
documents without a Protective Order would cause HauteLook serious
competitive and/or financial harm.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also:

     (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected
         Material;

     (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of
         Protected Material; and,

     (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by the
         Parties or their Counsel that might reveal the Protected
         Material.

The Stipulation further provides that the disclosure of the
confidential information is permitted on:

     (a) the receiving party's Outside Counsel of Record in the
         Action, as well as employees of said Outside Counsel of
         Record to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose
         the information for the Action;

     (b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House
         Counsel) of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is
         reasonably necessary for the Action;

     (c) the experts of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is
         reasonably necessary for thie Action and who have signed
         the "Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound";

     (d) the court and its personnel;

     (e) court reporters and their staff;

     (f) the professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors,
         and Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is
         reasonably necessary for the Action and who have signed
         the "Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound";

     (g) the author or recipient of a document containing the
         information or a custodian or other person who otherwise
         possessed or knew the information;

     (h) during the depositions, witnesses, and attorneys for
         witnesses, in the Action to whom disclosure is
         reasonably necessary provided: (1) the deposing party
         requests that the witness sign the "Acknowledgment and
         Agreement to Be Bound" form; and, (2) they will not be
         Permitted to keep any confidential information unless
         they sign the "Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be
         Bound", unless otherwise agreed by the Designating Party
         or ordered by the court. Pages of transcribed deposition
         testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal
         Protected Material may be separately bound by the court
         reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as
         permitted under the Stipulated Protective Order; and,

     (i) any mediator or settlement officer, and their supporting
         personnel, mutually agreed upon by any of the parties
         engaged in settlement discussions.

Notwithstanding the protective order provisions, the Counsels are
entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion
papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal
memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert
reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work
product, even if such materials contain Protected Material.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 27, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/Prrz7j from Leagle.com.

Vahdat Aghdasy, Plaintiff, represented by Roland C. Colton, Law
Offices of Roland C Colton.

Vahdat Aghdasy, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Escandari,
LA Trial Lawyers Inc.

Nordstrom Inc, et al., Defendants, represented by Dana J. Dunwoody
-- ddunwoody@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP.


NORTH CAROLINA: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Smith, All Others Similarly Situated v. Terrence W.
Boyle, State of North Carolina, Lexis Publishing and Nancy S.
Nash, Case No. 5:16-ct-03297-FL (E.D.N.C., November 2, 2016), is
brought over alleged violations of prisoner civil rights.

David L. Smith is incarcerated at the Pender Correctional
Institution, in Burgaw, North Carolina.

Judge Terrence W. Boyle serves on the bench of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.


NOVA RESTAURANTS: "Ojeda" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Ivan Ojeda v. Nova Restaurants Inc., et al.,
Case No. 16-024512-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-24573-CMA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

Defendants Nova Restaurants Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
and Emilio Cabrera, Jr., individually, are represented by:

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



OMEGA EXPRESS: "Luckey" Action Alleges Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------
Diane Luckey, on behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff, v.
Omega Express, Ltd., Sergey Kaganovsky and Igor Cherny,
Defendants, Case No. 519529/2016, (N.Y. Sup., November 3, 2016),
seeks, among other things, compensatory damages for emotional
distress, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the New York State Human Rights Law and New York Executive Law.

Defendants operate a bus charter and rental company managed by
Sergey Kaganovsky and Igor Cherny under the trade name Omega
Express in the State of New York where Plaintiff applied as a bus
driver. She was denied employment allegedly because she was a
woman.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PACE OPPORTUNITY: "Ellison" Sues Over Overtime, Unpaid Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Ellison and Jamey Chustz, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pace Opportunity
Centers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-1263 (E.D. Tex.,
November 3, 2016), seeks back wages, liquidated damages, legal
fees, costs and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Texas Labor Laws.

Defendant provides group home and other services to individuals
with developmental disabilities, including autism, bi-polar
disorder, ADHD, and other conditions. Plaintiffs were group home
workers. They claim to have been denied overtime pay.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Chustz instructed the
Defendant to deduct money from her earned wages to pay premiums to
a healthcare insurance company. However, the Defendant failed to
forward these premiums to the healthcare insurer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Tel: (214) 521-3605
      Fax: (214) 520-1181
      Email: avaught@baronbudd.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Offer of Judgment Doesn't Moot "Conway" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, remanded the
putative class action suit involving the Plaintiff's unaccepted
offer of settlement or judgment, to the District Court in the case
styled, SEAN CONWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-5925 (6th Cir.).

The Plaintiff launched a putative class action alleging violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Defendant offered
the Plaintiff judgment in his favor, but the Plaintiff decided
against the offer. Shortly after the offer expired, the district
court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

According to the Appeals Court, contrary to the District Court's
decision, the Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136
S.Ct. 663 (2016), has made clear that an unaccepted offer of
settlement or judgment, like the one the Defendant made to the
Plaintiff, generally does not moot a case, even if the offer would
fully satisfy the Plaintiff's demands for relief.  Due to the
erroneous decision of the District Court, the Plaintiff is given
the opportunity to proceed or litigate with his class claim in the
District Court.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 27, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/RY0R8z from Leagle.com.

ON BRIEF: Kenneth J. Henry -- ken.henry@henry-legal.com --
Louisville, Kentucky, James H. Lawson -- -- LAWSON AT LAW, PLLC,
Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Joseph N. Tucker -- joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com -- DINSMORE & SHOHL
LLP, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.


PRISONER TRANSPORTATION: Randle Sues Over Civil Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anwar Randle and others similarly situated v. Prisoner
Transportation Services (PTS), Unknown Insurer of PTS, Unknown
Executives of PTS, Unknown Investors into PTS and 2 Unknown
Transporters of PTS, Case No. 3:16-cv-00745-RLM-MGG (N.D. Ind.,
November 3, 2016), arises from alleged violations of prisoner
civil rights.

PTS provide transportation services for prisoners.


PROFESSIONAL CLEANING: Faces "Kirtman" Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Kirtman commenced a purported class action lawsuit against
Professional Cleaning People, Inc., and Frank Commisso in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuit is captioned as Steven Kirtman, Individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Professional Cleaning People, Inc., Frank Commisso and John Does
1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-06102 (E.D.N.Y., November 3, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11217
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          Facsimile: (718) 504-7555
          E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


PTG ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in "Stevenson" Case Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case NATALIE STEVENSON and MISTY DEW, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
P.T.G. ENTERTAINMENT, INC., BOOBY TRAP, INC., BTS NORTH, INC., and
TK PROMOTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-61792-CIV-
COHN/SELTZER (S.D. Fla.), District Judge James I. Cohn granted the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Hybrid Rule 23
and FLSA Settlement.

For purposes of the Settlement and the Final Approval Order and
Judgment, the Settlement Class is composed of all persons who
worked at the Booby Trap clubs since August 27, 2011. The list
includes persons to whom notice was mailed at one or more last
known addresses and not returned as undeliverable.

The Court awards the Class Counsel for the attorneys' fees in the
amount $200,000.00 and $900.00 in costs, to be paid from the
Settlement Fund. Meanwhile, the Court awards $10,000.00 to
Plaintiff Natalie Stevenson and $10,000.00 to Plaintiff Misty Dew.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court reserves
jurisdiction over the implementation, administration, and
enforcement of the Order, the Judgment, and the Stipulation, and
all the ancillary matters.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 27, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/FP1ti8 from Leagle.com.

Natalie Stevenson, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Cullin Avram
O'Brien, Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A..

Booby Trap, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Aaron L.
Durall.


RECONTRUST COMPANY: Dutcher et al. Fail to Revive Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD DUTCHER; GWEN DUTCHER; RICHARD
FERGUSON; MICHELLE FERGUSON; CATHERINE RICHARDS AHLERS, on their
own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STUART T. MATHESON; MATHESON, MORTENSEN,
OLSEN & JEPPSON, P.C.; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.; B.A.C. HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants-Appellees. STATE
OF UTAH, Amicus Curiae, No. 14-4085 (10th Cir.), the United States
Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order denying a motion filed by the plaintiffs to remand the case
to state court, as well as the district court's order granting
dismissal of the case.

Richard and Gwen Dutcher and their co-plaintiffs brought suit in
Utah state court on behalf of a putative plaintiff class against
ReconTrust, a national bank that serves as the substitute trustee
for class members' deeds of trust over properties located in Utah.
The suit alleged that ReconTrust illegally non-judicially
foreclosed on the plaintiffs' properties because depository
institutions like ReconTrust do not have the power of sale over
properties secured by trust deed.  The plaintiffs also sued B.A.C.
Home Loans Servicing and Bank of America, N.A., as the former
trustees who transferred trusteeship to ReconTrust, as well as
Stuart Matheson and his law firm, as the agents who conducted the
foreclosure sale on behalf of ReconTrust.

ReconTrust and the other defendants removed the case to federal
court.  They maintained that ReconTrust's acts were lawful.  The
district court denied a motion by the plaintiffs to remand the
case to state court and agreed with ReconTrust on the merits,
which led the court to grant the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs asked the Tenth Circuit to reverse the district
court's order denying remand and to reverse the order granting
dismissal of the case.

The Tenth Circuit concluded, however, that the district court
properly decided that it had jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA); and that accordingly, it correctly denied the
plaintiffs' motion for remand.  The appellate court noted that
while the defendants have alleged and effectively established that
the elements conferring subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA to
a federal district court are met, the plaintiffs have not argued
otherwise.  Instead, the plaintiffs argued that at least one of
three CAFA exceptions applies to the case.  The three exceptions
to CAFA jurisdiction claimed by the plaintiffs are the local
controversy exception; the home state exception; and the
discretionary exception.  The appellate court concluded, however,
that the plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that any
of the three applies in the case.

On the merits, the Tenth Circuit concluded that ReconTrust was
authorized to conduct the challenged foreclosures under federal
law, and the plaintiffs have relatedly failed to state a claim on
which relief could be granted.

A full-text copy of Judge Schneider's November 2, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/VSukiV from Leagle.com.

Marcus R. Mumford, Mumford PC, Salt Lake City, Utah, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Amy Miller, McGuireWoods LLP, Washington, D.C., (Brian Emory
Pumphrey -- bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP,
Richmond, Virginia, and Craig Robert Mariger --
cmariger@joneswaldo.com -- Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough, PC,
Salt Lake City, Utah, with her on the brief) for Defendants-
Appellees.

Thom D. Roberts, Assistant Utah Attorney General (Sean D. Reyes,
Attorney General, with him on the brief), Salt Lake City, Utah,
for Amicus Curiae.


SENTRY INSURANCE: Settlement in "Coleman" Case Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM A. COLEMAN, MARY A. COLEMAN, ALAN LEMKE, and
KAREN LEMKE, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-1411-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.), District Judge
Staci M. Yandle granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval
of Amended Class Action Settlement without assessment of costs or
attorneys' fees against any party.

For purposes of the Settlement and the Final Approval Order, the
Settlement Class shall consist of all persons in the States of
Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin who had an auto insurance
policy with Sentry Insurance a Mutual Company with a Payback
Agreement endorsement for the years 2010 through 2014, inclusive,
and all persons in the States of Connecticut and Kentucky who had
an auto insurance policy with Sentry with a Payback Agreement
endorsement for the years 2010 to 2013, inclusive, and who:

     (1) were sent a letter informing them that the policy had
         been non-renewed as part of Sentry's nonrenewal of
         standard consumer policies in their State; and,

     (2) had no claims or losses under the policy in the year
         preceding the non-renewal.

The Court noted that the Amended Settlement Agreement provides for
certain benefits to Class Members. The Court likewise, approves
the benefits and approves the distribution plan for the Settlement
Fund set in the Amended Settlement Agreement. The Class Counsel is
then authorized to implement the distribution after deductions for
fees as approved by the Court.

Upon the occurrence of the effective date of the Settlement, all
Class Members are ordered to release all claims of any kind or
nature that have been or could have been asserted against Sentry
Insurance, a Mutual Company, and all of its current and former
parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors,
stockholders, employees, administrators, assigns, agents,
attorneys, and representatives relating to the non-renewal of an
auto insurance policy with Sentry with a Payback Agreement
endorsement or the payback amount due on any such non-renewed
policy.

Moreover, the Court ordered that, upon the occurrence of the
effective date of the Settlement, the Defendant releases all
claims of any kind or nature that have been or could have been
asserted against the Class Representatives, any Class Member, or
Class Counsel relating to the non-renewal of an auto insurance
policy with Sentry with a Payback Agreement endorsement or the
payback amount due on any such non-renewed policy, or the filing
or prosecution of the Lawsuit relating to such claims.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 27, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/1PP9Lp from Leagle.com.

LeRoy W. Little, Objector, Pro Se.

James G. Burow, Objector, Pro Se.

William A Coleman, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher
A. Koester -- koester@taylorlaw.net -- Taylor Law Offices, Lynn A.
Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- Cohen & Malad, LLP, Richard
E. Shevitz -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- Cohen & Malad, LLP &
Vess Allen Miller -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- Cohen & Malad,
LLP.

Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company, Defendant, represented by Jason
D. Johnson -- jjohnson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & W.
Jason Rankin -- jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.


SHR TRANSPORT: Faces "Abid" Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mudasar Abid, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHR
Transport Inc. and Does 1 - 10, Case No. 34-2016-00202832-CU-OE-
GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., November 3, 2016), alleges
employment-related claims.

SHR Transport, Inc., is a company incorporated in California and
headquartered in Elk Grove, California.  The Company is engaged in
the transportation business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


SJP FRAMERS: "Fernando" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Donaciano Fernando, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SJP Framers Corp. and John Does 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06124 (E.D. N.Y., November 3, 2016),
seeks the recovery of unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid
overtime hours worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Laws.

SJP is a New York construction company with principal office at
1271 53rd Street, Brooklyn, NY 11219, were Plaintiff Donaciano
Fernando worked as a construction worker. He claims to be denied
overtime pay and accuses SJP of not providing pay stubs.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
      11 Broadway, Suite 960
      New York, NY 10004
      Phone: 212-344-9022
      Fax: 212-344-0301


SLOMINS INC: "Boyle" Suit Removed to New Jersey District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Slomin's, Inc., removes the lawsuit titled BOYLE v. SLOMIN'S, INC.
et al., Case No. MID-L4558-16, from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Trenton).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-08227-FLW-LHG to the proceeding.

Plaintiff COLLEEN BOYLE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

Defendant Slomin's, Inc., is represented by:

          Nicholas Stevens, Esq.
          STARR, GERN, DAVISON & RUBIN, PC
          105 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1050
          Telephone: (973) 403-9200
          E-mail: nstevens@starrgern.com


SPRINGFIELD, MA: Removes "Williams" Suit to Mass. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Springfield removed the lawsuit titled Williams v.
Springfield from the Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (Springfield).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-30179-MGM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from claims related to civil rights.

The Department of Public Works of the City of Springfield,
Massachusetts, provides project management and construction
management of various capital improvement projects, and provides
water resources engineering, among other things.

Plaintiff Jean Williams, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated individuals, is represented by:

          Daniel X. Montagna, Esq.
          Lisa Brodeur-McGan, Esq.
          BRODEUR-MCGAN, P.C.
          1380 Main Street, Suite 202
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 735-1775
          Facsimile: (413) 735-1772
          E-mail: dmontagna@brodeurmcgan.com
                  lbm@brodeurmcgan.com

Defendant City of Springfield, Department of Public Works, is
represented by:

          Kathleen E. Sheehan, Esq.
          KEYES & DONNELLAN
          293 Bridge Street, Suite 600
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 781-6540
          Facsimile: (413) 739-3502
          E-mail: ksheehan@keyesanddonnellan.com


STELLA ORTON: "Troshin" Suit Alleges NY Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
IHOR TROSHIN, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by THE STELLA ORTON HOME CARE
AGENCY, INC., Plaintiffs, v. THE STELLA ORTON HOME CARE AGENCY,
INC., Defendants, INDEX NO. 159312/2016 (N.Y. Sup., November 4,
2016), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were
statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to New
York Labor Law.

The Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Inc. provides personal care,
assistance, health-related tasks and other home care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
     Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 943-9080
     E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com


STICK MAN: "Brite" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Charles Levi Brite and Christina Rigel-Brite, Plaintiffs, v. Stick
Man, Inc., Zeke Decol and Lionie Fladeland, both individuals,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02713 (D. Colo., November 3, 2016),
seeks to recover damages and backpay for unpaid overtime,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Colorado Wage Claim Act and the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

Stick Man, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Utah with its corporate offices located at 632 South 1500
East Suite 1, Vernal, Utah 84078. It provides technical services
and associated rental equipment to the energy sector in various
states. Zeke Decol and Lionie Fladeland are the owners and
operators of Stick Man, Inc.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants at locations in Colorado and
Wyoming and claim to have been denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Decision in Owner-Operator Suit Forthcoming
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a decision
regarding the petition for review in the Arizona Owner-operator
Class Action Litigation is forthcoming.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472 (the "Garza Complaint"). The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles.

The trial court denied the plaintiff's petition for class
certification. The plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the
Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision
reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and
remanding the case back to the trial court.

On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to
the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class
certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the
Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for review,
and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the
decision of the Court of Appeals, opining that the Court of
Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the
trial court's original denial of class certification and remanded
the matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and
determination.

Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class
certification and expanded it to include all persons who were
employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift
as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who
were compensated by reference to miles driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and the named owner-operator class representative
only contracted with the Company for a three-month period under a
one-year contract that no longer exists.

In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals,
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

In April 2012, the trial court issued the following rulings with
respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's
motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to
decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no
breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class
+size based on statute of limitations.

On November 13, 2014, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to
add new class representatives for the employee class and therefore
the employee class remains without a plaintiff class
representative. On March 18, 2015, the court denied Swift's two
motions for summary judgment (1) to dismiss any claims related to
the employee class since there is no class representative; and (2)
to dismiss the plaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith
and fair dealing. On July 14, 2015, the court granted Swift's
motion to decertify the entire class.

On December 23, 2015, the plaintiff filed a petition for special
action with the Arizona Court of Appeals. On July 12, 2016, the
Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's order decertifying the
class. Swift filed a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme
Court on August 12, 2016. A decision regarding the petition for
review is forthcoming. The final disposition of this case and the
impact of such disposition cannot be determined at this time.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of September 30, 2016, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 19,157 tractors (comprised of 14,380
company tractors and 4,777 owner-operator tractors), 62,727
trailers, and 9,131 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated,
and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Misclassification Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Ninth
Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action Litigation
remains pending in the district court and dispositive motion
briefing was completed on September 30, 2016.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1, and
Joseph Sheer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.
9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Sheer Complaint"). The
putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal FLSA, and various New York
and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related
issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-
operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to
the named plaintiffs, approximately 450 other current or former
owner-operators have joined this lawsuit.

Upon Swift's motion, the matter was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
United States District Court in Arizona. On May 10, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA
collective action and authorize notice to the potential class
members. On September 23, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from
collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their
lease agreements and related relief.

On September 30, 2010, the district court granted Swift's motion
to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed,
pending the outcome of arbitration. The district court further
denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and
motion for conditional class certification. The district court
also denied the plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a
class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the district court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ
of mandamus and thereafter the district court denied the
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and certified its September
30, 2010 order. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the district
court's September 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration, alleging
that the agreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class
of plaintiffs allegedly consists of employees exempt from
arbitration agreements.

On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded, stating its prior published decision, "expressly
held that a district court must determine whether an agreement for
arbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA
as a threshold matter." As a consequence of this determination by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decision
of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on
February 4, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to address whether
the district court or arbitrator should determine whether the
contract is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the
Federal Arbitration Act. On June 16, 2014, the United States
Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of
certiorari.

The matter remains pending in the district court and dispositive
motion briefing was completed on September 30, 2016.

The Company also filed a writ of mandamus and appeal from the
district court's order that effectively denied the Company's
motion to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument
on November 16, 2015, and after further briefing, dismissed the
appeal on July 26, 2016, finding that it lacked jurisdiction. The
Company has filed a motion for reconsideration of this decision.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against any proceedings.
The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of September 30, 2016, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 19,157 tractors (comprised of 14,380
company tractors and 4,777 owner-operator tractors), 62,727
trailers, and 9,131 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated,
and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Burnell" Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case by John Burnell.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Bernardino (the "Burnell Complaint").

On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "California Court"), Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The
putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the
four years preceding the date of filing and alleges that Swift
failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide
proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon
separation from employment.

On April 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, requesting dismissal of the plaintiff's claims related
to alleged meal and rest break violations under the California
Labor Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
California Court will address the merits of these cases, and the
Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages
pending a determination of class certification. Class
certification briefing is now complete and a class certification
hearing was scheduled for April 25, 2016. The class certification
hearing was held and argued as scheduled.

In May 2016, the District Court issued an order denying class
certification. The plaintiffs and petitioners sought leave from
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the class
decertification order.  On July 18, 2016, the court denied the
plaintiffs' and petitioners' petition to appeal the
decertification order. Therefore, at the present time and based
upon the current procedural nature of the case, the final
disposition and impact to the Company cannot be determined.
Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of September 30, 2016, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 19,157 tractors (comprised of 14,380
company tractors and 4,777 owner-operator tractors), 62,727
trailers, and 9,131 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated,
and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Rudsell" Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
complaint by James R. Rudsell remains stayed pending a resolution
of the complaint by John Burnell.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with a class action
complaint, alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the
John Burnell Complaint: James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Bernardino (the "Rudsell
Complaint"). On May 3, 2012, upon motion by Swift, the matter was
removed to the California Court, Case No. EDCV12-00692-VAP. The
Rudsell Complaint was stayed on April 29, 2013, pending a
resolution of the Burnell Complaint.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of September 30, 2016, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 19,157 tractors (comprised of 14,380
company tractors and 4,777 owner-operator tractors), 62,727
trailers, and 9,131 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated,
and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Parties Engaging in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
parites in the case, Peck v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona,
LLC, are engaging in discovery.

On September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by
Lawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside (the "Peck Complaint"). The
putative class, which includes current and former non-exempt
employee truck drivers who performed services in California within
the four-year statutory period, alleges that Swift failed to pay
for all hours worked (specifically hat pay-per-mile fails to
compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to
pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses,
failed to timely pay wages, and failed to provide accurate wage
statements.

On October 24, 2014, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed
to the California Court, Case No. 14-CV-02206-VAP. The Peck
Complaint was stayed on April 6, 2015, pending a resolution of the
earlier filed cases.

On November 20, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Private Attorneys
General Act class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside (the "Peck PAGA Complaint"). Upon
motion by Swift, the Peck PAGA Complaint was stayed on March 19,
2015.

On May 24, 2016, after the Burnell Court failed to certify the
petitioner's class, the plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay
regarding the Peck PAGA Complaint. On June 22, 2016, the court
lifted the stay. The matter is in its initial stages and the
parties are engaging in discovery.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of September 30, 2016, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 19,157 tractors (comprised of 14,380
company tractors and 4,777 owner-operator tractors), 62,727
trailers, and 9,131 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated,
and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Mares" Suit to Proceed into Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the class
action lawsuit by Sadashiv Mares is expected to move into
discovery.

On February 27, 2015, Sadashiv Mares filed a complaint alleging
five Causes of Action arising under California state law on behalf
of himself and a putative class against Swift Transportation Co.
of Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda (the "Mares Complaint").

On July 13, 2015, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Case No. 2:15-CV-03253-JSW. Upon the parties'
stipulation, on October 17, 2015, the case was transferred to the
California Court, Case No. 2:15-CV-07920-VAP. The Mares Complaint
was stayed on February 24, 2016, pending a resolution of the
earlier filed cases.

On October 11, 2016, the court granted a motion filed by the
plaintiffs to lift the stay. The matter is in its initial phases
and is expected to move into discovery.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of September 30, 2016, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 19,157 tractors (comprised of 14,380
company tractors and 4,777 owner-operator tractors), 62,727
trailers, and 9,131 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated,
and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "McKinsty" Class Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the class
action lawsuit by Rafael McKinsty remains stayed.

On or about April 15, 2015, a complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Bernardino: Rafael McKinsty et
al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al., (the
"McKinsty Complaint").  The McKinsty Complaint, a purported class
action, alleges violation of California rest break laws and is
similar to the Burnell, Rudsell, Peck, and Mares Complaints.  On
July 2, 2015, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the
California Court, Case No. 15-CV-1317-VAP. The McKinsty Complaint
was stayed on August 19, 2015, pending a resolution of the earlier
filed cases.

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

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of September 30, 2016, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 19,157 tractors (comprised of 14,380
company tractors and 4,777 owner-operator tractors), 62,727
trailers, and 9,131 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated,
and Intermodal.


TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Garfield" Suit Over DTS Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tessera Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
has not yet been served with the complaint in the case, Garfield
v. DTS, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. TN6317 (Superior Court of
California, Ventura County).

On October 26, 2016, an alleged stockholder of DTS, Robert
Garfield, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior
Court of California, Ventura County, against DTS, Inc. ("DTS"),
members of DTS's board of directors, DTS's financial advisor in
connection with the DTS Merger, and the Company.  The complaint
purports to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duties of care,
good faith, and loyalty against the DTS directors; breach of the
fiduciary duty of disclosure against DTS and the DTS directors;
and aiding and abetting the purported breaches of fiduciary duties
against the Company and DTS's financial advisor. The complaint
seeks, inter alia, certification as a class action; an order
enjoining the merger or, if it is consummated, an order rescinding
it; a reduction in the termination fee payable by DTS to the
Company; damages; and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the complaint is meritless and intends to
defend the action vigorously. The Company has not yet been served
with the complaint.

Tessera Technologies, Inc., including its Invensas and FotoNation
subsidiaries (the "Company"), licenses its technologies and
intellectual property to customers for use in areas such as mobile
computing and communications, memory and data storage, and 3-D
Integrated Circuit ("3D-IC") technologies, among others. The
Company's technologies include semiconductor packaging, bonding,
and interconnect solutions, including xFD(R), BVA(R), ZiBond(R),
and DBI(R), and products and solutions for mobile and
computational imaging, including our FaceTools(R), FacePower(R),
FotoSavvy(R), DigitalApertureTM, IrisCam(TM), LifeFocus(TM), face
beautification, red-eye removal, High Dynamic Range, autofocus,
panorama, biometrics, and image stabilization intellectual
property.


TOPCO HOLDINGS: Falsely Marketed Granola Products, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Scholder, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Topco Holdings, Inc. and Topco Associates, LLC, Case
No. 2:16-cv-06028 (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all consumers who purchased Topco's granola in New York,
which is falsely marketed by the Defendants as 100% natural, when
in fact it contains chemical glyphosate, a potent herbicide that
is a probable human carcinogen.

The Defendants manufacture and causes the manufacture of granola
products, and markets and distributes in retail stores in New York
and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
      GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP
      2426 Eastchester Rd., Ste 103
      Bronx, NY 10469
      Telephone: (718) 708-5322
      Facsimile: (718) 708-5966
      E-mail: micheal@gabrielli.com


TREMONT TOWING: "Tapanes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmore Tapanes, and all others similarly situated v. Tremont
Towing, Inc. and Manny E. Diaz, Jr., Case No. 1:16-cv-24543-JAL
(S.D. Fla., October 31, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for
unpaid overtime and minimum wages in willful violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Tremont Towing, Inc. is a Florida corporation which regularly
conducted business within the Southern District of Florida by
operating a towing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


WELLS FARGO: BlackRock Plaintiffs' New Complaint Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2011-C5 said in its Form 10-D
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 1, 2016, for the monthly distribution period from:
September 17, 2016 to October 17, 2016, that the BlackRock
Plaintiffs' new complaint in state court in San Francisco has been
dismissed and the court held that any claims relating to the
trusts at issue must be filed in New York state court.

On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee
under 276 residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts,
which was later amended on July 18, 2014, to increase the number
of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts.  On November 24, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the state court
action without prejudice.

That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a civil
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "District Court") against Wells Fargo
Bank, alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee
for 274 RMBS trusts (the "Complaint").

In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss
their original state court action was granted.

As with the prior state court action, the Complaint is one of six
similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees
(Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US
Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs.  The
Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that the trustee caused
losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among
other things, the trustee's alleged failure to (i) enforce
repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported
breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors
of alleged events of default purportedly caused by breaches by
mortgage loan servicers, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards
of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought
includes money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of
expenses, and equitable relief.  Other cases (collectively, the
"Additional Complaints") alleging similar causes of action have
been filed against Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the same
court by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these
cases have been consolidated before the same judge.

On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the
Complaint in which the District Court declined to exercise
jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Complaint; the
District Court also allowed Plaintiffs to file amended complaints
if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed.

On March 28, 2016, the BlackRock Plaintiffs filed a new complaint
in state court in San Francisco with regard to the trusts that had
been dismissed in the District Court's January 19 Order; that
action was dismissed on September 28, 2016 and the court held that
any claims relating to the trusts at issue must be filed in New
York state court. Motions to Dismiss all of the federal actions
are pending.

There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigation, or
the possible impact of the litigation on the trustee or the RMBS
trusts. However, Wells Fargo Bank denies liability and believes
that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in
good faith, that its actions were not the cause of any losses to
investors, and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to
contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously.


WESTERN UNION: "Douglas" Case Settlement Awaiting Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement
of the class action by Jason Douglas has not yet received final
court approval.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent. During
the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the
plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the
settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on
November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.

The Company said that it accrued an amount equal to the retention
under its insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that
any amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the
insurer. However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses
to satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are
unable to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a
resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the
parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company
believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of
amounts already accrued is remote.

The Western Union Company ("Western Union" or the "Company") is a
leader in global money movement and payment services, providing
people and businesses with fast, reliable and convenient ways to
send money and make payments around the world. The Western
Union(R) brand is globally recognized. The Company's services are
primarily available through a network of agent locations in more
than 200 countries and territories. Each location in the Company's
agent network is capable of providing one or more of the Company's
services.


WESTERN UNION: Pincus' Class Certification Motion Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Caryn Pincus'
motion seeking class certification remains pending.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a
subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations
that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card
transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission
without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class
and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who
made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment services using a
credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during
the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the
complaint through the date of class certification.

On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to
dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1)
under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which
authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2)
for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO").

On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying
Speedpay's motion to dismiss.

On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended
complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended
complaint that revised her factual allegations, but added no new
claims.

On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the second
amended complaint. On May 20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for
Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims.

On June 7, 2016, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion
for judgment on the pleadings. On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a
reply brief in support of the motion.

On October 28, 2016, Pincus filed a motion seeking class
certification. The motion seeks the certification of a class
consisting of "All (i) persons in Florida (ii) who paid Speedpay,
Inc. a fee for using Speedpay, Inc.'s electronic payment services
(iii) during the five year period prior to the filing of the
complaint in this action through the present."

As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends
to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

The Western Union Company ("Western Union" or the "Company") is a
leader in global money movement and payment services, providing
people and businesses with fast, reliable and convenient ways to
send money and make payments around the world. The Western
Union(R) brand is globally recognized. The Company's services are
primarily available through a network of agent locations in more
than 200 countries and territories. Each location in the Company's
agent network is capable of providing one or more of the Company's
services.


WHEATON FRANCISCAN: Bid to Transfer Curtis & Bowen Suits Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned DIANN M. CURTIS, individually and on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
WHEATON FRANCISCAN SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Wheaton Franciscan
Healthcare, WHEATON FRANCISCAN SYSTEM RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE,
and JOHN DOEs 1-20, Defendants. BRUCE BOWEN and CHERYL MUELLER,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the Wheaton Franciscan System
Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs, v. WHEATON FRANCISCAN SYSTEM
RETIREMENT PLAN, WHEATON FRANCISCAN SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Wheaton
Franciscan Healthcare, OPERATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF WHEATON FRANCISCAN SERVICES, INC., JOHN and JANE DOEs
1-20, members of the Operations Committee, ASCENSION HEALTH,
ASCENSION HEALTH ALLIANCE d/b/a Ascension, ASCENSION HEALTH
PENSION COMMITTEE, JOHN and JANE DOEs 21-40, members of the
Ascension Health Pension Committee, and JOHN and JANE DOEs 41-60,
Defendants, Nos. 16 C 4232, 16 C 6782 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary
Feinerman denied the defendants' motion to transfer the cases to
the Eastern District of Missouri.

In these putative class actions, Diann Curtis in Case 16 C 4232,
and Bruce Bowen and Cheryl Mueller in Case 16 C 6782, alleged that
Wheaton Franciscan Services and others violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in administering Wheaton's
employee pension plan.  The defendants moved to transfer both
cases to the Eastern District of Missouri.

Wheaton is an Illinois-based nonprofit corporation with offices in
Glendale, Wisconsin, and headquarters in the Chicago suburb of
Wheaton, Illinois.  Wheaton offered its 17,000 employees a
defined-benefit pension retirement plan ("the Plan"), which
Wheaton administered from its establishment in 1983 through
February 29, 2016.

Plaintiffs are Wheaton retirees who are eligible for benefits
under the Plan.

Effective March 1, 2016, the day that Ascension Health took over
the Plan, the defendants amended the Plan's governing document to
add a forum selection clause.  The forum selection clause provides
that any suit concerning the Plan shall be resolved in the state
courts in St. Louis County, Missouri or in the Eastern District of
Missouri.

The plaintiffs argued that the forum selection clause applies only
to employees who retire on or after the amendment's March 1, 2016
effective date, meaning that it does not apply to any of them, as
they all retired in 2015 or earlier.

The defendants responded by arguing that the non-retroactivity
rule in Section 1.02 of the Plan governs only the Plan's
"substantive" provisions -- meaning those pertaining to the
calculation of benefits -- and not to "procedural" provisions like
the forum selection clause.

Judge Feinerman held that Section 5.01 of the Plan confirms that
plaintiffs' interpretation of section 1.02 and the forum selection
clause is correct.  The judge found that Section 5.01 expressly
exempts Article V of the Plan from the non-retroactivity rule in
Section 1.02's first sentence, and it does so in no uncertain
terms.  Judge Feinerman concluded that the forum selection clause
applies only to employees retiring on or after March 1, 2016, and
not to individuals, like the plaintiffs, who retired before then.

Judge Feinerman also found that both the convenience factors and
the interest of justice factors under the traditional 28 U.S.C.
section 1404(a) standard are mostly neutral and, if anything,
slightly favor the Northern District of Illinois.  The judge held
that the defendants have failed to carry their burden of
demonstrating that the relevant factors strongly favor transfer.

A full-text copy of Judge Feinerman's October 31, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/rnQMoA from
Leagle.com.

Bruce Bowen, Cheryl Mueller, Plaintiffs, represented by Julie
Goldsmith Reiser -- jreiser@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers & Toll, P.L.L.C., Laura R. Gerber --
lgerber@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.l.p., Michelle C.
Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
Pllc, Scott M. Lempert -- slempert@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, pro hac vice & Carol V. Gilden --
cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Wheaton Franciscan System Retirement Plan, Plaintiff, represented
by Christopher Graver -- cgraver@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback L.l.p., pro hac vice, Ron Kilgard --
rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, PLC, Laura R.
Gerber, Keller Rohrback L.l.p. & Carol V. Gilden, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Wheaton Franciscan Services, Inc., Operations Committee of the
Board of Directors of Wheaton Franciscan Services, Inc., John and
Jane Does 1-20, Ascension Health, Ascension Health Alliance,
Ascension Health Pension Committee, John and Jane Does 21-40, John
and Jane Does 41-60, Defendants, represented by Edward Chester
Young -- eyoung@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP.

United States of America, Movant, represented by Adam Grogg,
United States Department Of Justice.


WORKERS' CREDIT: Faces "Velleman" Suit Over Repossession Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Velleman, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. Workers' Credit Union, Case No. 16-3110
(Mass. Cmmw., October 31, 2016), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendant's failure to provide a consumer with
repossession notices containing all information required by
Massachusetts law.

Workers' Credit Union is a Massachusetts credit union that enters
into many types of consumer loans, including auto loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 338-9400
      E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com



                            *********

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  * * *