CAR_Public/161117.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, November 17, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 230




                            Headlines

407 ETR: Settles Toll Fee Class Action for $8 Million
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Court Postpones Deadlines in "Anger" Suit
ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Judge Granted Bid to Dismiss "Hawkins" Suit
ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: Wilson Seeks to Certify Collection Action
AMAZON: Illinois Delivery Drivers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime

AMERICAN CHEMICALS: Bais Yaakov Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ANGIE'S LIST: "Moore" Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Dec. 5
ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" Class Certification Motion Pending
ANTHEM INC: Summary Judgment Order in WellPoint Case Now Final
ANTHEM INC: No Trials Yet in Blue Cross Antitrust Litigation

ANTHEM INC: Oral Arguments Held in "Gold" Case Appeal
ANTHEM INC: Fact Discovery Scheduled to be Completed by December
ANTHEM INC: Defending Against Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Suit
APPLE INC: Four Law Firms Amend Class Action Over iPhone Defects
ARES CAPITAL: Court Wants Expedited Discovery

ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kaff" Suit Claims
AUSTRALIA: Indigenous Slavery Class Action Mulled Against State
AUSTRALIA: Opposition Party Demands Release of RAFF Foam Report
BANK OF AMERICA: Ex-Prison Inmates Sue Over Debit Card Fees
BHH LLC: Judge Rejects Bid to Intervene in "Steigerwald" Suit

BROWNIE'S CAFE: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CALIFORNIA: Zeldes Named Co-Lead Class Counsel in Toll Roads Case
CARDCONNECT CORP: Faces "Teh" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Penn.
CLECO CORPORATE: Plaintiffs Face Dec. 6 Deadline to Appeal
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Plaintiffs Face Nov. 21 Deadline to Appeal

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Lopez v. Yakima Regional Now Settled
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Responses in Appellate Case Due Dec. 7
COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Mounce" Settlement Conference Moved to Jan. 25
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of "Morrow" Suit
CONN'S INC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Suit

COOPER-STANDARD: Defending Ontario Class Suit v. Auto Suppliers
CWS APARTMENT: Judge Transfers "Abrahamson" Suit to W.D. Tex.
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
DUN & BRADSTREET: Amended Settlement in O&R Case Awaits Court OK
DUN & BRADSTREET: Amended Deal in Die-Mension Case Awaits Okay

DUN & BRADSTREET: Amended Settlement in Vinotemp Case Awaits OK
DUN & BRADSTREET: Amended Deal in Flow Sciences Case Pending
DUN & BRADSTREET: Amended Settlement in Altaflo Case Pending
DUN & BRADSTREET: "Thomas" Accord Up for March 50 Hearing
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: "Kristensen" Appeal Underway

EXTREME NETWORKS: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Litigation
FBCS INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
FH CANN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Tyberg" Action Claims
FOUR SEASONS HOTELS: Faces "Zyda" Suit in District of Hawaii
GATESTONE & CO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

GUAM: DOJ Opposes Motion for Preliminary Injunction in H-2B Case
GUARDIAN PROTECTION: "Fitzhenry" Class Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Court OKs $26.25MM "Friedman" Suit Settlement
HENRY SCHEIN: Still Defending Antitrust Class Suits
HONEY BAKED: Ham Lover's Suit Tossed in Cal. Ct. App.

IDAHO: IDHW Settles Class Action Over Medicaid Disability Waiver
INVESTMENT PROFESSIONALS: Security Brokers Class Certified
ITT CORP: Ninth Circuit Affirms Class Certification in "Lee" Suit
KANSAS: Awaits Approval of Warrant Fees Class Action Settlement
KAPRAUN PC: Court Stays Lolita A. Wilburn Case

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Sesti" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
MANNAN INC: Faces "Enriquez" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
MARC HOLDING: Faces "Almonte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Class Action Over Captioning Can Proceed
MBI ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dick" Action Claims

MENARD CORRECTIONAL: Illinois Judge Trims Inmate's Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Baker" Suit Claims
MOUNT SINAI: Faces "Latner" Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
MURPHY OIL: Faces "Appleyard" Class Suit in W.D. Tennessee
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johansen" Suit Says

NABORS INDUSTRIES: Class Action Appeal Underway
NEW MEXICO: Judge to Appoint Expert to Oversee Welfare Programs
NOBLE CASING: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Cooper" Suit
NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Martinez" Suit Claims
NUTELLA: FDA Accepts Public Comments on Nut Butter Spreads

ONEOK INC: Reached Agreement to Settle FLI Case
ONEOK INC: Agreements Don't Apply to Sinclair Oil Suit
PELLA CORPORATION: "Gowins" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2514
PROBALANCE INC: Ulrich Seeks to Certify Three Classes
PSC INDUSTRIAL: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

QUALITY RESOURCES: Court Certifies Class in "Pierluca" Suit
RELIANCE TRUST: Defending Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Class Certification Sought in "Incardone" Case
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Turner Seeks to Certify Inmates Class
SEMPRA ENERGY: Defending Against Property & Business Class Actions

SET ENTERPRISES: Faces "Leonardo" Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
SFB BANCORP: Trondheim Class Suit Removed to District of Arizona
SHINE LAWYERS: Shareholders Mull Suit Over Profit Downgrade
SINGLER-ERNSTER INC: Judge Drops "Vespa" Stock Ownership Suit
SQUARE INC: "Levin" Class Action Appeal Underway

STAFFING NETWORK: "Shirley" Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid
STEARNS LENDING: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
STEVENS VAN: Faces "Lucas" Class Suit in N. District Ohio
TAKATA CORP: Buyer May Face Liability for Defective Air Bags
TESLA MOTORS: Class Action Appeal Underway

TESLA MOTORS: Faces 7 Suits Related to SolarCity Acquisition
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Plaintiffs Appeal to Supreme Court
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Ex-Students Want Campaign Statements Admitted
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Shareholder Litigation in New York Closed

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Couriers File Class Action in New York
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Field Reps Class in "Gross" Suit
UNITED STATES: Class Certified in "Hernandez" Immigration Case
USA: Faces "Valte" Suit Over Fair Labor Standards Act Violation
VEREIT INC: Court Wants Doc Production Completed by Dec. 15

VEREIT INC: Cole Parties Has Yet to Enter Settlement Stipulation
VIVA LABS: Faces "Tracton" Class Suit in S.D. California
VOYA FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Dezelan" Suit
VOYA FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Patrico" Suit
WASHINGTON GAS: Sued Over Injuries Suffered Due to Gas Explosion

WELLS FARGO: Launches Internal Investigation Amid Fraud Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: Creates Rehire-Resource Team Amid SEC Investigation
WELTMAN WEINBERG: "Goodman" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to W.D. Ken.
WILD SYMPHONY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "You" Suit Claims
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Entered Into Master Settlement Agreeemnt

WRIGHT MEDICAL: 79 Pending Suits Over PROFEMUR
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 7 Suits Over Cobalt Chrome Modular Neck
WRIGHT MEDICAL: "Jacques" Case Dismissed without Prejudice

* Class Action Defendants in State Court Invoke Due Process


                            *********


407 ETR: Settles Toll Fee Class Action for $8 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Shea, writing for Global News, reports that the company
that privately operates the Highway 407 ETR through the Greater
Toronto Area will pay $8 million to settle a class action lawsuit.

The agreement, signed on Nov. 3, ends a legal battle that Global
News first reported in April, 2012.

The legal action alleged that the toll highway consortium
illegally made use of provincial legislation to prevent drivers
who were bankrupt or insolvent from renewing their vehicle licence
plates.

407 ETR denies it did anything wrong and does not admit liability
in accepting the out-of-court settlement, which is still subject
to court approval.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled for
November 15 in Toronto.

Plaintiffs Michael Dow, Gwendolyn Miron and Peter Teolis brought
the action on behalf of persons who incurred tolls or additional
charges to 407 ETR who subsequently became insolvent and whose
plate renewals were denied.

The $8-million settlement will be applied to the plaintiffs' legal
fees and the balance paid out to consumers who registered as part
of the class action.

Initially, eligible class members will receive $200 each. They may
apply for a higher reimbursement and will receive more money
depending on the length of time their plates were denied as a
result of the actions of 407 ETR.

If it receives approval by a judge, eligible class members will
receive a notice by mail.

Lawyers for the class action are from the firm Scarfone Hawkins
LLP based in Hamilton.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Court Postpones Deadlines in "Anger" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has
postponed all deadlines in the class action lawsuit as the parties
attempt to finalize a confidential agreement in principle to
settle the case.

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

On August 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss. An amended complaint was filed on
November 30, 2015.

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

Accretive Health, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a
provider of services that help healthcare providers generate
sustainable improvements in their operating margins and cash flows
while also improving patient, physician and staff satisfaction for
its customers.


ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Judge Granted Bid to Dismiss "Hawkins" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Houston of the Southern District of
California, granted defendant's motion to dismiss, in the case
SHAVONDA HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 15-cv-2309-JAH (BLM) (SD Cal.)

AdvancePierre Foods, Inc. manufactures, distributes, and sells
microwaveable sandwiches under the brand name Fast Bites.

Shavonda Hawkins is a consumer/purchaser of Fast Bites
microwaveable sandwiches since January 1, 2008. On October 14,
2015, Hawkins filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging
AdvancePierre Foods's use of partially hydrogenated oil (PHO) in
its microwaveable sandwiches. Hawkins asserts that PHO is a source
of artificial trans fat and that there is no safe level of PHO or
artificial trans fat intake because PHO and artificial trans fat
cause inflammation, cardiovascular heart disease, diabetes,
cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and cognitive damage.

In her complaint, Hawkins asserted claims for unlawful business
practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.
(UCL), unfair business practices in violation of the UCL, nuisance
in violation of California Civil Code Sections 3479-93, and breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Hawkins asserts these claims individually and on behalf of a class
of all individuals who purchased in the United States, on or after
January 1, 2008 for household or personal use, microwavable
sandwiches products manufactured or distributed by AdvancePierre
Foods containing partially hydrogenated oil Hawkins does not
assert that the Fast Bite sandwiches were mislabeled.

On November 6, 2015, AdvancePierre Foods filed a motion to
dismiss, arguing that Hawkins failed to properly allege any of her
claims and that her claims are preempted by federal law.

Judge Houston granted defendant's motion to dismiss indicating
that Federal law does not provide a basis for plaintiff's claim
under unlawful prong of Section 17200 and that plaintiff's state
claims are preempted.

A copy of Judge Houston's order dated November 8, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/ghXhdh from Leagle.com.

Shavonda Hawkins, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory S. Weston --
greg@westonfirm.com -- Andrew C. Hamilton -- andrew@westonfirm.com
-- at The Weston Firm

AdvancePierre Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Cox
-- Andrew.Cox@ThompsonHine.com -- Stacey Greenwell --
Stacey.Greenwell@ThompsonHine.com -- William Hubbard --
Bill.Hubbard@ThompsonHine.com -- at Thompson Hine LLP; Michael
Hurvitz -- mike.hurvitz@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and
Brooke LLP


ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: Wilson Seeks to Certify Collection Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case captioned BEVERLY YORK AND LINDA WILSON, on
behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v.
ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE & ADULT RIGHTS, INC., CIVIL ACTION NO.
16cv12487, E.D. La., filed a motion to proceed as a collective
action and facilitate notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Plaintiffs specifically ask the Court to enter an order
conditionally certifying the following class or similarly situated
individuals:

  All individuals who are currently employed, or formerly have
  been employed by Defendant at Advocates for Juvenille and
  Adults Rights, Inc. (AJAR in New Orleans, Louisiana in the past
  three years as "Personal Care Aides", a job that was later re-
  titled Direct Service Workers (DSWs), without any substantive
  change in job duties.

Plaintiffs further seek authority to issue a notice to allow
potential members of the class to opt-in to preserve their rights.

The complaint asserts, among other things, that Defendants refused
to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers the minimum
overtime wages owed to them.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexandra E. Mora, Esq.
     Walter F. Wolf, III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA MORA, APLC
     322 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Tel: (504) 566-0233
     Fax: (504) 566-8997

          - and -

     Derek M. Mercer, Esq.
     MERCER LAW FIRM, LLC
     127 Camp Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Telephone: 504-522-8998
     Facsimile: 504-272-2974
     E-mail: derek@mercerlawfirm.net

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r1Wv6cFD


AMAZON: Illinois Delivery Drivers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Eidelson, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
Amazon.com was sued by Illinois delivery drivers who say the
company failed to pay them overtime for hauling its goods.  Among
the questions the judge will have to answer? Whether they actually
worked for Amazon.

"Amazon controls everything, without a shadow of a doubt," says
Theron Bradley, a former employee of Amazon contractor Silverstar
who's one of the named plaintiffs in the proposed class action.
"Silverstar pays me, but I definitely know I work for Amazon."

Mr. Bradley's lawsuit, filed in Chicago federal court, targets not
just the contractor that signed his paychecks but the
e-commerce behemoth itself.  In the complaint, he contends Amazon
was so involved in his day-to-day work as to be a "joint employer"
and as such, liable for the alleged violations under both state
and federal law.  Drivers have also brought wage-and-hour lawsuits
naming Amazon as an employer in Washington State and California.

Amazon sees its relationship with the drivers differently.  "The
small and medium-sized businesses that partner with Amazon
logistics have their own employees and are required to abide by
applicable laws and Amazon's Supplier Code of Conduct," the
company said in an emailed statement.  "We investigate any claim
that a provider isn't complying with these obligations." (An
attorney for Silverstar said on Nov. 2 it was still investigating
the allegations.)

But labor advocates say when it comes to contracted workers like
Mr. Bradley, Amazon is much more than a mere consumer of services.
"The trainings were done by Amazon personnel, the daily
assignments were given out by Amazon personnel, Amazon personnel
tracked the routes taken by the drivers, they wore Amazon logos,"
says the workers' attorney, Chris Williams.  "If there was a
problem with package delivery, they went to Amazon. They didn't go
to Silverstar."

The Illinois lawsuit is among the latest in a series of efforts by
activists, attorneys, and agencies to hold name-brand companies
accountable for the conditions of workers they rely on but are
ostensibly employed by someone else-be it a supplier, a
franchisee, or (if they're classified as independent contractors)
no one at all.  In 2012, guest workers at a Louisiana seafood
supplier went on strike over alleged forced labor and mounted
simultaneous protests targeting Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in the U.S.
and Mexico.  In 2014, California legislators passed a law
increasing company liability for labor law violations by
contractors.  Last month, McDonald's Corp. agreed to a $3.75
million wage-and-hour settlement with workers at five franchisee-
run restaurants that had sued the corporation as a joint employer.

"More and more, businesses are varying organizational and staffing
models," David Weil, chief of the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage
and Hour Division, wrote last January in an Administrator's
Interpretation.  He said that "as a result, the traditional
employment relationship of one employer employing one employee is
less prevalent."  Mr. Weil, who before joining the Obama
administration wrote a book about how the "fissuring" of
employment structures has hurt workplace standards, emphasized the
breadth of who federal law deems to be an employer, and the need
to expand enforcement beyond the company that signs a paycheck.

In the litigation context, being able to target the larger,
deeper-pocketed defendant does increase the potential for a more
lucrative outcome, for workers and their lawyers.  But it may also
lead to change for more employees.

"Where joint employment exists," Mr. Weil wrote, "one employer may
also be larger and more established, with a greater ability to
implement policy or systemic changes to ensure compliance."


AMERICAN CHEMICALS: Bais Yaakov Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. American
Chemicals Equipment Inc. d/b/a Americanosment d/b/a Stockup.com,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00978, was transferred from Alabama Northern to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-24705-
MGC to the proceeding.

American Chemicals Equipment Inc. is in the business of
manufacturing ventilation & aluminum coating process equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Sodhi, Esq.
      BLANK ROME, LLP
      Broward Financial Centre
      500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2100
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
      Telephone: (561) 417-8153
      Facsimile: (561) 417-8183
      E-mail: PSodhi@BlankRome.com


ANGIE'S LIST: "Moore" Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Dec. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement of
the case, Moore, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-
SD,remains subject to final court approval.

A Settlement Fairness Hearing has been set for Dec. 5, 2016 9:30
a.m. EST.  It was originally slated for Nov. 8.

Information on the case is available at:

               https://www.moorevalsettlement.com/

On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleges claims for breaches
of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud
and fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
premised on the allegations that the Company does not disclose
that it accepts advertising payments from service providers or
that the payments allegedly will impact the service provider
letter-grade ratings, the content and availability of reviews
about the provider and the provider's place in search-result
rankings.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 13, 2015, which was
granted in part on August 7, 2015. In particular, the plaintiff's
claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
and unjust enrichment were dismissed from the action.

The parties proceeded to exchange extensive written and document
discovery and conducted depositions. Discovery closed on April 14,
2016.

During the discovery period, certain other cases with similar
allegations also were filed by some of the same plaintiffs'
counsel in federal court in California (Zygelman v. Angie's List,
Inc., 3:16-cv-00276-SI) and New Jersey (Glick v. Angie's List,
Inc., 2:16-cv-00546-MCA-MAH).  Following mediation sessions held
on April 4, 2016 and April 12, 2016, the parties executed a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") on April 19, 2016 to settle
the claims on a class-wide basis. Among other relief, the
settlement provides for a cash payment of up to $2,350,000 to
create a fund for the payment of cash to settlement class members
and for the payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs'
counsel as approved by the court. Settlement class members will
have the option of sharing in the cash fund or selecting a free
period of membership of up to four months depending on the date
and length of their membership with Angie's List. The settlement
also provides certain prospective relief in the form of enhanced
explanations in the Company's Membership Agreement and in
responses to Frequently Asked Questions concerning, among other
things, the advertising revenue earned from service providers.

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company recorded a $3,500,000
contingent liability related to this matter in the first quarter
of 2016, and this amount includes the cost of the cash fund
described above as well as the payment of reasonable notice and
administration costs, attorneys' fees and an assumption of revenue
the Company will forego as a result of certain class members
selecting the option for a free period of membership.

As part of the settlement, plaintiffs' counsel filed, and the
Company did not oppose, a motion to amend the complaint in the
Moore matter to add both the Zygelman and Glick plaintiffs as
named plaintiffs for settlement purposes only, as well as a motion
for preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement.

By order dated July 11, 2016, the court granted the motion to
amend the complaint, and the conditional amended class action
complaint was filed as of that date. On July 12, 2016, the court
entered an order granting the unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement, which, among
other things, ordered that notice of the settlement be provided to
the settlement class and scheduled a fairness hearing originally
for November 8, 2016. The proposed settlement remains subject to
final court approval.

Glick v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:16-cv-00546-MCA-MAH. On February 1,
2016, Gary Glick, an Angie's List member, filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. The plaintiff alleged that the Company
deceives its consumers by representing that service providers
"can't pay" or "don't pay" to be on Angie's List, while concealing
that service providers pay advertising fees to influence their
search result ranking, and further asserted other claims
substantially similar to those alleged in the Moore litigation.
The Glick action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, in
accordance with the aforementioned class action settlement.

Zygelman v. Angie's List, Inc., 3:16-cv-00276-SI. On January 15,
2016, Michelle Zygelman, an Angie's List member, filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. The plaintiff alleged claims
substantially similar to those in the Glick action but is seeking
relief under California consumer protection statutes. The Zygelman
action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 14,
2016, in accordance with the aforementioned class action
settlement.

Angie's List, Inc. operates a national local services consumer
review service and marketplace where members can research, shop
for and purchase local services for critical needs, such as home,
health and automotive services, as well as rate and review the
providers of these services across the United States.


ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" Class Certification Motion Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification in the case, Williams, et al.
v. Angie's List, Inc., 1:16-cv-878, remains pending.

On April 20, 2016, a group of former employees filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay (i)
wages earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage
Statutes and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting
payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other charges. A first and second amended
complaint was filed, adding additional named plaintiffs, and the
Company's answer to the second amended complaint was filed on July
26, 2016.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification on
June 10, 2016, and the Company filed its response brief in
opposition to motion for conditional certification on July 15,
2016. The plaintiffs filed their reply brief on July 21, 2016.

The Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome or
reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if
any, related to this matter, and accordingly, has not established
any reserve for this matter.

Angie's List, Inc. operates a national local services consumer
review service and marketplace where members can research, shop
for and purchase local services for critical needs, such as home,
health and automotive services, as well as rate and review the
providers of these services across the United States.


ANTHEM INC: Summary Judgment Order in WellPoint Case Now Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, In re
WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates
Litigation, the court's summary judgment order dismissing all of
the remaining plaintiffs and their claims is now final but the
court has not yet entered judgment in the case.

The Company said, "We are currently a defendant in eleven putative
class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement
that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called
In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR"
Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits were
filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members
on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services
for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the
American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON
physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric
Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the
California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes
of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers.
The plaintiffs filed several amended complaints alleging that the
defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA,
federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement
database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement
methodologies.

"The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth
Amended Complaint to which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but
not all, of the claims.  In July 2013 the court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part our motion. The court held
that the state and federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO
claims should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The
court further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they
involved non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved
our alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice.
The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims
with prejudice.

"The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an
ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a
breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a
breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber
plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion
to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in
part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that
one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted
administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based
on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff.

"Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification in November 2013 seeking six different
classes. Following oral argument, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in late 2014. The California
subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a renewed
motion for class certification with more narrowly defined proposed
classes, which the court denied. All but two of the individually
named subscribers and all of the providers and medical
associations dismissed their claims with prejudice.

"We filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2016, and a
motion for summary judgment was also filed by one of the remaining
individual plaintiffs. In July 2016, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion and granted our motion for summary judgment on all
remaining claims. The court's summary judgment order dismissing
all of the remaining plaintiffs and their claims is now final but
the court has not yet entered judgment in the case. We intend to
vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome
cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: No Trials Yet in Blue Cross Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that no date has been
set for either pretrial conference or trials in the case In re
Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that
were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue
Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases
were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In
re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama."

"Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans
have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic
markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which
limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan),
restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases
were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs,
health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider
plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in July
2013.

"The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on
behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,
Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and Texas. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013.

"In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions,
ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage
of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following
the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the
subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and
asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014.

"No date has been set for either the pretrial conference or trials
in these actions.

"Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actions
asserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been consolidated
into the multi-district lawsuit. We intend to vigorously defend
these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined."


ANTHEM INC: Oral Arguments Held in "Gold" Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that oral arguments
were held in October 2016 in the appeal in the case, Ronald Gold,
et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.

The Company said, "We are defending a certified class action filed
as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance. The
lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is
captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.  Anthem
Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the
conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company
into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the
Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company
at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or
ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for
their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in
Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong
ESMs. A trial on liability was held in October 2014.

In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on
all issues, finding that (i) Anthem Insurance correctly determined
the State of Connecticut to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (ii) Anthem
Insurance acted in good faith in making this determination, while
Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to override a
presumption that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct;
and (iii) Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual
obligation.

In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment entered for Anthem Insurance. In December 2015, the
Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would hear the appeal
directly rather than the appeal going to the intermediate
appellate court.

Oral arguments were held in October 2016 and the appeal is
currently under consideration by the court.

"We intend to vigorously seek the affirmation of the trial court's
judgment; however, the suit's ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined," the Company said.


ANTHEM INC: Fact Discovery Scheduled to be Completed by December
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that fact discovery is
scheduled to be completed by December 2016 in the class action
lawsuit related to the cyber attack incident.

The Company said, "In February 2015, we reported that we were the
target of a sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers
gained unauthorized access to certain of our information
technology systems and obtained personal information related to
many individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health
care identification/social security numbers, street addresses,
email addresses, phone numbers and employment information,
including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit
card or medical information, such as claims, test results or
diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no
assurance can be given that we will not identify additional
information that was accessed or obtained."

"Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to
remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity
firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the
evolving landscape. We are providing credit monitoring and
identity protection services to those who have been affected by
this cyber attack. We have continued to implement security
enhancements since this incident. We have incurred expenses
subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this
matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in
the foreseeable future. We will recognize these expenses in the
periods in which they are incurred.

"Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and
other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of
current or former members, current or former employees, other
individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other
related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack. State
and federal agencies, including state insurance regulators, state
attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil
Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are investigating
events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its
consequences and our responses. Although we are cooperating in
these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other
obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate
our business and our results of operations.

"With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February
2015 and was subsequently heard by the Panel in May 2015. In June
2015, the Panel entered its order transferring the consolidated
matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The U.S. District Court entered its case management
order in September 2015.

"We filed a motion to dismiss ten of the counts that are before
the U.S. District Court. In February 2016, the court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part our motion, dismissing
three counts with prejudice, four counts without prejudice and
allowing three counts to proceed.

"Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2016, and we
subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss. In May 2016, the
court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our
motion, dismissing one count with prejudice, dismissing certain
counts asserted by specific named plaintiffs with or without
prejudice depending on their individualized facts, and allowing
the remaining counts to proceed. In July 2016, plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint which we answered in August 2016. Fact
discovery is scheduled to be completed by December 2016. There
remain two state court cases that are presently proceeding outside
of the Multidistrict Litigation."

"We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain
expenses and potential liabilities of this nature. While a loss
from these matters is reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses because our investigation into
the matter is ongoing, the proceedings remain in the early stages,
alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as
to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the
ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant
factual and legal issues to be resolved."


ANTHEM INC: Defending Against Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the case, In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA
Litigation.

Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts were named as defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the Southern
District of New York by three members of ERISA plans alleging
ERISA violations captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and
Robert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. The
lawsuit was then consolidated with a similar lawsuit that was
previously filed against Express Scripts.

A first amended consolidated complaint was filed in the
consolidated lawsuit, which is captioned In Re Express
Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation. The first amended consolidated
complaint was filed by six individual plaintiffs against Anthem
and Express Scripts on behalf of all persons who are participants
in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA health care plan
from December 1, 2009 to the present in which Anthem provided
prescription drug benefits through a PBM Agreement with Express
Scripts and who paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in
the course of using that prescription drug benefit.

As to the ERISA members, the plaintiffs allege that Anthem
breached its duties under ERISA (i) by failing to adequately
monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the PBM Agreement and (ii)
by trading off the best interests of Anthem insureds for its own
pecuniary interest by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the
PBM Agreement in exchange for the $4.675 billion purchase price
for our NextRx PBM business.

As to the non-ERISA members, the plaintiffs assert that Anthem
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
implied in the health plans under which the non-ERISA members are
covered by (i) negotiating and entering into the PBM Agreement
with Express Scripts that was detrimental to the interests of the
such non-ERISA members, (ii) failing to adequately monitor the
activities of Express Scripts, including failing to timely monitor
and correct the prices charged by Express Scripts for prescription
medications, and (iii) acting in Anthem's self-interests instead
of the interests of the non-ERISA members when it accepted the
$4.675 billion purchase price for NextRx. Plaintiffs seek to
recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable
relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive
relief, joint and several liability, attorney's fees and costs and
interest.

"We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate
outcome cannot be presently determined," the Company said.


APPLE INC: Four Law Firms Amend Class Action Over iPhone Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Sandronsky, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that McCuneWright, LLP, Larson O'Brien, LLP, Simmons Hanly Conroy
and Greg Coleman Law are seasoned litigation firms now taking on
perhaps the top Silicon Valley company in the world.

The four legal firms filed an amended class-action lawsuit on Oct.
7 against Apple Inc. for alleged defects in the company's iPhone 6
and iPhone 6 Plus smartphones.  The suit claims a "touch-disease"
from a design flaw in the motherboard results in a gray bar across
the top of the touchscreens that decreases the devices'
functionality.

Apple uses a global supply chain, which means the iPhone6 and
iPhone 6 Plus smartphones are assembled in China, but designed in
the U.S.

In the 51-page amended complaint, plaintiffs Thomas Davidson, Todd
Cleary, Adam Benelhachemi, Michael Pajaro, John Borzymowski,
Brooke Corbett, Taylor Brown, Justin Bauer, Heirloom Estate
Services, Inc., Kathleen Baker, Matt Muilenburg and William Bon
allege a "material manufacturing defect that ultimately causes
iPhone touchscreens to become unresponsive and fail for their
essential purpose as smartphones."

The plaintiffs allege that Apple has long been aware of the
defective iPhones.  "Yet, notwithstanding its longstanding
knowledge of this manufacturing defect, Apple routinely has
refused to repair the iPhones without charge when the defect
manifests," the suit states.

That in turn, has allegedly harmed the plaintiffs.  "As a result
of Apple's unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices,
owners of the iPhones, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an
ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or value," the
suit states.  "The unfair and deceptive trade practices committed
by Apple were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial
aggravating circumstances."

The plaintiffs and other class members totaling 9,539 individuals
would have not have purchased the Apple iPhone 6 smartphone if
they knew of the alleged touchscreen defect, according to the
complaint.

Apple began to sell the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus smartphones
nearly two years ago.

"This seems to be Apple's way of doing business," Jeff Kagan, a
wireless analyst and consultant, told the Northern California
Record.  "While this is not unusual, if Apple would admit to the
problem and fix it, there would be no problem."

That is not what is occurring, though.

"There is significant precedent in all different types of products
for a class action against a manufacturer who produces products
that fail long before their useful life when used in a normal and
expected way," Richard D. McCune told the Northern California
Record.

Coleman Law states that it has "40 years of combined legal
experience, having tried hundreds of jury trials and countless
bench trials and have recovered over $250 million in compensation
for our clients," and works on a contingency basis.

"There is nothing novel or groundbreaking about the legal theories
in this case, except for the number of consumers affected, and the
name and brand of the defendant," Gary Coleman told the Northern
California Record.

Meanwhile, the number of class members increased 40 percent from
Sept. 22 to the amended filing on Oct. 7. Cupertino-based Apple
declined a request for comment from the Record.

The sales and revenue for iPhones have declined for the most
recent year-over comparison.  Apple sold 40.4 million iPhones in
third-quarter 2016, with revenue of $24 billion versus sales of
47.5 million units for the third-quarter 2015, and revenue of
$31.4 billion.

"We are seeking return of cost of repair and value of the phone
before it malfunctioned," Mr. McCune said.  "We have not
quantified those numbers yet, and will need discovery and expert
testimony for damage numbers."

McCuneWright is involved in a number of other class-action
lawsuits.

The firm is suing General Motors on behalf of consumers who bought
cars from the automaker, alleging it falsified the actual fuel
economy of the vehicles (2016 Chevrolet Traverses, 2016 Buick
Enclaves and 2016 GMC Acadias), penalizing buyers with higher gas
and sticker prices.  McCuneWright filed this complaint in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

In the U.S. District Court for Northern California, McCuneWright
filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of people who paid for
blood testing using the Theranos Edison device in 2014 and 2015.
Federal prosecutors are now investigating Theranos, a Silicon
Valley startup that closed its clinical labs and Theranos Wellness
Centers on Oct. 5.

Green Dot Corp., which issues MoneyCard prepaid debit cards, also
is facing a McCuneWright class-action lawsuit on behalf of
individuals unable to tap into their account and funds.  Green Dot
Corp. issues MoneyCard prepaid debit cards, which allegedly did
not function as promised.


ARES CAPITAL: Court Wants Expedited Discovery
---------------------------------------------
Ares Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has
ordered that this case proceed to expedited discovery.

American Capital and the Company are aware that a consolidated
putative shareholder class action has been filed by stockholders
of American Capital challenging the American Capital Acquisition.
On or about August 18, 2016, shareholders of American Capital
filed a consolidated putative shareholder class action allegedly
on behalf of holders of the common stock of American Capital
against the members of American Capital's board of directors in
the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland due to the
directors' actions in approving the American Capital Acquisition.

This action is a consolidation of putative shareholder complaints
filed against the directors of American Capital on June 24, 2016,
July 12, 2016, July 21, 2016 and July 27, 2016. The action alleges
that the directors failed to adequately discharge their fiduciary
duties to the public shareholders of American Capital by hastily
commencing a sales process due to the board's manipulation by a
major shareholder, Elliott Management Corp. (together with its
affiliates, "Elliott Management"). The complaint also alleges that
the directors then failed to obtain for the shareholders the
highest value available in the marketplace for their shares. The
complaint further alleges that the proposed merger was the product
of a flawed sales process due to Elliott Management's continued
manipulation of the directors, the use of deal protection devices
in the American Capital Acquisition that precluded other bidders
from making a higher offer to American Capital, and the directors'
conflicts of interest due to special benefits, including the full
vesting of American Capital stock options and incentive awards, or
golden parachutes the directors are due to receive upon
consummation of the proposed merger.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Company's
Registration Statement on Form N-14, which was filed with the SEC
on July 20, 2016 and includes a joint proxy statement to American
Capital's shareholders, is materially false and misleading because
it omits material information concerning the financial and
procedural fairness of the proposed merger. The complaint seeks to
enjoin the American Capital Acquisition. In the event that the
American Capital Acquisition is completed, the complaint seeks to
recover compensatory damages for all losses resulting from the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The court has ordered that
this case proceed to expedited discovery. The Company believes
that these claims are without merit.

Ares Capital Corporation (the "Company" or "ARCC") is a specialty
finance company that is a closed-end, non-diversified management
investment company incorporated in Maryland. The Company has
elected to be regulated as a business development company ("BDC")
under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (together
with the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, the
"Investment Company Act"). The Company has elected to be treated
as a regulated investment company ("RIC") under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and operates in a
manner so as to qualify for the tax treatment applicable to RICs.


ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kaff" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Kaff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06279 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a nationally licensed,
insured, bonded debt recovery agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com

AUSTRALIA: Indigenous Slavery Class Action Mulled Against State
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Collins, writing for ABC News, reports that indigenous slavery
in Western Australia may form the basis of a class action on
unpaid wages in the state, a lawyer says.

The action -- launched by the uncle of prominent activist Noel
Pearson in Queensland earlier this year -- may be expanded into
WA, and name both the State Government and companies that
benefited from unpaid wages arrangements with Aboriginal people,
Shine lawyers' Jan Saddler said.

"One of the causes of action that we are investigating is whether
or not that type of arrangement effectively amounted to slavery,"
Mr. Saddler said.

"There [are] only a few more stages of the investigation to
undertake before we're satisfied that there is a good course of
action for those Indigenous West Australians whose wages were held
-- stolen -- by the government and have never been paid to them,"
she said.

The Queensland action targets the State Government as the trustee
who withheld wages paid by employers.

But Ms. Saddler said in Western Australia, some Indigenous people
worked in arrangements that made no mention of payment, and that
this could open private organisations to claims of slavery and
compensation payments.

"In many cases, people were effectively 'allocated to their
employer' -- and I put that in inverted commas -- and they were
indentured to work for them or to perform services for them
without any proper form of compensation whatsoever," she said.
"It may be that our investigations reveal that the claims in that
case would not only be made, or could be made against the State
Government of Western Australia, but also by those organisations
that participated in that arrangement."

Families could join on behalf of deceased Indigenous people

The practice of not paying Indigenous workers, or withholding pay,
is regarded to have ended more than 40 years ago, but
Ms. Saddler said families could join the class action where
complainants had passed away.

"The legislation that was in place that permitted these type of
arrangements to take effect were repealed or were no longer
operational from about the mid '60s to the early 1970s at the
latest," she said.

"There may be claims for people who were in that situation, and
indeed their families subsequently, if those people have now
passed away, to make a claim in respect of the failure to pay them
anything for the work that they performed."

Menang Noongar elder Lester Coyne is interested in joining any
class action to claim payment he believes is the rightful property
of his mother, who was taken from her family and indentured as a
domestic in 1927.

"Mum was taken, aged nine, from Carnarvon and shipped down to
Fremantle and put into service at Maida Vale up until 1934,"
Mr. Coyne said.

"Going into service for a fee certainly appears to me to be child
slavery or labour."

Mr. Coyne has obtained records through freedom of information that
he said showed money owing to his mother was misappropriated.

"Quite a few show a duplication where shoes were funded by the
government, and then churches in many cases claimed the money or
took the money from these accounts, so there was a lot of unusual
activity," he said.

Shine Lawyers are preparing to travel to the Kimberley, South West
WA, and Perth, in preparation for expanding the class action.


AUSTRALIA: Opposition Party Demands Release of RAFF Foam Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Hughes Jones, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reports that the federal opposition has demanded the government
release a national report into contamination linked to old fire
fighting foam at military bases around Australia.

A preliminary report into toxic chemicals which leaked into ground
and surface water near a dozen defence sites across the country is
due to be released within this week.

But four Labor MPs say the samples were taken as early as April
and questioned why it has taken the government four months to make
the report public.

A joint statement from Northern Territory senator Malarndirri
McCarthy, Lingiari member Warren Snowdon, Solomon MP Luke Gosling
and opposition defence spokeswoman Gai Brodtmann called on the
coalition to stop dragging its feet on the issue.

They said affected residents in the NT, Victoria, Queensland and
NSW have been left in the dark.

"We know the report is completed, so why not release it today?"
they said.

"Communities have suffered stress and uncertainty over the
Turnbull government's slow and uncoordinated response."

The Defence Department on Nov. 7 confirmed pollutants have been
found near three Top End military bases, but says it's too early
to know the effects on agriculture and health.

The federal government has already provided alternative drinking
water to one Katherine landowner while it tested properties for
pollutants from the nearby Tindal RAAF base, as well as the RAAF
Base and Robertson Barracks in Darwin.

The Labor MPs said residents needed certainty about their future.

"The Turnbull government has learned nothing from its
mismanagement of communication and consultation in Williamtown and
Oakley."

A full nationwide investigation will begin early next year which
will consider risks to human health and the environment.

The NT government on Nov. 4 urged people not to eat seafood from
two Darwin creeks after contamination was detected in shellfish.


BANK OF AMERICA: Ex-Prison Inmates Sue Over Debit Card Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blake Audett, writing for Smart Stock News, reports that the Bank
of America Corp. has been struck this time with a proposed class
action lawsuit.  It is accused of charging excessive fees from
many former Arizona prison inmates.  It was mentioned that BAC
exploited them through the debit cards they got when they were
released.

Filed in the federal court in Phoenix, the lawsuit stated that the
bank is charged of taking advantage of "one of the most vulnerable
groups imaginable."  If the case is proved against BAC, the claim
is likely to be legit.  Inmates getting out of the prison are
perhaps the most vulnerable group a bank can target, meaning they
have no job, no links, no reputation, and no place to go.

Those cards are used to return them their confiscated money at the
time of their arrest, or the money they earned through work
programs at the time of their imprisonment.  It was stated in the
complaint that those inmates had to use those big fee cards to
debit their money from their accounts; they were left with no
other option.  The charges they paid might not have been taken
from the ordinary consumers.  The complaint also cited an example:
charging $15 to withdraw cash at the counter.

Richard Golomb, lead counsel for the ex-prisoners, said: "They get
charged a fee just to walk up to a teller to find out how much
money they have in their accounts."  He added that the inmates
never signed any contract, in which they agreed to pay such a huge
fee.

The bank holds exclusive rights to provide the debit card services
to the Arizona prison inmates; therefore, it has the power to
impose whatever terms it finds suitable, according to the lawsuit.
More than 19,000 inmates are freed each year. Previously, JPMorgan
got stuck as well in the similar case of its contract to issue
debit cards to inmates getting out of the prison; however, it
settled the case in August paying $446,822.


BHH LLC: Judge Rejects Bid to Intervene in "Steigerwald" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, denied an interested party's motion for
leave to intervene in the case Jeanne Steigerwald, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BHH,
LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:15 CV 741 (N.D. Ohio)

Plaintiff Jeanne Steigerwald filed a class action complaint in
April 2015 against BHH, LLC Van Hauser, LLC and E. Mishan and
Sons, Inc dba Emson, Inc. that involves consumer sales of
electronic pest control devices which plaintiff alleges do not
repel pests. Steigerwald originally asserted five causes but on a
prior motion to dismiss, Steigerwald stated that she will not
pursue her claim on fraud (count III) and breach of express
warranty (count V). The court granted the motion to dismiss as to
count I and denied it as to count II and IV. The case is scheduled
for a settlement conference on December 12, 2016.

Joanne Hart, a resident of California, moved to intervene in the
action. Hart had filed a putative consumer class action against
defendants BHH, LLC and Van Hauser, LLC in the Southern District
of New York on June 19, 2015, Case No. 1:15 CV 4804.

Hart submits a proposed class action complaint in intervention
which asserts two claims: breach of express warranty (count I) and
fraud (count II).

Hart also seeks to represent two classes: a class of all persons
who purchased one or more ultrasonic pest repellers during the
putative class period, including, but not limited to, the Bell and
Howell branded ultrasonic pest repellers from April 16, 2011 to
April 16, 2015, on a nationwide basis, except Louisiana and North
Dakota (the Fraud Class). A class of all persons who purchased one
or more ultrasonic pest repellers during the putative class
period, including, but not limited to, the Bell and Howell branded
ultrasonic pest repellers from April 16, 2011 to April 16, 2015,
in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, District of
Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas (the Breach of
Express Warranty Class).

Hart maintains that Steigerwald, the existing class
representative, and her counsel are not representing Hart's
interests because they failed to uncover documents despite having
notice that the documents existed which show that defendants had
more than $22.4 in sales of 22 varieties of pest repellers during
the class period, rather than $897,745, and that there were 10
tests of the pest repellers that had not been addressed by expert
witnesses. Hart also requests that the court reopen discovery in
the matter in order to provide class members with the opportunity
for a full, fair, and proportional opportunity to obtain necessary
discovery. Alternative to intervention, Hart asks the court to
narrow the class to the one variety of pest repeller,   upon which
defendants provided discovery to plaintiff herein, assuming that
is the variety purchased by plaintiff. Hart would then be free to
pursue the claims on behalf of herself and purchasers of the other
21 varieties in the New York action. Finally, Hart maintains that
if intervention is not granted and discovery reopened, the court
will be required to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because the $897, 745 in controversy falls short of
the $5 million minimum required by CAFA.

Judge Gaughan finds that the intervention of right is not
warranted, nor is permissive intervention warranted where
interested party is seeking to intervene to certify the same class
already certified. Judge Gaughan denied interested party's motion
for leave to intervene.

A copy of Judge Gaughan's memorandum of opinion and order dated
November 8, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/jnPDed from
Leagle.com.

Jeanne Steigerwald, Plaintiff, represented by Frank A. Bartela --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Nicole T. Fiorelli --
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- Patrick J. Perotti --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- at Dworken & Bernstein

Van Hauser, LLC,  BHH, LLC, Defendant, represented by B. Robert
Ostojic -- ro@lefltd.com -- Howard B. Randell -- hbr@lefltd.com
-- Scott Wing -- sw@lefltd.com -- at Leahy, Eisenberg & Fraenkel;
Matthew P. Baringer -- mbaringer@davisyoung.com -- Thomas W.
Wright -- twright@davisyoung.com -- at Davis & Young

E. Mishan and Sons, Inc., doing business as Emson Inc, Defendant,
represented by B. Robert Ostojic -- ro@lefltd.com -- at Leahy,
Eisenberg & Fraenkel

E. Mishan and Sons, Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard B.
Randell -- hbr@lefltd.com -- Scott Wing -- sw@lefltd.com -- at
Leahy, Eisenberg & Fraenkel; Matthew P. Baringer --
mbaringer@davisyoung.com -- Thomas W. Wright --
twright@davisyoung.com -- at Davis & Young

Joanne Hart, Intervenor, represented by Yitzchak Z. Kopel --
ykopel@bursor.com -- at Bursor & Fisher; Scott D. Simpkins --
sdsimp@climacolaw.com -- at Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino &
Garofoli


BROWNIE'S CAFE: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brownie's Cafe at
Columbia, Inc. The case is captioned Jose Fernandez, on behalf of
himself, individually, and on behalf of all others-similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Brownie's Cafe at Columbia, Inc.;
Steven Brown, individually; and Eileen Mendoza, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08461 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2016).

Brownie's Cafe offers selection of breakfast and lunch options.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CALIFORNIA: Zeldes Named Co-Lead Class Counsel in Toll Roads Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer litigation powerhouse Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck has been
named interim co-lead class counsel in a class action lawsuit
filed against the entities that operate and maintain Orange
County's Toll Roads, the firm announced on Nov. 3.  ZHE will work
alongside lawyers from Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca and the Lindemann
Law Firm in representing a class of consumers against the San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency, the Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor Agency, and the Orange County
Transportation Authority, among other defendants.

Prior to granting the plaintiffs' motion for interim co-lead class
counsel, the Court considered the work the lawyers have done in
identifying and investigating potential claims in the case, their
experience in handling class actions, complex litigation, and
other claims similar to those asserted in the matter, their
knowledge of applicable law, and the resources they will commit to
representing the class.

"A thorough review of the attorneys' and the firms' prior relevant
experience shows the lawyers are amply qualified to litigate this
case," Judge Andrew J. Guilford wrote in an order granting the
motion on October 24.

"We are thrilled to join the talented lawyers at Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca and the Lindemann Law Firm to represent the class of
consumers in this important case," said interim co-lead class
counsel Helen Zeldes, Esq. -- helenz@zhlaw.com -- a partner at
Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck. "For years, The Toll Roads have engaged
in blatant violations of drivers' rights to due process.  We look
forward to representing the thousands of everyday Californians who
have been subject to these illegal fines, and to vindicating their
interests in court."

In re: Toll Roads Litigation is currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  The
complaint accuses the agencies tasked with financing and operating
The Toll Roads of violating state consumer protection laws and
depriving motorists of constitutional due process when The Toll
Roads switched to an all-electronic, cashless toll payment system
in 2014, and alleges misconduct in processing, reviewing, and
collecting toll evasion penalties without giving drivers adequate
notice and a fair opportunity for a hearing.

The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency, the
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, and the Orange
County Transportation Authority operate and maintain The Toll
Roads, which are owned by the state of California and include
Highways 73, 91, 133, 241, and 261 in Orange County. Historically,
fees from The Toll Roads were collected at physical tollbooths.
However, in May 2014, The Toll Roads converted to an all-
electronic, online system in which drivers not enrolled with the
TCA's FasTrak or ExpressAccount programs must proactively pay
their tolls online within five days.  Owners who fail to do so are
immediately charged with toll evasion, assessed a $57.50 penalty,
and sent a "Notice of Toll Evasion" by mail.  Those who fail to
pay the penalty within 15 days are assessed an additional $42.50
delinquency penalty.

This, according to Ms. Zeldes, violates drivers' right to due
process under the state constitution and constitutes an unfair
business practice in violation of state law.  The plaintiffs
allege that the only form of notice the defendants provide to
drivers of their obligation to pay their tolls online are signs
that do not warm drivers they will be photographed and cited.  Ms.
Zeldes says drivers can't reasonably be expected to see, read, and
understand these signs while driving, especially if they're
tourists from out of town or simply unfamiliar with the area.

"Defendants' procedures for notifying commuters of toll violations
created a 'gotcha' system trapping unwary, ordinary citizens into
its electronic maze, subjecting them to excessive fines, liens on
their vehicle registrations, and even repossession of their
vehicles, all so defendants could avoid the time, cost, judicial
oversight and other requirements of due process," the drivers said
in briefing filed in the matter.

The complaint also alleges that this system of toll payment
discriminates against seniors and economically disadvantaged
people who may not have immediate access to the Internet.

"The upshot to The Toll Roads is that we believe they're now
processing more violations per year than before they switched to
the electronic system," Ms. Zeldes said.  "The downside for
everyday drivers is that they're paying fees that are often
upwards of ten times (or more) than the amount of their toll.  How
is that fair for consumers?"

In addition, the case targets 3M Company and BRiC-TPS LLP,
entities TCA retains to help operate and maintain customer service
functions for The Toll Roads.  According to Ms. Zeldes, many
vehicle owners have complained of difficulties navigating TCA's
system and online platform, and the complaint alleges that the
agencies failed to provide adequate staff to respond to mailed,
online, and telephonic inquiries.

The complaint alleges that TCA saw a 400 percent increase in calls
to its customer service line and a 300 percent increase in emails
after it converted to the cashless system.  Between June and
August 2014, the TCA answered an average 2,200 calls per day. More
than 11,000 went unanswered.

"We've lost count of the drivers we've spoken with who have
suffered through dropped calls, hours-long hold times, and painful
conversations with inadequately trained personnel when contacting
the TCA customer service center," Ms. Zeldes said.  "Owners with
questions about the online payment system frequently call and
email TCA repeatedly without a response, and user comments on The
Toll Roads Facebook page reveal just how frustrated drivers are
with this short-staffed system.


CARDCONNECT CORP: Faces "Teh" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardconnect Corp.
The case is captioned TEH SHOU KAO and T S KAO, INC., ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
CARDCONNECT CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-05707-TJS (E.D.
Penn., Nov. 1, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Timothy J.
Savage.

CardConnect provides payment processing and technology solutions
in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK PC.
          1515 Market St Ste 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985 9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985 4169
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com


CLECO CORPORATE: Plaintiffs Face Dec. 6 Deadline to Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC and Cleco Power LLC said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the deadline for the plaintiffs to appeal a District
Court's ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal is December 6,
2016.

In connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
October 17, 2014, by and among Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and
Cleco Corporation, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions
were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish,
Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among
other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the
Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to
disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also
alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in
some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either
aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance
those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various
remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

   * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October
27, 2014),

   * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),

   * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014),
and

   * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved
for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion
was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court
consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-
lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified
Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The
consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco
Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended
Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco Corporation's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders
and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement
because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to
structure a process through which shareholder value would be
maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of
interest, and failing to disclose material information about the
Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all
defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.
Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended
Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended
Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

   * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November
7, 2014),

   * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-
11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

   * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure
and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment
Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants.
The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie
Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11,
2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class
Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged, among other
things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by
approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value
Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which
shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing
by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life
Services petitions also alleged that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about
the Merger. Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco
Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary
duty.

On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each
action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions
pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the
plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of
their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to
the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.

On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary
injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan
seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of
Shareholders held on February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger
Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion. On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their
Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule
established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended
petition on July 24, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of
the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has
substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each
of the petitions.

On March 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition.
This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent
injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a
defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended
Petition. A hearing was held on September 15, 2016.

On September 26, 2016, the District Court granted the exceptions
filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by the former
shareholders. The plaintiffs were required to file any request for
rehearing with the District Court by October 7, 2016, and no
requests were filed. The deadline for the plaintiffs to appeal the
District Court's ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal is
December 6, 2016.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Plaintiffs Face Nov. 21 Deadline to Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs
in the case In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et al.,
have until November 21, 2016 to appeal to the United States
Supreme Court.

On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against HMA and certain of its then executive officers, one of
whom was at that time also a director, were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
under the caption In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et
al. and three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as lead
plaintiffs.

On July 30, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint purportedly on behalf of stockholders who
purchased HMA's common stock during the period from July 27, 2009,
through January 9, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint (i)
alleges that HMA made false and misleading statements in certain
public disclosures regarding its business and financial results
and (ii) asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that HMA inflated its
earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare billing practices that
entailed admitting patients to observation status when they should
not have been admitted at all and to inpatient status when they
should have been admitted to observation status. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages.

On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint.

On December 15, 2012, the court entered an order approving the
stipulation and providing a schedule for briefing with respect to
the proposed amended pleadings. On February 25, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which
asserted substantially the same claims as the amended consolidated
complaint.

As of August 15, 2013, the defendants' motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint for failure to state a claim and plead
facts required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was
fully briefed and awaiting the Court's decision.

On May 22, 2014, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on
June 20, 2014 the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit,
where oral argument was heard on February 6, 2015. On May 11,
2015, the Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed the granting of the
motion to dismiss.

On June 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed an application for an en banc
review. On June 24, 2016 the application for en banc review was
denied and the plaintiffs will have until September 22, 2016 to
appeal to the United States Supreme Court.  The plaintiffs
obtained an extension until November 21, 2016 to appeal to the
United States Supreme Court.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations in this lawsuit. We are unable to predict the outcome
or determine the potential impact, if any, that could result from
its final resolution."


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Lopez v. Yakima Regional Now Settled
------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case,
Lopez v. Yakima Regional Medial & Cardiac Center and Toppenish
Community Hospital, has now been settled.

Lopez v. Yakima Regional Medial & Cardiac Center and Toppenish
Community Hospital is a class action lawsuit arising out of
alleged conduct at these hospitals prior to the HMA acquisition.
The suit alleges the hospitals' charity care policies did not
comply with Washington state law. The trial court has certified a
class and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs. This matter has now been settled.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Responses in Appellate Case Due Dec. 7
--------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company's response in the appeal in the shareholder federal
securities cases is due December 7, 2016.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the
Company's motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to
file a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which
was filed on October 5, 2015.

The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and
oral argument was held on April 11, 2016. The Company's motion to
dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The plaintiffs' initial brief was filed on September 28, 2016. The
Company's response is due December 7, 2016. The Company believes
this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously
defend this case.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Mounce" Settlement Conference Moved to Jan. 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mounce v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-
05197 (W.D. Ark.), the parties' Settlement Conference is
rescheduled for Jan. 25, 2017, 9:00 a.m. in Fayetteville - 2nd flr
(Rm 210) before Honorable Erin L. Setser.

Judge Timothy L Brooks oversees the case.

Concise statements are due no later than Jan. 18, 2017.  A
Settlement Conference was previously set for Nov. 21, 2017.

Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that, "This
case is a purported class action lawsuit served on July 29, 2015,
claiming our affiliated Arkansas hospitals violated payor
contracts by allegedly improperly asserting hospital liens against
third-party tortfeasors and seeking class certifications for any
similarly situated plaintiffs at any affiliated Arkansas
hospital."

Discovery is ongoing with a cut-off date of August 19, 2016. A
Motion of Summary Judgment and a Motion of Class Certification
have been filed and both were set for hearing on November 3, 2016.

"We believe these claims are without merit and will vigorously
defend the case," the Company said.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of "Morrow" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a motion
to dismiss has been filed in the case, Morrow v. Community Health
Systems, Inc.

This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed on July 25,
2016, in the United States District Court, Middle District of
Tennessee alleging our affiliated hospital, South Baldwin Regional
Medical Center in Foley, AL, violated a payor contract by
allegedly improperly asserting a hospital lien against a third-
party tortfeasor and allegedly unjustly enriching the hospital.
The plaintiff seeks certification of a class for any similarly
situated plaintiffs at any Company affiliated hospital. A Motion
to Dismiss has been filed.

"We believe the claims are without merit and will vigorously
defend the case," the Company said.


CONN'S INC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs in IN RE CONN'S, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil
Action No. 4: 14-cv-00548 (KPE), ask the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas to issue an order:

(a) certifying the case as a class action;

(b) appointing them -- Laborers Pension Trust Fund - Detroit and
     Vicinity (Detroit), Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund and
     Connecticut Carpenters Annuity Fund (Connecticut), St. Paul
     Teachers' Retirement Fund Association (St. Paul), and
     Universal Investment Gesellschaft m.b.H. (Universal) --
     as Class Representatives; and

(c) appointing Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, and Motley
     Rice LLC as Class Counsel.

The Motion seeks to certify a Class of:

  All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
  Conn's publicly traded common stock and/or call options, or who
  sold/wrote Conn's put options during the period from April 3,
  2013 through December 9, 2014 (inclusive), and were damaged
  thereby. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their
  immediate family members; the officers and directors of the
  Company during the Class Period and their immediate family
  members; any entity in which Defendants have or had a
  controlling interest; and the legal representatives, heirs,
  successors, assigns, or affiliates of any excluded person.

This Action arises from Defendants' failure to disclose that, in
an attempt to enhance Conn's growth, they had drastically reduced
its underwriting criteria and were fueling its retail sales by
issuing credit to consumers who did not have the resources to
repay their debts.

All of the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs are institutional
investors that purchased Conn's common stock during the Class
Period at artificially inflated prices and suffered
significant losses when the truth was revealed. Detroit,
Connecticut, and St. Paul are pension funds, while Universal is an
investment company. Lead Plaintiffs are willing to serve
as representative parties for the benefit of the Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kIWVUMAG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
     AJAMIE LLP
     Pennzoil Place - South Tower
     711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (713) 860-1600
     Facsimile: (713) 860-1699
     E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com

          - and -

     Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
     Beth A. Kaswan, Esq.
     Max R. Schwartz, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Helmsley Building
     230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10169
     Telephone:(212) 223-6444
     Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
     E-mail: dweintraub@scott-scott.com
             bkaswan@scott-scott.com
             mschwartz@scott-scott.com

          - and -

     John T. Jasnoch
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     707 Broadway, Suite 1000
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone:(619) 233-4565
     Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
     E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

          - and -

     James M. Hughes, Esq.
     Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
     William P. Tinkler, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
     Telephone:(843) 216-9000
     Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
     E-mail: jhughes@motleyrice.com
             cmoriarty@motleyrice.com
             wtinkler@motleyrice.com

          - and -

     Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
     Christine M. Fox, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone:(212) 907-0700
     Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
     E-mail: jgardner @labaton.com
             cfox@labaton.com


COOPER-STANDARD: Defending Ontario Class Suit v. Auto Suppliers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company is defending against a class action lawsuit in Ontario
against numerous automotive suppliers.

On March 30, 2016, a putative class action complaint alleging
conspiracy to fix the price of body sealing products used in
automobiles and other light-duty vehicles was filed in Ontario
against numerous automotive suppliers, including the CS Defendants
and Nishikawa Cooper LLC, a joint venture in which the Company
holds a 40% interest. Plaintiffs purport to be indirect purchasers
of body sealing products supplied by the CS Defendants and/or the
other defendants during the relevant period. The plaintiffs seek
recovery of damages against all defendants in an amount to be
determined, punitive damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and related costs and expenses of the
litigation.

The Company believes the claims asserted against the CS Defendants
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these
claims. Further, the Company does not believe that there is a
material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to
these claims.


CWS APARTMENT: Judge Transfers "Abrahamson" Suit to W.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark A. Kearney of the Western District of
Pennsylvania, transferred the venue of the case entitled STEWART
ABRAMSON, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities similarly situated v. CWS APARTMENT HOMES, LLC, Civil
Action No. 16-426 (W.D. Pa.) to the United Stated District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

CWS Apartment Homes, LLC is a company incorporated in Delaware
with its principal place of business in Texas. Most of CWS's
offices and agents are in Austin, Texas.

Stewart Abramson, a resident of Pennsylvania alleges that CWS
Apartment used an automatic telephone dialing system to send him a
telemarketing text message to his cell phone with an area code
beginning with 412. Abramson alleges that he did not give his
written consent to CWS to send a text message to his phone.
Abramson, on behalf of a nationwide class, sues CWS for violating
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, seeking statutory damages
of $500 for each violation and treble damages. Abramson asks the
court to retain venue because he filed his claim in his home
forum.

Judge Kearney transferred the venue to the Western District of
Texas, CWS' principal place of business, as it is a more
convenient forum. Judge Kearney concluded that when a Texas
company with no Pennsylvania contacts allegedly sent one
nonconsensual telemarketing text message to a 412 area cell phone,
and the class representative is apparently the only putative class
member with ties to Pennsylvania, the convenience of witnesses,
parties and interests of justice mandate a transfer venue to where
the defendant's conduct allegedly affected thousands of persons
nationwide. The matter is transferred to the United States Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

A copy of Judge Kearney's memorandum dated November 8, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/Co3KGn from Leagle.com.

STEWART ABRAMSON, Plaintiff, represented by:

Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
Broderick & Paronich, P.C.
90 High St., Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: 508-221-1510

     - and -

Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
Morrow & Artim, PC
304 Ross St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: 412-281-1250

CWS APARTMENT HOMES, LLC, Defendant, represented by:

David A. Walton, Esq.
Parsons McEntire McCleary & Clark, PLLC
1700 Pacific Ave., Ste 4400
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: 214-237-4300
Facsimile: 214-237-4340


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Santiago, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 1:16-cv-08452-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., November 14, 2016), seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Diversified Consultants, Inc. is a third-party debt collection
agency specializing in the telecom industry. It seeks payment on
accounts related to wireless, landline, cable and satellite
services for phone, Internet access, television, security and
utilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glen H. Chulsky, Esq.
      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: g.chulsky@att.net
              jkj@legaljones.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: Amended Settlement in O&R Case Awaits Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court
has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's unopposed renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the amended settlement in the case, O&R
Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al.,
No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.).

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In
May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC,
Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and
allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the
products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages
and equitable relief.

DBCC was served with the complaint on December 14, 2012. The
Company was served with the complaint on December 17, 2012. On
February 18, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped
the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices
allegations. The defendants filed new motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on May 3, 2013.

On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motions and denied DBCC's
motion but granted the Company's motion. Specifically, the Court
dismissed the contract claim against the Company with prejudice,
and dismissed all the remaining claims against the Company without
prejudice.

On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and
unfair business practices under Washington state law against the
Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports.
The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint
venture or agency theory for practices relating to
CreditBuilder(R). As against DBCC, the SAC alleges claims for
negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair and
deceptive acts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. DBCC
filed a motion to dismiss the claims that were based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On January 9, 2014,
the Court heard argument on the defendants' motions. It dismissed
with prejudice the claims against the defendants based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory. The Court denied the Company's
motion with respect to the negligence, defamation and unfair
practices claims.

On January 23, 2014, the defendants answered the SAC. At a court
conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that
it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead
limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington.

On May 29, 2015, plaintiff filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed
oppositions to the motions for class certification.

On September 16, 2015, plaintiff filed reply briefs in support of
the motions for class certification. At the request of the
parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking
plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and
striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a
written settlement agreement.

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016 the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May
17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without
prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an
amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-
monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed
with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an
unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended
settlement. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Amended Deal in Die-Mension Case Awaits Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court
has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's unopposed renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the amended settlement in the case, Die-
Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp. et al.,
No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392
(N.D. Oh.))

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class
of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States
or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint
alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company,
the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("DTPA"), defamation, and negligence. As against
DBCC, the complaint alleged violations of the DTPA, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment.

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court,
Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product.

On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the amended
complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive
service. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.

On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the
Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case
was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to
an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court,
this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with
related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In
response, Die-Mension filed a second amended complaint on March
13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Die-Mension
filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply
briefs on June 12, 2015.

On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension filed motions for class
certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015,
the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion
to dismiss, and on September 10, 2015, it entered an order
granting DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11,
2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet,
and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which was subject to Court approval.

On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9,
2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice and
directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report.

On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended
settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms
of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court
the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement.
The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Amended Settlement in Vinotemp Case Awaits OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court
has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's unopposed renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the amended settlement in the case,
Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ)
(W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal.))

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and
CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint
alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of
Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint
alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information
on credit reports in violation of Sec.17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and
defamation claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.

On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was
transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015.

On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their oppositions
to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On
July 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC.

On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss. At the request of the
parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking
plaintiff's class certification motions and DBCC's motion to
dismiss without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines
while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement.

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May
17, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion without
prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an
amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-
monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiffs filed
with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an
unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended
settlement. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Amended Deal in Flow Sciences Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court
has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's unopposed renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the amended settlement in the case, Flow
Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No.
2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128
(E.D.N.C.))

On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences")
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and
DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of
DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The
complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive
practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder
credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's
Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In
addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence
and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 18, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the complaint
and on June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina
court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014,
the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015.

On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Flow Science filed its oppositions
to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On
July 17, 2015, Flow Sciences filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC.

On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss and on October 19, 2015,
it entered an order denying DBCC's motion to dismiss. At the
request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an
order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without
prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties
negotiated a written settlement agreement.

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval.

On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without
prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report.

On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended
settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms
of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court
the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended
settlement.The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Amended Settlement in Altaflo Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court
has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's unopposed renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the amended settlement in the case,
Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No.
2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961
(D.N.J.))

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo
purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint
alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices
in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit
monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the
Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims.
The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint, and on July 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.

On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the
Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On
January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting
forth the case management schedule.

On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In response, Altaflo filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed
its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on
June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Altaflo filed motions for class
certification against the Company and DBCC.

On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on October 19, 2015,
it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss without
prejudice. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the
Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification
motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines
while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement.

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May
17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without
prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint
status report.

On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended
settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms
of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court
the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement.
The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

The Company said, "Our ultimate liability related to this matter
is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the
impact will be material to our financial results."


DUN & BRADSTREET: "Thomas" Accord Up for March 50 Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court
has scheduled a final approval hearing for March 20, 2017, in the
case, Jeffrey A. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., No.
2:15 cv 03194-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal.).

On April 28, 2015, Jeffrey A. Thomas ("Plaintiff") filed suit
against DBCC in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (47 U.S.C. Sec.
227) because it placed telephone calls to Plaintiff's cell phone
using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). The TCPA
generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call to a cell
phone for non-emergency purposes and without the prior express
written consent of the called party. The TCPA provides for
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to
$1,500 per violation at the discretion of the court if the
plaintiff proves the defendant willfully violated the TCPA.

Plaintiff sought to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals who received calls on their cell phones from an ATDS.
DBCC was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on April
30, 2015.

On May 22, 2015, the Company made a statutory offer of judgment.
Plaintiff did not respond to the offer. DBCC filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on June 12, 2015, which the Court denied on
August 5, 2015. DBCC filed an Answer and asserted its Affirmative
Defenses on November 12, 2015. Discovery commenced and the Court
issued a schedule for amended pleadings, discovery, the filing of
any class certification motion and trial.

During the discovery period, the parties agreed to attempt to
settle the dispute through mediation. On June 2, 2016, the parties
conducted one day of mediation, and shortly after the mediation,
the parties reached an agreement to settle the dispute on a class-
wide basis. Since that time the parties have finalized a written
settlement agreement and all attendant documents.

On September 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval of the class action settlement. On September
26, 2016, the parties appeared for a hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval, after which the Court entered an Order
granting the motion, conditionally certifying a settlement class,
approving the class action settlement and approving the parties'
plan to give notice to class members.

The Court scheduled a final approval hearing for March 20, 2017,
after the settlement has been administered.


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: "Kristensen" Appeal Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Enova International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the appeal in
the Flemming Kristensen class action lawsuit remains pending.

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

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

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On
May 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the order
granting summary judgment for the Company, the judgment in favor
of the company, and the order denying Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider. Plaintiff filed his appellate brief on September 9,
2016.

The Company believes that the Plaintiff's claims in the complaint
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Enova is a technology and analytics company focused on providing
online financial services to consumers and small businesses.


EXTREME NETWORKS: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Defendants
will move to dismiss a consolidated complaint in the case, In re
Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On October 23 and 29, 2015, complaints were filed for violations
of securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and three of its former
officers (Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola, and John T.
Kurtzweil).  Subsequently, the cases were consolidated.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the securities laws by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and
concealing material adverse facts regarding Extreme Networks'
current financial condition and growth prospects. Plaintiffs seek
damages of an unspecified amount on behalf of a class of investors
who purchased the Company's common stock from September 12, 2013
through April 9, 2015.

On June 28, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.  On
September 26, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint,
which the defendants will move to dismiss.  The Company believes
the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
claims.

Extreme Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries provides
software-driven networking solutions for enterprise customers.


FBCS INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
Calmon Moskovitz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. FBCS, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06278
(E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

FBCS, Inc. is a third-party collection agency that specializes in
the recovery of charged off debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


FH CANN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Tyberg" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Israel Tyberg, Esther Tyberg, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated consumers v. F.H. Cann & Associates,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06280 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2016), seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc. provides debt collection and account
resolution solutions for federal, state and local governments,
education & financial institutions.

Israel Tyberg and Esther Tyberg are pro se plaintiffs.

FOUR SEASONS HOTELS: Faces "Zyda" Suit in District of Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Four Seasons Hotels
and Resorts. The case is styled Christopher Zyda, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Four
Seasons Hotels and Resorts; Four Seasons Holdings, Inc.; Four
Seasons Hualalai Resort; Hualalai Residential, LLC, doing business
as Hualalai Realty; Hualalai Investors, LLC; Kaupulehu Makai
Venture; Hualalai Development Company; Hualalai Villas & Homes;
Hualalai Investors, LLC; Hualalai Rental Management, LLC; DOES 1-
100; and Four Seasons Hotels Limited, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-00591-LEK-KSC (D. Haw., Nov. 1, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi.

Four Seasons Hotels is a Canadian international luxury, five-star
hospitality company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terrance M. Revere, Esq.
          REVERE & ASSOCIATES, LLLC
          970 North Kalaheo Avenue, Suite A-301
          Kailua, HI 96734
          Telephone: (808) 791 9550
          Facsimile: (808) 791 9551
          E-mail: terry@revereandassociates.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barry A. Sullivan, Esq.
          Dorothy-Jean P. H. Meisner, Esq.
          Natasha L.N. Baldauf, Esq.
          William Meheula, Esq.
          SULLIVAN MEHEULA LEE LLLP
          Fort Street Tower
          745 Fort St. Ste 800
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 599 9555
          Facsimile: (808) 533 2467
          E-mail: sullivan@smlhawaii.com
                  meheula@smlhawaii.com


GATESTONE & CO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mozes Basch, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Gatestone & Co. International, Inc., Case No. 1:16-
cv-06277 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Gatestone & Co. International, Inc. provides accounts receivable
management and call center services for financial institutions,
various government bodies, and utility companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com

GUAM: DOJ Opposes Motion for Preliminary Injunction in H-2B Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mindy Aguon, writing for Marianas Variety, reports that the
federal government opposes a motion for a preliminary injunction
filed by the Guam Contractors Association and several local
businesses that are challenging the denial rate of H-2B petitions.

The U.S. Department of Justice calls the plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction an "unprecedented request for relief" that
is contrary to the public interest.

The contractors association and the local businesses that include
5M Construction, Inland Builders Corp., Landscape Management
Systems Inc., Marianas Linen Supply Inc., Johndel International
and Guam XRay are seeking an order requiring U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services to grant their H-2B petitions immediately and
extend labor certifications to such a time needed to provide
relief for each plaintiff.

The Justice Department said the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed
on the merits of their case, and they have failed to establish
that any of USCIS' denials were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of discretion or otherwise contrary to law." Additionally the
department contends that "neither the balance of the equities nor
the public interest supports circumventing statutory and
regulatory requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act
in favor of an order requiring USCIS to approve hundreds of H-2B
visa petitions."

The contractors association and the companies have also asked the
court for class-action certification so unnamed plaintiffs can
benefit from the relief granted by the court.  A class-action
certification would provide other entities, such as the Office of
the Governor, an avenue to submit their petitions to the court.
The U.S. Department of Justice has opposed class certification,
calling it "premature" and a motion to dismiss the lawsuit
entirely will be filed in the coming weeks.


GUARDIAN PROTECTION: "Fitzhenry" Class Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Mark Fitzhenry, individually and
on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly
situated v. Guardian Protection Services Inc. and Security Force
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01253, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-03597-RMG to the proceeding.

The plaintiff asserts personal injury claims.

The Defendants operate a residential and commercial security and
safety solution company that specializes in the design,
installation, service and monitoring of security and fire
monitoring systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK AND PARONICH PC
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 01890
      Telephone: (508) 221-1510
      Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
      E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com

         - and -

      Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
      MORROW & ARTIM, PC
      304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-1250
      Facsimile: (412) 386-3184
      E-mail: cmorrow@allconsumerlaw.com

         - and -

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      BRODERICK AND PARONICH PC
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 01890
      Telephone: (617) 738-7080
      Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
      E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com

The Defendant Guardian Protection Services Inc. is represented by:

      Laura E. Vendzules, Esq.
      Michael A. Iannucci, Esq.
      BLANK ROME LLP
      One Logan Square
      130 N. 18th Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
      Telephone: (215) 569-5307
      Facsimile: (215) 832-5307
      E-mail: lvendzules@blankrome.com
              iannucci@blankrome.com

The Defendant Security Force Inc. is represented by:

      Justin M. Tuskan, Esq.
      Justin T. Barron, Esq.
      METZ LEWIS BRODMAN MUST O'KEEFE LLC
      535 Smithfield Street, 8th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 918-1100
      Facsimile: (412) 918-1166
      E-mail: jtuskan@metzlewis.com
              jbarron@metzlewis.com


GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Court OKs $26.25MM "Friedman" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Otis D. Wright, II, granted a stipulation to file a third
amended complaint and granted a motion for class certification and
preliminary approval of class settlement in the lawsuit captioned
AMY FRIEDMAN and JUDI MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GUTHY-RENKER, LLC and WEN BY CHAZ
DEAN, INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-06009-ODW(AGRx) (C.D. Cal.).

Amy Friedman and Judi Miller bring the class action lawsuit
against Defendants Guthy-Renker, LLC and Wen By Chaz Dean, Inc.,
alleging that the Defendants' line of "WEN" haircare products
caused their hair to fall out.  The parties recently reached a
class-wide settlement of all claims.

The total settlement fund is $26,250,000, distributed as follows:

   * Tier 1 Claims: $5 million;

   * Tier 2 Claims: $13,867,500 (Court's estimate);

   * Incentive Awards: Amy Friedman = $25,000,
     Judi Miller = $25,000, Krystal Henry-McArthur = $5,000,
     Lisa Rogers = $2,500;

   * Attorneys' Fees: $6.5 million;

   * Administrative Costs - Special Master: $250,000 (max.);

   * Cost of Notice to Class: $500,000 (Court's estimate);

   * Settlement Administrator: $75,000 (Court's estimate).

The Defendants agree to put a warning label on its products
bearing a caution materially consistent with the following: "If
you experience any adverse reaction after using this product,
immediately cease use and consult a physician."

The Court conditionally certifies a settlement-only class
consisting of these class members:

     All purchasers or users of WEN Hair Care Products in the
     United States or its territories between November 1, 2007
     and September 19, 2016, excluding (a) any such person who
     purchased for resale and not for personal or household use,
     (b) any such person who signed a release of any Defendant in
     exchange for consideration, (c) any officers, directors or
     employees, or immediate family members of the officers,
     directors or employees, of any Defendant or any entity in
     which a Defendant has a controlling interest, (d) any legal
     counsel or employee of legal counsel for any Defendant, and
     (e) the presiding Judge in the Lawsuit, as well as the
     Judge's staff and their immediate family members.

Judge Wright appoints and designates Amy Friedman, Judi Miller,
Krystal Henry-McArthur, and Lisa Rogers as Settlement Class
Representatives.

On May 1, 2017, the parties will file: (i) a Motion for Final
Approval of the Class Settlement, which shall include the number
of class members who filed Tier 1 claims and Tier 2 claims, and an
estimate of the funds that will be applied to pay Tier 2 claims;
(ii) responses to any objections filed by the class members; and
(iii) a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs,
including the information necessary for the Court to conduct a
lodestar analysis of the requested fee award.

A hearing on the final approval of the class action certification
and settlement, as well as Class Counsel's motion for fees and
costs, will be held on June 5, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/7pmWHg from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Amy Friedman is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Steven T. Simmons, Esq.
          VARNELL AND WARWICK PA
          Complex Consumer Litigation
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          William H. Anderson, Esq.
          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com
                  mflannery@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiffs Amy Friedman, Judi Miller, Lisa Rogers and Krystal
Henry-McArthur are represented by:

          Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
          Jordanna G. Thigpen, Esq.
          Neville Lawrence Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LLP
          439 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080
          Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
          E-mail: djohnson@jrllp.com
                  jthigpen@jjllplaw.com
                  njohnson@jjllplaw.com

Plaintiffs Judi Miller and Krystal Henry-McArthur are represented
by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiff Judi Miller is represented by:

          Steven T. Simmons, Esq.
          VARNELL AND WARWICK PA
          Complex Consumer Litigation
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com

Intervening Plaintiffs, Teresa Harris, et al., and Pat Fisher, et
al., are represented by:

          Sean Thomas Higgins, Esq.
          Anne Andrews, Esq.
          John C. Thornton, Esq.
          ANDREWS THORNTON HIGGINS RAZMARA LLP
          2 Corporate Park, Suite 110
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Toll Free: (800) 664-1734
          Telephone: (949) 748-1000
          Facsimile: (949) 315-3540
          E-mail: shiggins@andrewsthornton.com
                  aa@andrewsthornton.com
                  jct@andrewsthornton.com

Tosin Barakat, Intervenor Plaintiff, is represented by:

          Randi Rose Geffner, Esq.
          Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273-3090
          Facsimile: (310) 207-5969
          E-mail: rgeffner@esenstenlaw.com
                  resensten@esenstenlaw.com

Defendant Guthy-Renker LLC is represented by:

          David J. Schindler, Esq.
          Jonathan Michael Jackson, Esq.
          Kristen Meredith Tuey, Esq.
          Peter L. Winik, Esq.
          Sarah M. Gragert, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 891-8415
          E-mail: Edavid.schindler@lw.com
                  jonathan.jackson@lw.com
                  kristen.tuey@lw.com
                  peter.winik@lw.com
                  sarah.gragert@lw.com

               - and -

          Charles R. Whybrew, Esq.
          Dina M. Cox, Esq.
          Janelle P. Kilies, Esq.
          LEWIS WAGNER LLP
          501 Indiana Avenue Suite 200
          Indianapolis, IN 46202-6150
          Telephone: (317) 237-0500
          Facsimile: (317) 630-2790
          E-mail: cwhybrew@lewiswagner.com
                  dcox@lewiswagner.com
                  jkilies@lewiswagner.com

Defendant Wen By Chaz Dean Inc. is represented by:

          Barry R. Schirm, Esq.
          Michael B. Giaquinto, Esq.
          HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON AND YOUNG LLP
          445 S Figueroa St., Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 486-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 486-8080
          E-mail: mgiaquinto@hptylaw.com
                  mgiaquinto@hptylaw.com


HENRY SCHEIN: Still Defending Antitrust Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 24, 2016, that beginning in
January 2016, class action complaints were filed against Patterson
Companies, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co. and Henry Schein, Inc.
Each of these complaints allege, among other things, that
defendants conspired to fix prices, allocate customers and
foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental
associations and others that deal with defendants' competitors.
Subject to certain exclusions, these classes seek to represent all
persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment in the United
States directly from any of the defendants or Burkhart Dental
Supply Co. since August 31, 2008.  Each class action complaint
asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly
and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and expert fees.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against these actions,"
the Company said.

Henry Schein is a provider of health care products and services
primarily to office-based dental, animal health and medical
practitioners.


HONEY BAKED: Ham Lover's Suit Tossed in Cal. Ct. App.
-----------------------------------------------------
Justice John L. Segal of the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial court's
judgment, in the case GINA WOOD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HONEY
BAKED HAM, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. B261248 (Cal. Ct.
App.)

On December 23, 2011, Gina Wood saw a newspaper flyer for a Honey
Baked Ham quarter ham. The quarter ham is a relatively new product
by Honey Baked Ham, which has patented its process of quartering a
ham, to appeal to customers in a small market segment who want a
ham for a smaller social gathering.

Wood decided to buy the quarter ham for a holiday party she and
her husband, Ernest Franceschi, were going to attend. Wood called
the Honey Baked Ham store in Culver City to reserve a quarter ham.
Wood went to the Culver City store the next morning with the
advertisement and her reservation number. Wood presented her
reservation number to a store employee and received a quarter ham
with a price of $30.70.  The employee also said what Wood was
holding was advertising, not a coupon, and that the prices for the
quarter hams varied. When asked if she wanted the $30.70 ham, Wood
reluctantly agreed to buy it, even though she believed the
advertisement was a coupon for a $23.99 quarter ham. Wood did not
ask for a cheaper or smaller ham, nor did she ask to speak with a
manager.

Wood filed an action on December 27, 2011, individually and on
behalf of a class of quarter ham purchasers in California. In her
first amended complaint, Wood alleged, on behalf of herself and
all similarly situated persons who purchased quarter hams at any
California Honey Baked Ham store in November and December 2011,
that the advertisement appeared to be a coupon good for the
purchase of a quarter ham at the discounted price of $23.99 up to
the expiration date of December 31, 2011. She alleged that the
advertisement was calculated to create the impression that any
person could clip the coupon and present same and buy a quarter
ham for $23.99. She also alleged that she paid the regular price
of $30.70, which resulted in an overcharge of $6.71 and monetary
loss to her personally. Wood alleged causes of action for
violations of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and
17500, the unfair competition and false advertising laws, and
Civil Code section 1770, subdivision (a)(9), a provision of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act prohibiting deceptive advertising. She
sought disgorgement of between $1 million and $3 million in
overcharges, an injunction, and attorneys' fees.

The court denied Wood's motion for class certification. The court
ruled Wood did not meet her burden of proof that the advertisement
was likely to deceive the members of the public or a reasonable
consumer. The advertisement cannot be reasonably interpreted as
offering all Quarter Hams at a single price of $23.99. Wood's
interpretation of the advertisement as offering a single price for
all Quarter Hams is contrary to both common experience and the
clear and express language of the advertisement. Finally, the
court rejected Wood's claim that the conduct of Honey Baked Ham
was a deceptive bait and switch or upsell program, where the
company lured customers into its stores with a lowball price of
$23.99 for Quarter Hams and then pressured them into paying a
higher price. The court found that the evidence showed Wood's
experience was an aberration and that Wood, like other customers
at the Culver City store that day, could have purchased a Quarter
Ham at or below $23.99 if she had clearly expressed her desire to
do so. Wood filed a notice of appeal.

Justice Segal affirmed the trial court's judgment and concluded
that Wood has not shown any evidence that compels a contrary
finding. As the trial court found, the advertisement would not
likely have deceived a significant number of reasonable consumers
or members of the public. The court also relied on common
knowledge that ham and other meats are generally sold by weight,
and the price for a cut of meat varies by weight. The court also
found that Wood's experience was aberrant.

A copy of Justice's Segal's opinion dated November 8, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/Bb9FLD from Leagle.com.

Ernest J. Franceschi -- ejf@franceschilaw.com -- at Franceschi Law
Corporation, for Plaintiff and Appellant

M. Henry Walker -- hwalker@pmrlegal.com -- at Peterson, Martin &
Reynolds, for Defendant and Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven panel consists of Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss and
Justices John L. Segal and Keeny.


IDAHO: IDHW Settles Class Action Over Medicaid Disability Waiver
----------------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
(IDHW) agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit in September 2016
that challenged the way the state set individual service budgets
for adults enrolled in the Medicaid developmental disability (DD)
waiver.  The lawsuit, K.W. v. Armstrong, was filed in 2012.  It
protested a new individual budget process implemented in July 2011
that linked the individual's budget to assessed needs and status
to anticipated expenditures for home- and community-based services
(HCBS).


INVESTMENT PROFESSIONALS: Security Brokers Class Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an order granting
a motion for conditional certification and judicial notice in the
case captioned JOSEPH R. HERRON, Plaintiff, v. INVESTMENT
PROFESSIONALS INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-1664.

According to the order, notice will to be sent to the following
individuals:

  All current and former financial advisors, financial
  consultants, registered representatives, and individuals with
  similar or related titles -- also known as and sometimes
  referred to as "security brokers" -- who were employed by
  Investment Professionals Inc., in the United States at any time
  in the past three years, and who were compensated on
  commissions-only basis.

The Court authorizes the dissemination of the Notice to
prospective Plaintiffs.  The Court also ordered the Defendant to
produce the names and addresses of all prospective plaintiffs in a
computer readable format by November 22, 2016.  Defendant is
ordered to send notice to all current employees via their pay
envelopes for the next eight pay periods. Finally, Defendant is
ordered to conspicuously post the approved form of Notice at all
of Defendant's facilities.

The Court said it will issue a separate case management scheduling
order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qkSG6xzN


ITT CORP: Ninth Circuit Affirms Class Certification in "Lee" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms
the order certifying class in the lawsuit titled Lee, et al. v.
ITT Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-00618-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

Defendants ITT Corporation and ITT Federal Services International
Corporation appealed the class certification order in this
employment dispute, according to the Ninth Circuit's memorandum.

The appellate case is captioned as RICKY ALLEN LEE and PAUL VERNON
RIGSBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ITT CORPORATION, an Indiana
corporation and ITT FEDERAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 14-35186
(9th Cir.).

"In all, then, the statute ran for no more than 340 days following
the initial denial of class certification in June 2011.  Because
Kuwaiti law gives an employee one year to bring suit, the class
claims were not untimely when the district court issued its
certification order in December 2013," according to the
Memorandum.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/635935 from Leagle.com.


KANSAS: Awaits Approval of Warrant Fees Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Kansas City Council has
taken steps to settle two lawsuits over court fees and a financing
agreement involving an area mall.

The council has voted to settle the two lawsuits, which deal with
a warrant cancellation fee at Municipal Court and a 2005 tax
increment financing agreement over the Blue Ridge Mall.

The council passed an ordinance on Nov. 3 to settle the first case
for $2.4 million, which the city's Finance Department said would
be paid out over two years, from the city's general fund.  A judge
also has to approve that settlement, which represents an agreement
between the city and the plaintiffs in a 2015
class-action lawsuit filed over fees that defendants paid to
Kansas City Municipal Court to cancel their warrants, The Kansas
City Star reported.

The court started imposing the warrant cancellation fee to try to
reduce the number of people failing to show up for court.  But the
lawsuit argued that the fee constituted a court cost above what
was allowed by Missouri law.

Under the settlement, people would be entitled to refunds of 65
percent of the amount paid.  The city attorney's office said about
153,300 warrant fee payments are affected, although some people
made more than one payment, so the number of people affected is
fewer than the payments made.

The second settlement resolves a lawsuit by the Raytown School
District over tax increment financing payments they had expected
from Kansas City pertaining to the Blue Ridge Mall TIF plan of
2005.

The City Council agreed to settle that lawsuit for $3 million,
with $600,000 paid this year and $200,000 each subsequent year for
12 years.


KAPRAUN PC: Court Stays Lolita A. Wilburn Case
----------------------------------------------
A Motion hearing was held before Honorable Andrea R. Wood in the
case titled Lolita A. Wilburn, D.C., P.C., et al., Plaintiff, v.
Kapraun, P.C., et al., Defendant, Case No.: 1:16-cv-08816, (N.D.
Ill.), according to a docket entry dated November 9, 2016.

The MINUTE entry states that pursuant to the discussion held in
open court and for the reasons stated on the record, the
Defendant's motion to stay is granted. The case is stayed until
further order of Court.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation on the record, the Defendants
will not make any offer to satisfy Plaintiffs' claims or the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class is voluntarily withdrawn.  The
Plaintiff's motion to certify class shall be automatically
reinstated once the stay of this case is lifted. The Status
hearing set for 11/18/2016 is stricken and reset for 2/2/2017 at
9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notice of Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=P8Y0TBw5


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Sesti" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jeremy Sesti and Brittney Sesti
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00628, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern
District of Virginia - (Alexandria). The Virginia Eastern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05030-AJT-TRJ to the
proceeding.

The Sesti case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and marketing of
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for
residential use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate
flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised
industry standard. In its October 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common factual questions regarding the durability
of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Lumber
Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label, particularly the issue
of whether the laminates comply with the allegedly warranted
industry standard for use in residential settings. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
          Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
          Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
          ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          32121 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 851 3850
          Facsimile: (818) 851 3850
          E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
                  muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474 8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


MANNAN INC: Faces "Enriquez" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mannan, Inc. The
case is entitled Anastacio Hernandez Enriquez, individually and in
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Mannan, Inc., doing business as Mannan Supermarket jointly and
severally, and Syed M.H. Rahman jointly and severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06060 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2016).

Mannan operates a food Store and grocery in Flushing, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MARC HOLDING: Faces "Almonte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Marte Almonte and Paola Montes, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. MARC Holding Corporation, MARC of
New York 59, LLC, Marlon Abela, and Lalle Yvonnick, Case No. 1:16-
cv-08553 (S.D.N.Y., November 2, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Vestal, New York.

Wilson Marte Almonte and Paola Montes are pro se plaintiffs.


MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Class Action Over Captioning Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Straumsheim, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that Miami
University in Ohio in October became the latest institution to
overhaul its accessibility policies for people with disabilities.
Within a year and a half, students there will receive personalized
accessibility plans and encounter course materials, learning
platforms and websites that conform to accessibility standards.

The university agreed to the overhaul as part of a settlement with
Aleeha Dudley, a blind student who -- with the help of Disability
Rights Ohio, a local advocacy group -- in 2014 sued over a lack of
accessible course materials and trained assistants.  In 2015, Ms.
Dudley gained another powerful ally: the U.S. Department of
Justice.

Disability studies scholars and legal experts say lawsuits like
Ms. Dudley's against Miami represent a shift in activism, where
high-profile cases help raise awareness about the challenges
facing students in an increasingly digital world.  More than two
decades after the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 was
signed into law, advocacy groups are pushing to clarify how it and
other laws that prohibit discrimination against people with
disabilities apply to technology that at the time seemed like
science fiction but now has become reality.  At the same time,
those and other groups are pushing for new legislation, keeping
one eye on the upcoming process to rewrite the Higher Education
Act.

JoAnna Hunt, an accessibility manager at Blackboard, said the last
five years in particular have featured large advocacy groups --
such as the National Federation of the Blind and the National
Association of the Deaf -- as well as students and their parents
taking a "harder look" at higher education.

"Without a doubt, there's been an increase in formalized,
organized advocacy," Ms. Hunt said in an interview.  "In addition,
there's a lot more smaller, more organic, more grassroots things
happening. . . . Students are pushing a little more for what they
believe to be their civil rights to equal and equivalent
educational experiences."

Of course, since the ADA was enacted (and even before), students
with disabilities pushed colleges to deal with physical barriers
(such as sidewalks without curb cuts and buildings one could enter
only via stairs), for sign language interpreters or other
accommodations that would allow them to fully benefit from all
that higher education offers.  While most college officials now
know better than to build facilities that some students can't
physically enter, many routinely overlook the accessibility issues
raised by technology.

Miami is far from the only university to face legal action over
accessibility issues.  In the last two years alone, several
colleges and education companies -- Atlantic Cape Community
College, edX, Harvard University and the University of Phoenix,
among others -- have either been sued or settled complaints about
inaccessible websites or content. And like at Miami, the Justice
Department has occasionally involved itself to reach a settlement.

Lennard J. Davis, a prominent disability studies scholar based at
the University of Illinois at Chicago, said those lawsuits
highlight a trend of the last 10 years of accessibility lawsuits
shifting from concerning physical to digital spaces.

"The web and technology associated with sensory impairments are
where it is at right now," Mr. Davis said in an email.  "The
virtual and digital world has replaced the physical world as the
locus for discrimination and barriers."

Visual Web Brings New Challenges

Lainey Feingold, a disability rights lawyer, has worked on web
accessibility issues since the late 1990s.  In an interview, she
said the focus of the lawsuits has changed as the internet has
matured.  Initially, an inaccessible web was an absolute
"showstopper" for blind people, she said, but as more and more
online content is being delivered in the form of video, the lack
of adequate captioning has brought more attention from groups
advocating for the equal rights of deaf people.  Also, with more
knowledge and new technology, digital content can be displayed in
ways that make it accessible to those with visual disabilities,
but typically only if colleges put thought into the issue.

"There are a lot of initiatives for increased access due to the
growth of online education and the tireless advocacy by the NAD
and sister advocacy organizations," Zainab Alkebsi, policy counsel
for the National Association of the Deaf, said in an email.
"These initiatives are being pursued because there is still a lot
to be desired, and the NAD and other civil rights groups will
continue to fight for equal accessibility on the web."

The University of California, Berkeley, is another example.  It,
like MIT and so many other institutions, offers free audio and
video lectures on platforms such as edX, iTunes U and YouTube.
Following an investigation that determined "significant portions"
of the content were inaccessible to people who are deaf due to a
lack of captions, the Justice Department in August concluded the
university was violating the ADA.

The department issued a series of remedial measures, including
paying damages to students affected by the inaccessible content
and ensuring existing and future content meets the "AA" level of
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, developed by
the World Wide Web Consortium, a standards organization.

Facing what it called "extremely expensive measures," the
university openly contemplated a different solution: delete
everything.

"We believe that in a time of substantial budget deficits and
shrinking state financial support, our first obligation is to use
our limited resources to support our enrolled students," Catherine
P. Koshland, Berkeley's vice chancellor for undergraduate
education, said in a statement.  "Therefore, we must strongly
consider the unenviable option of whether to remove content from
public access."

The NAD is also backing a class action lawsuit against the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology for not captioning many of
the free video lectures it makes available online through massive
open online courses and other sources.  MIT has argued the case
should be thrown out, as being required to caption everything
would "impose an unreasonable financial or administrative burden,
or require a fundamental change in the good at issue."  A federal
district court on Nov. 3 rejected that argument and allowed the
case to proceed.

Critics, Ms. Feingold included, have chided Berkeley for the tone
of its response to the DOJ's findings.  A group of the
university's own faculty members even published a response to the
response, saying the threat to pull all free online content
conflicts with the university's long history of work in the field
of disability studies.

"The DOJ letter is an opportunity for us to acknowledge that we
can do better," the faculty members wrote.  "We must comply with
the law, but rather than being defensive and operating from a
place of fear, we can be constructive and work towards our mission
of public education."

Ms. Hunt, of Blackboard, also applauded the DOJ for paying
attention to accessibility issues and working with universities to
settle disputes.  "There have been too many years of uncertainty
and gray areas in terms of what regulations apply in higher
education," she said.

Doing the 'Right Thing'
The Berkeley and Miami cases are examples of what the National
Federation of the Blind has previously described as its
"university by university" approach to ensuring that the
digitization of higher education doesn't leave students with
disabilities by the wayside.

But the NFB's approach could soon receive a boost -- at least when
it comes to web accessibility.  New rules that have long been in
the works at the Justice Department would require all public
universities (and indeed all public entities) to follow many of
the same accessibility measures Miami and Berkeley are being
required to take up.

The department has since 2010 worked on formulating technical
requirements governing how public entities should offer services
online. In 2015, it decided to tackle the issue of web
accessibility on its own, but the process has extended into the
final year of the Obama administration. (The NFB issued a scathing
statement in response to the delay, calling it "deplorable" and an
"example of inexcusable foot-dragging on the issue of web
accessibility."  The organization did not respond to a request to
comment for this article.)

Thirteen higher education organizations -- including the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American
Council on Education, Educause, and the National Association of
Independent Colleges and Universities -- in October came together
to comment on the proposed rules.  Their comments generally favor
some form of standard for web accessibility, though with several
caveats and exemptions for college and universities.

Summed up, the associations argued that colleges are not like DMV
offices.  "[A] university's online presence is far more than just
transactional," the comments read.  "To take just a few examples,
content posted on university websites includes scholarly works
posted directly by authors or hosted in open-access repositories;
research data; instructional material with a limited target
audience; library resources licensed from third parties; archival
material; multimedia recordings of nonpublic hosted events; and
faculty blogs."

The associations argued colleges shouldn't be punished if someone
at the college, like a student, posts content to the university
website that doesn't conform to accessibility standards. Likewise,
they said the requirements shouldn't apply to content that serves
a small audience.  They also asked for more time -- three years to
come up with an accessibility plan and five years to put it into
action, as opposed to the proposed two years.
Jonathan S. Fansmith, who works in government relations for ACE,
said in an interview that the associations are looking for a
middle ground with regulations that ensure core university
functions -- registering for classes, paying tuition and so on --
are accessible to anyone but don't stifle university research
output.

"We want to do the right thing here," Mr. Fansmith said.  "We want
to do it the right way.  We want to have cognizance of a process
that's thoughtful, deliberate and can actually be achieved so you
don't get schools that say, 'Look, this is going to be so costly,
so burdensome.'"

The National Association of the Deaf is pushing back against
claims that the price tag is holding back accessibility
initiatives at colleges, however, pointing instead to inadequate
training and a lack of openness, among other factors.
Ms. Alkebsi, the policy counsel, said colleges shouldn't view
updating content and websites as a cost, but an investment.

"Researchers who have studied the problem of inaccessible Title II
websites have not found cost to be a factor for inaccessibility,"
Ms. Alkebsi wrote.  "The NAD asserts that once web accessibility
standards are clear in the mandate to include full accessibility
for everyone, all higher education entities will incorporate these
standards without difficulty."


MBI ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dick" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Dick, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. MBI Associates, Inc. d/b/a MBI Collection
Specialists, Case No. 1:16-cv-06086 (E.D.N.Y., November 2, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

MBI Associates, Inc. operates a debt collection firm located at
100 Merrick Rd, Rockville Centre, NY 11570.

Esther Dick is a pro se plaintiff.


MENARD CORRECTIONAL: Illinois Judge Trims Inmate's Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Staci M. Yandle of the Southern District of
Illinois, ruled on plaintiff's motions, in the case MARIO S.
ENGLISH, JR., # B-57430, Plaintiff, v. KIMBERLY BUTLER, and MONICA
NIPPE, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-0395-SMY (S.D. Ill.).

Mario S. English, Jr., an inmate incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center, brought a pro se civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. English alleges that his rights have
been violated by Menard staff members who have hindered his access
to the courts, particularly Warden Kimberly Butler and counselor
Monica Nippe.

English alleges that he experienced difficulty sending legal mail
at Menard when Nippe refused to give him an adequate supply of
money vouchers to mail his legal correspondence.  English claims
that Nippe's intentional refusal made him missed multiple court
deadlines.

English also asserts that he grieved Nippe's actions to no avail.
Specifically, English claims that he submitted a grievance to
Warden Kimberly Butler, but that she did not respond. English
argues that Nippe and Butler's actions are indicative of
deliberate indifference and a denial of access to the courts.

The court finds it convenient to divide the pro se as: Count 1:
Denial of access to the courts claim against Butler and Nippe for
failing to provide English with a sufficient number of money
vouchers to mail his legal correspondence; and, Count 2:
Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to respond to English's
grievances regarding the shortage of money vouchers for legal
mail.

English seeks monetary damages, and injunctive relief in the form
of a transfer to Stateville or Pontiac, a directive to Menard
requiring the facility to always provide inmates with money
vouchers, a copy of his disciplinary card and all of his incoming
and outgoing mail.

English made a request for dismissal of the five co-plaintiffs
named in his original complaint, a request for status update and
motions for recruitment of counsel.

Judge Staci M. Yandle held that count 1 will be allowed to proceed
beyond screening solely as to defendant Nippe; count 1 will be
dismissed without prejudice as it pertains to defendant Butler.
Further, count 2 shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim.

The court granted English's request to dismiss the five named co-
plaintiffs. The Court also notes receipt of Donald Hardy and David
Gehret's motions to dismiss themselves from the action and granted
their request. As to the status update, the same deems to be moot.

Plaintiff also makes a request for injunctive relief in the form
of a text order directing the prison to provide him with adequate
materials to pursue his legal matters. The court has already
addressed the request as it pertains to an emergency or temporary
restraining order, and it has denied the request.

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), the action is referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly for further pre-trial
proceedings, including a decision on plaintiff's motions for
recruitment of counsel. Further, the entire matter shall be
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Daly for disposition,
if all parties consent to such a referral.

A copy of Judge Yandle's memorandum and order dated November 8,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/ymRYXm from Leagle.com.

Mario S English, Jr, Plaintiff, Pro Se


MIDLAND CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Baker" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management Inc., Midland Funding LLC,
and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02768-H-JLB (S.D.
Cal., November 10, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message
without prior express consent of the called party.

The Defendants operate a financial services company that provides
debt management and recovery services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com

MOUNT SINAI: Faces "Latner" Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Mount Sinai
Health System, Inc. and West Park Medical Group PC.

The case is captioned Daniel Latner, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. and
West Park Medical Group PC, Case No. 1:16-cv-10502 (N.D. Ill.,
November 10, 2016).

The Defendants operate a hospital network in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
      155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 729-5288
      E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com


The Defendant is represented by:

      Stephen W. Heil, Esq.
      Zachary Gordon Shook, Esq.
      CRAY HUBER HORSTMAN HEIL & VANAUSDAL LLC
      303 West Madison Street, Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 332-8450
      E-mail: swh@crayhuber.com
              zgs@crayhuber.com


MURPHY OIL: Faces "Appleyard" Class Suit in W.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Murphy Oil USA,
Inc.

The case is captioned Richard Appleyard and others similarly
situated v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01290 (W.D.
Tenn., November 11, 2016).

Murphy Oil USA, Inc. operates a petroleum and natural gas
exploration company headquartered in El Dorado, Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
      WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
      P.O. Box 266
      112 S. Liberty St., Ste. 321
      Jackson, TN 38302
      Telephone: (731) 423-5565
      Facsimile: (731) 423-5372
      E-mail: mike@weinmanthomas.com

MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johansen" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Johansen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and Ameriquote, Inc., Case
No. 1:16-cv-04108-RWS (N.D. Ga., November 2, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded
voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the
called party.

The Defendants operate a mutual insurance and financial services
company based in Omaha, Nebraska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
      THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
      3575 Piedmont Road
      Building 15, Suite 120
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 350-5900
      Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
      E-mail: shkoval@aol.com

NABORS INDUSTRIES: Class Action Appeal Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs'
opening brief in their class action appeal was due November 7,
2016.

The Company said, "On July 30, 2014, we and Red Lion, along with
C&J Energy and its board of directors, were sued in a putative
shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges
that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red
Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The
plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for
approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was
completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger
rescinded."

"On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of
Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on
November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J
Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period
alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling
stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii)
preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder
meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied
with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal
of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State
of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court").

"On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the
Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. Nabors and the
C&J Energy defendants filed a motion to dismiss that was granted
by the Chancellor on August 24, 2016, including a ruling that C&J
Energy could recover on the bond that was posted to support the
temporary restraining order.  The plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal on September 22, 2016 and their opening brief was due
November 7, 2016."

Nabors owns and operates land-based drilling rig fleet and is a
provider of offshore platform, workover and drilling rigs in the
United States and numerous international markets.


NEW MEXICO: Judge to Appoint Expert to Oversee Welfare Programs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Horwath, writing for The New Mexican, reports that a
federal judge overseeing a class-action lawsuit against the
New Mexico Human Services Department is to appoint an outside
expert to oversee two state welfare programs that provide food and
medical benefits to hundreds of thousands of New Mexicans.

But state officials, lawyers representing welfare recipients and
the judge are keeping the identities of the two candidates secret,
despite the fact that taxpayers will pay the salary of the special
master, who will have the job of bringing the two state welfare
programs into compliance with federal law.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Gonzales ruled Aug. 23 that the Human
Services Department will pay the special master "a reasonable
salary," the amount to be set by Judge Gonzales, for a yearlong
appointment that's to begin Jan. 1.  His ruling came in the
decades-old lawsuit in which welfare recipients accuse the state
of mismanaging welfare programs.

This is a time of deficits and budget cuts for the state, but it's
going to take more taxpayer money for the beleaguered Human
Services Department to pay an outside expert to steer the welfare
programs back into compliance.  Exact costs are unclear, in part
because they depend on salary requirements of the candidates for
special master.

Sovereign Hager, an attorney for the New Mexico Center on Law and
Poverty, who represents the welfare applicants suing the state,
declined to disclose the name of the candidate she and other
plaintiffs' attorneys submitted for the judge's consideration.
"We feel like the candidate we put forward is highly qualified,"
Mr. Hager said.

Kyler Nerison, spokesman for the Human Services Department, has
not responded to requests to disclose the identity of the
candidate state officials are recommending.

Whoever gets the job of special master also will bill New Mexico
taxpayers for costs of employing "necessary consultants and
technical, administrative, clerical, support staff, and costs
associated with necessary equipment, travel and operating
expenses," Judge Gonzales ruled.

The Human Services Department has one of the largest budgets in
state government because it's responsible for administering state-
federal programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program.  State officials argued against the
appointment of a special master to oversee these programs, in part
citing the potential costs of such an appointment.

But now the Human Services Department proposes to add to taxpayer
costs by requesting that the judge also appoint a mediator to help
resolve disputes between the state and the plaintiffs' attorneys.

The mediator would assist the special master in resolving conflict
between the parties, "so that the special master can prioritize
focus on compliance issues and refer disputes to the mediator,"
Natalie Campbell, assistant general counsel for the Human Services
Department, wrote in a motion last month.

Ms. Campbell recommended former federal magistrate judge Alan
Torgerson, who runs a mediation company in Albuquerque and has
previously served as a mediator in the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs'
attorneys oppose the Human Services Department's request for a
mediator.

Ms. Hager responded to the state's request in an Oct. 17 motion.
She said that, during an interview with the department's proposed
candidate for a special master, the candidate "made it clear that
he does not feel he has the skills to communicate directly with
the court and wanted assistance."  Ms. Hager said the state's
request for a mediator appears to be an attempt "to shore up a
crucial deficiency" with its special master candidate.

Ms. Campbell, the state's attorney, replied Oct. 21 that the Human
Services Department "has agreed to pay the cost of the mediator.
Judge Torgerson has agreed to reduce his normal fee because of the
importance of the issues involved in the case."
Judge Gonzales has yet to rule on the state's request to add a
mediator.


NOBLE CASING: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Cooper" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William J. Martinez denied the motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit styled TYELER COOPER, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated persons v. NOBLE CASING,
INC., a North Dakota corporation, Case No. 15-cv-1907-WJM-CBS (D.
Colo.).

In his complaint, Plaintiff Tyeler Cooper alleges that his former
employer, Defendant Noble Casing, Inc., failed to pay him overtime
wages in breach of his employment agreement and in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar Colorado statutes.  Mr.
Cooper proposes this class definition:

     "All current and former casing services employees who worked
      for Noble in Colorado at any time from September 2, 2012 to
      present."

Judge Martinez opined that the Motion is denied because
individualized issues about every potential class member's duties
on a week-to-week basis will overwhelm common questions.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/GH81kh from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian David Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          242 Linden St.
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Toll Free: 844-WAGE-THEFT
          E-mail: Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Lee Zwisler, Esq.
          Michelle Brand Muhleisen, Esq.
          Austin E. Smith, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4650
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 764-6800
          E-mail: david.zwisler@odnss.com
                  austin.smith@ogletreedeakins.com
                  michelle.muhleisen@ogletreedeakins.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Martinez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waleska Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Northland Group, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:16-cv-08454-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., November 14, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Northland Group, Inc. provides business process outsourcing
services focused on accounts receivable management and collection
services.

The Plaintiff 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

NUTELLA: FDA Accepts Public Comments on Nut Butter Spreads
----------------------------------------------------------
The AFP reports that the sugary hazelnut paste Nutella has been
beloved the world over for 50 years.  But is it a desert or a jam?

The makers of the cocoa-flavored spread say consumers in the
United States are far more likely to spread it on toast than on
ice cream, and they are pressuring US authorities to recognize
this -- a move that would halve the product's official serving
size, and thus reduce the fat, sugar and calories appearing on the
required label.

The Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 2 began accepting public
comments on the ways consumers use cocoa, cookie and coffee-
flavored nut butter spreads and how much they typically eat on a
single occasion.

Nutella makers Ferrero in recent years have battled negative
publicity due to the product's high sugar content.  The company
agreed to stop marketing the product as a health food following a
2012 class action lawsuit begun by the mother of a four-year-old
in California.

According to information the company presented to the FDA in 2014,
74 percent consumers use Nutella on bread.  The company cited a
2012 survey of 722 mothers of children aged 3-12. That counters a
1991 survey showing most consumers used the spread as they would a
chocolate syrup, information the company now says is out of date.

"Notably, only 2 percent of consumers in the 2012 survey preferred
to use Nutella on ice cream," the company said in a letter to the
FDA.

Typically consumers used only a single tablespoon, or between 18
and 23 grams, or half the current serving size, according to the
survey.

By 1500 GMT on Nov. 3, the FDA had received 62 comments on a
government website.  The window for expressing an opinion on the
spread vs. syrup debate closes January 3.

The FDA requires all food products to carry labels with nutrition
information such as the amount of calories, fat and sugar in a
serving size.  That information can drive consumer buying choices.


ONEOK INC: Reached Agreement to Settle FLI Case
-----------------------------------------------
ONEOK, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016, that in October 2016, the Company
reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims alleged
against the Company and its affiliate ONEOK Energy Services
Company, L.P., ("OESC") in Reorganized FLI, Inc. (formerly J.P.
Morgan Trust Company) v. ONEOK, Inc., et al. (filed in the
District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, in October 2005,
transferred to MDL 166 in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada ("the Court").

The Company said, "We previously reported that the Court had
entered an order granting summary judgment in our favor in this
case in our Quarterly Report for the second quarter 2016. The
amount we expect to pay to settle this case is not material to our
results of operations, financial position or cash flows and is
expected to be paid with cash on hand."


ONEOK INC: Agreements Don't Apply to Sinclair Oil Suit
------------------------------------------------------
ONEOK, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016, that in October 2016, the Company's
agreements in principle to settle do not apply to Sinclair Oil
Corporation v. ONEOK Energy Services Corporation, L.P., et al.

The Company said, "In March 2016, we reached an agreement in
principle to settle the claims alleged against us and our
affiliates, OESC and Kansas Gas Marketing Company, in the
following putative class action lawsuits that claimed damages
resulting from alleged market manipulation or false reporting of
prices to gas index publications by us and others: Learjet, Inc.,
et al. v. ONEOK, Inc., et al. (filed in the District Court of
Wyandotte, Kansas, in November 2005, transferred to MDL-1566 in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada);
Arandell Corporation, et al. v. Xcel Energy, Inc., et al. (filed
in the Circuit Court for Dane County, Wisconsin, in December 2006,
transferred to MDL-1566 in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada); Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al.
v. ONEOK, Inc., et al. (filed in the Circuit Court of Buchanan
County, Missouri, in March 2007, transferred to MDL-1566 in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada); and
NewPage Wisconsin System v. CMS Energy Resource Management
Company, et al. (filed in the Circuit Court for Wood County,
Wisconsin, in March 2009, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada and now
consolidated with the Arandell case)."

"We initially reported this agreement in principle in our
Quarterly Report for the first quarter 2016. The amount we expect
to pay to settle these cases is not material to our results of
operations, financial position or cash flows and is expected to be
paid with cash on hand."

The agreements in principle to settle do not apply to Sinclair Oil
Corporation v. ONEOK Energy Services Corporation, L.P., et al.
(filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Wyoming in September 2005, transferred to MDL-1566 in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada).

"We expect that future charges, if any, from the ultimate
resolution of this matter will not be material to our results of
operations, financial position or cash flows."


PELLA CORPORATION: "Gowins" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2514
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tony Gowins and Belinda Gowins, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Pella Corporation, An Iowa Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01640, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston).
The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
03540-DCN to the proceeding.

The Gowins case is being consolidated with MDL 2514 in re: Pella
Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on February 14, 2014. The actions share factual issues
arising from common allegations that Pella's Architect Series
and/or Designer Series aluminum clad windows are defective in that
they permit water to enter behind the windows, resulting in
premature wood rot and deterioration and causing damage to both
the windows and other property, such as dry wall, window frames,
and floor coverings. More specifically, the plaintiffs allege that
the windows all suffer from a defect in the design of the ill
extrusion and sill nailing fin attachment as well as a defect in
the design of allowing a gap between the jamb gasket and the sill
gasket. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. David C. Norton, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 2:14-mn-00001-DCN.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D Hoaglund, Esq.
          MCCALLUM HOAGLUND COOK AND IRBY
          905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 824 7767
          Facsimile: (205) 824 7768
          E-mail: ehoaglund@mhcilaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Edward Sexton, II
          GENTLE TURNER SEXTON
          DEBROSSE AND HARBISON
          501 Riverchase Parkway East, Suite 100
          Hoover, AL 35244
          Telephone: (205) 716 3000
          Facsimile: (205) 716 3010
          E-mail: esexton@gtandslaw.com


PROBALANCE INC: Ulrich Seeks to Certify Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case entitled JOHN M. ULRICH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
PROBALANCE, INC. Defendant, Civil Action No.: 16-cv-10488 (N.D.
Ill.), asks the Court certify these classes:

* National Class:

   All persons in the United States who purchased dietary
   Supplements Probalance Protein Shot, Probalance Protein Shot
   Plus Energy, Probalance Protein Shot XL and Probalance Protein
   Water (the Products) from Defendant.

* Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class:

   All persons in the States of California, Florida, Illinois,
   Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and
   Washington who purchased the Products.

* Illinois Subclass:

   All persons in the State of Illinois who purchased the
   Products.

Mr. Ulrich asks the Court to appoint him as the class
representative, and appoint his attorneys as class counsel.

Mr. Ulrich files this Motion pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire
Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011) overruled in part by
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).
Mr. Ulrich says he will file his memorandum after Rule
23 discovery has been completed. The parties need to meet and
confer and propose a Rule 23 discovery schedule to the Court and
Plaintiff respectfully requests a status conference with the
Court as soon as practicable.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant engaged in unfair and/or
deceptive business practices by misrepresenting the nature
and quality of the Products on the Products labels, and was
unjustly enriched.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VlRzcHxr

The Plaintiffs and the proposed putative class are represented by:

   Nick Suciu III, Esq.
   BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
   1644 Bracken Rd.
   Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
   Telephone: (313) 303-3472
   E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


PSC INDUSTRIAL: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Gonzalez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PSC Industrial Outsourcing, LLC and Does 1
through 100, Case No. BC639296 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 2,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

PSC Industrial Outsourcing, LLC operates an industrial services
company that specializes in metals recovery, recycling, industrial
cleaning and maintenance, as well as other mechanical and
environmental services, with locations within the County of Los
Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
              tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
              fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
              arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com


QUALITY RESOURCES: Court Certifies Class in "Pierluca" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge James S. Moody, Jr. of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Middle District of Florida issued an order in the case titled
MARIO PIERLUCA, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, and MARCUS HOLMES, on his own behalf and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. QUALITY
RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, CASE NO: 8:16-CV-1580-T-30AEP,
certifying the class defined as:

  All former employees of Quality Resources who were
  terminated and/or laid off without cause from their employment
  at Quality Resources on or about May 16, 2016, as part of the
  mass layoff (or plant closing), as defined by the Worker
  Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec.2101
  et seq., or who were terminated prior to or thereafter as the
  reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoff, who do
  not file a timely request to opt-out of the class.

The Court approves Mario Pierluca and Marcus Holmes as Class
Representatives, and Ryan Barack and Michelle Nadeau as Class
Counsel.

The parties are provided 30 days from the date of the Order to
confer regarding issues that may arise associated with the
administration of the class, including the form and content of the
notice, and the establishment of an opt-out period and procedure.

The Court directed the parties to advise the Court on these
efforts and whether there are issues that require the Court's
resolution.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ffvSgTov


RELIANCE TRUST: Defending Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
-------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that Reliance Trust Company, the Company's subsidiary, is
named as a defendant in a class action arising out of its
provision of services as the outside trustee for a 401(k) Plan.
Plaintiffs in the action seek damages and attorneys' fees, as well
as equitable relief, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974. The action also makes claims against the
Plan's sponsor and recordkeeper. Reliance Trust Company is
vigorously defending the action and believes that it has
meritorious defenses.

"While we believe that the ultimate resolution of the matter will
not have a material impact on our financial condition, we are
unable at this time to make an estimate of potential losses
arising from the action because the matter is at an early state
and involves unresolved questions of fact and law," the Company
said.

FIS is a global leader in financial services technology with a
focus on retail and institutional banking, payments, asset and
wealth management, risk and compliance, consulting and outsourcing
solutions.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Class Certification Sought in "Incardone" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the case titled DONNA INCARDONE, et al,
Plaintiffs, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant, Case No.:
16-cv-20924-JEM, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, move to certify a class consisting of all
members of families with children afflicted with Autistic Spectrum
Disorder (ASD) who were passengers of the February 6, 2016 Anthem
of the Seas cruise. It includes the following class
representations:

* Plaintiffs, DONNA INCARDONE and CONSTANCE SAVAGE are Sui Juris,
  residents of the State of New Jersey and are the parents of
  CHRISTIAN SAVAGE-PIETZ, RICKY SAVAGE-PIETZ, TERIANA SAVAGE-
  PIETZ and SHADEN SAVAGE-PIETZ, a child afflicted with ASD.

* Plaintiffs, PANAGOULA EFTHIMIOU and CONSTANTINE KOMPAGIANNIS
  are Sui Juris, residents of New York State and the parents of
  ATHANASIOS KOMBOGIANNIS, afflicted with ASD, and VASILIOS
  KOMBOGIANNIS.

* Plaintiff IVELISSE SEPULVEDA is Sui Juris, a resident of New
  York State and the mother of BRIANA GARLAND and CHRISTOPHER
  GARLAND, a child afflicted with ASD.

* Plaintiffs CASEY HAUS and MATTHEW HAUS are Sui Juris, residents
  of Ohio and the parents of MADISON HAUS and ANDREW HAUS, a
  child afflicted with ASD.

* Plaintiff JENAIRE FEIMSTER is Sui Juris, a resident of New York
  State and the aide to a child with ASD, both of whom were on
  the subject voyage.

* Plaintiffs, SARAH A. CAPURRO and LUIS DOMINGUEZ, are Sui Juris,
  residents of New York State and the parents of ANGELLA B.
  DOMINGUEZ CAPURRO and FERNANDO JOSE CAPURRO, both of whom
  suffer from ASD.

The Plaintiffs further seek appointment of John B. Ostrow, P.A. as
Class Counsel and Law Office of Alan C. Trachtman as co-counsel.

The Amended Complaint filed November 2, 2016 in this case is a
class action seeking damages as a result of Defendant's knowing
and intentional decision to sail the Anthem of the Seas on
February 6, 2016 ("cruise") into the path of a storm with
hurricane force winds.  The Plaintiffs seek the imposition of
compensatory and punitive damages upon Defendant.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6sAoXApp

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John B. Ostrow, Esq.
     JOHN B. OSTROW, P.A.
     777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: 305-358-1496
     E-mail: Jostrow@bellsouth.net
             JBOassist@gmail.com

          - and -

     LAW OFFICE OF ALAN C. TRACHTMAN
     48 Wall Street, 11th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: 212-918-4750
     Fax: 212-202-4961
     E-mail: act@traxlaw.com


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Turner Seeks to Certify Inmates Class
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case captioned RAHSHUN TURNER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB (C.D.
Cal., November 10, 2016), filed a joint motion for class
certification seeking to certify a Plaintiff Class defined as "all
people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the
San Bernardino County jails;" and a Plaintiff Subclass of "all
people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the
San Bernardino County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or
intellectual disability, as defined under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. [Sec]12101 et seq., and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. [Sec]794."

The parties further ask the Court to certify the named Plaintiffs
as representatives of the Plaintiff Class and Subclass and their
counsel of record as counsel for the Plaintiff Class and Subclass.

This suit is about the conditions of confinement for Plaintiffs
Rahshun Turner, Monique Lewis, Jaime Jamarillo, and Joshua Mills
and all individuals who are or in the future will be incarcerated
in the San Bernardino County jails. Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and other current and future prisoners at San
Bernardino County jails, have filed this suit under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Second
Amended Complaint alleges that the County's policies and
practices, including its failure to provide prisoners with
access to adequate medical, mental health, and dental care, its
failure to protect prisoners from violence, the conditions of
solitary confinement and the classifications system used to
identify individuals to house there, and the use of excessive
force, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Settlement talks between the parties have commenced, and the
parties now seek class Certification.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F0aRrSrC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      DONALD SPECTER, Esq.
      MARGOT MENDELSON, Esq.
      PRISON LAW OFFICE
      1917 Fifth Street
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 280-2621
      Fax: (510) 280-2704
      E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com
              mmendelson@prisonlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      MARTIN H. DODD, Esq.
      JAMIE L. DUPREE, Esq.
      JAIME G. TOUCHSTONE, Esq.
      FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP
      180 Sansome Street, 17th Floor
      San Francisco, California 94104
      Telephone: (415) 399-3840
      Fax: (415) 399-3838
      E-mail: mdodd@fddcm.com
              jdupree@fddcm.com
              jtouchstone@fddcm.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: Defending Against Property & Business Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern
California Gas Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Companies
are defending the so-called Consolidated Property Class Action
Complaint and a Consolidated Class Action Business Complaint.

As of November 1, 2016, 212 lawsuits, including over 12,000
plaintiffs, have been filed in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra
Energy. These various lawsuits assert causes of action for
negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, property damage,
fraud, public and private nuisance (continuing and permanent),
trespass, inverse condemnation, fraudulent concealment, unfair
business practices and loss of consortium, among other things, and
additional litigation may be filed against the Companies in the
future related to the Aliso Canyon facility gas leak incident.

A complaint alleging violations of Proposition 65 was also filed.

Many of these complaints seek class action status, compensatory
and punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, costs of
future medical monitoring and attorneys' fees.

All of these cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles
County District Attorney, the federal securities class action and
the four shareholder derivative actions, are coordinated before a
single court in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for pretrial
management.

In addition to the lawsuits, a federal securities class action
alleging violation of the federal securities laws has been filed
against Sempra Energy and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, and four shareholder derivative actions alleging
breach of fiduciary duties have been filed against certain
officers and directors of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas, one in
the San Diego County Superior Court, one in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, and two in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the Los Angeles County
Superior Court ordered that the individual and business entity
plaintiffs (other than the Proposition 65 case, the federal
securities class action and the shareholder derivative actions),
would proceed by filing consolidated master complaints.

Accordingly, on July 25, 2016, the individuals and business
entities asserting tort claims filed a Consolidated Case Complaint
for Individual Actions through which their separate lawsuits will
be managed for pretrial purposes. The consolidated complaint
asserts causes of action for negligence, negligence per se,
private and public nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass,
inverse condemnation, strict liability, negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment and loss
of consortium against SoCalGas, with certain causes also naming
Sempra Energy. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and
punitive damages for personal injuries, property damage and
diminution in property value, a temporary injunction, costs of
future medical monitoring, and attorneys' fees.

On August 8, 2016, also pursuant to the coordination proceeding, a
Consolidated Property Class Action Complaint on behalf of a
putative class of persons and businesses who own or lease real
property within a five-mile radius of the well was filed against
SoCalGas and Sempra Energy. The complaint asserts claims for
strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence,
negligence per se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and
private nuisance, violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law and inverse condemnation, and seeks compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Also on August 8, 2016, a Consolidated Class Action Business
Complaint was filed against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy on behalf
of a putative class of all persons and entities conducting
business within five miles of the Aliso Canyon facility. The
complaint asserts claims for strict liability for ultra-hazardous
activities, negligence, negligent interference with prospective
economic advantage and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, and seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Three complaints have also been filed by public entities, as
follows. These lawsuits are included in the coordinated
proceedings in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On August 8,
2016, the California Attorney General, acting in her independent
capacity and on behalf of the people of the State of California
and the CARB, together with the Los Angeles City Attorney, filed a
third amended complaint on behalf of the people of the State of
California against SoCalGas alleging public nuisance, violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law, violations of California
Health and Safety Code sections 41700, prohibiting discharge of
air contaminants that cause annoyance to the public, and 25510,
requiring reporting of the release of hazardous material, as well
as California Government Code section 12607 for equitable relief
for the protection of natural resources. The complaint seeks an
order for injunctive relief, to abate the public nuisance, and to
impose civil penalties.

The SCAQMD filed a complaint against SoCalGas seeking civil
penalties for alleged violations of several nuisance-related
statutory provisions arising from the leak and delays in stopping
the leak. That suit seeks up to $250,000 in civil penalties for
each day the violations occurred. On July 13, 2016, the SCAQMD
amended its complaint to seek a declaration that SoCalGas is
required to pay the costs of a longitudinal study of the health of
persons exposed to the gas leak.

On July 25, 2016, the County of Los Angeles, on behalf of itself
and the people of the State of California, filed a complaint
against SoCalGas in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for
public nuisance, unfair competition, breach of franchise
agreement, breach of lease, and damages. This suit alleges that
the four natural gas storage fields operated or formerly operated
by SoCalGas in Los Angeles County require safety upgrades,
including the installation of sub-surface safety shut-off valves
on every well. It additionally alleges that SoCalGas failed to
comply with the DPH Directive. It seeks preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, civil penalties, and damages for the County's
costs to respond to the leak, as well as punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.


SET ENTERPRISES: Faces "Leonardo" Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Leonardo, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. The Set Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Cheetah
Gentlemen's Club, and Joseph Rodriguez, Case No. CACE-16-020119
(Fla. Cir. Ct., November 2, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
unsuspecting employees of TSE whose right to privacy was
intentionally and unjustifiably invaded when Defendants videotaped
and surveilled them while they used a single user restroom, using
hidden cameras disguised as fire sprinklers, capturing video
footage of them using the restroom.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in
Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
      Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
      ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
      110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 989-6333
      Facsimile: (954)989-7781
      E-mails: ezebersky@zpllp.com
               jshaw@zpllp.com


SFB BANCORP: Trondheim Class Suit Removed to District of Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Trondheim Capital Partners LP,
Maureen Peterson, Michael Meixler, Meixler Investment Management
LTD., Nathan Tobik, MTP 401k Plan, Paul T. Owens, Taylor Conant,
Conant Family Trust, and Conant Family Foundation, individually
and derivatively on behalf of SFB Bancorp Incorporated  v. SFB
Bancorp Incorporated, Peter W. Hampton, Jr., Case No. CV2016-
013703, was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix
Division). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
03922-GMS to the proceeding.

The Defendants operates a banking company headquartered at 632 E
Elk Ave, Elizabethton, TN 37643.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Victoria Gruver Curtin, Esq.
      VICTORIA GRUVER CURTIN PLC
      7689 E Paradise Lane, Unit 2
      Scottsdale, AZ 85260
      Telephone: (480) 998-3547
      E-mail: victoria@vcurtin.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Doug C. Northup, Esq.
      FENNEMORE CRAIG PC
      2394 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 600
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 916-5000
      Facsimile: (602) 916-5562
      E-mail: dnorthup@fclaw.com


SHINE LAWYERS: Shareholders Mull Suit Over Profit Downgrade
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marx, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that it looks
like the shine has come off Shine Lawyers just three years after
going public.

The listed no-win no-fee firm just celebrated its 40th anniversary
and secured more than $750 million in compo for clients last year.

But the Brisbane-based outfit, which uses American activist
Erin Brockovich as an "ambassador", suffered a 50 per cent fall in
profit to $14.8 million last year.

The recent AGM in Brisbane did little to impress investors and the
stock price continued trending down in the following days.

Shine also faces the threat of a planned class action by
disgruntled shareholders after a massive profit downgrade
triggered a 73 per cent plunge in the stock price on a single day
in January.

More than $250 million was shaved off the capitalisation of the
firm, which has 48 offices and 700-plus staff.

Meanwhile, morale at the top has suffered as key people head for
the exits, according to our spies.

A chief financial officer, chief information officer, heads of
marketing and strategy, plus a publicist and three partners all
left within six months or so of the appointment of Courtney
Petersen (illustrated) as boss early last year.

Ms. Petersen, who was promoted in August, has raised a few
eyebrows because she has not practised law outside of a two-year
stint with Minter Ellison back in the early 90s.  She previously
spent time at Queensland Rail, Aurizon and Tabcorp.

The multiple challenges facing the firm don't seem to have fazed
the top guns.

Ms. Petersen is understood to have recently acquired a spiffy new
E-class Mercedes 250, while executive director Simon Morrison has
ditched the old Ford for an Audi A5.

CFO Daniel Wilkie told colleagues he paid cash for a new Ferrari
earlier this year.

Mr. Wilkie, you might remember, was a former senior executive in
Rodney Adler's ill-fated FAI Insurance.  He beat FAI-related
charges in court in 1997, 2005 and 2008 before joining Shine in
2014.


SINGLER-ERNSTER INC: Judge Drops "Vespa" Stock Ownership Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of
California, granted defendant's motion to dismiss, in the case
CYNTHIA MARIE VESPA, Plaintiff, v. SINGLER-ERNSTER, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-03723-RS (N.D. Cal.)

Singler-Ernster, Inc. was founded by Peter Singler, Sr. and a
partner. The Singler-Ernster originally owned and operated a
number of Round Table Pizza franchises in the San Francisco Bay
area, on the Peninsula and in the North Bay.

Plaintiff Cynthia Maria Vespa brought claims under ERISA and state
law on behalf of participants in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan
(ESOP), formerly administered by Singler-Ernster. Vespa alleges,
in essence, that upon the retirement and subsequent death of Peter
Singler, Sr., his son, defendant Peter Singler, Jr., assumed
control of the business and, through a series of imprudent
management decisions, involving attempts to operate restaurants
other than Round Table Pizza franchises, destroyed the value of
the Company, thereby rendering the putative class's interest in
the ESOP worthless.

Peter Singler, Jr., moves to dismiss, arguing the complaint fails
to state a claim.

Judge Seeborg granted defendant's motion to dismiss, observing
that plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating a present
controversy exists as to the meaning and effect of the ESOP plan
and any conflict between its provisions and the requirements of
ERISA. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 20 days of the
date of the order. A case management conference will be held on
December 22, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

A copy of Judge Seeborg's order dated November 8, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/qFplLa from Leagle.com.

Cynthia Marie Vespa, Plaintiff, represented by David Richard
Johanson -- djohanson@hptylaw.com -- Phil John Montoya, Jr. --
pmontoya@hptylaw.com -- Rebecca Dunlevy Takacs --
rtakacs@hptylaw.com -- at Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP

Singler-Ernster Inc., Carol Susanne Singler, and Singler-Ernster,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust,  Defendant,
represented by Elizabeth Williams -- ewilliams@kdvlaw.com --
Gabriel Neil Rubin -- grubin@kdvlaw.com -- at Kaufman Dolowich
Voluck & Gonzo LLP

Peter Anthony Singler, Jr., Defendant, represented by Russell
Leibson -- russ@leibsonlaw.com -- at Law Offices of Russell
Leibson


SQUARE INC: "Levin" Class Action Appeal Underway
------------------------------------------------
Square, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Jeffry Levin's
class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company is involved in a class action lawsuit concerning
independent contractors in connection with the Company's Caviar
business. On March 19, 2015, Jeffry Levin, on behalf of a putative
nationwide class, filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Caviar, Inc., which, as
amended, alleges that Caviar misclassified Mr. Levin and other
similarly situated couriers as independent contractors and, in
doing so, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code
and California Business and Professions Code by requiring them to
pay various business expenses that should have been borne by
Caviar.

The Court compelled arbitration of Mr. Levin's individual claims
on November 16, 2015 and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
with prejudice on May 2, 2016.

On June 1, 2016, Mr. Levin filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's
order compelling arbitration with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Levin filed his opening
appellate brief regarding the order compelling arbitration of his
individual claims on October 7, 2016. The Company's answering
brief was due November 7, 2016.

Mr. Levin also sought an award of penalties pursuant to the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The parties
stipulated that Mr. Levin would no longer pursue this PAGA claim,
but this claim may instead be pursued by a different courier.

Square, Inc. creates tools that help sellers of all sizes start,
run, and grow their businesses -- from payment processing to point
of sale, hardware to software, business loans to payroll and more.
Businesses and individuals can also use Square Cash, an easy way
to send and receive money, as well as Caviar, a food delivery
service for popular restaurants. Square was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, with offices in the United States,
Canada, Japan, and Australia.


STAFFING NETWORK: "Shirley" Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James B. Zagel of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, finds it too early to dismiss the case
SIDNEY SHIRLEY on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
laborers, Plaintiff, v. STAFFING NETWORK HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant,
No. 16 C 6279 (N.D. Ill.).  Judge Zagel tossed the Defendant's
dismissal bid.

Staffing Network Holdings, LLC operates as an employment agency,
providing third-party client companies with low and moderately
skilled laborers to fill jobs on a daily basis. The company
permits individuals who are seeking employment to walk into one of
its branch offices to request a referral to an employer. When an
applicant walks into a Staffing Network branch office, the
applicant provides his contact information to a Staffing Network
employee.

Sidney Shirley is an African American and at various times from
June 2012 to June 2014, Shirley visited the branch office of
Staffing Network in Hanover Park, Illinois, where he signed in on
a form that would indicate the order in which applicants had
arrived. Shirley would wait at the office in an attempt to receive
work.

While at the Hanover Park branch office, Shirley observed that job
applicants who appeared Hispanic and spoke Spanish were assigned
to jobs, while the applicants who appeared African American were
not assigned jobs. Shirley states that on many occasions he would
seek work at the office and was not assigned work, despite being
qualified for work. Shirley alleges that the non-African Americans
who received job assignments were no more qualified than Shirley
and had not arrived at the office before Shirley. Furthermore,
Shirley alleges that when he was not present at the office, he did
not receive assignments even though non-African American laborers
were contacted about work assignments.

Shirley alleges that Staffing Network discriminated against him
and other African American job applicants at the Hanover Park
branch in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1962, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et
seq.

Staffing Network moves to dismiss all claims against it and also
moves to strike and dismiss Shirley's class action allegations.

Judge Zagel denied defendant's motions. As Judge Zagel observes,
Shirley has met his burden and provided fair notice of a plausible
claim to relief. He has alleged that he observed Staffing Network
referring non-African American job applicants before referring
African American applicants with similar qualifications. Such
statement is an allegation of an adverse employment action on the
basis of race. Given such allegation, Staffing Network can begin
investigating into the basis for Shirley's claim and preparing a
defense. If Shirley's allegations are true, it is plausible that
Shirley will have a right to relief under the law.  Shirley has
also identified a specific employment policy and practice and
provided the basic facts that suggest this policy and practice had
an adverse impact on African Americans. This is sufficient to
state a claim for adverse impact under Title VII.

Lastly, Shirley has alleged that Staffing Network engaged in a
pattern and practice of referring non-African American workers to
jobs when African Americans were equally qualified for a referral.

According to the Court, there is nothing facially flawed about
such an allegation that would make class certification improper as
a matter of law. As more details about Staffing Network's policies
and practices are uncovered at a later stage of litigation,
Staffing Network may be able to raise arguments about how the
company had no such policy or practice commonly applied to all
applicants or about how the unique details of each job referral
predominate over the common questions from the class. But
additional information is needed to make a final judgment about
these issues. Dismissal of the class allegations is therefore
inappropriate at such early stage, and defendant's motion to
strike is denied.

A copy of Judge Zagel's memorandum opinion and order dated
November 8, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/u38lTc from
Leagle.com.

Sidney Shirley, Plaintiff, represented by:

Alvar Ayala, Esq.
Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
Workers' Law Office, PC
53 W Jackson Blvd #701
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: 312-795-9120

Staffing Network Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Britney
Zilz -- bzilz@koreyrichardsonlaw.com -- Carter A. Korey --
ckorey@koreyrichardsonlaw.com -- Elliot S. Richardson --
erichardson@koreyrichardsonlaw.com -- Alison Marjorie Field -- at
Korey Richardson LLC


STEARNS LENDING: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Smirin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Stearns Lending, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-02045 (C.D. Cal.
November 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Based in Santa Ana, California, Stearns Lending, LLC provides
mortgage lending services.

Tammy Smirin is a pro se plaintiff.


STEVENS VAN: Faces "Lucas" Class Suit in N. District Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Stevens Van
Lines, Inc.

The case is captioned Glen Lucas and Lucas Express, Inc., each
individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly-situated
persons v. Stevens Van Lines, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-02679-JRA
(N.D. Ohio, November 2, 2016).

Stevens Van Lines, Inc. operates a moving and storage company in
Toledo, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      Thomas C. Merriman, Esq.
      Drew T. Legando, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN
      Ste. 200, 1360 West Ninth Street
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: edjerse@lgmlegal.com
              jack@lgmlegal.com
              tom@lgmlegal.com
              drew@lgmlegal.com


TAKATA CORP: Buyer May Face Liability for Defective Air Bags
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that as auto supplier
Takata Corp. prepares for a possible U.S. bankruptcy filing,
potential bidders are poring over a recent U.S. court ruling that
could expose a buyer to liability for the company's defective air
bags, sources have told Reuters.

Takata faces potentially billions of dollars in costs from the
world's largest automotive recall, stemming from millions of its
air bags that were equipped with malfunctioning inflators.

The Japanese company has said it is seeking a financial backer.
But interested bidders, if the parts maker goes up for sale, want
Takata to put its U.S. business into bankruptcy first, the sources
said.

Generally, U.S. bankruptcy law allows a bidder to buy assets free
and clear of lawsuits and other liabilities, and the selling
company uses the money to repay its creditors.

General Motors used the strategy when it filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy in 2009.  The automaker quickly sold its best assets to
a so-called "new GM," scrubbed free of billions of dollars of
debt, which enabled the company to withstand an economic crisis.

In July, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan held
that General Motors Co , the "new GM," could be sued over faulty
ignition switches made by "old GM."

The ruling set what some see as a troubling precedent.

"What that says to me: buyer beware," said Henry Jaffe, a
bankruptcy lawyer with Pepper Hamilton in Wilmington, Delaware who
represents debtors and creditors.  Mr. Jaffe said the ruling could
undercut what bidders are willing to pay for Takata.

Takata's air bags use a chemical compound that can explode with
excessive force after prolonged exposure to hot conditions and
have been linked to at least 16 deaths globally, mainly in the
United States.  About 100 million Takata air bag inflators have
been classified as defective, leading to continuing safety
recalls.

Last month, the company received proposals from five bidders, all
of whom have presented plans that require Takata to file for a GM-
style bankruptcy protection.

Takata's creditors include automakers who want to be reimbursed
for millions of dollars spent on recalls.  They may also demand
that any buyer of Takata's assets share in some of those costs.
The automakers could also try to use the tools of bankruptcy to
protect themselves from lawsuits by car owners for the faulty air
bags, according to bankruptcy attorneys.

The U.S. government is also likely to play a role.  Takata is
operating under a five-year, $200 million consent decree with the
U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Given the uncertainties, bidders could propose using "holdback,"
bankruptcy lawyers said. Some sale money would remain in escrow
and be used to settle any unanticipated legal claims against the
buyer.  Over time, unused money would be released to the Takata
bankruptcy estate.

Takata and its creditors would likely resist a holdback, lawyers
said.

In Japan, Takata Chief Financial Officer Yoichiro Nomura told
reporters on Nov. 4 that the company hoped to reach an agreement
with its automaker customers on a restructuring by year end. He
said the company preferred to avoid bankruptcy.

Takata has posted a net loss in three of the past four financial
years, but it remains one of the auto industry's biggest suppliers
of air bag systems.  The company is also one of the world's top
seatbelt producers, and makes steering wheels, electronic control
units and child safety seats.

'GIVE A BUYER HEARTBURN'

To get a sale approved quickly, a Takata buyer may have to assume
some legal obligations, an approach used by "new GM" which took on
15 categories of liabilities.

"That will give a buyer heartburn," said Bill Weintraub at Goodwin
Procter in New York, who worked with ignition switch plaintiffs on
the GM appeals court case.

GM has said it plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
July ruling, which it said wrongly punishes it, the buyer, for
mistakes made by "old GM," the seller.  The company and business
groups have argued that the ruling, if allowed to stand, will
depress the value of assets that are sold in bankruptcy.

Those who are close to GM and Takata are quick to point out the
situations of the two companies differ in key ways.

Takata's air bags have been subject to headline-grabbing recalls
for years.  By contrast, GM knew its ignition switches were faulty
when it introduced them in 2002 but concealed the problem until
2014, five years after its bankruptcy sale.

Because of the concealment, the court of appeals reasoned that
GM's customers had been denied the opportunity to object or file a
claim over the ignition switch defects as part of GM's bankruptcy
and sale.  To remedy the lack of notice, the court said car owners
could pursue a class action against the buyer of GM rather than
the bankruptcy estate.

Takata's notoriety could work to the advantage of bidders,
ensuring potential claims have been identified.

"You have a known problem," said bankruptcy lawyer Ed Weisfelner,
who also represented some ignition switch plaintiffs in the GM
appeal case.

The GM ruling only binds U.S. Bankruptcy Courts in one of 11 U.S.
judicial circuits, and Takata may look to other courts.

In its appeals case, GM cited precedent in the 3rd U.S. Circuit,
which it said is more protective of buyers in bankruptcy sales.

Takata's main U.S. subsidiary, Michigan-based TK Holdings Inc, is
incorporated in Delaware, giving the company access to the state's
prominent bankruptcy court and 3rd U.S. Circuit precedent.

"Any bankruptcy judge will be really nervous about this one," said
John Pottow, a professor at University of Michigan Law School who
specializes in bankruptcy.


TESLA MOTORS: Class Action Appeal Underway
------------------------------------------
Tesla Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal is
pending in the securities class action lawsuit in California.

In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant
to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint made claims against Tesla and
our CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the
basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk
made false and/or misleading representations and omissions,
including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was
brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013
and November 17, 2013.

On September 26, 2014, the trial court, upon the motion of Tesla
and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and
thereafter issued a formal written order to that effect. The
plaintiffs have appealed from the trial court's order, and that
appeal is pending.

Tesla designs, develops, manufactures, and sells high-performance
fully electric vehicles, and energy products.


TESLA MOTORS: Faces 7 Suits Related to SolarCity Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that between September
1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported
stockholders of Tesla challenging Tesla's proposed acquisition of
SolarCity (the "SolarCity Acquisition"). These lawsuits are
captioned as City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund v. Elon
Musk, et al., C.A, No. 12711-VCS; Ellen Prasinos v. Elon Musk, et
al., C.A. No. 12723-VCS; Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, et
al. v. Elon Musk, et al., C.A. No. 12740-VCS; P. Evan Stephens v.
Elon Musk, et al., C.A. No. 1275-VCS; Pyare Diwana v. Elon Musk,
et. al., C.A. No. 12796-VCS; Nguyen v. Elon Musk, et. al., C.A.
No. 12804-VCS; and Wolf v. Elon Musk, et. al., C.A. No. 12805-VCS
(collectively, the "Actions").

Each of the Actions names as defendants the members of Tesla's
board of directors, and certain of the Actions also name as
defendants D Subsidiary, Inc., Tesla's wholly-owned subsidiary
which would merge with and into SolarCity, SolarCity, certain
members of SolarCity's board of Directors, Evercore Group L.L.C.,
Tesla's financial advisor in connection with the SolarCity
Acquisition, and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

The Actions seek to assert claims derivatively on behalf of Tesla,
alleging, among other things, that the members of Tesla's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
SolarCity Acquisition and, in some cases, that SolarCity and
members of SolarCity's board of directors, Evercore, and The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duties and that certain individual defendants would be unjustly
enriched by the SolarCity Acquisition.

Certain of the Actions also assert putative class action claims
against the members of Tesla's board of directors, including on
the ground that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
filed on August 31, 2016, including as amended, allegedly failed
to disclose material facts in connection with the SolarCity
Acquisition.

The Actions seek, among other relief, damages in an unspecified
amount, rescission of the SolarCity Acquisition, and attorneys'
fees and costs. Certain of the plaintiffs have filed motions for a
preliminary injunction to prevent Tesla from consummating the
SolarCity Acquisition or any vote thereon and motions for
expedited proceedings.

On September 23, 2016, the Court set a schedule for consolidation
of the Actions and determination of a plaintiffs' leadership
structure, and the Court scheduled a hearing for October 14, 2016,
to consider any motion for expedited proceedings. On October 10,
the Court entered orders consolidating the Actions and appointing
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On October 11, 2016, lead
counsel informed the Court that they do not intend to move for
expedited proceedings, and the Court canceled the previously
scheduled hearing to consider any such motion. Tesla believes that
the Actions are without merit.

Tesla designs, develops, manufactures, and sells high-performance
fully electric vehicles, and energy products.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 6
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited between February 10, 2015 and
November 3, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit seeks recovery of investor losses.

To join the Teva class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-979.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Teva was engaging and/or had engaged in conduct that
would result in an antitrust investigation by the U.S. Department
of Justice ("DOJ") and the State of Connecticut Office of the
Attorney General; (2) the DOJ investigation and the underlying
conduct could cause U.S. prosecutors to file criminal charges
against Teva by the end of 2016 for suspected price collusion; (3)
in turn, Teva lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (4) as a result, Teva's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 5, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to:
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-979.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Plaintiffs Appeal to Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs in the
federal securities class action have filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal
securities class action was filed against us in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  In the action, a
former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint
proxy statement related to our shareholder meeting in connection
with the merger with the acquired company violated various
securities laws and that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees."

On March 11, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the claims as time-barred.  Plaintiffs appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second
Circuit"), but on March 17, 2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal.  Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 12, 2016.

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

Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Ex-Students Want Campaign Statements Admitted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Devine, writing for CNN, reports that lawyers for former
students suing Trump University argue Donald Trump's statements on
the campaign trail should be admissible in court and that the
defense should not hide behind his status as the Republican
nominee.

With the civil trial against Mr. Trump's now-defunct for-profit
real estate school scheduled to begin November 28 in San Diego,
attorneys on both sides of the case have fought in recent weeks
over what evidence will be permitted in court.

In October, Mr. Trump's attorneys filed documents seeking to block
all references to Trump's campaign rhetoric -- including his
tweets, speeches and advertisements -- as well as media reports
about him published during the campaign on the grounds that such
citations could unfairly sway the jury, but the plaintiff's
attorneys shot back in court filings on Nov. 1.

"Trump wants to rig the deck by hiding from the jury his own
words," the plaintiff's lawyers wrote.

The lawyers who brought the class-action suit further argued
Mr. Trump's comments leading up to the primaries and general
election have covered a wide array of topics, and that excluding
all of this content would amount to broad immunity.

"Donald Trump's dizzying array of objectively false, contradictory
and self-defeating statements have left him so flummoxed he is
demanding that the court create a new category of immunity to
protect him from himself," they wrote.  "Trump's representations,
acts (or lack thereof), and credibility will be among the most
important issues for the jury to determine."
The plaintiff's attorneys said they have no intentions to
politicize the case, but they argued that instances in which they
say Mr. Trump flip-flopped on issues relevant to Trump University
are appropriate evidence at trial.  They wrote in documents filed
on Nov. 2 that Mr. Trump has admitted he did not handpick
instructors for the venture's programs, a key point of contention
in the case.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump argue that statements made during the
election cycle by and about the Republican nominee have no
relevance to the trial and that any reference to them "carries an
immediate and irreparable danger of extreme and irremediable
prejudice."

They say the jury should judge those statements at the ballot box,
not in the courtroom.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly mentioned Trump University litigation on
the campaign trail, such as when he called federal judge Gonzalo
Curiel a "hater" and questioned his ability to fairly preside over
the class-action suit.

In May, Mr. Trump tweeted that Judge Curiel is "totally biased
against me" and said he should have easily won the case.

In a separate filing on Nov. 1, Mr. Trump's lawyers sought to
specifically block at trial the inclusion of a CNN interview with
a former instructor, James Harris.  Mr. Harris previously told CNN
his main job wasn't to teach real estate but was to convince
people to sign up for the real estate seminars, some of which cost
tens of thousands of dollars.

Trump University currently faces three civil lawsuits, including
two class-action suits in California filed by former students and
another brought by New York's attorney general.


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Shareholder Litigation in New York Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a
shareholder litigation in the Southern District of New York is now
closed.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were
issued regarding the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The
News of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company,
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks
compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs.

On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd as lead counsel.

Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing
that an amended consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31,
2012. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31,
2012, which among other things, added as defendants NI Group
Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) and Les
Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15, 2011
to July 18, 2011.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were
granted by the court on March 31, 2014.

On April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of the amended
consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to July
8, 2009 to July 18, 2011.

Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint, and on September 30, 2015, the court granted
defendants' motions in their entirety and dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims.

On October 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's memorandum, opinion and order, which defendants
have opposed.

On September 21, 2016, the court denied the motion for
reconsideration and on October 21, 2016, plaintiffs' time to
appeal expired and the case was closed.

The Company is a diversified global media and entertainment
company.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Couriers File Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
John Ribeiro, writing for IDG News Service, reports that taking a
cue from Uber drivers, a 'foot and bike' courier has filed a
proposed class-action lawsuit against the ride-hailing company and
a subsidiary, demanding minimum wages, and reimbursement of tools-
of-the-trade expenses and gratuities as would be typically
provided to regular employees.

Uber has introduced its delivery services, called UberEats and
UberRush, in some cities in the U.S. and other countries.

In a proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other
Uber couriers in New York, Matthew B. Burgos, claims that among
other things, Uber circumvents its duty of supplying safety gear
by misclassifying its couriers as independent contractors.
Couriers are also required to purchase their own 'tools of the
trade' including their own bicycles, helmets and reflectors in
making deliveries for Uber.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York cites New York City Bureau of Statistics
reports that there were 225 bicyclist deaths between 1996 and
2005.  "Over seventy percent of those deaths were delivery
workers, and 97% of the delivery who were killed were not wearing
helmets," according to the complaint.

A federal judge in California rejected in August a proposed
settlement between Uber and drivers in Massachusetts and
California in lawsuits that claimed that they should be classified
as employees with full benefits rather than as independent
contractors.  The proposed settlement did not address the
classification issue, but would have given the drivers in the
class-action suit a US$84 million payment, which could see a hike
of $16 million depending on Uber's valuation if it goes public.

District Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California found that the amount was not fair
and adequate as most of the drivers would receive less than $100
each from the settlement.  An appeals court ruled in September
that drivers had to settle issues through individual arbitration
provisions instead of through class action.

Uber could not be immediately reached for comment on the complaint
by Mr. Burgos.

The company has held that its model, based around freelance
contractors over whom it says it has minimal control, gives
drivers flexibility to choose when to work and be their own
bosses. Recognizing its drivers or couriers as employees would
require the ride-hailing company to pay them benefits, which would
push up its cost of operation.

The lawsuit by the couriers will likely have reverberations in the
on-demand economy, which mainly uses contractors to deliver a
variety of services to help keep costs down.

"Uber controls nearly every aspect of the Couriers' employment,"
according to the complaint by Mr. Burgos, which claims that a
person "is an independent contractor only when free from control
and direction in the performance of such services."

While the agreements state that couriers have the right to work
for other delivery companies, the couriers including Burgos were
told during an orientation course in December last year that a
courier would be "deactivated" from Uber if found to be working
for any other service, according to the complaint.  Couriers must
also take the assignments given, and complete them in time frames
set by Uber.

The company had a setback recently in the U.K. where an employment
tribunal ruled that it should treat its local drivers as
employees, and pay them the minimum wage and give them paid time
off.  The judge decided that Uber was an employer because of its
control of pricing, of the route taken by the drivers, and of key
information about passengers.


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Field Reps Class in "Gross" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Patricia Campbell-Smith entered an opinion and order
in the lawsuit entitled ALAN GROSS v. THE UNITED STATES, Case No.
11-715C (Fed. Cl.), granting the Defendant's motion for partial
dismissal.

In his complaint, Alan Gross, an employee of the United States
Census Bureau, contends that he and others similarly situated have
not been paid the Sunday premium pay to which they are entitled
under federal law.

Judge Campbell-Smith also ruled that the Plaintiff's claims for
Sunday premium pay that pre-date October 28, 2005 are dismissed,
the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted, the
Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied, and the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted.

Consistent with the Court's findings, the class is defined to
include all: part-time Field Representatives and Senior Field
Representatives employed by the Census Bureau -- from October 28,
2005 to the present -- who performed nonovertime work on a Sunday
and did not receive Sunday premium pay for that work under 5
U.S.C. Section 5546(a).

The Court appoints Arlene F. Boop, Esq., as class counsel joined
by Doris G. Traub, Esq., and Daniel L. Alterman, Esq., who may
serve in the role "of counsel."

On or before December 5, 2016, the parties must file a joint
status report proposing a plan to satisfy the notice requirements
of Rule 23(c)(2) and addressing further notice proceedings.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/uBbZZC from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arlene F. Boop, Esq.
          Daniel L. Alterman, Esq.
          ALTERMAN & BOOP, LLP
          99 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 226-2800
          Facsimile: (212) 431-3614
          E-mail: aboop@altermanboop.com
                  dalterman@altermanboop.com

               - and -

          Doris G. Traub, Esq.
          TRAUB & TRAUB, P.C.
          39 Broadway, Suite 2420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 732-0208

Defendant USA is represented by:

          Kenneth Samuel Kessler, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000


UNITED STATES: Class Certified in "Hernandez" Immigration Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California issued on order on November 10,
2016, in the case captioned Xochitl Hernandez et al. v. Loretta
Lynch et al., Case No. EDCV 16-00620-JGB (KKx)(C.D. Cal.), denying
a motion to dismiss filed by defendants Jon Briggs, Christina
Holland, Sandra Hutchens, James Janecka, David Jennings, Jeh
Johnson, Mike Kreuger, Loretta Lynch, Juan P Osuna, Carlos Roja,
and Sarah Saldana.

Instead, Judge Bernal granted the motion for class certification
filed by plaintiffs Xochitl Hernandez and Cesar Matias.

The Plaintiffs have sought certification of a class of individuals
encompassing "[a]ll individuals who are or will be detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1226(a) on a bond set by an U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer or an Immigration
Judge in the Central District of California."

The Court also granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction "requir[ing] that immigration officials consider
ability to pay when setting a bond amount and release on
alternative conditions where appropriate, and set bond at no
greater amount than necessary to ensure the person's appearance."

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action Complaint against:
(1) U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch; (2) Director of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review Juan P. Osuna; (3)
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson; (4)
Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sarah S.
Saldana; (5) Field Office Director of the Los Angeles Field Office
of ICE David Jennings; (6) Warden of the Adelanto Detention
Facility James Janecka; (7) Jail Administrator of the Santa Ana
City Jail Christina Holland; (8) Chief of the Santa Ana City
Department Carlos Roja; (9) Captain of the Orange County Sheriff's
Department (OCSD) Jon Briggs; (10) OCSD Captain Mike Krueger; (11)
OCSD Sheriff Sandra Hutchens.

Plaintiffs challenge the legality of various policies and
practices by which U.S. immigration officials under the
supervision of Defendants set bond for Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OtGa8xGn


USA: Faces "Valte" Suit Over Fair Labor Standards Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Valte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. USA, Case No. 1:16-cv-01485-VJW (Fed. Cl., November
10, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com


VEREIT INC: Court Wants Doc Production Completed by Dec. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the court has directed that document production should
be substantially complete by December 15, 2016, in the class
action lawsuit relating to the audit committee investigation.

On October 29, 2014, the Company filed a Current Report on Form
8-K (the "October 29 8-K") reporting the Audit Committee's
conclusion, based on the preliminary findings of its
investigation, that certain previously issued consolidated
financial statements of the Company, including those included in
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2013 and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the
quarters ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, and related
financial information should no longer be relied upon. The Company
also reported that the Audit Committee had based its conclusion on
the preliminary findings of its investigation into concerns
regarding accounting practices and other matters that were first
reported to the Audit Committee in early September 2014 and that
the Audit Committee believed that an error in the calculation of
adjusted funds from operations for the first quarter of 2014 had
been identified but intentionally not corrected when the Company
reported its financial results for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2014. Prior to the filing of the October 29 8-K, the
Audit Committee previewed for the SEC the information contained in
the filing. Subsequent to that filing, the SEC provided notice
that it had commenced a formal investigation and issued subpoenas
calling for the production of various documents. In addition, the
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New
York contacted counsel for the Audit Committee and counsel for the
Company with respect to this matter, and the Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued a subpoena calling for the
production of various documents. The Audit Committee and the
Company have been cooperating with these regulators in their
investigations.

In connection with these investigations, on September 8, 2016, the
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New
York announced the filing of criminal charges against the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief
Accounting Officer (the "Criminal Action"), as well as the fact
that the former Chief Accounting Officer has pleaded guilty to the
charges filed. That same day, the SEC announced the filing of a
civil complaint against the same two individuals in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"SEC Civil Action"). On October 12, 2016, the United States
Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a motion to
intervene in and stay the SEC Civil Action until the conclusion of
the Criminal Action. On November 1, 2016, the Court granted the
motion to stay with respect to all witness related discovery.

The Company and certain of its former officers and current and
former directors have been named as defendants in a number of
lawsuits filed following the October 29 8-K, including class
actions, derivative actions, and individual actions seeking money
damages and other relief under the federal securities laws and
state laws in both federal and state courts in New York, Maryland
and Arizona.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and current and former directors,
among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in
ten securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court
consolidated these actions under the caption In re American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the
"SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"). The plaintiffs filed
a second amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015,
which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Certain defendants, including the Company and the OP,
filed motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint
(or portions thereof), which were granted in part and denied in
part by the court at oral argument on June 1, 2016. The Company
and the OP filed an answer to the second amended class action
complaint on July 29, 2016.

On September 8, 2016, the Court issued an order directing
plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint to reflect certain
prior rulings by the court. The third amended complaint was filed
on September 30, 2016 and the defendants are not required to file
new answers. In the September 8, 2016 order, the court also
directed that document production should be substantially complete
by December 15, 2016, and scheduled a status conference on January
10, 2017.


VEREIT INC: Cole Parties Has Yet to Enter Settlement Stipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the parties in the Cole Litigation Matter has not
entered into a stipulation of settlement.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York,
captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners,
et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant. The
plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in
connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation) and that Cole aided and
abetted those breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The
proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with
the SEC on January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also
contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to the Company's stockholders, and provided that the
defendants would not object to a payment of up to $625,000 for
attorneys' fees.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has
not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding.


VIVA LABS: Faces "Tracton" Class Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Viva Labs, Inc.

The case is captioned Syndi Tracton, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. Viva Labs,
Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02772-BTM-KSC (S.D. Cal., November 10,
2016).

Viva Labs, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of nutrition and
supplement products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      Hillcrest Professional Building
      3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-3840
      Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
      E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

VOYA FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Dezelan" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, Dezelan v. Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No.
3:16-cv-1251) (filed July 26, 2016).

In the putative class action, plaintiff, a participant in a 403(b)
Plan, seeks to represent a class of plans whose assets are
invested in Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company
("VRIAC") "Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds." Plaintiff
alleges that VRIAC has violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by charging unreasonable fees and
setting its own compensation in connection with stable value
products. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney's fees. The Company
denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and
intends to defend the case vigorously.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Patrico" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, Patrico v. Voya Financial,
Inc., et al (USDC SDNY, No. 1:16-cv-07070) (filed September 9,
2016).

In the putative class action, plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k)
Plan, seeks to represent a class of plans "for which Voya or its
subsidiaries provide recordkeeping, investment management or
investment advisory services and for which Financial Engines
provides investment advice to plan participants." Plaintiff
alleges that the Company and its affiliates have violated ERISA by
charging unreasonable fees in connection with in-plan investment
advice provided in conjunction with Financial Engines, a third-
party investment adviser. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney's
fees.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.


WASHINGTON GAS: Sued Over Injuries Suffered Due to Gas Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ericka Jineth Hercules Ramirez, Rosali Amaya Benitez, Abeba Heyi,
Encarnacion Dubon Ortiz, Donaldo Mondragon, Yamileth Reyes
Valladarez and, Solomon M. Weldemariam, on behalf of themselves
and all of those similarly situated v. Washington Gas Light
Company, WGL Holdings, Inc., Kay Management Company, Inc. and John
Does, Case No. 8040 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 2, 2016), arises
from the massive explosion ripped through the 362-unit Flower
Branch Apartments complex as a result of the Defendants' failure
to use due care when installing, monitoring, inspecting,
servicing, and maintaining the underground pipe, service lines,
and other equipment that distributes natural gas to Building 8701
of the Flower Branch.

Washington Gas Light Company and WGL Holdings, Inc. operates a
public utility holding company located in the United States that
serves customers in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia.

Kay Management Company, Inc. operates an apartment rental agency
located at 8720 Georgia Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian A. Glasser, Esq.
      Cary Joshi, Esq.
      BAILEY GLASSER LLP
      1054 31st Street NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202)463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
      E-mail: bglasser@baileyglasser.com
              cioshi@bailevglasser.com

         - and -

      John W. Barrett, Esq.
      BAILEY GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304)345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: jbarrett@bailevglasser.com

         - and -

      Nicholas Katz, Esq.
      CASA
      8151 15th Ave.
      Hyattsville, MD 20793
      Telephone: (240) 491-5743
      E-mail: nkatz@wearecasa.org

          - and -

      Deepak Gupta, Esq.
      Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq.
      GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
      1735 20th Street NW
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202)888-1741
      E-mail: deepak@guptawessler.com
              matt@guptawessler.com

WELLS FARGO: Launches Internal Investigation Amid Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle de Leon, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
allegations that brought to light questionable practices at Wells
Fargo and Co. have prompted the international banking corporation
to conduct its own internal investigation on the matter.

The independent members of the board of directors of Wells Fargo
and Co. announced on Sept. 27 that they have decided to launch an
impartial investigation on the illegal and fraudulent practices
alleged by Gary Hefler in his lawsuit against the company.  The
independent directors said the accusations have alarmed the
members of the board and the entire company.

The board appointed a special committee to conduct the internal
investigation.  The group will work alongside the human resources
committee to cross-check the information on the employees named in
the lawsuit.  In addition to the two committees, the board also
sought the services of Shearman & Sterling as its independent
counsel.

Stephen Sanger, the lead independent director of the independent
members of the board at Wells Fargo, said that the allegations are
causing deep concern among the company's employees and
shareholders.  To ensure that the integrity of the corporation
remains intact, they have resolved to conduct a meticulous
investigation on the allegations.  If the accusations are proven
to be true, then the independent board will not hesitate to impose
the necessary penalties.

"We are deeply concerned by these matters, and we are committed to
ensuring that all aspects of the company's business are conducted
with integrity, transparency, and oversight,"
Mr. Sanger said in an official statement on the scandal.

"We will conduct this investigation with the diligence it deserves
-- and will follow the facts wherever they lead.  Our thousands of
outstanding team members and millions of loyal customers and
shareholders deserve no less."

Wells Fargo faced backlash over the accusations made by
Mr. Hefler, who says the bank forced its employees to open 2
million account and credit cards under the names of its customers
without the consent and knowledge of the latter.

Upon learning of these allegations, which date back to 2011, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hit the corporation with $185
million in fines and the bank dismissed 5,300 bank employees.

"Based on the results of the investigation, the independent
members of the board will take such other actions as they
collectively deem appropriate, which may include further
compensation actions before any additional equity awards vest or
bonus decisions are made early next year, clawbacks of
compensation already paid out, and other employment-related
actions," Mr. Sanger said.

Mr. Sanger further guaranteed the public that the board aims to
provide solutions and answers as soon as possible to put an
immediate end to the controversy.  He also assured that the
company is committed to preserving the values of Wells Fargo
especially in terms of following only ethical practices in their
business.  Mr. Sanger added that the issue at hand has encouraged
them to look into ways to improve the guidelines of the company.

"We will proceed with a sense of urgency but will take the time we
need to conduct a thorough investigation," Mr. Sanger said in the
statement.  "We will then take all appropriate actions to
reinforce the right culture and ensure that lessons are learned,
misconduct is addressed, and systems and processes are improved so
there can be no repetition of similar conduct."


WELLS FARGO: Creates Rehire-Resource Team Amid SEC Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Watts, writing for KPIX 5, reports that some former Wells
Fargo employees are suing, while others may be getting their jobs
back.

Wells Fargo tells KPIX 5 it created a special rehire-resource team
to work with eligible former employees who want to return to the
bank.  But it may be too little, too late.

Wells Fargo has confirmed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission is investigating its sales practices, and revealed that
it has almost doubled to $1.7 billion the amount set aside to deal
with its legal problems.

The San Francisco-based bank said in a regulatory filing on
Nov. 3 that a myriad of local, state and federal government
agencies are investigating Wells Fargo for its sales practices
scandal.  That's on top of class-action lawsuits filed against the
bank by investors, its former employees and customers.

On a call with investors, CEO and President Tim Sloan, said,
"We're also assisting former team members who left Retail Banking
because they did not meet performance goals and who remain
eligible for rehire."

Consumer psychologist Kit Yarrow talked about the offer from Wells
Fargo's new CEO.

The 5,300 employees terminated for their involvement in creating
fake accounts will not be eligible, rather the offer goes to those
who were fired for not meeting the aggressive sales goals that led
to the fake accounts.

Former employees have filed a class-action lawsuit claiming they
were fired or demoted after reporting fraud or refusing to open
fake accounts.

Something Ms. Yarrow says does not bode well for the bank's
gesture to hire them back.

"It vindicates those that were fired.  It doesn't necessarily say
that there is an improvement in a corporate culture if it's in
response to a lawsuit," according to Ms. Yarrow.

Wells Fargo did not say how many employees were inappropriately
fired, but says it is instituting new rules to prevent the culture
that lead to the scandal.

"I think for those people who thought about leaving but haven't
gotten around to it, maybe this will be justification to hang in
there," Ms. Yarrow said.

Wells Fargo said recruiters will help with their resumes, help
them navigate the interview process and provide interview coaching
and tips.

Due to its mounting legal woes, Wells Fargo is also boosting the
amount of money it has set aside for legal expenses from the $1
billion it had set aside as of June 30.

The bank has been under fire since it was discovered that in order
to meet extremely lofty sales goals, employees opened as many as 2
million bank and credit card accounts without customer
authorization.  The company has fired more than 5,000 employees,
the vast majority of them lower-level workers.

The biggest scandal in the bank's 164-year history forced the
abrupt retirement last month of its CEO, John Stumpf, after the
board reclaimed $41 million in compensation.  The company named as
its new CEO Tim Sloan, who has made fixing the bank's reputation
his top priority.

Mr. Sloan held an "all-hands" meeting with employees last month
where he apologized directly to the bank's front-line workers.
Wells has also launched an advertising campaign to apologize to
customers.  The bank is also fighting off angry politicians, both
Republican and Democrat, who in a tense election year have make an
example of Wells Fargo.

"I know there is a lot we need to get right and team members
throughout the company are focused on doing the hard work that is
necessary to restore trust in Wells Fargo," Mr. Sloan said in
prepared remarks at an investor conference in Boston on Nov. 3.

Mr. Sloan said Wells will also now provide updates on the activity
inside its branches on a monthly basis.  When Wells reported its
third-quarter results last month, there were some early signs that
customers were pulling back their business with the bank.  Wells
reported double-digit percentage drops in bank account openings,
as well as declines in bank branch traffic.  Wells employees have
said, since the scandal, that they are sometimes spending their
entire work days closing customer accounts.

While acknowledging the decline in branch traffic, Mary Mack, the
new head of consumer banking at Wells, told investors on Nov. 3
that "It is still too early to gauge the longer term impact on
these business trends."

But the bank's legal woes clearly are nowhere close to being over.
Along with the disclosure about the legal issues regarding its
sales practices, Wells also disclosed it is in talks with state
and federal regulators over its practices tied to the housing
bubble and subsequent financial crisis.  Known as the Working
Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, it is the
group of regulators that have been reaching multibillion
settlements with major financial companies like Bank of America,
JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.


WELTMAN WEINBERG: "Goodman" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to W.D. Ken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kathy Goodman, individually, and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff,
v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., PSC, the Defendant, Case No. 16-
CI-04921, was removed from the Jefferson Circuit Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
(Louisville). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:16-cv-00682-JHM-DW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nina B. Couch, Esq.
          Zachary L. Taylor, Esq.
          COUCH LAW, PLLC
          2108 Taylorsville Rd., Suite 101
          Louisville, KY 40205
          Telephone: (502) 550 4933
          E-mail: couchlawpllc@gmail.com
                  ztaylor@taylorlawcenter.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory S. Berman, Esq.
          Jordan M. White, Esq.
          WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS LLP - LOUISVILLE
          500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2800
          Louisville, KY 40202-2898
          Telephone: (502) 589 5235
          Facsimile: (502) 589 0309
          E-mail: gberman@wyattfirm.com
                  jwhite@wyattfirm.com


WILD SYMPHONY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "You" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kwan Og You, Sung Joon Ahn and Young Hee Yang, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wild Symphony, LLC, dba
Fish On Fire, Byung J. Sung and Francisca J. Jung, Case No. 1:16-
cv-10293 (N.D. Ill., November 2, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Korean restaurant in Glenview,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      INSEED LAW, P.C.
      2454 E. Dempster St Suite 301
      Des Plaines, IL 60016
      Telephone: (847) 905-6262
      Facsimile: (847) 770-4774


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Entered Into Master Settlement Agreeemnt
--------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 25, 2016, that WMT entered
into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed
attorneys representing plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
and California State Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant, in some
cases with multiple other defendants, in lawsuits in which it is
alleged that as yet unspecified defects in the design,
manufacture, or labeling of certain metal-on-metal hip replacement
products rendered the products defective. The lawsuits generally
employ similar allegations that use of the products resulted in
excessive metal ions and particulate in the patients into whom the
devices were implanted, in most cases resulting in revision
surgery (collectively, the CONSERVE(R) Claims) and generally seek
monetary damages. We anticipate that additional lawsuits relating
to metal-on-metal hip replacement products may be brought.
Because of the similar nature of the allegations made by several
plaintiffs whose cases were pending in federal courts, upon motion
of one plaintiff, Danny L. James, Sr., the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 8, 2012 transferred
certain actions pending in the federal court system related to
metal-on-metal hip replacement products to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for
consolidated pre-trial management of the cases before a single
United States District Court Judge (the MDL). The consolidated
matter is known as In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Conserve
Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation.

"Certain plaintiffs have elected to file their lawsuits in state
courts in California. In doing so, most of those plaintiffs have
named a surgeon involved in the design of the allegedly defective
products as a defendant in the actions, along with his personal
corporation. Pursuant to contractual obligations, we have agreed
to indemnify and defend the surgeon in those actions. Similar to
the MDL proceeding in federal court, because the lawsuits
generally employ similar allegations, certain of those pending
lawsuits in California were consolidated for pre-trial handling on
May 14, 2012 pursuant to procedures of California State Judicial
Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (the JCCP). The consolidated
matter is known as In re: Wright Hip Systems Cases, Judicial
Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4710.

"Every metal-on-metal hip case involves fundamental issues of law,
science and medicine that often are uncertain, that continue to
evolve, and which present contested facts and issues that can
differ significantly from case to case. Such contested facts and
issues include medical causation, individual patient
characteristics, surgery specific factors, statutes of limitation,
and the existence of actual, provable injury.

"The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9,
2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1
million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive
damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities
and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015,
we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or,
in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages
awarded. On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order
reducing the punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1
million, but otherwise denied our motion. On May 4, 2016, we filed
a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Our appeal is pending.

"The first bellwether trial in the JCCP, which was scheduled to
commence on October 31, 2016, has been rescheduled to January 9,
2017. The parties are currently in an expert discovery and pre-
trial procedure phase.

"The first state court metal-on-metal hip trial not part of the
MDL or JCCP, Donald Deline v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., et
al, commenced on October 24, 2016 in the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri. As of November 3, 2016 that trial is in
process and is being vigorously defended by WMT.

"As of September 25, 2016, there were approximately 1,200 lawsuits
pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an additional 30 cases pending in
various state courts.

"As of that date, we have also entered into approximately 950 so
called "tolling agreements" with potential claimants who have not
yet filed suit. Based on presently available information, we
believe at least 350 of these lawsuits allege claims involving
bilateral implants.

"As of September 25, 2016, there were also 50 non-U.S. lawsuits
pending.

"We believe we have data that supports the efficacy and safety of
our metal-on-metal hip products. While continuing to dispute
liability, we have participated in court supervised non-binding
mediation in the MDL and expect to begin similar mediation in the
JCCP.

"On November 1, 2016, WMT entered into a Master Settlement
Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed attorneys representing
plaintiffs in the MDL and JCCP. Under the terms of the MSA, the
parties agreed to settle 1,292 specifically identified CONSERVE,
DYNASTY and LINEAGE claims that meet the eligibility requirements
of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or subject
to court-approved tolling agreements in the MDL or JCCP, for a
settlement amount of $240 million."

Wright Medical Group N.V. is a global medical device company
focused on extremities and biologics products.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: 79 Pending Suits Over PROFEMUR
----------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 25, 2016, that the Company
has received claims for personal injury against the Company
associated with fractures of PROFEMUR(R) long titanium modular
neck product (Titanium Modular Neck Claims). As of September 25,
2016, there were 31 pending U.S. lawsuits and 48 pending non-U.S.
lawsuits alleging such claims. These lawsuits generally seek
monetary damages.

Wright Medical Group N.V. is a global medical device company
focused on extremities and biologics products.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: 7 Suits Over Cobalt Chrome Modular Neck
-------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 25, 2016, that the Company is
aware that MicroPort has recalled certain sizes of its cobalt
chrome modular neck products as a result of alleged fractures. As
of September 25, 2016, there were two pending U.S. lawsuits and
five pending non-U.S. lawsuits against us alleging personal injury
resulting from the fracture of a cobalt chrome modular neck. These
lawsuits generally seek monetary damages.

The Company said, "In June 2015, a jury returned a $4.4 million
verdict against us in a case involving a fractured hip implant
stem sold prior to the MicroPort closing. This was a one-of-a-kind
case unrelated to the modular neck fracture cases we have
previously reported. There are no other cases pending related to
this component, nor are we aware of other instances where this
component has fractured.

"The case, Alan Warner et al. vs. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.
et al., case no. BC 475958, which was filed on December 27, 2011,
was tried in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, Central District. In September 2015, the
trial judge reduced the jury verdict to $1.025 million and
indicated that if the plaintiff did not accept the reduced award
he would schedule a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The
plaintiff elected not to accept the reduced damage award, and both
parties have appealed. The Court has not set a date for a new
trial on the issue of damages and we do not expect it will do so
until the appeals are adjudicated."

Wright Medical Group N.V. is a global medical device company
focused on extremities and biologics products.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: "Jacques" Case Dismissed without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 25, 2016, that the Tennessee
Chancery Court has entered an agreed order, dismissing the
Paulette Jacques case without prejudice.

On November 26, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District,
at Memphis (Tennessee Circuit Court), by a purported shareholder
of WMG under the caption City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary
D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. An amended complaint in the
action was filed on January 5, 2015. The amended complaint names
as defendants WMG, Tornier, Trooper Holdings Inc. (Holdco),
Trooper Merger Sub Inc. (Merger Sub), and the members of the WMG
board of directors. The amended complaint asserts various causes
of action, including, among other things, that the members of the
WMG board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
WMG shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the merger, and causing WMG to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the merger. The amended complaint further
alleges that Tornier, Holdco, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the WMG board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 2, 2014, a separate class action complaint was filed
in the Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of WMG
under the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filed
on January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants
WMG, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC and the
members of the WMG board of directors. The amended complaint
asserts various causes of action, including, among other things,
that the members of the WMG board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the WMG shareholders in connection with
entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and
causing WMG to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails
to disclose material information about the merger. The amended
complaint further alleges that WMG, Tornier, Warburg Pincus LLC,
Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the WMG board of directors. The plaintiff is
seeking, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or
rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Court
transferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford
et al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court for
consolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1 (Consolidated Tennessee Action). In an order
dated April 9, 2015, the Tennessee Chancery Court stayed the
Consolidated Tennessee Action; that stay expired upon completion
of the Wright/Tornier merger. On September 19, 2016, the Tennessee
Chancery Court entered an agreed order, dismissing the Jacques
case without prejudice.

Wright Medical Group N.V. is a global medical device company
focused on extremities and biologics products.


* Class Action Defendants in State Court Invoke Due Process
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Trask, Esq. -- atrask@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that many class-action
commentators spend much of their time focusing on class action in
federal courts: what caselaw controls, what arguments tend to
work.  They spend far less time on what happens to those
defendants who -- for one reason or another -- find themselves in
state court.  There are sound reasons for this.  The fifty states
have very different class action regimes, ranging from tracking
the Federal Rules to prohibiting them entirely.  And, thanks to
the Class Action Fairness Act, state court cases are either truly
local controversies, or are smaller-stake cases worth less than $5
million.

That doesn't mean those cases should be ignored, though.  And
thankfully, Professor Louisiana State Professor Margaret S.
Thomas's newest article (to appear in the Nebraska Law Review),
Constitutionalizing Class Certification, helps to fill that gap.

For defense counsel, the most valuable part of Professor
Thomas's argument is the observation that launches it: defendants
facing down class actions in state court are prone to making
arguments that invoke the Constitutional concept of procedural due
process, in particular that defendants have a due process right to
assert individualized affirmative defenses.  As a strategy, it
makes sense.  Most state courts do not have mature, developed,
class action doctrines.  Those that do (like California) are not
necessarily as helpful to defendants.  And there is no guarantee
that state courts will follow federal precedent, even when they
have already stated that they treat it as persuasive.  Under those
circumstances, making due process arguments provides additional
persuasive force.

Professor Thomas reports this trend with alarm.  From her
perspective, due process arguments threaten both federalism (those
varied class action regimes) and the proliferation of the class
action.  Much of her article is aimed at opposing any due process
arguments defendants might make.  (And much of it recaps earlier
work by DePaul's Mark Moller and Baylor's Jill Weiber Lens.)

But the arguments against granting defendants due process (which
are of variable persuasiveness) are nowhere near as important as
the original point.  When a class action defendant finds itself in
state court, invoking the US Constitution may prove more
persuasive than federal or state precedent.


                            *********

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  * * *