CAR_Public/161123.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 234




                            Headlines

AARON'S INC: "Foster" Class Action Dismissed
AARON'S INC: "Korrow" Suit Has Limited Pre-Notice Class Discovery
AARON'S INC: Court Has Not Issued Briefing Schedule in "Crystal"
AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Still Pending
AARON'S INC: Peterson's Motion for Class Certification Pending

ADVOCATE HEALTH: Nonprofits Urge S.C. to Step Into Pensions Case
ALASKA: Dismissal of "Metcalfe" Suit Upheld
ALLERGAN PLC: Bidwell Pharmacy Files Anti-Trust Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: January 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ALLSTATE CORP: St. Clair Police Retirement System Files Suit

ALLY FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Bucks Cty Retirement Fund Case
ALPHA CORP: "Ascher" Sues Over Price-Fixing of Door Fixtures
AMERICAN ETC: Quinteros et al. Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ATLANTA, GA: McCain et al. Sue Over Disability Life Benefits
AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces "Stokar" Lawsuit Over Defeat Device

AUSTRALIA: Oakey Residents Sign Up to Toxic Foam Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Whistleblower Law Needs Reform, Attorney Says
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Court Wants Suit Revised by Dec. 2
AVRAHAM BASHAREL: "Weber" Files Suit in Calif. Ct.
BAYTOWN C&M: "Comeaux" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

BISTRO DRAGON: "Severino" Suit Invokes FLSA, Ill., Min. Wage Law
CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Suit v. Parole Board Recommended
CAPITAL CONTRACTORS: Sanchez Seeks to Certify Class of Cleaners
CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Suit Remains Pending
CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Parties Await Decision on Appeal

CEMPRA INC: January 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Class Suit Dismissal Based on Spokeo Ruling
COMMUNITY BANK: "Hesami" Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
CONFIE INSURANCE: Accused by Milton of Misclassifying Agents
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Court Denies Dismissal Bid as Premature

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Negotiations Ongoing in "Strack" Action
COORDINATED STAFF: "Sanchez" Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
DEVRY EDUCATION: Lead Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Due
DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Illinois Class Suit by 6 Former Students
DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Class Suit by Jara et al. in N.D. Illinois

ECM ENERGY: "Wallace" Suit Invokes FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws
EHT PHARMACY: Centerville Clinics Seeks TCPA Class Certification
ENGEL BURMAN: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Kobeck Alleges
EST TRADE: "Rakonczai" Sues Over Vehicle Sale Transaction
ETRADE FINANCIAL: Appeal Briefing to Continue Through 2016

ETRADE FINANCIAL: Rayner and Schwab Cases Consolidated
EVERYDAY HEALTH: "Means" Suit Wants to Stop Sale to Ziff Davis
EXPEDIA: Faces Class Action in Texas Over Homeaway Changes
EXXON MOBIL: January 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Discovery Not Yet Commenced

FORMFACTOR INC: "Solak" Case Settlement Remains Pending
FORMFACTOR INC: Employee Class Action in Merits Discovery
FORT ZUMWALT R-II: Counts 1 and II Class Certification Sought
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Zofran Side Effect
HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Court Says Class Waiver Invalid

HODGSON MILLS: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Illinois
HOME DEPOT: Court Approves Data Breach Settlement Agreement
HSBC BANK: Faces Deceptive Advertising Class Action in California
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Settlement of Sloan Lawsuit Approved
IGT CONSTRUCTION: "Hernandez" Seeks Recovery of "Unpaid" Wages

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: To Defend Against Fergus & Becker Class Suits
INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: January 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Rejects Slocum Bid to Remand Suit
JANI-KING: "Williams" Ruling May Spark Suits Against Franchisors
KAISER PERMANENTE: Court Narrows Claims in "Sidlo" ERISA Suit

KAREO INC: Faces "Nazarian" Suit for Breach of Contract
KAVAC LLC: "Fuentes" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
KRISPY KREME: Faces "Saidian" Suit Over Doughnut False Ad
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Must Defend Against First State Orthopaedics Suit
LIVANOVA PLC: Sorin Group Must Defend Against Lawsuit

LIVANOVA PLC: Class Action Filed in Quebec
M.I. COURIER: Faces "Rios" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
MAINE FISH: Seeks Final OK of "Dineen" FLSA Suit Settlement
MARCHESE HEALTH: Settles Diluted Chemotherapy Drug Class Action
MASIMO CORP: Oral Arguments in Appeal Scheduled for December 13

MEDREMIT INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Boileve" Class
MIDDLE MAN: Submits Memorandum for Bid to Certify in Sprint Suit
MLS PLAYERS: Files Motion to Dismiss Youth Clubs' Class Action
MORGAN STANLEY: Court Trims Claims in Forex Benchmark Rates Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Defendant in Baker v. Bank of America

NEC TOKIN: Made Initial Installment Payments
NICK AND JAKE'S: Gleason Seeks to Recover Wages for Servers
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Exploding Sunroofs
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: "Simmons" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
PAPA MURPHY'S: Lennartson Seeks More Time to Respond to Motion

PELLA CORP: "Tracy" Files Suit Over Defective Windows
PRIME TIME: "Mahmoudi" Suit Alleges Employee Misclassification
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: "Ocampo" FDCPA Claims Tossed
QUALCOMM INC: Motion to Dismiss "3226701 Canada" Suit Pending
REWALK ROBOTICS: Faces "Hershlikovitz" Suit Over 2014 IPO

RUAN TRANSPORTATION: Judge Sends Wage Class Action to State Court
SABRE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend NY Antitrust Action
SAWYER PROPERTY: Md. Court Affirms Dismissal of Tenants' Suits
SCOTTRADE INC: "Hine" Suit Removed From County Court to S.D. Cal.
SHIRE PLC: Decision in ELAPRASE Case Pending

SKY CHEFS: "Dyson" Cries Foul Over Background Investigation
STARWOOD HOTELS: Court Narrows Claims in "Dugas" Data Breach Suit
SUFFOLK BANCORP: MOU Reached in Merger-Related Actions
TAQUERIA LOS: "Perez" Alleges Violations of FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws
TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Tuberculosis Exposure

THERANOS INC: Faces $140MM Walgreens Suit Amid Class Actions
TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL: "Jackson" Sues Over Insurance Bad Faith
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Class Action Jury Selection Set for Nov. 28
UNITED RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in "Kroell" Suit
VASCO DATA: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Underway

VIRGIN AMERICA: "Palkon" Class Action Dismissed
VIRGIN AMERICA: "Houston" Class Action Dismissed
VIRGIN AMERICA: "Zwang" Class Action Dismissed
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces "Zink" Suit Over Defeat Devices in Vehicles
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Group 1 to Receive $13.2 Million

VOGUE NAILS: Violates FLSA, "Lopez-Ramirez" Suit Says
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UT: Public Defender System Class Action Nixed
WESTON EDUCATIONAL: Waunsch et al. Sue Alleging WARN Act Breach
ZILLOW GROUP: Appeal of Class Certification Order Pending
ZIMMER GMBH: B.C. Supreme Court Okays Class Action Settlement

* Courts Lift Stays in Several ECJ Cases Following FDA Guidance
* Supreme Court to Likely Weigh on Class Action Waiver Issues
* Trump May Defang Consumer Financial Protection Bureau


                            *********


AARON'S INC: "Foster" Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Aaron's, 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 "Foster" class
action lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice.

In Foster v. Aaron's, Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the
United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-
PHX-SRB), the plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that
the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by placing automated calls to customer references, or
otherwise violated the TCPA in the manner in which the Company
contacts customer references. The Company's initial responsive
pleading was filed on October 7, 2015. A Scheduling Order was
entered on January 26, 2016. This case was dismissed with
prejudice on August 4, 2016.

Aaron's, Inc. is a leader in the sales and lease ownership and
specialty retailing of furniture, consumer electronics, computers,
and home appliances and accessories throughout the United States
and Canada.


AARON'S INC: "Korrow" Suit Has Limited Pre-Notice Class Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, 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 New Jeresey
Court has allowed limited pre-notice class discovery to proceed in
the case, Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc.

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division
on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in
damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's
lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated
certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint
seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and
statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts
issued in New Jersey, and also claims that there are multiple
violations per contract.

The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil
Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory
and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees.

On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all
persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company
in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011.

In August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company's request
for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue.

On October 4, 2013, the Company also filed a motion to allow
counterclaims against all newly certified class members who may
owe legitimate fees or damages to the Company or who failed to
return merchandise to the Company prior to obtaining ownership. On
August 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for partial summary
judgment seeking judicial dismissal of a portion of the claims in
the case. The motion filed October 4, 2013 to allow counterclaims
was denied by the magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, and that
decision was confirmed by the District Court on November 30, 2015.

On December 23, 2015, the Company filed a motion with the District
Court requesting permission for an interlocutory appeal of the
denial of the motion to add counterclaims, which also remains
pending.

On February 23, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion for partial summary judgment filed August 14,
2015, dismissing plaintiff's claims that the pro-rate violated the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but denying summary judgment on the
claim that Aaron's Service Plus violated the same act. On March 7,
2016, the Company moved for limited reconsideration of that
ruling.

On March 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for approval of
issuance of class notice.

The Company has filed a motion requesting a stay on issuance of
class notice pending the ruling on the request for limited
reconsideration of the partial summary judgment ruling and the
request for interlocutory review of the denial of the motion to
add counterclaims filed on December 23, 2015. Those motions remain
pending, but the Court has allowed limited pre-notice class
discovery to proceed.

Aaron's, Inc. is a leader in the sales and lease ownership and
specialty retailing of furniture, consumer electronics, computers,
and home appliances and accessories throughout the United States
and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Court Has Not Issued Briefing Schedule in "Crystal"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, 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,
Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., the District Court has
not issued a briefing schedule for evaluating the motion for class
certification on remand.

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,
filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB),
plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned
and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way")
knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer
Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide
class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a
software program called "PC Rental Agent."

Although the District Court dismissed the Company from the
original lawsuit on March 20, 2012, after certain procedural
motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint, which asserted the claims
under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, added a request
for injunction, and named additional independently owned and
operated Company franchisees as defendants.

Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the Company
moved to dismiss that complaint on substantially the same grounds
as it sought to dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints. Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 1,
2013, and the Company's response was filed in August 2013.

On March 31, 2014, the United States District Judge dismissed all
claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises,
LLC. The Court also dismissed claims for invasion of privacy,
aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants. In
addition, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class. Finally, the Judge denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the violation of ECPA claims.

Plaintiffs requested and received immediate appellate review of
these rulings by the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of
class certification on the grounds stated by the District Court,
and remanded the case back to the District Court for further
consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class
certification.

The District Court has not issued a briefing schedule for
evaluating the motion for class certification on remand.

Aaron's, Inc. is a leader in the sales and lease ownership and
specialty retailing of furniture, consumer electronics, computers,
and home appliances and accessories throughout the United States
and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, 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,
Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation,
the Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations
remain pending.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims
against the Company and its independently owned and operated
franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John
Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping,
electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law.
Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental
Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and
damages in connection with the allegations of the complaint.
Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative California
class. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the
above-described Byrd litigation.

In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter to federal
court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this
litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike
certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently
stayed the case.

The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations
remain pending. On June 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
lift the stay, which was denied on July 11, 2015.

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

Aaron's, Inc. is a leader in the sales and lease ownership and
specialty retailing of furniture, consumer electronics, computers,
and home appliances and accessories throughout the United States
and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Peterson's Motion for Class Certification Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, 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 for class
certification in the class action by Michael Peterson remains
pending.

In Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:14-cv-01919-TWT),
several plaintiffs allege that they leased computers for use in
their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that the Company and
Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy
of plaintiffs' legal clients in violation of the ECPA and the
Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a
putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen
Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs claim that
information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental
Agent was attorney-client privileged.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended
complaint. On June 4, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting
invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended
complaint alleging only the invasion of privacy claims that
survived the June 4, 2015 court order, and adding a claim for
unjust enrichment.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, and on September 16, 2015, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.

The only remaining claim against the Company is a claim for aiding
and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed their motion
for class certification on March 18, 2016.

The Company responded in opposition to that motion, and oral
argument was held on September 27, 2016. A decision on that motion
is pending.

Aaron's, Inc. is a leader in the sales and lease ownership and
specialty retailing of furniture, consumer electronics, computers,
and home appliances and accessories throughout the United States
and Canada.


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Nonprofits Urge S.C. to Step Into Pensions Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for Law.com, reports that three religious-
affiliated, nonprofit health care systems are asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to step into a multimillion-dollar battle with two
plaintiffs firms that claim the pension plans of the medical
networks are not exempt from federal law.

Lisa Blatt -- lisa.blatt@aporter.com -- head of Arnold & Porter's
Supreme Court and appellate practice, filed petitions in the high
court for three nonprofits that are targets of class actions
brought by the Washington firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and
Seattle's Keller Rohrback.

Plaintiffs lawyers began suing nonprofit religious employers in
2013, arguing that their pension plans did not qualify as "church
plans" that are exempt from the insurance premiums, requirements
and protections of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.  Those lawsuits, Ms. Blatt argued, defy 30 years of federal
administrative rulings that church plans do not have to be
established by churches.

"As the firms themselves recently observed, these lawyers 'have
for years together developed and litigated the innovative theory
of liability at issue here,'" Ms. Blatt wrote.  She said the firms
seek "billions of dollars in retroactive liability and a wholesale
upheaval in the administration of pension plans affecting
religious employers and employees across the country."

In the last three years, plaintiffs firms have filed 36 class
actions against hospital systems, claiming their pension plans
were not church plans, according to the petitions.  The pending
cases in the Supreme Court are Advocate Health Care Network v.
Stapleton, Dignity Health v. Rollins and Saint Peter's Healthcare
System v. Kaplan.

Cohen Milstein and Keller Rohrback have urged the justices not to
review lower court decisions.  The three federal appeals courts
-- the Third, Seventh and Ninth circuit -- agreed with the
plaintiffs' interpretation that only pension plans "established by
a church" are entitled to the church-plan exemption under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.  Advocate
Health Care is based in Illinois, Dignity Health in California and
Saint Peter's in New Jersey.

The plaintiffs firms contend that "hundreds of church-associated
hospital conglomerates, often at the urging of 'gotcha' benefit
consultants, have in recent decades exploited a misreading of
ERISA to lower their costs by claiming church-plan status for
plans that had been operated -- correctly -- as ERISA plans."

Those plans, Cohen Milstein's Karen Handorf --
khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- said in a brief, now are often
substandard, underfunded and no church stands behind them.

The 33,000 putative plaintiffs in the case against Advocate,
Ms. Blatt said, seek $110 a day for every day Advocate Health Care
did not provide benefit statements of funding notices. "Stated
differently, for just one year, respondents seek over $3.9 billion
in penalties," Ms. Blatt wrote.

In May, In May, Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center in
Connecticut reportedly agreed to settle a church plan lawsuit for
$107 million.

"Just from a dollars and cents perspective, it's a big issue,"
said Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which
filed a brief in support of the health care systems. "You're
dealing with a whole lot of pension plans affected by this."

'Established and maintained by a church'

Church plans have been exempt from the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act since that law was enacted in 1974.  With the
exemption, Congress sought to avoid government scrutiny of
confidential church books and activities.  In 1974, the employee
retirement act defined a church plan as one "established and
maintained for its employees by a church or by a convention or
association of churches" that is tax-exempt.

In 1980, Congress amended the church-plan exemption to include "a
plan maintained by an organization, whether a civil law
corporation or otherwise, the principal purpose or function of
which is the administration or funding of a plan or program for
the provision of retirement benefits or welfare benefits, or both,
for the employees of a church or a convention or association of
churches, if such organization is controlled by or associated with
a church or a convention or association of churches."

The high court battle is over whether the "established and
maintained by a church" requirement still applies.

Ms. Blatt said in her petition for Advocate Health Care that the
IRS in 1983 concluded a pension plan may qualify as a church plan
in two ways: "established and maintained by a church," or
maintained by a church-controlled or associated organization.

Since then, Ms. Blatt told the justices, the Internal Revenue
Service has issued more than 500 private letter rulings confirming
that the plans of qualifying, church-affiliated organizations --
including her clients -- are exempt regardless of whether they
were established by churches.  The U.S. Labor Department has
issued 70 advisory opinions to that effect, Blatt said.

Keller Rohrback's Lynn Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- urged
the justices to give weight to the three appellate court decisions
and not to "ex parte, non-binding private letter rulings."

Although Congress allowed churches to extend pension benefits to
employees of church-associated schools and hospitals, Ms. Sarko
said, it did not allow "giant businesses" like Advocate Health
Care to create exempt benefits plans simply by claiming a
religious affiliation.

"Such a pure preference for religiously connected institutions,
without any need to accommodate religious faith or practice, would
have violated the Establishment Clause," Ms. Sarko told the
justices.

Finding lawyers
The church-plan lawsuits stemmed from concerns raised by the
Pension Rights Center in Washington, Karen Ferguson, the center's
director, said.  "Several groups of employees of nonprofits
affiliated with religious organizations came to us," she said.
"Exhibit A" was the Hospital Center at Orange, in New Jersey.


ALASKA: Dismissal of "Metcalfe" Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------
Justice Daniel Winfree of the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the
dismissal of the case captioned, Peter METCALFE, Individually and
on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. STATE OF
ALASKA, Appellee, Case Nos. S-15528/S-15557, No. 7132 (Alaska), on
the ground that Metcalfe has stated no claim for relief under
Article XII, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution.

Peter Metcalfe was employed briefly by the State in the early
1970s and contributed to the Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS). In 1981 Metcalfe took a refund of his PERS contributions.
Under a statute in effect during Metcalfe's employment and when he
took his PERS refund, if Metcalfe later secured State employment
and returned his refund to PERS with interest, he was entitled to
reinstate at his prior PERS service tier and credit.

In 2012 Metcalfe inquired about his PERS status. He was informed
that even if he were to regain State employment, he could not
reinstate to his prior PERS service tier and credit because AS
39.35.350 had been repealed in 2005 and the grace period for
reinstatement had ended in 2010.

In June 2013 Metcalfe brought a putative class action lawsuit
against the State, alleging that the 2005 legislation: (1)
violated article XII, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution; (2)
deprived a class of former employees of their vested interest in
the contractual "benefit to be reinstated to state employment at
the tier level they previously held"; and (3) effectively breached
the class members' employment contracts. Metcalfe sought damages,
but he also asked for a seemingly mutually exclusive declaratory
judgment that the State must comply with former AS 39.35.350.

The State moved to dismiss Metcalfe's lawsuit for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing that (1)
Metcalfe did not have standing to sue because article XII, section
7 of the Alaska Constitution protects only PERS members and
Metcalfe no longer was a PERS member after he took a refund of his
contributions; (2) Metcalfe's claim was not ripe because he had
not secured reemployment with the State and thus failed to meet
former AS 39.35.350's PERS reinstatement requirements; and (3) the
contract statute of limitations barred Metcalfe's claim because
the legislation was passed in 2005 but Metcalfe did not sue until
2013. The superior court tentatively rejected the argument that
Metcalfe failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted, rejected the argument that Metcalfe's claim was not ripe
and that he lacked standing, but dismissed Metcalfe's claim as
time barred.

Metcalfe appealed the superior court's dismissal of his claim
based on the statute of limitations. The State cross-appealed the
superior court's ruling that Metcalfe's claim was ripe and argued
that the superior court's decision could be upheld on the ground
that Metcalfe lacked standing to sue.

In his Opinion dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mq6emu from Leagle.com, Judge Winfree held that
because Metcalfe was not a member at the time of the change, and
because article XII, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution protects
only the benefits of members against diminishment or impairment,
he has no claim for relief under the provision.

Peter Metclafe is represented by Jon Choate, Esq. at CHOATE LAW
FIRM LLC

State of Alaska is represented by:

      Kevin T. Wakley, Esq.
      Michael C. Geraghty, Esq.
      Assistant Attorneys General
      P.O. Box 110300
      Juneau, AK 99811
      Tel: (907)465-3600
      Email: kevin.wakley@alaska.gov


ALLERGAN PLC: Bidwell Pharmacy Files Anti-Trust Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Bidwell Pharmacy & Medical Supply, Inc. on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allergan PLC, Actavis, PLC, Impax
Laboratories, Inc., Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02810-CMR
(E.D. Pa., November 10, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief,
and all other relief available under federal antitrust laws, state
antitrust laws, and state consumer protection laws.

The action accuses Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline.
Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided
reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants at
supracompetitive prices.

Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor
of generic digoxin and generic doxycycline.

Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is
called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and
distributor of generic digoxin.

Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes a generic
version of Lanoxin (R) (digoxin) tablets made by Covis Pharma.

Allergan PLC is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company
into global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care,
urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and
infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S.
Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.

Actavis plc is a pharmaceutical corporation with its global
headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and with administrative
headquarters in New Jersey.

Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceutical
company based in the Netherlands.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Boni, Esq.
      Joshua D. Snyder Esq.
      BONI & ZACK LLC
      15 St. Asaphs Road
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 822-0200
      Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
      Email: mboni@bonizack.com
             jsnyder@bonizack.com

             - and -

      Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
      Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq.
      THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
      44 Montgomery St., Ste. 1210
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 546-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
      Email: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com
             krogers@kraloweclaw.com

             - and -

      Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr.
      Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
      Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
      BERMAN DEV ALERIO
      One California St., Ste. 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
      Email: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com


ALLERGAN PLC: January 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Allergan plc ("Allergan" or the "Company") and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
16-cv-08661, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Allergan securities
between February 25, 2014 and November 2, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Allergan securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 3, 2017 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Allergan, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide.  The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and
changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015 after acquiring
Allergan Inc.  The Company's common stock has traded under the
ticker symbol "AGN" since June 15, 2015.  Prior to June 15, 2015,
the common stock of Actavis plc traded on the NYSE under the
ticker symbol "ACT".

On July 26, 2015, Allergan entered into a master purchase
agreement, under which Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. agreed
to acquire Actavis, the Company's global generic pharmaceuticals
business unit.  On August 2, 2016, the companies announced the
completion of the acquisition.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Allergan's Actavis unit and several of its
pharmaceutical industry peers colluded to fix generic drug prices;
(ii) the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal
antitrust laws; (iii) consequently, Allergan's revenues during the
Class Period were in part the result of illegal conduct; and (iv)
as a result of the foregoing, Allergan's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 3, 2016, media outlets reported that U.S. prosecutors
might file criminal charges by the end of 2016 against Actavis and
several other pharmaceutical companies for unlawfully colluding to
fix generic drug prices.

On this news, Allergan's share price fell $9.07, or 4.58%, to
close at $188.82 on November 3, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm, concentrates its practice in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  Founded by
the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions.  Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz
Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the
rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duty, and corporate misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.


ALLSTATE CORP: St. Clair Police Retirement System Files Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. The Allstate Corporation, Thomas J. Wilson, Matthew
E. Winter and Patrick Macellaro, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
10510 (N.D. Ill., November 10, 2016), bring this action as a
collective action in accordance with 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) against
the defendant on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, because of defendant's unlawful deprivation of
plaintiffs' rights to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Allstate is a publicly traded personal lines insurance company
that includes homeowner, renter, motorcycle and auto insurance.
Allstate embarked on a plan to grow its policies in-force and
revenues in its auto insurance segment which turned out to be
lower in quality and carried increased risk which caused
Allstate's largest increase in frequency of auto claims in nearly
five years. Defendants made false and misleading statements
regarding the cause of the dramatic increase. As a result of the
disappointing disclosures, Allstate's stock price dropped by more
than 10% from $69.38 per share on August 3, 2015 to $62.34 per
share on August 4, 2015, on an unusually high volume of trading,
eliminating more than $2 billion in market capitalization. Thomas
J. Wilson, Matthew E. Winter and Patrick Macellaro served in the
Board of Directors of Allstate.

The City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System
purchased the common stock of Allstate and lost substantially.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James E. Barz, Esq.
      Frank A. Richter, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 674-4674
      Fax: (312) 674-4676

           - and -

      Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
      VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
      79 Alfred Street
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 578-1200
      Fax: (313) 578-1201


ALLY FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Bucks Cty Retirement Fund Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ally 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 is
defending against a securities litigation by Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund.

In October 2016, a purported class action -- Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al, Case No.
16-013616-CZ -- was filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County in
the State of Michigan. The complaint alleges material
misstatements and omissions in connection with Ally's initial
public offering in April 2014, including a failure to adequately
disclose the severity of rising subprime automotive loan
delinquency rates, deficient underwriting measures employed in the
origination of subprime automotive loans, and aggressive tactics
used with low-income borrowers. The request for relief includes an
indeterminate amount of damages, fees, and costs and other
remedies.

"We intend to vigorously defend against this action," the Company
said.


ALPHA CORP: "Ascher" Sues Over Price-Fixing of Door Fixtures
------------------------------------------------------------
Halley Ascher, Gregory Asken, Melissa Barron, Kimberly Bennett,
David Bernstein, Ron Blau, Tenisha Burgos, Kent Busek, Jennifer
Chase, Rita Cornish, Nathan Croom, Lori Curtis, Jessica Decastro,
Theresia Dillard, Alena Farrell, Jane Fitzgerald, Carroll Gibbs,
Dori Gilels, Jason Grala, Ian Groves, Curtis Gunnerson, Paul
Gustafson, Tom Halverson, Curtis Harr, Andrew Hedlund, Gary Arthur
Herr, John Hollingsworth, Carol Ann Kashishian, Elizabeth Kaufman,
Robert Klingler, Kelly Klosterman, James Marean, Rebecca Lynn
Morrow, Edward Muscara, Stacey Nickell, Sophie O'Keefe-Zelman,
Roger Olson, William Picotte, Whitney Porter, Cindy Prince, Janne
Rice, Robert Rice, Jr., Frances Gammell-Roach, Darrel Senior,
Meetesh Shah, Darcy Sherman, Erica Shoaf, Arthur Stukey, Kathleen
Tawney, Jane Taylor, Keith Uehara, Michael Wick, and Phillip
Young, Plaintiffs, v. Alpha Corporation and Alpha Technology
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-13997, (E.D. Mich.,
November 10, 2016), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief,
and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws and state
antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection and unjust
enrichment laws.

Defendants are manufacturers and/or suppliers of inside and
outside door handles, tailgate and trunk handles, keys, lock sets
and door locks, including free-wheel door locks and
electrical/mechanical steering column locks, globally and in the
United States. Plaintiff accuse them of engaging in a conspiracy
to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and/or stabilize
prices, rig bids for the automotive industry, raising prices for
car manufacturers and consumers alike and allocate the market and
customers in the United States for these items. Plaintiffs
represent all persons and entities who purchased or leased a new
four-wheeled passenger automobile, van, sports utility vehicle,
crossover, or pickup truck in the United States for personal use
and not for resale.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Devon P. Allard, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
      Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
             dpa@millerlawpc.com

             - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Bernard Persky, Esq.
      William V. Reiss
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
      Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
             BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com
             WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com

             - and -

      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      Email: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
             dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com
             etran@cpmlegal.com

             - and -


      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      Email: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
             ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

             - and -

      Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
      Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
      Omar Ochoa, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1000 Louisiana St., Suite 5100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 651-9366
      Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
      Email: toxford@susmangodfrey.com
             clangham@susmangodfrey.com
             oochoa@susmangodfrey.com


AMERICAN ETC: Quinteros et al. Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeovanny Quinteros, Edgar Martinez Preciado, Carlos Sanchez
Caballero, Jose Vargas Alonso, Raul Antonio Hernandez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs vs. AMERICAN ETC., INC; DOES 1 through 100, Defendants,
Case No. 16CIV02288 (Cal. Super., County of San Mateo, November 8,
2016), alleges failure: to pay overtime wages, provide meal
periods and rest periods, to furnish accurate wage statements, pay
earned wages upon termination or discharge and unfair competition
in violation of the  Business & Professions Code.

Defendant AMERICAN ETC, INC. is doing business as ROYAL LAUNDRY
and owns and operates a linen laundering services business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael H. Kim, Esq.
     Melanie Massey, Esq.
     MICHAEL H. KIM, P.C.
     475 El Camino Real, Suite 309
     Milbrae, CA 94030
     Phone: (650) 697-8899
     Fax: (650) 697-8896


ATLANTA, GA: McCain et al. Sue Over Disability Life Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MCCAIN, LEON K. TANT, MICHAEL BANKS, JAMES M. MAYFIELD,
and TERRY C. COOK, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ATLANTA, Defendant,
Case No. 2016CV282497 (Ga. Super., Fulton County, November 9,
2016), asserts that the Defendant has wrongfully denied Plaintiffs
Disability Life Benefits under their Group Life and Personal
Accident Insurance for Employees and Life Insurance.

The City of Atlanta is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Georgia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
     HURTSTOLZ, P.C.
     345 West Hancock Avenue
     Athens, GA 30601
     Phone: (706) 3895-2750
     Fax: (866)766-9245
     E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

        - and -

     Mary A. Prebula, Esq.
     Cheri D. Tipton, Esq.
     PREBULA & ASSOCIATES LLC
     3483 Satellite Blvd., N.W., Suite 200
     Duluth, GA 30096
     Phone: 770-495-9090
     Fax: 770-497-2363
     E-mail: mprebula@prebulallc.com
             ctiptont@prebulallc.com


AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces "Stokar" Lawsuit Over Defeat Device
----------------------------------------------------------
ELLIOT H. STOKAR, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, and
AUDI AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10456 (N.D., Ill., November
8, 2016), seeks damages on behalf of all persons and entities
nationwide who purchased or leased an Audi vehicle equipped with a
defeat device designed to limit emissions and increase fuel
efficiency.

Audi America is a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Audi AG, and is
engaged in business, including the advertising, marketing and sale
of Audi automobiles, in all 50 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Fax: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
             tomloeser@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Phone: (708) 628-4960
     Fax: (708) 628-4950
     E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
     MINNILLO & JENKINS, CO. LPA
     2712 Observatory Avenue
     Cincinnati, OH 45208
     Phone: (513) 723-1600
     Fax: (513) 723-1620
     E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
     Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
     GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
     One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: (513) 345-8291
     Fax: (513) 345-8294
     E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
             tnaylor@gs-legal.com
             rsherwood@gs-legal.com


AUSTRALIA: Oakey Residents Sign Up to Toxic Foam Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gillespie, writing for The Chronicle, reports that
Brad Hudson is not looking for a cash-grab -- all he wants is the
Department of Defence to do the right thing.

The Oakey resident, whose property on Walker Lane has one of the
most toxic bores in the area declared affected by the water
contamination crisis, is one of hundreds of people interested in
signing up to a class-action lawsuit against the department.

A majority of applicants in the class-action suit want
compensation because of reduced property values, but Mr. Hudson
said he was on-board because he was running out of options.

"I hope it helps people in need, the people who have been affected
in their property values," he said.

"I'd like to see everyone in Oakey get involved, but there are
still going to 30-40 like myself who are going to be affected by
health concerns.

"I'm not after money -- I just want an uncontaminated block of
soil.

"It pains me to know that was my retirement egg, but it's so hard
to sink money knowing I won't get the property back."

Mr. Hudson, who has memories of watching the toxic foam that
contained chemicals like PFAS floating from the Oakey army base
across his property, is frustrated and angry by the department's
failure to act.

He also criticised the department's reporting of the findings,
saying it had not taken samples from properties with high toxicity
levels.

"You wouldn't want to eat meat or vegetables from my place, but
they're saying it is at an acceptable level.  They're saying it's
low and acceptable now," he said.

"There are lots of flaws in it and I don't know where they get
their reports from because they didn't take any samples from my
place.

"My door is always open, but they don't want to go to any of those
extreme areas."

Shine Lawyers partner Peter Shannon, who is handling the class-
action suit, said the people interested were not looking for a
cash-grab.

"No one can argue that they came out in July 2014 and said it was
a chemical of concern and that this area was contaminated," he
said.

"Even if they're right that it's not right to be overly concerned,
they've managed to create stress among people.

"People can't sell their properties and on average these are
people who want to live in town and pay rates.

"No one wants to join a class-action if they can avoid it -- no
one rushes out to litigation, but we've been negotiating for a
long time."

When asked about the class-action suit, the Department of
Defence's Chris Birrer elected not to provide a comment to The
Chronicle.

While the fight between Oakey residents and the department
continues, Mr. Hudson all he was interested in was a future for
him and his family.

"I've got kids who have been subjected to this and I, for one,
will drop my class-action if they come tomorrow and get us a new
property," he said.


AUSTRALIA: Whistleblower Law Needs Reform, Attorney Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that laws in Australia that prevent whistleblowers speaking out or
leave whistleblowers open to retaliation from the companies
accused of wrongdoing need to be changed, according to the lawyer
running the class action on behalf of Christmas Island detainees.

Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson said he supported
bringing in a US-style system that protects whistleblowers from
the backlash of their employer and provides anonymity to those
speaking out about wrongdoing.

The US system also allows the corporate watchdog the Securities
Exchange Commission to pay bounties to whistleblowers if their tip
leads to a fine of more than $1 million being issued.

"In the context of a class action on behalf of Christmas Island
detainees, Maurice Blackburn has had to obtain orders from the
court in order to speak to whistleblowers without the threat of
criminal sanctions," Mr. Watson told the Maurice Blackburn Fairfax
Media Class Action Symposium in Sydney.

"In a properly functioning system this should not be a matter
requiring a crafted and specific court order but something dealt
with by way of general policy," Mr. Watson said.

Whistleblowers should also be able to go to class action firms so
victims of illegal behaviour could have some recourse, he said.

It's a view not shared by a senior lawyer who has represented
several corporate defendants in class actions.

Jenny Campbell said she disagreed with Mr. Watson's call to extend
whistleblower disclosure to class action firms, as opposed to a
corporate regulator.

"The fact is the law has over many many years enshrined the
principle that an employee who receives confidential information
in the course of their employment is under an obligation to
maintain that confidentiality," Ms. Campbell said.

"I struggle with the concept of being able to disclose one private
entity's information to another private entity.  And that is what
a disclosure to a class action firm would be," she said.

Maurice Blackburn principal Josh Bornstein, who has represented
whistleblowers in Fair Work cases, said whistleblowers often came
to Maurice Blackburn because the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission was so under resourced.

"Organisations should not be able to contract out of
accountability for unlawful conduct and invoke their contracts
with staff to silence them to stop that illegal conduct being
ventilated," Mr. Bornstein said.

Mr. Watson's and Mr. Bornstein's calls for greater whistleblower
protections in Australia was supported by Labaton Sucharow partner
Jordan Thomas, who is also a former SEC prosecutor.

Mr. Thomas said Australia's current whistleblowing laws mean that
"good guys" who call out wrongdoing by corporate entities are
afforded fewer protections than those who have broken the law to
participate in a cartel, the conference has heard.

"It strikes me as a little inconsistent," Mr. Thomas said.

"If it's OK to incentivise them to dob when they're bad guys, how
about doing it for people who are good guys?"

Under Australian law, there are no real protections for
whistleblowers of corporate wrongdoing, unless that whistleblower
has participated in a cartel.

In those instances, a cartel participant can seek immunity if they
reveal their illegal activities to the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission.


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Court Wants Suit Revised by Dec. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed with leave to
amend the complaint in the case captioned, JOE HUANG, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-03185-JD (N.D. Cal.).

In the securities fraud class action, lead plaintiffs Arpan
Bachhawat and Srikanth Koneru sue on behalf of purchasers of
publicly traded Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. common stock
between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. Plaintiffs allege two
sets of claims:

     -- Counts one and two allege that Avalanche, former CEO
Thomas Chalberg (Chalberg), former CFO Linda Bain (Bain), board
chairman Mark Blumenkranz (Blumenkranz), and board member Steve
Schwartz (Schwartz) made false and misleading public statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

     -- Counts three and four allege that Avalanche, Chalberg,
Bain, Blumenkranz, Schwartz, board member John McLaughlin
(McLaughlin), board member Paul Wachter (Wachter), and the IPO
underwriters, Jefferies LLC (Jefferies), Cowen & Co., LLC (Cowen),
Piper Jaffray & Co. (Piper Jaffray) and William Blair & Co., LLC
(William Blair) made false and misleading statements relating to
the IPO registration in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k,o.

The Avalanche defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4 and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b), joined by the IPO underwriter defendants.

In his Order dated November 3, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/S2sNXJ from Leagle.com, Judge Donato concluded that
Plaintiffs have failed sufficiently to plead falsity and that the
Section 11 claims allege the same misrepresentation or non-
fraudulent course of conduct from the 10(b) claims thus, it does
not applies to the entirety of the complaint and since plaintiffs
have not adequately alleged a violation of Section 10(b) or
Section 11, plaintiffs' claims under Section 20(a) and Section 15
must also be dismissed.

Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by December 2, 2016.

Joe Huang is represented by David Eldridge Bower, Esq. --
dbower@monteverdelaw.com -- MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC -- Laurence
M. Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM,
P.A.

Srikanth Koneru is represented by Barbara Ann Rohr, Esq. --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- and Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP

Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., are represented by Adam
Isaac Esq. -- Adam.Isaac@mto.com -- and Robert Leo Dell Angelo,
Esq. -- Robert.DellAngelo@mto.com -- MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP


AVRAHAM BASHAREL: "Weber" Files Suit in Calif. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
SCOTT WEBER, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, v. AVRAHAM BASHAREL, AS TRUSTEE OF
THE BASHAREL FAMILY TRUST DATED MARCH 16,1994, and DOES 1 to 100,
Defendants, BC 640016 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, November
8, 2016), alleges breach of the warranty of habitability, private
nuisance, negligence, and unfair competition, relating to the
substandard condition of an apartment building.

Defendant AVRAHAM BASHAREL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE BASHAREL FAMILY
TRUST, owns a 100-unit residential apartment building.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert L. Starr, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC
     23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
     Calabasas, CA 91302
     Phone: (818) 225-9040
     Fax: (818) 225-9042
     E-mail: robert@starrlawmail.com


BAYTOWN C&M: "Comeaux" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Timothy A. Comeaux, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Baytown C & M Equipment Company
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03329 (S.D. Tex., November 10,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime pay, and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Baytown C & M is based in Baytown, Texas and provides services and
goods in the commercial lawn and garden industry. Plaintiff was
employed as a Certified Technician and Salesman.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan A. Daic, Esq.
      DAIC LAW
      12777 Jones Road, Suite 210
      Houston, TX 77070
      Tel: (713) 808-5246
      Fax: (832) 201-0713
      Email: megan@daiclaw.com


BISTRO DRAGON: "Severino" Suit Invokes FLSA, Ill., Min. Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAS SEVERINO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. BISTRO
DRAGON, INC., and KEVIN CHEN, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-10475 (N.D. Ill., November 9, 2016), arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated persons.

Defendant Bistro Dragon -- http://bistrodragon.com/contact/--
operates a restaurant, Bistro Chen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS, P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com
             flowerree@flsalaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Dismissal of Suit v. Parole Board Recommended
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California recommended the
dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety in the case
captioned, MICHAEL A. VICTORY, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF PAROLE
HEARINGS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-0997 WBS CKD P
(E.D. Cal.).

Michael A. Victory, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff names as
defendants the three officials at the state's Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH), three state court clerks, and two prison officials
who denied an inmate appeal related to his claims. Plaintiff
asserts seven grounds for relief:

     (1) Plaintiff asserts that BPH officials' "sub rosa policy of
denying parole at 99.6% of initial hearings based on an
individual's offense" violates the federal due process rights of
life term inmates, including himself;

     (2) Plaintiff asserts that defendants Anderson and Martin
violated his right to remain silent, as plaintiff's silence was a
factor in their decision to deny parole;

     (3) Plaintiff asserts that, at his 2013 parole hearing,
Anderson and Martin "relied on evidence that was previously ruled
as prejudicial and inadmissible by the trial court in violation to
his right to a fair and impartial hearing;

   (4&5) Plaintiff claims the superior court "failed to properly
adjudicate the merits" of his habeas petition and that defendant
court clerks "failed to fulfill their ministerial duties" with
respect to his state litigation;

     (6) Plaintiff alleges that defendants Hodges and Lozano
denied his inmate appeal seeking access to confidential documents
in his Central File in violation of his right to due process; and

     (7) Plaintiff asserts that defendants at his 2013 hearing
imposed an excessive five-year denial of parole in violation of
the Ex Post Facto Clause.

On June 9, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint
along with a proposed amended complaint.

In her Findings and Recommendations dated November 4, 2016
available at https://is.gd/JcPtdA from Leagle.com, Judge Delaney
found that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state
a claim; the case should be dismissed without leave to amend
because it is clear that the complaint cannot be cured by
amendment.


CAPITAL CONTRACTORS: Sanchez Seeks to Certify Class of Cleaners
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned LILLIANA SANCHEZ, YOLANDA
CAMEY and JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CAPITAL CONTRACTORS INC., a New York
Corporation, dba CAPITAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC., and
DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 3:14-cv-02622-MMC (N.D. Cal.), move
the Court for an order certifying this class:

     All persons who, from April 25, 2010 to final judgment, have
     been (a) employed by Capital Contractors, Inc. ("Capital")
     pursuant to contract in the State of California to perform
     cleaning services at Capital's clients' locations; and (b)
     classified as an "independent contractor" while performing
     cleaning services and/or supervising the performance of
     cleaning services at Capital's clients' properties.

The Plaintiffs also seek their appointment as representative
plaintiffs on behalf of the class(es) and the appointment of
Velton Zegelman, P.C., as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 24, 2017, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FJ41fefv

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
          Daniel Velton, Esq.
          Hannah R. Salassi, Esq.
          VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C.
          525 W. Remington Drive, Suite 106
          Sunnyvale, CA 94087
          Telephone: (408) 505-7892
          Facsimile: (408) 228-1930
          E-mail: kallen@vzfirm.com
                  dvelton@vzfirm.com
                  hannah.salassi@gmail.com


CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Surrett, et al. v.
Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County
naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April
10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and
breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved
to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that
motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the
Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part
of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on
omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and
denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at
WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who
dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic
reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6,
2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30,
2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion
to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the
case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and
on January 21, 2016, the appellate court reversed the trial court
and held that the claims by the 1,062 individual class members
referenced above should be compelled to arbitration. The case has
been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Company said, "Because of the many questions of fact and law
that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action
because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate
measure of damages and the number of class members who might be
entitled to recover damages, if we were to be found liable.
Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with
this action."

The Company's academic institutions offer a quality education to a
diverse student population in a variety of disciplines through
online, campus-based and hybrid learning programs.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Parties Await Decision on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
parties are awaiting the court's decision on the appeal in the
case, Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation.

The Company said, "On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former
admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and
unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our
Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan.
In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to
represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions
representatives who also were affected by termination of the
plan."

"On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its
entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14,
2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the
final judgment of the trial court.

"Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was
held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings
on plaintiff's breach of contract claim.

"On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek
review of the panel's decision on the breach of contract claim and
for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but
the petition was denied.

"The case was remanded to the district court for further
proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of
the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. The parties completed fact discovery as to the issue of
liability.

"On March 24, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment which
the Court granted on December 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed his notice
of appeal on January 16, 2016. The oral argument on the appeal was
heard on September 23, 2016 and the parties are awaiting the
court's decision."

The Company's academic institutions offer a quality education to a
diverse student population in a variety of disciplines through
online, campus-based and hybrid learning programs.


CEMPRA INC: January 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on Nov. 8 disclosed that
a class action lawsuit against Cempra, Inc. ("Cempra" or the
"Company") concerning possible violations of federal securities
laws between May 1, 2016 and November 1, 2016 inclusive (the
"Class Period").  Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares during the Class Period should contact the firm prior to
the January 3, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him
at brian@lundinlawpc.com

No class has been certified in the above action.  Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Cempra made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
its drug solithromycin posed significant safety risks for
hepatotoxicity, so the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.  On November 2, 2016,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a preliminary review
on its website of solithromycin, highlighting a significant safety
signal for hepatotoxicity.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Class Suit Dismissal Based on Spokeo Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Clark, Esq. -- bclark@vedderprice.com -- of Vedder Price, in
an article for The National Law Review, reports that despite
claims from the plaintiffs' bar that the Supreme Court's decision
in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), did not
significantly change the landscape for class actions, courts
continue to rely on Spokeo to dismiss claims that have no concrete
injury beyond a statutory violation.  In the last month, two more
cases -- including one federal circuit-level decision and one TCPA
decision -- were dismissed because the plaintiff was unable to
demonstrate Article III standing under Spokeo.  These cases
demonstrate the important role that Spokeo-related arguments can
play in stymying class actions.

In Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18206 (11th
Cir. Oct. 6, 2016), the court held that the plaintiff lacked
Article III standing to pursue a claim where the class action
complaint alleged statutory violations and sought only statutory
damages.  The only claim asserted by the plaintiff in Nicklaw was
that the plaintiff failed to comply with a New York statute
requiring it to sign and record a certificate of discharge within
30 days of a mortgage satisfaction.  Based on the defendant's
alleged failure to do so, the plaintiff sought monetary damages.
The court held that plaintiff alleged "neither a harm nor a
material risk of harm that the district court could remedy."  This
opinion marked the first time that the Eleventh Circuit had
applied the Spokeo framework and will undoubtedly have a ripple
effect on district court cases within the circuit (and beyond)
when defendants make similar arguments.  Although Nicklaw is not a
media or privacy case, it certainly provides a roadmap for all
manner of class actions.

In fact, a district court handling a TCPA case employed this same
reasoning a couple weeks later in Kostmayer Const., LLC, v. Port
Pipe & Tube, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145947 (W.D. La. Oct. 19,
2016).  In Kostmayer, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had
sent at least six unsolicited faxes in violation of the TCPA.  The
court noted that, other than its demand for statutory damages,
"[t]he complaint does not further explain any alleged damages
incurred by the plaintiff."  Citing Spokeo, the court also
observed that "a plaintiff must still allege 'a concrete injury
even in the context of a statutory violation.'"  Conclusory damage
allegations are inadequate, as is the "bare assurance that an
unspecified injury exists."

The Nicklaw and Kostmayer cases present the ideal scenario for
defense litigators.  The decisions show how the Spokeo standard
can be used to pursue dismissal in class action litigation, which
is a valuable tool that all class action defense lawyers should be
considering in every case based on statutory violations and
statutory damages.


COMMUNITY BANK: "Hesami" Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saeed Hesami, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY BANK and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case BC 640 235 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
County, November 9, 2016), complains that Business Relationship
Managers of the Defendants were (a) not paid overtime
compensation; (b) not provided meal and rest breaks; (c) not
reimbursed for ordinary business expenses; (d) not provided lawful
wage statements, and (d) not timely and properly paid all their
wages at time of separation.

Community Bank provides financial services with its principal
place of business in Pasadena, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
     WYNNE LAW FIRM
     Wood Island
     80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
     Larkspur, CA 94939
     Phone: (415) 461-6400
     Fax: (415) 461-3900
     E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com


CONFIE INSURANCE: Accused by Milton of Misclassifying Agents
------------------------------------------------------------
YOTONDA MILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONFIE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a CIGH SERVICES,
INC.; and INSUREONE INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-10523 (N.D. Ill., November 11, 2016), is a class and
collective action brought on behalf of current and former
agents, who were misclassified as exempt employees by the
Defendants, and who worked over 40 hours in any work week and were
not paid at an overtime rate of pay, in violation of the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Confie Insurance Services, Inc., also known as Confie Insurance
Group Holdings Services, Inc., is a California corporation,
headquartered in Plano, Texas.

InsureOne Independent Insurance Agency LLC is an Illinois
corporation, with its principal place of business located in
Plano.  According to its Web site, "InsureOne is part of the
Confie Insurance Group Holding's family, one of the largest
privately-owned insurance agencies/brokers in the United States."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880
          E-mail: acaffarelli@cslaw.com
                  l.peeters@caffarelli.com


CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Court Denies Dismissal Bid as Premature
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Frank D. Whitney of the United States
District Court for Western District of North Carolina denied
without prejudice Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint in the case captioned, MARK WEST, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
CV-00502-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.).

Plaintiffs filed the class action on June 29, 2016, and allege
Defendants violated the Employment Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq. (ERISA) when they
improperly calculated Plaintiffs' vesting and eligibility service
under the plain terms of the pension plan. Plaintiffs' Complaint
alleges two causes of action on behalf of the proposed class: (1)
Wrongful Denial of Benefits under ERISA Sec. 502(a); and (2)
Breach of Fiduciary Duty under ERISA Sections 404 and 502(a).

Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
on the grounds that Plaintiffs' wrongful denial of benefits claim
is barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and
Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
because the wrongful denial of benefits claim already provides an
adequate remedy.

In his Order dated November 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ooZ1Wh from Leagle.com, Judge Whitney found that it
is premature to dismiss Plaintiffs' wrongful denial of benefits
claim based on Defendants' failure to exhaust arguments.

Mark West, et al. are represented by Caitlin Hale Walton, Esq. --
cwalton@essexrichards.com -- Edward G. Connette, Esq. --
econnette@essexrichards.com -- and Norris Arden Adams, II, Esq.
-- nadams@essexrichards.com -- ESSEX RICHARDS

Continental Automotive, Inc., et al. are represented by Meredith
Anne Pinson, Esq. -- mpinson@mcguirewoods.com -- and Susan Pyle
Dion, Esq. -- sdion@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Negotiations Ongoing in "Strack" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, 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
parties in the class action complaint by Billy J. Strack and
Daniela A. Renner have continued settlement negotiations.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and
Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on
behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company.
The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post-
production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the proposed class.

On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did
not add any substantive claims, but sought a "hybrid class action"
in which they sought certification of certain claims for
injunctive relief, reserving the right to seek a further class
certification on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that
modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma
production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to
the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate "issues"
for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right
to seek a further class certification of money damages in the
future.

The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the
motions for class certification denying the allegations and
raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to
each of the claims and filings.

Certain discovery was undertaken and the "hybrid" motion was
briefed by plaintiffs and the Company. A hearing on the "hybrid"
class certification was held on June 1st and 2nd, 2015.

On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a "hybrid" class as
requested by plaintiffs. The Company has appealed the trial
court's class certification order, which will be reviewed de novo
by the appellate court. The appeal briefing is complete and ready
for determination by the court. An unsuccessful mediation was
conducted on December 7, 2015.

The parties have continued settlement negotiations. If such
negotiations are unsuccessful, the Company intends to litigate the
case to its conclusion. The Company is not currently able to
estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what
impact, if any, the action will have on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status
of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual
issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to,
among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the
potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties
and agreements involved, the production years involved, and the
ultimate potential outcome of the matter.

Although not currently at issue in the "hybrid" certification,
plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million
that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the
passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of
interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that
the case meets the requirements for a class action and is
vigorously defending the case. The Company will continue to assert
its defenses to the case as certified as well as any future
attempt to certify a money damages class.

Continental Resources, Inc.'s principal business is crude oil and
natural gas exploration, development and production with
properties primarily located in the North, South, and East regions
of the United States.


COORDINATED STAFF: "Sanchez" Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luz Sanchez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. COORDINATED STAFF, INC., a California
corporation; ASSOCIATE MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC., a California
corporation; SSI STAFFING, INC., a California corporation; ILAD,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC 640151 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, November 9, 2016), was filed pursuant to the California
Code of Regulations, seeking overtime and minimum wages, premium
wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

Coordinated Staff, Inc. provides staffing solutions to 3PL;
warehousing and distribution industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310) 553-3603

        - and -

     Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
     BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
     287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (310) 438-5555
     Fax: (310) 300-1705


DEVRY EDUCATION: Lead Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Due
-------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group 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 Utah
Retirement System had until November 8, 2016 to submit an amended
compliant as lead plaintiff.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operation Engineers, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against DeVry Group, Daniel
Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased DeVry Group common stock between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016. Citing the FTC lawsuit and the U.S. Department
of Education's ("ED") January 2016 Notice, the plaintiffs claim
that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding
DeVry University's graduate employment rate and the earnings of
DeVry University graduates relative to the graduates of other
universities and colleges. As a result of these false or
misleading statements about DeVry University graduate outcomes,
plaintiffs allege, defendants overstated DeVry Group's growth,
revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading
statements about DeVry Group's business, operations and prospects.

The plaintiffs allege direct liability against all defendants for
violations of Sec.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and
asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to
Sec. 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other unspecified
relief.

On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System moved for appointment
as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of counsel, which
was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operation Engineers
and was approved on August 24, 2016. The Utah Retirement System
had until November 8, 2016 to submit an amended compliant as lead
plaintiff.

Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers is represented by
Lester Hooker, Esq., at Saxena White; and Norman Rifkind, Esq., at
Law Office Of Norman Rifkind.

Utah Retirement Systems is represented by Andrew Norcott
Dodemaide, Esq., Daniel J Mirarchi, Esq., Robert M. Roseman, Esq.,
and Mark S Willis, Esq., at Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis,
P.C.; Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq., Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq., and
Mark Richard Miller, Esq., at Wexler Wallace LLP.

DeVry et al are represented in the case by Jeffrey A. Fuisz, Esq.,
Phillip Geraci, Esq., Alan Norris Salpeter, Esq., Aaron Miner,
Esq., and Bryan Michael Westhoff, Esq., at Kaye Scholer LLP.


DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Illinois Class Suit by 6 Former Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group 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 on October 14,
2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by six former
DeVry University students, Debbie Petrizzo, Renee Heather Polly,
Brandy Van Buren, Melissa Lotzman, Jamison Purry and Cheryl
Costello, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
against the DeVry Group Defendants in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint was
filed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those
who enrolled in and/or attended classes at DeVry University from
at least 2002 through the present and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and assert claims for unjust
enrichment and violations of six different states' consumer fraud,
unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The
plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.


DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Class Suit by Jara et al. in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group 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 on October 28,
2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by twelve
individuals, Jairo Jara, Elijah Morgan, Steven Nickens, Julie
Ramroop, Jorge Rivas, David Viglielmo, Jennifer Wallace, Suzane
Apodaca, Jorge Munoz, Alex Haberer, Annette Pearson, and Thomas
Pearson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
against the DeVry Group Defendants in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The individual
plaintiffs claim to have graduated from DeVry University in 2001
or later and seek to proceed on behalf of a putative class of
persons consisting of those who obtained a degree from DeVry
University and who were unable to find employment within their
chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the
FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or
misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate
employment rate and assert claims for unjust enrichment and
violations of ten different states' consumer fraud, unlawful trade
practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek
monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.


ECM ENERGY: "Wallace" Suit Invokes FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws
--------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM WALLACE on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ECM ENERGY SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01693-DSC (W.D. Penn., November 9, 2016), was brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act to recover damages for alleged non-payment of overtime
wages.

Plaintiff was assigned to and worked at natural gas well sites in
and around Washington and Waynesburg, Pennsylvania.

ECM ENERGY SERVICE, INC. -- http://ecmenergy.com/-- is an energy
services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph E. Fieschko, Esq.
     2230 Koppers Building
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 281-2204
     Fax: (412) 338-9169
     E-mail: joe@fieschko.com

        - and -

     John R. Linkosky, Esq.
     715 Washington Avenue
     Carnegie, PA 15106-4107
     Phone: (412) 278-1280
     Fax: (412) 278-1282
     E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


EHT PHARMACY: Centerville Clinics Seeks TCPA Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centerville Clinics, Inc., asks the Court to enter an order
determining that the action styled CENTERVILLE CLINICS, INC., on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. EHT
PHARMACY, LLC, and SPECIALTY CARE RX LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
both doing business as CUREXA, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-
cv-10536 (N.D. Ill.), alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, may proceed as a class action against the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all
persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing
of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes from
"Curexa" promoting goods or services for sale (d) which did not
contain a compliant opt out notice.

Centerville Clinics further asks that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=o2rgJpE0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com


ENGEL BURMAN: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Kobeck Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KOBECK, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
Class Members v. ENGEL BURMAN SENIOR HOUSING AT ARMONK, LLC,
ARMONK BRISTAL LLC, ARMONK SENIOR CARE LLC, WOODCLIFF LAKE SENIOR
CARE, LLC, WOODCLIFF LAKE BRISTAL LLC, SAYVILLE BRISTAL LLC, ENGEL
BURMAN SENIOR HOUSING AT MASSAPEQUA, LLC, ENGEL BURMAN SENIOR
HOUSING AT EAST MEADOW, LLC, WESTBURY SENIOR LIVING INC., LYNBROOK
SENIOR CARE, LLC, ENGEL BURMAN SENIOR HOUSING AT NORTH WOODMERE,
LLC, ENGEL BURMAN SENIOR HOUSING AT NORTH HILLS, LLC, ENGEL BURMAN
SENIOR HOUSING AT WHITE PLAINS, LLC, EB AT HOLTSVILLE, LLC, ENGEL
BURMAN SENIOR HOUSING AT EAST NORTHPORT, LLC, LAKE GROVE SENIOR
CARE LLC, EB CARE AT LAKE SUCCESS LLC, EB CARE AT WEST BABYLON
LLC, ENGEL BURMAN AT JERICHO, LLC, ENGEL BURMAN AT ENGLEWOOD LLC,
ENGEL BURMAN AT WAYNE LLC, ULTIMATE CARE ASSISTED LIVING
MANAGEMENT LLC, JAN BURMAN, STEVEN KRIEGER, MARYELLEN MCKEON,
LAURIE MUSTO, LORI MALONEY, and SAMANTHA KRIEGER, Case No. 7:16-
cv-08770 (S.D.N.Y., November 11, 2016), alleges, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, that the Plaintiff is entitled to
recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) compensation
for retaliation, (3) liquidated damages and statutory penalties,
and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

The Corporate Defendants are each subsidiaries of The Engel Burman
Group, a conglomerate with corporate headquarters located in
Garden City, New York.  The Defendants operate 13 assisted living
facilities under the common trade-name "The Bristal."
Additionally, the Defendants are advertising and leasing
accommodations at five additional assisted living facilities
presently under development, all of which are scheduled to
commence operations in the near future.  All of Defendants'
facilities (including both those currently under development) are
located in suburban neighborhoods in the greater New York City
metropolitan area, with facilities in Westchester County, NY,
Nassau County, NY, Suffolk County, NY, Passaic County, NJ, and
Bergen County, NJ.

The Individual Defendants are each principals and senior executive
officers of the Corporate Defendants and are each "employers" of
the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EST TRADE: "Rakonczai" Sues Over Vehicle Sale Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------
LASZLO RAKONCZAI, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. EST TRADE LLC d/b/a AUTOLINE LLC,
HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, UNKNOWN INSURANCE COMPANY ONE, UNKNOWN
INSURANCE COMPANY TWO and UNKNOWN INSURANCE COMPANY THREE,
Defendants, Case Number CACE-16-020556 filed in the Circuit Court
of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida on November 8, 2016, seeks, among others, damages incurred
as a result of a vehicle sale transaction that allegedly resulted
to the Plaintiff being charged at a higher price than advertised.

AUTOLINE LLC is a Hallandale, Florida auto dealer offering used
and new cars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
     Zachary A. Harrington, Esq.
     Ashley V. Goodman, Esq.
     5135 West Cypress Street, Suite 105
     Tampa, FL 33607
     Phone: (813)304-2131
     E-mail: rmasonf@flautolawyer.com
             zharrington@flautolawyer.com
             agoodman@flautolawyer.com
             admin@flautolawyer.com


ETRADE FINANCIAL: Appeal Briefing to Continue Through 2016
----------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that briefing
is scheduled to continue through 2016 in the class action appeal
by John Scranton.

On pril 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the
California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was
held on September 13, 2013.

The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint were
granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted leave
to amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March
11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the
second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained
the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second
amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10,
2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on
December 12, 2014.

By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior Court entered a final
order sustaining the Company's demurrer on all remaining claims
with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in the Company's favor
on April 8, 2015.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27, 2015. Briefing is
scheduled to continue through 2016. The Company will continue to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
provides brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE Financial."
The Company also provides investor-focused banking products,
primarily sweep deposits, to retail investors.


ETRADE FINANCIAL: Rayner and Schwab Cases Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Rayner
case has been consolidated with the Schwab case and both matters
are now venued in the Southern District of New York.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty
Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as
defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a
fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.

By stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend indefinitely the
due date for a response to the claim.

On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L.
Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming
E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities LLC, and former
Company executives as defendants. The complaint alleges that
E*TRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.

By stipulation, the Rayner case has been consolidated with the
Schwab case and both matters are now venued in the Southern
District of New York.

The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in these
matters.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
provides brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE Financial."
The Company also provides investor-focused banking products,
primarily sweep deposits, to retail investors.


EVERYDAY HEALTH: "Means" Suit Wants to Stop Sale to Ziff Davis
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MEANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EVERYDAY HEALTH, INC., DOUG McCORMICK, BEN WOLIN,
HABIB KAIROUZ, DAVID GOLDEN, SHARON WIENBAR, MYRTLE POTTER, DANA
EVAN, LAIZER KORNWASSER, ZIFF DAVIS, LLC, PROJECT ECHO ACQUISITION
CORP., and J2 GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-08768 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 11, 2016), is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Everyday Health for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, seeking to enjoin the expiration
of a tender offer on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Everyday Health will be acquired Ziff Davis.

On October 21, 2016, Everyday Health announced the definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which each outstanding
common share of Everyday Health will be exchanged for $10.50 per
share in cash or a transaction value of approximately $465
million.  The Proposed Transaction is structured as an all-cash
tender offer, which requires a simple majority of Everyday Health
shares to be tendered to Ziff by the close of the offer period.

Everyday Health is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware with its principal corporate offices
located in New York City.  The Company operates digital marketing
and communications platform for healthcare marketers primarily in
the United States.  The Company designs its health content for
consumers and healthcare professionals to access anytime and
anywhere and to be distributed across various platforms comprising
online content, interactive tools, and applications.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Ziff Davis is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in New York City.  Ziff Davis,
a digital media company, engages in the digital publishing of
content in gaming, technology, and men's lifestyle categories.
Ziff Davis operates PCMag.com, an online brand that provides
laboratory-based product reviews, technology news, buying guides,
and more for technology buyers; IGN.com, an online source of
gaming and entertainment content for 18-34-year old men; and
AskMen.com, a men's lifestyle site that serve audience directly in
the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, as
well as through licensed editions in Germany, Turkey, and the
Middle East.  Ziff Davis is a subsidiary of j2 Global, Inc.

Project Echo Acquisition Corp. is a Delaware corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of Ziff Davis that was created for the
purposes of consummating the Proposed Transaction.  Defendant j2
Global is a Delaware Corporation and parent of Ziff Davis, with
headquarters in Los Angeles, California.  j2 Global, Inc., engages
in the provision of Internet services worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Blvd.
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (516) 741-0626
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


EXPEDIA: Faces Class Action in Texas Over Homeaway Changes
----------------------------------------------------------
Monica Nickelsburg, writing for GeekWire, reports that after
Expedia acquired HomeAway for $3.9 billion in late 2015, the
travel giant shifted the business model of its vacation rental
sites to more closely mirror competitor Airbnb, creating tension
between Expedia and homeowners who had signed on under a different
model.

Now the frustration is erupting in the form of a proposed class
action lawsuit.

James May, a Portland, Ore., man who has been listing his property
on HomeAway-owned VRBO for several years, filed a complaint
against the company in U.S. District Court in Western Texas, where
HomeAway is headquartered.  Mr. May accuses the company of "breach
of contract, fraud, and violations of consumer protection laws"
and "a classic bait-and-switch scheme."

Mr. May is seeking class-action status to include other homeowners
who feel HomeAway violated their agreements.

Over the past year, Expedia modified HomeAway and VRBO to better
compete with industry juggernaut Airbnb and meet consumers'
expectations.  The changes include a "service fee" that travelers
pay, a new algorithm to determine which homes are prioritized in
search results, and a "Book With Confidence" guarantee, promising
to refund customers who book or pay via HomeAway if a listing is
fraudulent or misrepresented.

Earlier this year, Expedia CEO Dara Khosrowshahi also announced
that the tiered annual subscription model, like the one May had
been using, would be phased out.  Instead, homeowners will be able
to list their properties using one annual subscription at a flat
rate of $349 if the owner enables online booking and $499 if he or
she does not.  Homeowners can also list properties for free and
pay a percentage of each booking facilitated through HomeAway.

In the past, homeowners with annual subscriptions were given
priority in search results.  Now, those results are more favorable
to properties that match search queries and allow online booking.

This business model shift is exactly what May and other homeowners
are protesting.  They are seeking compensation for damages
suffered as a result of HomeAway's "breaches of contract, fraud,
and violation of consumer protection statutes, punitive damages,
as well as other equitable and declaratory relief."

Here's how the complaint describes the alleged bait-and-switch:

"At the same time that defendants were marketing and promoting
prepaid subscription services to Plaintiff and the other members
of the Class . . . HomeAway.com, Inc. were actively planning to
change their business model by: (i) charging fees to renters, over
and above the subscription fees prepaid by Plaintiff and other
class members to advertise and list their vacation properties,
which would (and did) thereby increase the effective price, and
diminish the value, of the prepaid subscription services they were
marketing and selling to Plaintiff"

Expedia declined to comment on active litigation.

When Expedia began rolling out changes to the HomeAway and VRBO
platforms, GeekWire documented homeowners' frustrations.

"Where once I felt like HomeAway was working for me, now I feel
like they are forcing me to work for them," said one homeowner at
the time.

Expedia CEO Dara Khosrowshahi called protesting homeowners "a
vocal minority" during an interview at the GeekWire Summit last
month.  He said that HomeAway's platform previously had a lot of
friction and consumers have come to expect a transactional
experience with services on the web.

"I think the backlash has turned a lot more positive, recently,"
said Ms. Khosrowshahi.  "I don't want to count my chickens but I
think, fundamentally, we've moved HomeAway from a media listings
product to a transactional product because consumers just like
transactions more."


EXXON MOBIL: January 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed against Exxon Mobil
Corporation ("Exxon" or the "Company") and certain of its
officers.  This class action is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons who purchased Exxon between February 19, 2016 and
October 27, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Exxon Mobil Corp. is an American multinational oil and gas
corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas, and is the world's
largest publicly traded company.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements as it emphasized its
business model and its transparency and reported integrity,
specifically in connection to its oil and gas reserves and the
value of those reserves.  Particularly, Exxon's public statements
were materially false and misleading when made as they failed to
disclose: (1) that Exxon's internal reports about climate change
recognized the environmental risks caused by global warming and
climate change; (2) that, Exxon knew the risks associated with
global warming and climate change, and it would not be able to
remove the existing hydrocarbon reserves the Company claimed to
have and, therefore, a material portion of Exxon's reserves were
stranded and should have been written down; and (3) that Exxon had
employed an inaccurate "price of carbon"
-- the cost of regulations such as a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade
system to push down emissions -- in evaluating the value of
certain of its future oil and gas prospects in order to keep the
value of its reserves materially overstated.  As a result of the
Company's hyped up statements, Exxon stock traded at artificially
inflated prices, reaching a high during the Class Period of over
$95 per share.  The rating agencies also upheld Exxon's AAA debt
rating -- the highest -- allowing Exxon to sell $12 billion of
corporate debt at extremely favorable rates throughout the Class
Period.

Between August through September 2016, several news sources
reported that federal regulators were looking into Exxon's reserve
accounting in regards to climate change and global warming, and
the Company's lack of documentation of any of its oil and gas
reserves in the face of declining global oil prices.  Following
these news reports, Exxon stock dropped to $82.54 per share on
September 20, 2016, or over 13% from the Exxon's Class Period
high.  Then on October 28, 2016, pre-market, Exxon announced its
financial results for the quarter ended
September 30, 2016.  In it, Exxon revealed that it may be forced
to document close 20% of its oil and gas assets.  Following this
news, Exxon stock dropped over $2 per share on October 28, 2016,
on unusually high trading volume.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action.  To discuss
this action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/xom or contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com.
Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
Exxon, you have until January 6, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Discovery Not Yet Commenced
----------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, 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 discovery has
not yet commenced in securities class action lawsuits.

In November 2015, four putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against the Company and certain of its officers.
The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case, and an
amended complaint has been filed. The amended complaint asserts
that the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. The complaint seeks an award
of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class
consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between October 23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive.

In January 2016, three derivative lawsuits were filed, two in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas (which have since been
consolidated into one case) and one in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of the Company
against certain of its officers and its current directors. The
lawsuits allege violations of law, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
unjust enrichment against the defendants.

The Company believes the class action lawsuit and the derivative
lawsuits are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend
against all claims asserted. Discovery has not yet commenced. At
this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
outcome of this litigation.

Flotek Industries, Inc. ("Flotek" or the "Company") is a global,
diversified, technology-driven supplier of energy chemistries and
consumer and industrial chemistries and is a global developer and
supplier of drilling, completion, and production technologies and
related services.


FORMFACTOR INC: "Solak" Case Settlement Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement of
the lawsuit, captioned Solak v. Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al.,
remains pending.

On April 8, 2016, an individual plaintiff filed a putative class
action lawsuit on behalf of Cascade Microtech's shareholders
against Cascade Microtech, its directors, FormFactor and Cascade
Merger Sub, in connection with Cascade Microtech and FormFactor
entering into a merger agreement. The lawsuit, captioned Solak v.
Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al., No. 16CV11809, was filed in
Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon.

The Solak lawsuit alleges that the individual members of Cascade
Microtech's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
owed to Cascade Microtech's shareholders by approving the proposed
merger for inadequate consideration; approving the merger to
obtain unique benefits not shared equally with Cascade Microtech's
other shareholders; failing to take steps to maximize the value
paid to Cascade Microtech shareholders; failing to take steps to
ensure a fair process leading up to the proposed merger; and
agreeing to preclusive deal protection devices in the merger
agreement. The lawsuit also alleges claims against FormFactor and
one of its subsidiaries for aiding and abetting the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual members of Cascade
Microtech's board of directors. In the Solak lawsuit, the
plaintiff has sought, among other things, rescission of the
merger, plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs, and other relief.

Under a memorandum of understanding signed by the parties and
filed with the court in the Solak case, Cascade Microtech and
FormFactor agreed with the plaintiff's counsel to supplement the
disclosures made in connection with the merger. The supplemental
disclosures were made on June 14, 2016. Under the memorandum of
understanding, the parties to the Solak lawsuit agreed to use
their collective best efforts to obtain final approval of the
proposed settlement and the dismissal of the Solak litigation with
prejudice. Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery
by counsel to the plaintiff, the memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
Cascade Microtech's former shareholders within the proposed class.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiff's counsel in the Solak lawsuit will
file a petition in the Oregon court for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses. Cascade Microtech will pay any attorneys' fees
and expenses awarded by the Oregon court. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Oregon court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


FORMFACTOR INC: Employee Class Action in Merits Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the class action
lawsuit by a former employee is proceeding with merits discovery.

In August 2013, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, alleging
violations of California's wage and hour laws and unfair business
practices on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
current and former employees at the Company's Livermore facilities
from August 21, 2009, to the present.

On January 4, 2016, the court certified the plaintiff class. The
lawsuit is currently proceeding with merits discovery.

The Company denies the allegations contained in the lawsuit, and,
based on available information, believes it has significant
defenses to the allegations of the lawsuit.

FormFactor designs, develops, manufactures, sells and supports
advanced semiconductor probe card products.


FORT ZUMWALT R-II: Counts 1 and II Class Certification Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JOHN DOE, as Next Friend of
JAMES DOE, on behalf of himself and 77 other similarly situated
individual minors v. MATTHEW M. HANSEN, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-
00546-JAR (E.D. Mo.), move to certify Class as to Counts I and II
of their second amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs are minor children, who were videotaped while nude
by Matthew Hansen.  Fort Zumwalt R-II School District was the
employer of Mr. Hansen.  The School District operated a summer
camp located at Cuivre River State Park in Lincoln County,
Missouri.  Mr. Hansen made his video recordings while the students
were at the summer camp.

The Case seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the minors on
legal claims, federal and state, for violations of the United
States Constitution, the Child Abuse Victims Rights Act of 1986,
as well as Missouri common law claims.

On November 7, 2016, counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for
the Defendants filed a joint motion to certify class under FRCP
23(c) limited to liability only.  However, the Joint Motion
specifically excluded Defendant Matthew Hansen, who is the named
Defendant in Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complaint
because counsel for the Defendants does not represent him.

There is no current order of class certification related to
Defendant Matthew Hansen in Counts I and II of the Second Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry A. Bagsby, Esq.
          THE BAGSBY LAW FIRM
          125 North Main Street, Suite 204
          St. Charles, MO 63301
          Telephone: (636) 244-5595
          Facsimile: (636) 244-5596
          E-mail: larrybagsby@aol.com

               - and -

          Deborah J. Alessi, Esq.
          SHEA, KOHL, ALESSI & KUHL, LC
          400 North Fifth Street, Suite 200
          St. Charles, MO 63301
          Telephone: (636) 946-9999
          Facsimile: (636) 946-8623
          E-mail: dalessi@skaklaw.com

Defendant Fort Zumwalt R-II School District is represented by:

          Celynda L. Brasher, Esq.
          Michael J. Curry, Esq.
          TUETH, KEENEY, COOPER, MOHAN & JACKSTADT, PC
          34 N. Meramec, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 880-3599
          Facsimile: (314) 880-3601
          E-mail: cbrasher@tuethkeeney.com
                  mcurry@tuethkeeney.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Zofran Side Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------
Darla Matthews, Individually and on behalf of her minor child L.T.
v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-12277-FDS (D. Mass.,
November 11, 2016), arises from alleged injuries (malrotation and
volvulus of child) caused by prenatal exposure to brand Zofran(R).

Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron, is a powerful drug developed
by GSK to treat only those patients, who were afflicted with the
most severe nausea -- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or
radiation treatments in cancer patients.

The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the brand long form master
complaint and jury demand filed in the multidistrict litigation
entitled In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts as Docket No. 255 on the Master
Docket.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a prescription
medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth defects in
children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Kella, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (855) 809-7080
          E-mail: mkella@simonlawpc.com


HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Court Says Class Waiver Invalid
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to
compel arbitration and rendered as moot a motion to stay in the
case captioned, KAREN MACKALL, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL
STAFFING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-03810-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Karen Mackall brings claims individually and on behalf
of a class of employees of HealthSource Global Staffing, Inc.
(HSGI), alleging that HSGI failed to provide their employees with
meal breaks, rest periods, overtimes wages, and other protections
as required under California law. Mackall and putative class
members she seeks to represent were employed by HSGI as non-exempt
hourly registered nurses at various times in the County of Los
Angeles during the last four years. She alleges causes of action
against HSGI under (1) the California Labor Code, (2) California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200, (3) the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and (4) the California PAGA.

HSGI moves to compel individual arbitration, arguing Mackall is
bound by the arbitration agreement she completed when she filled
out HSGI's online job application. HSGI also moves to stay
Mackall's California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim,
which is not subject to arbitration.

In opposition to the motion to compel, Mackall argues that the
arbitration agreement is unconscionable and not enforceable
because: (i) it is procedurally unconscionable as a contract of
adhesion and (ii) is substantively unconscionable as it does not
impose a mutual obligation to arbitrate, does not provide for a
written award, and contains a class waiver invalid under the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Mackall further alleges that
her injunctive relief claim is not arbitrable and the agreement is
not enforceable against recently added co-defendant HealthSource
Global (HG).

In his Order dated November 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/c5hIYg from Leagle.com, Judge Orrick concluded that
the class waiver is invalid under NLRA and Morris v. Ernst &
Young, F.3d, 2016 WL 4433080 holding that "a lawsuit filed in good
faith by a group of employees to achieve more favorable terms or
conditions of employment is "concerted activity" under Section 7
of the NLRA". As the parties did not contract to pursue class
claims in arbitration, the arbitration agreement is unenforceable
under the Federal Arbitration Act.  The Court also pointed to
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int'l. Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 684
(2010) holding that a court cannot compel arbitration of class
claims where the parties did not contract to submit to class-wide
arbitration.

Karen Mackall is represented by Kevin Mahoney, Esq. --
info@mahoney-law.net -- Treana Louise Allen, Esq. --
info@mahoney-law.net -- and Na'Shaun Lamar Neal, Esq. --
info@mahoney-law.net -- MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC

Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc. is represented by Adam Ryan
Rosenthal, Esq. -- arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com -- Thomas Roy
Kaufman, Esq. -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- and Brian Samuel
Fong, Esq. -- bfong@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER
HAMPTON


HODGSON MILLS: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an
Illinois woman alleges a pancake mix is falsely advertised as
containing all natural ingredients.

Shannah Burton filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated in St. Clair County Circuit Court against Hodgson Mills
Inc. alleging that the baked products distributor violated to
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in January,
she purchased the defendant's Buckwheat Pancake Mix at after
reviewing the "all natural" label.  The plaintiff holds Hodgson
Mills Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly labeled and
marketed the product as all natural when in fact it contains
synthetic ingredient monocalcium phosphate and distributed the
fraudulent mix throughout the state.  She alleges that had she
known the mix was not all natural, she would have not purchased
it.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this case as a class action and appointing plaintiff
and her counsel as representatives, award for compensatory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and
costs and for such other and further relief.

She is represented by Matthew H. Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm
LLC in St. Louis; David C. Nelson of Nelson & Nelson, Attorney at
Law PC in Belleville, Illinois; and Stuart L. Cochran of Cochran
Law PLLC in Dallas.  The defendant is represented by Charles J.
Swartwout, Mark M. Favazza and David B. Schneidewind --
dschneidewind@boylebrasher.com -- of Boyle Brasher LLC Belleville.

On Sept. 23, the defendant requested that the case be moved to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on the
grounds that the class number could easily exceed 100 persons and
that the amount in the controversy exceeds $5 million.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Case
number 3:16-cv-01081


HOME DEPOT: Court Approves Data Breach Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kateri-Anne Grenier, Esq. -- kateri-
anne.grenier@nortonrosefulbright.com -- of Norton Rose Fulbright
Canada LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice recently approved a settlement agreement
in the Lowanski v The Home Depot class action, a decision that
highlights adequate protection and a sufficient response can
significantly reduce the legal risks after a data breach.  This
class action was filed following a data breach that gave access to
personal information such as names, credit card numbers,
expiration dates and verification value codes from Home Depot's
card payment system for six months during 2014.

Although the parties had agreed to settle the class action for
more than $1 million, the Honourable Justice Perell reduced the
amount to $400,000.  Similarly, the agreed-upon counsel fee was
reduced from $406,000 to $120,000.  He also did not approve any
honoraria.

Amounts granted by Canadian courts to members of class actions
related to data breaches are usually modest, but this judgment is
quite surprising since it is unheard of for a court to reduce a
settlement amount in a class action approval hearing.

The judge's decision centred on the lack of significant damage
suffered by the plaintiffs and Home Depot's responsible and prompt
response to the data breach.
Lack of significant damage

Plaintiffs raised three heads of damage from the payment card
system breach: (1) The risk of a fraudulent charge on one's credit
card; (2) the risk of identity theft; and (3) the inconvenience of
checking one's credit card statements.

Justice Perell considered that the proof of any consequent damage
was in the range of negligible to remote.  On the first and second
heads of damages, there was no evidence that any class member had
suffered a fraudulent charge or that the data breach increased the
risk of identity theft since the stolen data was inadequate to
fake another's identity.

With regard to the last ground of damages, the Ontario Court of
Appeal recognized in 2012 that economic loss is not necessary to
ground an action in the tort of intrusion on seclusion.  Any non-
economic damage suffered as a result of a privacy breach may be
compensated by granting "symbolic" damages.

However, the mere fact that a person is worried about the security
of his or her personal information following a data breach does
not qualify as a compensable loss.  Nor were plaintiffs
inconvenienced because they had to check their credit card
statements for fraudulent purchases following the Home Depot data
breach.  According to Justice Perell, any credit card holder
already bears such responsibility.

The Quebec Superior Court applied the same reasoning in the 2012
cases Sofio c. Organisme canadien de reglementation du commerce
des valeurs mobilieres and Mazzona v DaimlerChrysler Financial
Services Canada Inc.  The courts stated that monitoring account
statements for fraudulent activity is an ordinary inconvenience
that constitutes part of the cardholder's daily activities and
does not warrant compensation.  They both relied on Supreme Court
case Mustapha c. Culligan du Canada Ltee5 that stated compensable
injury must be serious and prolonged and rise above the ordinary
annoyances, anxieties and fears that people living in society
routinely accept.

Home Depot's response

Another decisive factor in the Ontario Superior Court's decision
was Home Depot's response following the data breach.  The court
considered Home Depot's response to be "responsible, prompt,
generous and exemplary."  They issued a timely press release, sent
informative emails to customers and offered free credit monitoring
and identity theft insurance.  Justice Perell even expressed,
notably in view of Home Depot's actions, that he would have
approved a discontinuance of the class action on the merits.

Regarding the fee approval, Justice Perell underlined it has to be
viewed through the lens of access to justice, behaviour
modification and judicial economy.  Yet, there was no reason to
think that Home Depot needed or deserved behaviour modification.
After the data breach was discovered, there was no cover-up on
Home Depot's part and it responded as a "good corporate citizen"
toward the breach.
Our take

The Ontario Home Depot class action highlights that adequate
prevention, detection and response significantly mitigate the
legal risks associated with privacy breaches.  Preventive and
compensatory measures are recognized by the courts as means of
mitigating or eliminating potential damages.


HSBC BANK: Faces Deceptive Advertising Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a California man alleges his mortgage
company charged higher mortgage payments without authorization.

Saber Ahmed filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Nov. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against HSBC Bank USA, National Association
and Does 1-10 alleging unfair business practices, misleading and
deceptive advertising and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff entered into a mortgage
with the defendant in September and noticed the defendant was
charging him for hazard escrow insurance.  He alleges this was
done without his knowledge and that he already had a hazard escrow
policy with another company, about which the plaintiff's insurance
company notified the defendant.

The plaintiff holds HSBC Bank USA, National Association, and Does
1-10 responsible because the defendants allegedly raised the
amount that consumers owed on their mortgage payments without
consideration or agreement by these consumers.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunctive,
equitable and declaratory relief, damages, interest, restitution
and disgorgement, all legal fees and any other relief as the court
deems just.  He is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R.
Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Woodland Hills,
California.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 5:16-cv-02289-JGB-DTB


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Settlement of Sloan Lawsuit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises L.P. and Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016, that the United States District Court for the
Central District of California has issued an order and judgment
approving the settlement of the Sloan class action lawsuit.

On April 1, 2016, CVR Partners completed its acquisition of CVR
Nitrogen, LP ("CVR Nitrogen") (formerly known as East Dubuque
Nitrogen Partners, L.P. and also formerly known as Rentech
Nitrogen Partners L.P.) and CVR Nitrogen GP, LLC (formerly known
as East Dubuque Nitrogen GP, LLC and also formerly known as
Rentech Nitrogen GP, LLC). In connection with this acquisition,
CVR Partners issued approximately 40.2 million common units to CVR
Nitrogen common unitholders with a fair market value of $336
million and paid $99 million in cash consideration and assumed
$368 million fair value of debt. The total fair value of the
purchase price consideration to be allocated was $440 million and
the estimated fair value of net assets acquired at the acquisition
date was $440 million. There were no identifiable intangible
assets related to this acquisition. CVR Partners is in the process
of finalizing certain customary post-closing adjustments which
could affect the estimated fair value of assets acquired and
liabilities assumed.

Two class action lawsuits were filed in connection with the East
Dubuque Merger, (i) the "Mustard Lawsuit", which was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and (ii) the "Sloan
Lawsuit" (together with Mustard Lawsuit, the "Merger Lawsuits"),
which was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The Merger Lawsuits alleged (among
other things) breach of fiduciary duties and inadequate
disclosure, in each case, in connection with the East Dubuque
Merger.

In February 2016, the parties to the Merger Lawsuits entered into
a memorandum of understanding providing for the proposed
settlement of the Merger Lawsuits. The parties subsequently
entered into a stipulation of settlement, which was subject to
customary conditions including court approval following notice to
the CVR Nitrogen unitholders.

In July 2016, the Mustard Lawsuit was dismissed, and in October
2016, the United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an order and judgment approving the settlement
of the Sloan Lawsuit.

The settlement resolves and releases all claims by unitholders of
CVR Nitrogen challenging the East Dubuque Merger. The plaintiff's
counsel in the Sloan Lawsuit has filed a petition for the award of
attorneys' fees, which remains pending with the Court. CVR
Partners does not believe the settlement or the award of
attorneys' fees will have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial condition or results of operation.

Icahn Enterprises is a diversified holding company owning
subsidiaries currently engaged in the following continuing
operating businesses: Investment, Automotive, Energy, Metals,
Railcar, Gaming, Mining, Food Packaging, Real Estate and Home
Fashion.


IGT CONSTRUCTION: "Hernandez" Seeks Recovery of "Unpaid" Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Trujillo Hernandez, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IGT CONSTRUCTION,
INC., a California Corporation d/b/a West Coast Construction, and
DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC 640341 (Cal. Super.,
County of Los Angeles, November 9, 2016), seeks recovery of unpaid
wages and penalties under the California Business and Professions
Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

Plaintiffs' primary job duties included installing drywall,
painting and laying concrete.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: To Defend Against Fergus & Becker Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, 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 two purported
class action cases have been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed June 9, 2016;
and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03374, filed
June 10, 2016.

These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances,
and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the
Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with
respect to the Becker matter). These cases concern the Company's
statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and SEC
filings beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present
updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at
the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference
in Chicago, Illinois.  The complaints allege that these statements
were false and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that
ASCO had cancelled the presentation because it contained
previously reported information.  The complaints further allege
that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for
our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers
are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  As of the date hereof, service of the
initiating papers in these actions has not been made on the
Company.

Immunomedics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer, autoimmune and other serious diseases.


INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: January 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on Nov. 8 announced the filing of a
class action lawsuit against InfuSystem Holdings, Inc.
("InfuSystem" or the "Company").  Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares between May 12, 2015 and November 7,
2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the
Firm in advance of the January 9, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

If you purchased shares of InfuSystem during the Class Period,
please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101
Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: 949-
419-3834, or via e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case.  Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

The complaint alleges that InfuSystem made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that InfuSystem lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting; that the
Company's financial statements from back to the beginning of 2015
overstated the estimated accounts receivable collections, which
then overstated revenues and pre-tax income by a corresponding
amount; that financial statements dating back to the beginning of
2015 could no longer be relied upon; and that as a result of the
above, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.  When this information was
released to the public, shares of InfuSystem declined in value,
causing investors harm.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit at no charge, or if
you have any questions regarding this notice or your rights,
please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: 949-419-3834, or via e-mail at
joon@khanglaw.com.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Rejects Slocum Bid to Remand Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eldon E. Fallom of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Plaintiffs' motion to
remand in the case captioned, SHIRLEY SLOCUM, v. INTERNATIONAL
PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION "L" (1), Case No. 16-12563 (E.D.
La.).

These class action cases arise out of injuries allegedly sustained
by Plaintiffs as a result of a discharge of "black liquor" at the
Bogalusa Paper Mill. Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant,
International Paper Company, for failure to provide complete and
accurate information about the chemical composition and known
risks presented by "black liquor" that was allegedly discharged
from a ruptured evaporator tank at the Bogalusa Paper Mill.
Plaintiffs' theories of liability sound in negligence, strict
liability, and nuisance against IP, Bernard Chascin, the plant
manager, and IP's insurers in the Parish of Washington, 22nd
Judicial District, State of Louisiana.

Beginning in July of 2016, Defendants removed these four class
actions cases to this Court, asserting federal jurisdiction
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Plaintiffs now seek to remand the cases to state court, and argue
that CAFA jurisdiction does not apply. Plaintiffs contend that the
Court lacks jurisdiction over this case because it was removed
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but is unlikely
to receive class certification under Fifth Circuit precedent.

In his Order and Reasons dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/vthabs from Leagle.com, Judge Fallon concluded that
the Defendants have met the requirements of CAFA jurisdiction.

Shirley Slocum, et al. are represented by Shawn C. Reed, Esq. --
sreed@howardandreed.com -- D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Esq. --
dhoward@howardandreed.com -- Jonathan C. Pedersen, Esq. --
jpedersen@howardandreed.com -- Kyle T. Del Hierro, Esq. --
kdelhierro@howardandreed.com -- HOWARD & REED

International Paper Company is represented by Tim Gray, Esq. --
tim.gray@formanwatkins.com -- Erin Wedge Latuso, Esq. --
erin.latuso@formanwatkins.com -- and Thomas Peyton Smith, Esq. --
peyton.smith@formanwatkins.com -- FORMAN, WATKINS, & KRUTZ, LLP


JANI-KING: "Williams" Ruling May Spark Suits Against Franchisors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Marchiano, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that in a
sharply divided 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit recently affirmed the grant of class certification
against commercial cleaning franchisor Jani-King in a lawsuit
alleging that Jani-King's franchisees were misclassified as
independent contractors (Williams v. Jani-King of Philadelphia (3d
Cir. Sept. 21, 2016)).  The Williams decision is the latest
significant decision in the franchisee-as-employee arena.  Here's
what you need to know.

1. What is the impact of franchisors being considered their
franchisees' employers?

Potentially massive. Depending on the context, an employment
versus independent contractor relationship can trigger such
requirements as minimum wage and overtime payments, occupational
safety and health regulations, income tax withholding obligations,
discrimination law requirements and mandated contributions to
social security, medicare, workers compensation, and unemployment
insurance.

If franchisors that exercise a typical level of control over their
franchisees are considered their employers, franchising will
fundamentally change in nature, be dramatically reduced as a
percentage of the U.S. economy, or disappear entirely.  As the
International Franchise Association (the oldest and largest trade
association in the world devoted to the representation of the
interests of franchising) states, "Owning a franchise allows you
to go into business for yourself, but not by yourself."  A
franchisor-franchisee employment relationship would dramatically
change that dynamic for the more than 600,000 franchised business
establishments owned by franchisees-entrepreneurs in the United
States in 2016.  One of the most appealing aspects of franchising
for franchisees is the relative independence franchising provides
-- an employment relationship would eviscerate that independence.

2. Will the Williams decision increase franchisors' risk of facing
future litigation?

Yes. The well-reasoned dissent correctly argued that the
majority's opinion will most likely lead to additional class
action litigation against other franchisors, at least in federal
court in Pennsylvania.

Critically, while the Williams decision increases franchisors'
risk of facing future class action litigation, the decision does
not increase the risk that franchisors will lose such cases and be
deemed the employers of their franchisees.  The decision carefully
states that it is not reaching the merits of the question of
whether "system controls inherent in a franchise relationship make
a franchisor the employer of its franchise owners under
Pennsylvania's multi-factor employment test."

Instead, the decision states that "Jani-King may ultimately be
correct that the franchise agreement and manual do not contain
sufficient controls over the day-do-day work of franchisees to
make them employees under Pennsylvania law, and we express no
opinion on that matter here."

Also, critically, this decision is only predicting Pennsylvania
state law.  Other courts, including notably the Juarez v. Jani-
King decision (N.D. Cal. 2011), reached the exact opposite
decision of Williams.

3. What changes should franchisors make to avoid franchisee-as-
employee lawsuits?

In response to the Williams decision, many franchisors should
consider changes to their franchise disclosure documents,
franchise agreements, manuals and operational practices.  Many
franchisors should consider eliminating all unnecessary controls
over franchisees, rewriting documents to emphasize required
results rather than required methods for obtaining results and
differentiating between mandatory standards (tied to protection of
the brand and trademark) versus optional recommendations.
To emphasize these changes, franchisors should consider renaming
their manuals "brand standards manuals" instead of "operations
manuals."  In addition, many franchisors should consider revising
their franchise agreements and manuals to clearly specify that the
franchisee is solely responsible for the day-to-day operation of
the franchised business, and to require the franchisee to
consistently identify itself as an independent contractor and the
franchised business as independently owned and operated. Other
changes will be industry- and franchisor-specific.

4. How else can franchisors protect themselves from franchisee-as-
employee litigation?

The franchise industry is seeking a legislative fix.  At least
eight states (Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah and Wisconsin) have passed legislation limiting the
situations in which franchisors will be deemed employers of their
franchisees for purposes of state law (such as state laws on
workers' compensation, wage-and-hour issues, unemployment
insurance, employment discrimination, occupational safety and
health and other employment issues).  The franchise industry is
also pursuing legislation at the federal level and in other states
to protect franchising, a critical component of the economy that
provided 5.6 percent of all private nonfarm jobs in the United
States in 2016.

In the meantime, the franchise community will continue to watch
developments in the Williams and other franchisee-as-employee
cases, including the pending Ninth Circuit appeal of Juarez.  The
community will also endeavor to educate legislators and the public
on the dynamics of the franchise relationship, and its importance
to the U.S. economy.


KAISER PERMANENTE: Court Narrows Claims in "Sidlo" ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Alan C. Kay of the United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii granted in part Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned, TOBY SIDLO, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v.
KAISER PERMANENTE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California non-profit
corporation, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a foreign non-
profit corporation, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, Defendants. KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a foreign non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff, v. HAWAII LIFE FLIGHT CORPORATION, a Hawaii
corporation, and AIR MEDICAL RESOURCE GROUP, INC., a Utah
Corporation, Defendants. HAWAII LIFE FLIGHT CORPORATION, a Hawaii
corporation, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
PLAN, INC., a foreign non-profit corporation, Counterclaim
Defendant, Case No. 15-00269 ACK-KSC (D. Haw.).

On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff Toby Sidlo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against Kaiser Permanente Insurance Company (KPIC) and Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (KFHP, and together with KPIC,
Defendants). Sidlo alleges claims against Defendants under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1001 et seq.

The Complaint raises two counts against Defendants:

     -- Count I, which arises under 29 U.S.C. Sec.  1132(a)(1)(B),
seeks to recover health care benefits, as well as an injunction
"clarifying and enforcing Plaintiff's and the class members'
rights to payment of those amounts still due and owing"; and

     -- Count II, arising under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3),
seeks equitable relief to enjoin Defendants "from denying full
coverage based on artificially lowered reimbursement rates" and
other appropriate relief.

On June 9, 2016, Sidlo filed a motion requesting leave to amend
his Complaint which was joined by Nonparties Hawaii Life Flight
Corporation (HLF) and Air Medical Resource Group, Inc. (AMRG). In
addition to Counts I and II, the FAC alleges four other claims:

     -- Count III, arising under 29 U.S.C. Section 1022 and
Section 1132(a), seeks full legal and equitable relief, including
injunctive relief, in connection with KFHP's alleged failure to
timely issue Plaintiff and the class a summary of material
modifications (SMM) of members' plans' coverage terms;

     -- Count IV, arising under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a), seeks
full legal and equitable relief, including injunctive relief, in
connection with Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duty;

     -- Count V, arising under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a), seeks to
equitably estop Defendants "from denying that they are responsible
for the copay liability and all sums owed by the Plaintiff and the
class to their provider"; and

     -- Count VI, arising under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a), seeks a
determination that Defendants "are liable for the full unpaid
balances owed by each class member under the doctrine of equitable
indemnification as well as all other indemnity requirements
imposed by law."

On February 18, 2016, KFHP filed a complaint in Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan, Inc. v. Hawaii Life Flight Corp., et al., Civ. No.
16-00073 ACK-KSC. D. Haw., Civ. No. 16-00073 ACK-KSC. In the KFHP
Complaint, KFHP alleges that HLF and AMRG violated an anti-
assignment provision in KFHP's ERISA plans within Hawaii.  HLF
provides medical air transportation services in Hawaii. KFHP
alleges that HLF and/or AMRG "have repeatedly attempted to procure
broad assignments of members of the Plans' rights, interest,
claims for money due, benefits and/or obligations under the Plans,
in violation of the anti-assignment provision."

On April 14, 2016, HLF and AMRG filed an answer to KFHP's
Complaint and HLF further filed a counterclaim against KFHP. HLF
alleges counts of:

     -- unfair competition in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes
(HRS) Section 480-2;

     -- tortious interference with contract;

     -- defamation; and

     -- trade libel/disparagement.

HLF asserts that KFHP, "in connection with its health insurance
services, has made written and oral demands that hospitals arrange
for emergency transportation of patients exclusively through or as
designated by KFHP, even where those hospitals have contracts with
HLF and contrary to the federal law that exclusively provides that
emergency patient transport is arranged by the treating
physician."

Before the Court are three motions that seek summary judgment as
to the counts alleged in the FAC: Sidlo's Motion, which seeks
summary judgment as to Count I, argues that KFHP breached the
terms of Sidlo's and other members' healthcare plans and asks the
Court to order Defendants to pay Sidlo's healthcare benefits under
ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B). On
August 30, 2016, Defendant KFHP filed a Memorandum in Opposition
to Sidlo's Motion arguing that because Sidlo bases his arguments
on an inapplicable plan term, KFHP is entitled to summary judgment
on Counts I and II.

In his Order dated October 31, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/1gwxe4 from Leagle.com, Judge Kay found that Sidlo
has standing to assert his claims.  He denied KFHP's Motion for
Summary Judgment with respect to Count I and VI and granted in
part KFHP's Motion with respect to Counts II, III, IV, and V.

Toby Sidlo, Plaintiff, represented by John J. Conway, III, Esq. -
jj@jjconwaylaw.com -- JOHN J. CONWAY, P.C.; Michael A. Lilly, Esq.
-- michael@nljlaw.com -- and Valerie M. Kato,  Esq. --
vkato@nljlaw.com -- NING LILLY & JONES

Kaiser Permanente Insurance Company, et al. are represented by
Alana Peacott-Ricardos, Esq. -- apeacottricardos@goodsill.com --
Christine A. Terada, Esq. -- cterada@goodsill.com -- Gail Y.
Cosgrove, Esq. -- gcosgrove@goodsill.com -- and Lisa W. Munger,
Esq. -- lmunger@goodsill.com -- GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL
LLLP -- Alison H. Hong, Esq. -- ahong@seyfarth.com -- Kathleen
Cahill Slaught, Esq. -- kslaught@seyfarth.com -- and Michelle M.
Scannell, Esq. -- mscannel@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP --
Moe Keshavarzi, Esq. -- mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD
MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP


KAREO INC: Faces "Nazarian" Suit for Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVID NAZARIAN, M.D., d/b/a MY CONCIERGE MD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KAREO,
INC., a California corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 30-2016-00886000-CU-MT-CXC (Cal. Super.,
County of Orange), alleges breach of contract, fraud and deceit
and negligent misrepresentation arising out of Defendant's failure
to timely submit its customers' claims to insurance carriers,
resulting in noncompliance with time limitations imposed by
carriers on submission of claims, and its customers losing
recovery on those claims.

Defendant is a medical billing software and claims processing
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin P. Karczag, Esq.
     FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS LLP
     707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3000
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 357-2525
     E-mail: jkarczag@foleybezek.com

        - and -

     Dawn M. Coulson, Esq.
     EPPS & COULSON, LLP
     707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3000
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 929-2390
     Fax: (213) 929-2394
     E-mail: dcoulson@eppscoulson.com


KAVAC LLC: "Fuentes" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS FUENTES, VICTOR M. OCHOA ALVARADO and PEDRO A. MERCADO
VENTURA On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. KAVAC, LLC
d/b/a FISHER HOMES, KAVAC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC and TERRY J.
FISHER, Case No. 4:16-cv-03338 (S.D. Tex., November 11, 2016), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a collective action
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees owed to the Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated employees employed by, or formerly employed by the
Defendants, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies.

Kavac, LLC, doing business as Fisher Homes, is a Texas limited
liability company that employed the Plaintiffs.  Kavac Holding
Company, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company that employed
the Plaintiffs.  Terry J. Fisher is an owner of both Fisher Homes
and Kavac Holding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
          2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


KRISPY KREME: Faces "Saidian" Suit Over Doughnut False Ad
---------------------------------------------------------
JASON SAIDIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS, INC., Defendant,
Case 2:16-cv-08338 (C.D. Cal., November 9, 2016), alleges false
and misleading business practices with respect to the marketing
and sale of its "Chocolate Iced Raspberry Filled" and "Glazed
Raspberry Filled" donuts, "Maple Iced Glazed" and "Maple Bar"
donuts, and "Glazed Blueberry Cake" donuts and the "Glazed
Blueberry Cake" donut holes at Krispy Kreme company and franchise
stores.

Krispy Kreme directly and/or through its agents, formulates,
manufactures markets, distributes, and sells donuts nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
     Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (424) 256-2884
     Fax: (424) 256-2885
     E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com
             bheikali@faruqilaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Must Defend Against First State Orthopaedics Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr. of the Delaware Superior Court
vacated denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned, FIRST STATE ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. N15C-12-054 WCC CCLD (Del.
Super.).

Plaintiff First State Orthopaedics, P.A.'s (FSO) brings the
proposed class action on behalf of all Delaware health care
providers who, at any time since December 4, 2012, submitted
health care invoices to Liberty Mutual for care provided to
Delaware workers' compensation claimants where either (i) the
invoice was never contested by Liberty, (ii) the invoice was
unsuccessfully contested by Liberty through the statutory
utilization review process, or (iii) though ultimately paid by
Liberty, payment occurred only after the expiration of the 30-day
period under 19 Del. C. Section 2322F(h), and Liberty Mutual
failed to pay the required statutory interest.

The Complaint alleges Liberty Mutual routinely failed to pay
statutory interest it indisputably owed on claims not contested
within 30 days of receipt and claims it unsuccessfully disputed in
the utilization review process. FSO therefore maintains that
Liberty Mutual owes interest accrued under Section 2322F(h) to FSO
and others similarly situated. As a result, FSO requests that the
Court grant class action certification and award declaratory
relief in addition to compensatory and punitive damages.

Liberty Mutual moved to dismiss the Complaint, asserting no
private right of action exists under the statute. According to
Liberty Mutual, only the Board has the authority to decide the
interest rate dispute.

In his Opinion dated November 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/pqp0Ci from Leagle.com, Judge Carpenter, Jr. found
that the pleadings, as alleged, are sufficient to place Defendant
on notice of the claims and that those pleadings assert that FSO
has suffered a loss. As such, there is no basis to justify
dismissal for lack of standing at the juncture in the litigation.
As such, the Court finds the two arguments advanced in Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Count I are without merit.

First State Orthopaedics, PA is represented by John S. Spadaro,
Esq. -- JSPADARO@JOHNSHEEHANSPADARO.COM -- JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO,
LLC

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is represented by Tiffany Powers,
Esq. -- tiffany.powers@alston.com -- and Andrew Hatchett, Esq. --
andrew.hatchett@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP.

Liberty is also represented by:

      Colin M. Shalk, Esq.
      CASARINO CHRISTMAN SHALK RANSOM & DOSS, P.A.
      1007 Orange Street Suite 1100
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302)595-4500


LIVANOVA PLC: Sorin Group Must Defend Against Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC 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 Pennsylvania
court has dismissed LivaNova PLC from the case, Baker, Miller et
al v. LivaNova PLC, but denied the Company's motion to dismiss
Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH and Sorin Group USA, Inc. from the
lawsuit.

On February 12, 2016, LivaNova was alerted that a class action
complaint had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania with respect to the Company's 3T Heater
Cooler devices, naming as evidence, in part, the Warning Letter
issued by the FDA in December 2015. The named plaintiffs to the
complaint are two individuals who underwent open heart surgeries
at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical
Center in 2015, and the complaint alleges that: (i) patients were
exposed to a harmful form of bacteria, known as nontuberculous
mycobacterium ("NTM"), from LivaNova's 3T Heater Cooler devices;
and (ii) LivaNova knew or should have known that design or
manufacturing defects in 3T Heater Cooler devices can lead to NTM
bacterial colonization, regardless of the cleaning and
disinfection procedures used (and recommended by the Company).
Named plaintiffs seek to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting
of all Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at
WellSpan York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical
Center between 2011 and 2015 and who are currently asymptomatic
for NTM infection (approximately 3,600 patients).

The putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks:
(i) declaratory relief finding the 3T Heater Cooler devices are
defective and unsafe for intended uses; (ii) medical monitoring;
(iii) general damages; and (iv) attorneys' fees. On March 21,
2016, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Sorin
Group Deutschland GmbH and Sorin Group USA, Inc. as defendants.

On September 29, 2016 the Court dismissed LivaNova PLC from the
case, and on October 11, 2016, the Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH and Sorin Group
USA, Inc. from the lawsuit.

LivaNova is a global medical device company focused on the
development and delivery of important therapeutic solutions for
the benefit of patients, healthcare professionals and healthcare
systems throughout the world.


LIVANOVA PLC: Class Action Filed in Quebec
------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC 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 class action
petition has been brought against the Montreal Heart Institute and
LivaNova PLC in the Province of Quebec, Canada related to surgical
cases at the Montreal Heart Institute.

The Company has recently been served with lawsuits related to
surgical cases in which a 3T Heater Cooler device was allegedly
used. Six complaints have been filed in Pennsylvania State Court
in York, PA (five against the Company and Wellspan York Hospital,
and one solely against the Company, all related to surgical cases
at York Hospital), one complaint has been filed in Pennsylvania
State Court in Dauphin County, PA against the Company and Milton
S. Hershey Medical Center related to a surgical case at Hershey
Medical Center and one complaint has been filed in Pennsylvania
State Court against the Company and University of Pennsylvania
related to a surgical case at Penn Presbyterian Hospital. Nine
complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina related to surgical cases at Greenville
Health System Hospital in Greenville, SC. One additional case has
been filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa related to a surgical case at the
University of Iowa Hospital. Finally, on October 30, 2016, the
Company learned of a class action petition brought against the
Montreal Heart Institute and LivaNova PLC in the Province of
Quebec, Canada related to surgical cases at the Montreal Heart
Institute. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint
in this case.

"At LivaNova, patient safety is of the utmost importance, and
significant resources are dedicated to the delivery of safe, high-
quality products. We intend to vigorously defend each of these
claims. Given the early stage of this matters, we cannot, however,
give any assurances that additional legal proceedings making the
same or similar allegations will not be filed against LivaNova PLC
or one of its subsidiaries, nor that the resolution of these
complaints or other related litigation in connection therewith
will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity," the Company
said.

LivaNova is a global medical device company focused on the
development and delivery of important therapeutic solutions for
the benefit of patients, healthcare professionals and healthcare
systems throughout the world.


M.I. COURIER: Faces "Rios" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY RIOS, and others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, vs.
M.I. COURIER SERVICES INC. A/K/A M.I. COURIER SERVICES INC. OF NEW
YORK, and JULIUS C. GOTAY, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-81856-DMM
(S.D. Fla., November 9, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for
alleged willful violations the laws of the United States and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

M.I. COURIER SERVICES INC. a/k/a M.I. COURIER SERVICES INC. OF NEW
YORK operated as an organization which handled goods and/or
materials, such as pharmaceutical drugs, that originated outside
the state of Florida, to customers in the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Phone: (305) 308-5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE, PA
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Phone: (786) 704 - 8898
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


MAINE FISH: Seeks Final OK of "Dineen" FLSA Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled KRISTEN DINEEN and JOHN
TEDONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. MAINE FISH MARKET RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a MAINE FISH MARKET and
NICHOLAS VAMVILIS, Case No. 3:15-cv-01554-WIG (D. Conn.), file
with the Court their joint motion for final approval of class
action settlement, certification of the settlement class, and
approval of their settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Notice is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jai6mTd1

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com

               - and -

          William G. Madsen, Esq.
          MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC
          402 Asylum Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 246-2466
          Facsimile: (860) 246-1794
          E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Miguel A. Escalera, Esq.
          Shel D. Myers, Esq.
          KAINEN, ESCALERA & MCHALE, P.C.
          21 Oak Street, Suite 601
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 493-0870
          Facsimile: (860) 493-0871
          E-mail: mescalera@kemlaw.com
                  smyers@kemlaw.com


MARCHESE HEALTH: Settles Diluted Chemotherapy Drug Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hank Daniszewski, writing for The London Free Press, reports that
more than three years after 1,200 Southwestern Ontario cancer
patients received diluted chemotherapy drugs, a class-action suit
has been resolved with a nearly $2.4-million settlement.

The suit was filed against MedBuy, a London-based bulk buying
agency for hospitals, and Hamilton-based Marchese Hospital
Solutions, which supplied the drugs.

The suit was filed by legal firms Mackenzie Lake LLP of London and
Sutts, Strosberg LLP of Windsor.

In April 2013, health-care officials said bags of saline solution
containing two chemotherapy drugs had a lower dose of the drugs
than the label indicated.

The diluted chemotherapy solutions had been used to treat about
1,200 patients across Canada, including 665 at London Health
Sciences Centre and the rest at hospitals in Windsor, Oshawa,
Peterborough and Saint John, N.B.

A probe ordered by the province of Ontario, headed by Dr. Jake
Thiessen of the University of Waterloo's pharmacology school,
found "no evidence of any malicious or deliberate drug-sparing
dilution" and that the dilution had been so slight, it was
unlikely to have adversely affected patient care.

Sabrina Lombardi of Mackenzie Lake said the class action was
started before Mr. Thiessen's report was filed.

"When we learned there was no impact on prognosis, there was no
case left," said Ms. Lombardi.  "This is not a lot of money, but
it is a token acknowledgment of the stress faced by patients and
their families."

About $1.8 million of the settlement will be divided equally among
the 1,200 patients, with the rest going to administration, legal
fees and provincial health insurers.

The settlement works out to about $1,500 a patient.

As part of the settlement, Marchese and Medbuy will file
statements detailing how the error occurred and changes made to
prevent similar errors in future.

"There were mistakes on many links on the health-care chain here,
but none were negligent . . . There was no smoking gun in terms of
what caused the mistake," said Lombardi.

Patients or relatives of patients affected by the diluted chemo
drugs have been contacted by the hospitals and are eligible to
receive the settlement.

The class-action settlement is subject to review by affected
patients.  Final court approval is expected Jan. 10.


MASIMO CORP: Oral Arguments in Appeal Scheduled for December 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that oral arguments before
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals are currently scheduled for
December 13, 2016.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

On May 22, 2014, the District Court granted the motion and stayed
the case pending a ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October
30, 2014, the FCC granted some of the relief and denied some of
the relief requested in the Company's petition. Both parties
appealed the FCC's decision on the petition.

On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties'
joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on
the appeal. The appellate hearing in the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals is currently scheduled for November 7, 2016.

The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail.
The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will
ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore,
no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company as of the date
of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial.

On August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of the
Company on all claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's decision.
Oral arguments before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals are
currently scheduled for December 13, 2016.

The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will
ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore,
no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company as of the date
of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops,
manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive patient
monitoring technologies.


MEDREMIT INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Boileve" Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CARLOS M. BOILEVE, DC, MCS-P,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. MEDREMIT INC., a California corporation,
PRAKASH DASOT and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:16-cv-07662 (N.D.
Ill.), submits a first amended motion for class certification
pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th
Cir. 2011).  The Plaintiff proposes this class definition:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) from which Defendants did not
     have prior express invitation or permission, and/or (4)
     which did not display a proper opt-out notice.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and to appoint the Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uS9BFRCn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


MIDDLE MAN: Submits Memorandum for Bid to Certify in Sprint Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Counterclaimant The Middle Man, Inc., submits a memorandum in
support of its renewed motion for class certification on Count I
of its counterclaim against Counterclaim Defendant Sprint Nextel
Corporation in the lawsuit titled SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION v. THE
MIDDLE MAN, INC. and BRIAN K. VAZQUEZ, Case No. 2:12-cv-02159-JTM
(D. Kan.).

Before the court is The Middle Man's renewed motion for class
certification on Count I of its counterclaim against Sprint.
Count I asks the Court to declare "that consumers purchasing new
wireless phones originally programmed to operate on the Sprint
network are not precluded by the Terms and Conditions that
accompany those phones from reselling the phones to members of the
class."  The Middle Man asks this relief to confirm the legality
of its business model, which has been called into question by
Sprint's 13-count Complaint and accompanying motion for
preliminary injunction.

The Middle Man seeks the relief on a class-wide basis because
these issues are not unique to The Middle Man, but instead, impact
every reseller of Sprint pre-owned wireless phones.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Mok8Ngb2

Counterclaimant The Middle Man, Inc., is represented by:

          James J. Kernell, Esq.
          Kyle D. Donnelly, Esq.
          ERICKSON KERNELL IP, LLC
          8900 State Line Road, Suite 500
          Leawood, KS 66206
          Telephone: (913) 549-4700
          Facsimile: (913) 549-4646
          E-mail: jjk@kcpatentlaw.com
                  kdd@kcpatentlaw.com

               - and -

          David L. Marcus, Esq.
          BARTLE & MARCUS LLC
          116 West 47th Street, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 285-3888
          Facsimile: (816) 222-0534
          E-mail: dmarcus@bmlawkc.com


MLS PLAYERS: Files Motion to Dismiss Youth Clubs' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Carlisle, writing for ESPN FC, reports that The MLS Players
Union, along with Michael Bradley, Clint Dempsey and DeAndre
Yedlin, has filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed
against them by three youth clubs.

The motion argues that the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of
Texas lacks "personal jurisdiction" over the MLSPU and the players
named in the original lawsuit.  The MLSPU also filed a separate
motion that if the suit is not dismissed, the MLSPU requests a
change of venue to Massachusetts.

The original class action lawsuit -- filed by Redmond,
Washington's Crossfire Premier club, the Chicago Sockers and the
Dallas Texans -- aims to settle the question of whether FIFA's
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) are legal
in the U.S., and whether the youth clubs in question can then
recoup training fees for the players it developed who later become
professionals.

At one point, Bradley played for the Chicago Sockers, Dempsey for
the Dallas Texans, and Yedlin for Crossfire Premier.

RSTP stipulates that training compensation is charged when a
player signs his or her first pro contract and there is a change
of national association, while solidarity payments are collected
when a player is transferred before the expiration of their
contract, and there is a change of national association.

The U.S. Soccer Federation, citing U.S. law, has long forbidden
U.S. youth clubs from collecting training compensation and
solidarity fees, and MLS has followed that lead.  Specifically,
the concern is that implementing RSTP in the U.S. could result in
a restraint of trade and thus violate U.S. anti-trust law.

Underpinning the USSF's position is a consent decree involving the
USSF and MLS that came as a result of the lawsuit Fraser vs. MLS.
The decree, a copy of which has been obtained by ESPN FC, stated
that the "USSF will not impose, implement, or enforce in any way,
those roles, statues, or regulations adopted by the Federation
Internationale de Football Association relating to the payment of
transfer fees or training and development fees ['transfer fee
rules'] for professional soccer players who are free of
contractual obligations to other teams ['out of contract
players']."

The decree goes on to add: "USSF will not directly or indirectly
prevent a player from playing in Major League Soccer [MLS] by
failing to register an out of contract player in the United States
because MLS has not complied with the transfer free rules with
respect to out of contract players."

Nowhere in the consent decree does it mention what should happen
in the case of players who are still under contract.

In a bid to collect the fees they feel are owed them, the three
clubs have taken their case to FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber,
and are awaiting a decision.  Meanwhile, they are also moving to
establish the system's legality in the U.S.

Lance Reich, the attorney representing the three youth clubs
declined to comment, but in a previous interview he admitted that
the lawsuit was a preemptive strike against the MLSPU, which in a
meeting earlier this year threatened to sue the clubs on
anti-trust grounds if a system of training compensation and
solidarity payments was implemented.

The motion argues that the MLSPU has minimal contacts in Texas,
doesn't have any offices there, and that its Collective Bargaining
Agreement is with MLS and not any entity in Texas.  For those
reasons the motion argues, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas does not have jurisdiction in the case.

As for the players, the motion argues that they "lack sufficient
contact with the state of Texas" for them to be under jurisdiction
by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The reason that the MLSPU wants a change of venue to Massachusetts
is that the Massachusetts District is where Fraser vs. MLS was
tried, and the consent decree issued.

"The District Court for the District of Massachusetts is surely
best qualified to determine the effect of the consent order issued
by that court," the motion reads.


MORGAN STANLEY: Court Trims Claims in Forex Benchmark Rates Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley 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 on September 20,
2016, the court in In Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates
Antitrust Litigation granted in part and denied in part the Firm's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: Defendant in Baker v. Bank of America
-----------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley 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 on September 29,
2016, a purported antitrust action was filed on behalf of indirect
foreign exchange purchasers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The action, styled Baker v.
Bank of America et al., names the Firm and 15 other foreign
exchange dealers as defendants, and asserts claims under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.


NEC TOKIN: Made Initial Installment Payments
--------------------------------------------
Kemet 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 NEC TOKIN has paid
the initial installment payments into the two plaintiff classes'
respective escrow accounts.

On May 2, 2016, NEC TOKIN reached a preliminary settlement,
followed by definitive settlement agreements on July 15, 2016
which are subject to court approval, in two antitrust suits filed
with the United States District Court, Northern District of
California as In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-
03264-JD (the "Class Action Suits").

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements, in
consideration of the release of NEC TOKIN and its subsidiaries
(including NEC TOKIN America, Inc.) from claims asserted in the
Class Action Suits, NEC TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.3 million
to a settlement class of direct purchasers of capacitors and a
settlement class of indirect purchasers of capacitors.

Each of the respective class payments is payable in five
installments, the first of which became due on July 29, 2016, the
next three of which are due each year thereafter on the
anniversary of the initial payment, and the final payment is due
by December 31, 2019. NEC TOKIN has paid the initial installment
payments into the two plaintiff classes' respective escrow
accounts.


NICK AND JAKE'S: Gleason Seeks to Recover Wages for Servers
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GLEASON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons v. NICK AND JAKE'S, INC., NICK AND JAKE'S
PARKVILLE, INC. d/b/a NICK AND JAKE'S, and NICK AND JAKE'S MAIN,
INC. d/b/a NICK AND JAKE'S, Case No. 5:16-cv-06149-GAF (W.D. Mo.,
November 11, 2016), is brought as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and as a state law class under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to recover alleged unpaid
wages and related penalties and damages owed to Plaintiff, and all
other similarly situated servers.

Nick & Jake's is a restaurant chain that operates three
restaurants in the Kansas City metropolitan area.  Nick and
Jake's, Inc., is a Kansas corporation with its principal place of
business located in Overland Park, Kansas.

Nick and Jake's Parkville, Inc. d/b/a Nick and Jake's, is a
Missouri corporation with its principal place of business located
in Overland Park.  Nick and Jake's Main, Inc. d/b/a Nick and
Jake's, is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of
business located in Kansas City, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Virginia Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
          Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
          CRIMMINS LAW FIRM LLC
          214 S. Spring Street
          Independence, MO 64050
          Telephone: (816) 974-7220
          Facsimile: (855) 974-7020
          E-mail: v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
                  l.fellows@crimminslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nicole Fisher, Esq.
          FISHER LAW, LLC
          4310 Madison Ave #100
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-7008
          Facsimile: (816) 471-1701
          E-mail: nicole@wrightfisher.com


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Exploding Sunroofs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a Maple Shade
man has brought a proposed class-action lawsuit against Nissan
North America, claiming the carmaker sells vehicles with
"exploding" sunroofs.

Harry Gunsenhouser says the "panoramic" sunroof of his 2015 Nissan
Rogue broke apart as his wife drove the vehicle through their
neighborhood in August 2015.

In a lawsuit seeking more than $5 million in damages,
Mr. Gunsenhouser contends more than 60 Nissan drivers have told
the company their panoramic sunroofs "shattered suddenly and
without warning."

The suit says "some startled drivers have compared the sound to a
gunshot followed by shards of glass hitting the vehicle's
occupants."

It alleges Nissan "not only refuses to warn drivers of the danger,
but also continues to sell and lease the vehicles without
disclosing the defect to consumers."

Nissan spokesman Steven Yaeger said the firm does not comment on
pending litigation.

The North America unit, based in Franklin, Tennessee, reported
record sales of just more than 2 million vehicles in its last
fiscal year.

Mr. Gunsenhouser's lawsuit, which also names Nissan Motor Co. of
Japan as a defendant, seeks to represent New Jersey drivers whose
vehicles have the alleged sunroof defect.

The suit contends the defective sunroofs are factory-installed
upgrades in five Nissan models made since 2008 -- the Rogue,
Maxima, Sentra, Pathfinder and Altima.

It also seeks to represent motorists with panoramic sunroofs in
Murano models made since 2009 and Juke models made since 2011.

"These sunroofs are both wider and longer than traditional
sunroofs, covering most of the vehicle's roof," the lawsuit notes.

It asserts the panoramic sunroofs are susceptible to "compromise"
because they're made of thin sheets of tempered glass that feature
large areas of ceramic paint.

It also contends the sunroofs are fastened in such a way that
"flexing and vibration in ordinary driving can impose stress and
ultimately shattering of the glass."

Mr. Gunsenhouser's complaint, filed Nov. 2 in federal court in
Camden, is similar to suits previously filed over sunroofs with
the same alleged defect in panoramic sunroofs offered by Kia,
Hyundai and Ford.

Attorneys from a Tennessee law firm, Greg Coleman Law LLC of
Knoxville, are among the lawyers representing drivers in all of
the suits.

Mr. Gunsenhouser's lawsuit asserts a South Jersey Nissan dealer
refused to repair his sunroof under warranty, even though the
vehicle met the terms of the protection program.

As a result, Mr. Gunsenhouser had to pay a deductible to his
insurance carrier for the repair and another deductible for a
vehicle rental while his Rogue was in the shop.

Among other claims, Mr. Gunsenhouser's suit seeks damages for
unjust enrichment by Nissan and for violations of the state's
Consumer Fraud Act, which would expose the carmaker to triple
damages.


OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: "Simmons" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABNER ROBERT SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03300 (S.D. Tex.,
November 8, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION is a global oil and gas
exploration and production company operating worldwide and
throughout the United States, including in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


PAPA MURPHY'S: Lennartson Seeks More Time to Respond to Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Papa Murphy's 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 26, 2016, that Plaintiff
John Lennartson has filed a motion seeking to extend the time to
respond to the summary judgment motion.

The Company is currently named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed by plaintiff John Lennartson on May 8, 2015,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to comply with
the requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
when it sent SMS text messages to consumers. The plaintiff in the
lawsuit asks that the court certify the putative class and that
statutory damages under the TCPA be awarded to plaintiff and each
class member.

On October 14, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
granted the Company a limited waiver from the TCPA's written
consent requirements for certain text messages that the Company
sent between October 16, 2013 and October 7, 2015 to individuals
who, like the plaintiff, provided written consent prior to October
16, 2013.

The Company believes that the FCC's waiver eliminates the legal
basis for the plaintiff's claim and has filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal.

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to extend the time to respond
to the summary judgment motion on the basis that he intends to
appeal the FCC's waiver.

While the Company believes the plaintiff's interpretation of law
is incorrect and the claim should be dismissed and it will
continue to vigorously defend ourselves in the lawsuit, it
provides no assurance that it will be successful in this action.
An adverse judgment or settlement related to this lawsuit could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a
franchisor and operator of a Take 'N' Bake pizza chain. The
Company franchises the right to operate Papa Murphy's Take 'N'
Bake pizza franchises and operates Papa Murphy's Take 'N' Bake
pizza stores owned by the Company.


PELLA CORP: "Tracy" Files Suit Over Defective Windows
-----------------------------------------------------
Christopher Tracy, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PELLA CORPORATION, an Iowa
Corporation, Defendant, Case 6:16-cv-01963-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla.,
November 9, 2016), alleges that Pella's acts and omissions in
connection with its design, manufacture, warrant, sale and
delivery of allegedly defective Pella Architect series windows
constitute fraud, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach
of express warranty and unjust enrichment.

PELLA CORPORATION -- http://www.pella.com/-- designs, tests,
manufactures, and installs windows and doors for new construction,
remodeling, and replacement applications for home and commercial
markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Panagiotis "Pete" V. Albanis, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN - COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     12800 University Drive, Suite 600
     Fort Myers, FL 33907
     Phone: (239) 432-6605
     Fax: (239) 433-6836
     Email: palbanis@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     Frank M. Petosa, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN - COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) 318-0268
     Fax: (954) 327-3018
     Email: fpetosa@forthepeople.com


PRIME TIME: "Mahmoudi" Suit Alleges Employee Misclassification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hassan Mahmoudi, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRIME TIME SHUTTLE, INC., a
California Corporation; RIDESHARE PORT MANAGEMENT, LLC dba PRIME
TIME SHUTTLE, a California Limited Liability Company; AIRFLYER
TRANSPORT ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 640240
(Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, November 9, 2016), alleges
wage and labor violations arising out of, among other things,
Defendants' misclassification of employees, failure to pay wages,
pay overtime, and provide meal and rest breaks to its employee
drivers and crewmembers.

Defendants provide airport transportation services within the
State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
     Levi M. Plesset, Esq.
     HAFFNER LAW PC
     445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 514-5681
     Fax: (213) 514-5682
     E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
             lp@haffnerlawyers.com

        - and -

     Alexander J. Perez, Esq.
     ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP
     One Sansome Street, Suite 3500
     San Francisco, CA 91404
     Phone: (415) 590-4910
     Fax: (424) 288-4368
     E-mail: aperez@actslaw.com


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: "Ocampo" FDCPA Claims Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke of the United States District
Court of the Eastern District of New York dismissed Plaintiff's
claims and entered judgment in favor of Defendant in the case
captioned, JOHN OCAMPO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS BUREAU, INC.
and DOES, 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-4983
(SIL) (E.D.N.Y.).

On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff John Ocampo commenced the action
alleging violations of sections 1692(e) and (g) of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), seeking to recover: (1)
statutory, actual, and treble damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692k; and (2) costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
pursuant to 15 U.S.C Section 1692k. The suit arises out of a debt
incurred in connection with his wife's surgery at a hospital. In
the Amended Complaint, Ocampo alleges that the parties' dispute
arises from a debt incurred in connection with his wife's stay at
a hospital. Defendant, a debt collector, sent Ocampo a "dunning
letter" to collect the money allegedly owed.

On January 12, 2016, the parties agreed to a bench trial, which
was held on July 27, 2016. Ocampo testified at trial that he
received the first collection notice on May 15, 2014 or May 16,
2014. He had no documentary evidence to support his recollection
and he did not keep the envelope in which the letter arrived.
Rather, he recalled calculating that he had "to handle it by June
15 or June 16."

The Court declines to credit Ocampo's testimony, as it conflicts
with his allegations in the pleadings and attempted to make the
receipt date more ambiguous, alleging that he received the first
letter "subsequent to and no earlier than May 9, 2014."

The Court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.)
52(a).  In his Findings dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/NuOYN0 from Leagle.com, Judge Locke concluded that
Plaintiff failed to establish a violation of the FDCPA.

John Ocampo is represented by Amir J. Goldstein, Esq. --
ajg@consumercounselgroup.com -- AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN

Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. is represented by Arthur Sanders,
Esq. -- Asanders@bn-lawyers.com - BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.


QUALCOMM INC: Motion to Dismiss "3226701 Canada" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated 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
Motion to Dismiss the case, 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. Qualcomm
Incorporated et al., remains pending.

On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a securities class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint alleging that the Company and certain
of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business outlook and product development between April 7, 2014 and
July 22, 2015. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

On June 28, 2016, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. The
Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.


REWALK ROBOTICS: Faces "Hershlikovitz" Suit Over 2014 IPO
---------------------------------------------------------
David Hershlikovitz, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REWALK ROBOTICS LTD., LARRY
JASINSKI, AMI KRAFT, AMIT GOFFER, JEFF DYKAN, HADAR RON, ASAF
SHINA, WAYNE B. WEISMAN, YASUSHI ICHIKI, ARYEH DAN, GLENN MUIR,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., JFEFFRIES LLC AND CANACCORD GENUITY INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 16 CIV 02313 (Cal. Super., County of San
Mateo), is a securities suit that arose because the Defendant
allegedly failed to disclose on its Registration Statement for a
2014 Initial Public Offering that it was wholly unprepared or
unable to comply with the extensive postmarket regulatory
requirements set forth by the United States Food and Drug
Administration.

REWALK ROBOTICS LTD. is a medical device company that designs
develops and markets wearable robotic exoskeletons for people with
spinal cord injuries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUAN TRANSPORTATION: Judge Sends Wage Class Action to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Honorable Virginia Phillips has sent a truck driver
wage class action lawsuit back to California State Court.  The
Riverside Employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik originally brought the case in San Bernardino County
alleging that Ruan Transportation failed to pay their truck
drivers minimum wages and provide the legally required meal and
rest breaks.  The Ruan Transportation class action is pending in
the San Bernardino County Superior Court for the State of
California, Case No. CIVDS1605897.

According to the District Court's opinion, "If defendants wish to
remove a case before discovery occurs, 'there are methods of
determining a reasoned basis for the calculations such as random
sampling and . . . using actual numbers, rather than averages to
determine the amount put in controversy by the Complaint.'"  The
District Court agreed with Plaintiff and concluded, "For the
reasons stated above, the Court finds Defendant has failed to
sustain its evidentiary burden for the purposes of removal.
Accordingly the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion and directs the
Clerk to Remand this action to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino."

According to the District Court's Order, the lawsuit will now
continue in State Court.  According to the Complaint, the class is
defined as all truck driver employees who were employed by Ruan
Transport Corporation in California since April of 2012.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California and Chicago
employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento and Chicago. The
firm dedicates its practice to contingency fee employment law work
for issues involving overtime pay, wrongful termination,
discrimination and other labor laws.  Contact an experienced
employment lawyer today by calling (800) 568-8020.


SABRE CORPORATION: Continues to Defend NY Antitrust Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sabre 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
declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking an injunction under
federal antitrust law.

The Company said, "In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed against us and two other GDSs, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative class
of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that the
GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines,
resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of
various federal and state laws. The plaintiffs sought an
unspecified amount of damages in connection with their state law
claims, and they requested injunctive relief in connection with
their federal claim."

"In July 2016, the court granted, in part, our motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for
damages. The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking
an injunction under federal antitrust law. The plaintiffs may
appeal the court's dismissal of their state law claims upon a
final judgment.

"We may incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as
this litigation is ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against
the remaining claims."

Sabre is a technology solutions provider to the global travel and
tourism industry.


SAWYER PROPERTY: Md. Court Affirms Dismissal of Tenants' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin F. Arthur of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
affirmed the judgments granting the motion to dismiss the case
captioned, KHARYN RAMSAY, et al., v. SAWYER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OF
MARYLAND, LLC, et al., Case No. 1673, September Term, 2015 (Md.
Spec. App.).

Three groups of residential tenants brought three, separate class-
action complaints against Sawyer Property Management of Maryland,
LLC that manage their apartment buildings, as well as the attorney
for the management companies.  The tenants allege that:

     -- the management companies have acted as unlicensed debt
collectors in violation of Maryland law by collecting consumer
claims for another person; and

     -- the management companies and their attorney engaged in
unfair and deceptive trade practices by placing a stamp on
district court forms stating that the documents were
communications from a debt collector.

When tenants defaulted on their rent payments, Sawyer Property
retained Jeffrey Tapper, a Maryland attorney and licensed Maryland
collection agent, to collect amounts owed under the leases.  In
2010 and 2011, Tapper filed suits on behalf of Sawyer Property
against tenants Kharyn Ramsay, Bryan Bookman, and Andrei Tarasov.
On the district court complaint forms, Tapper named Sawyer
Property as the plaintiff, and on the lines below he wrote "Agent
for" the respective property owner, followed by Sawyer Property's
address. When Ramsay, Bookman, Tarasov, and Cheryl Bell failed to
attend their respective show-cause hearings, the court issued body
attachments against them.  Each (except Bell) was arrested and
released shortly thereafter.

The Circuit Court for Baltimore County consolidated the three
actions and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss relying on
grounds that were largely common to the three actions.

On appeal, the tenants contend that the circuit court erred when
it determined that the complaints did not adequately allege that
Sawyer Property and JK2 Westminster were doing business as
unlicensed collection agencies.

In his Opinion dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/1xqbRZ from Leagle.com, Judge Arthur concluded that
each complaint failed to state a claim under the Consumer Debt
Collection Act or under the Consumer Protection Act. The factual
allegations were insufficient to show that the management
companies or their attorney attempted to enforce a right with
knowledge that the right did not exist, insufficient to show that
the management companies or their attorney made a false or
misleading statement in the collection of a debt, and insufficient
to show that the tenants reasonably relied on any such statement
to their detriment.


SCOTTRADE INC: "Hine" Suit Removed From County Court to S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scottrade, Inc., removed the lawsuit captioned STEPHEN HINE, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. SCOTTRADE,
INC., and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 37-2016-00035493-
CU-MC-CTL, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02787-JM-JLB to the proceeding.

Scottrade is a securities brokerage firm based in St. Louis,
Missouri, that provides brokerage and other services to its
customers.  Approximately three years ago, cybercriminals hacked
into Scottrade's secure computer systems and accessed databases
that contained information for certain of Scottrade's customers.

In his complaint, inter alia, the Plaintiff alleged that he and a
putative class of "[a]ll California residents whose personal or
financial information was compromised as a result of the data
breach first disclosed by Scottrade on or about October 2, 2015"
are entitled to monetary and other damages from Scottrade due to
Scottrade's alleged failure to maintain adequate cybersecurity
measures, which he alleges resulted in the cybersecurity incident
at issue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Richard L. Miller II, Esq.
          Richard S. Wilson, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  rmiller@siprut.com
                  rwilson@siprut.com

               - and -

          Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
          John M. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
          E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
                  jsimon@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DE PALMA GREENBERG
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Geoff Spreter, Esq.
          Jeffrey Bennion, Esq.
          SPRETER LAW FIRM, APC
          601 3rd Street
          Coronado, CA 92118
          Telephone: (619) 865-7986
          E-mail: geoff@spreterlaw.com

               - and -

          E. Elliot Adler, Esq.
          Adler Law Group, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
          San Diego, CA 2101
          Telephone: (619) 531-8700
          Facsimile: (619) 342-9600
          E-mail: elliotadler@gmail.com

               - and -

          Anthony Anderson Benton Dogali, Esq.
          Geoffrey F. Parmer, Esq.
          DOGALI LAW GROUP, P.A.
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
          Tampa, FL 33602-5146
          Telephone: (813) 289-0700
          Facsimile: (813) 289-9435
          E-mail: adogali@dogalilaw.com
                  gparmer@dogalilaw.com

               - and -

          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE AND GRINDAL
          100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                  kriebekh@locklaw.com

Defendant SCOTTRADE, INC., is represented by:

          Helen B. Kim, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282-2500
          Facsimile: (310) 282-2501
          E-mail: hkim@thompsoncoburn.com


SHIRE PLC: Decision in ELAPRASE Case Pending
--------------------------------------------
SHIRE PLC 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 final decision is expected
within the next 18 months in the lawsuit related to supply of
ELAPRASE to certain patients in Brazil.

On September 24, 2014 Shire's Brazilian affiliate, Shire
Farmaceutica Brasil Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the
State of Sao Paulo and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney's
office has intervened alleging that Shire is obligated to provide
certain medical care including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period
at no cost to patients who participated in ELAPRASE clinical
trials in Brazil, and seeking recoupment to the Brazilian
government for amounts paid on behalf of these patients to date,
and moral damages associated with these claims.

On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and
dismissed all the claims under the class action, which decision
has been appealed. A final decision is expected within the next 18
months.


SKY CHEFS: "Dyson" Cries Foul Over Background Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Dyson, individually and as a representative of the class,
Plaintiff, v. Sky Chefs, Inc., d/b/a LSG Sky Chefs, LSG Sky Chefs
North America Solutions, Inc., d/b/a LSG Sky Chefs, and LSG Group,
LLC, d/b/a LSG Sky Chefs, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03155 (N.D.
Ill., November 10, 2016), seeks punitive damages, reasonable
attorneys fees and costs under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

On or around December 19, 2015, Plaintiff applied to work as a
cook for Defendants in the State of Illinois. Dyson allegedly was
forced to sign a blanket authorization for the company to conduct
an absolute a thorough background investigation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550


STARWOOD HOTELS: Court Narrows Claims in "Dugas" Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, PAUL DUGAS, Plaintiff, v. STARWOOD HOTELS &
RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., HST LESSEE SAN DIEGO, LP; HST GP SAN
DIEGO, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-00014-GPC-BLM (S.D.
Cal.), District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California granted
Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's
Section 1798.82 CRA claim and Plaintiff's request for injunctive
relief; and denied Defendants' 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss as to
Plaintiff's Sec. 1798.81.5, UCL, negligence, and invasion of
privacy causes of action.

The case arises from a series of attacks by criminal hackers upon
the United States hospitality industry. Plaintiff Paul Dugas
(Plaintiff) alleges that customer systems of Starwood had
malicious software installed on them and that they have been
compromised since "at least November 2014." Plaintiff alleges that
this data breach (the Starwood breach) "adversely affected
hundreds of thousands of customers of the Starwood Hotel system."

Plaintiff alleges that as a "member in the hotel chain's rewards
program," he has frequented the spa at the Sheraton San Diego
Hotel & Marina on a "continuous and ongoing basis." Because of the
approximately seven-month delay between discovering the data
breach and notifying affected customers, Plaintiff alleges that
hackers were given "months to use the information without the
customers being able to take any steps to protect themselves." As
a result, Plaintiff alleges that he and thousands of other
Starwood customers have been "exposed to violations of privacy,
economic loss and risks of identity theft" for the rest of their
lives.

On January 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Class Action
Complaint alleging: (1) violation of the California Customer
Records Act (CRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1798.81.5, 1798.82; (2)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (3) invasion of privacy; (4)
negligence; and (5) negligence per se.

Plaintiff has named Starwood, HST Lessee San Diego, LP and HST GP
San Diego, LLC as the collective defendants, alleging that
Starwood is "the franchisor of the Sheraton brand," while HST
Lessee San Diego, LP and HST GP San Diego, LLC are concurrent
"owners or operator[s] of the Sheraton San Diego Hotel and
Marina."  Plaintiff further alleges that each of the three
defendants "ratified and approved" all the "actions of each
defendant."

On April 1, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
FACC based on (1) Plaintiff's failure to establish Article III
standing and (2) Plaintiff's failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.

In his Order dated November 3, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/lVJ6lp from Leagle.com, Judge Curiel concluded that
Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the credible threat of
future identity theft needed in order to plead injury in fact for
his causes of action and that alleging theft of PII is inadequate
to demonstrate a harm that qualifies as an injury in fact for
standing purposes. As to Plaintiff's requested relief for the loss
of time and money spent to avoid losses caused by the data breach,
his allegations are sufficient to state an injury in fact and that
as to Plaintiff's request for damages, the injury is redressible
by judicial decision and sufficient to allege the final element of
Article III standing.

Paul Dugas is represented by Mark D. Potter, Esq. --
mpotter@nmcpa.ca -- CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS -- and William A.
Lemkul, Esq. -- lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com -- MORRIS & SULLIVAN
LLP

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., et al. are represented
by Marcus A. Christian, Esq. -- mchristian@mayerbrowm.com --
Rajesh De, Esq. -- rde@mayerbrown.com -- Richard Ben-Veniste, Esq.
-- rben-veniste@mayerbrown.com -- John Nadolenco, Esq. --
jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- and Stephen Lilley, Esq. --
slilley@mayerbworn.com -- MAYER BROWN, LLP


SUFFOLK BANCORP: MOU Reached in Merger-Related Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk Bancorp 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 parties in the
Merger-Related Actions have entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of the Merger-
Related Actions.

On July 1, 2016, July 13, 2016 and August 4, 2016, respectively,
actions captioned Thaler/Howell Foundation v. Suffolk Bancorp et
al., Index No. 609834/2016 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cnty.), Levy v.
Suffolk Bancorp et al., Index No. 610475/2016 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk
Cnty.), and Parshall v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
04367 (E.D.N.Y.) were filed on behalf of a putative class of the
Company's shareholders against the Company, its current directors
and People's United (collectively, the "Merger-Related Actions").
An amended complaint in the Thaler/Howell Foundation action was
filed on July 29, 2016.

The Thaler/Howell Foundation and Levy complaints collectively
allege that the Company's board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the merger and certain terms of
the merger agreement, as well as in the case of the Thaler/Howell
Foundation complaint by issuing a materially deficient
registration statement, and that People's United aided and abetted
those alleged fiduciary breaches. The Parshall complaint alleges
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The Merger-Related Actions seek, among
other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger
on the agreed-upon terms, and rescission of the merger and/or
awarding of damages to the extent the merger is completed.

On September 27, 2016, the Company, People's United and the
individual defendants in the Merger-Related Actions entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the
Merger-Related Actions regarding the settlement of the Merger-
Related Actions, which the Company previously reported on a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 28, 2016. The
Company, People's United and the other defendants in the Merger-
Related Actions deny all of the allegations in the Merger-Related
Actions. Nevertheless, the Company, People's United and the other
defendants have agreed to settle the Merger-Related Actions in
order to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further
litigation. The MOU contemplates that the parties thereto would
enter into a stipulation of settlement with respect to the Merger-
Related Actions, which would be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the Company's
shareholders.

The MOU also contemplates that in the event that the parties enter
into such a stipulation of settlement, a hearing would be
scheduled at which a court overseeing the Merger-Related Actions
would consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it
would resolve and release all claims that were brought or could
have been brought in the Merger-Related Actions, including claims
challenging any disclosure made in connection with the merger. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the MOU contemplates
that counsel for the plaintiffs in the Merger-Related Actions will
file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an
amount not to exceed $300,000 to be paid by the Company or its
successor. If the court approves the settlement contemplated by
the MOU, the Merger-Related Actions will be dismissed with
prejudice.


TAQUERIA LOS: "Perez" Alleges Violations of FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eloy Perez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Taqueria Los Gallos, Inc., and
Salvador Hernandez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
10482 (N.D. Ill., November 9, 2016), alleges failure by Defendants
to pay for overtime work under the Fair Labor Standards Act; and
to compensate Plaintiff at least the city of Chicago minimum wage
rate for all hours worked under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and
the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a taco maker and cook.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raisa Alicea, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-800-1017
     E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Tuberculosis Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Teichert writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that a $1.5
billion putative class action accusing Tenet Healthcare Corp. of
failing to protect patients and newborns from being exposed to
tuberculosis at one of its hospitals has been moved to federal
court.

The lawsuit, which could represent the families of 3,000 children
delivered at Tenet's Hospitals of Providence Memorial Campus
facility in El Paso, Texas, alleges hospital officials ignored a
nurse assistant's tuberculosis symptoms and had her work 12-hour
shifts that put her in close contact to newborn infants and their
families for months.

The former employee, Esperanza Martinez, notified the hospital in
December 2013 that she was presenting symptoms of active
tuberculosis, but she wasn't taken off duty until August 2014.
During that time, approximately 3,000 newborns may have been
bathed or fed by the nurse's assistant.

"By allowing an employee who displayed symptoms of an infectious
disease to continue working in and around hospital grounds, the
defendants acted negligently, carelessly, recklessly and with a
conscious disregard for the plaintiffs' safety and rights," the
complaint said.

But the families accuse Providence Memorial and Tenet of trying to
minimize the extent of the exposure by failing to alert thousands
of families of the potential exposure.  Rather than notifying all
families whose children were born in the hospital during the
months in question, Tenet allegedly only sent letters to those
whose infants were born on days where Martinez was working.

In September 2014, the hospital claimed approximately 700 infants
were exposed to tuberculosis by the nurse's assistant, and said
they would work with federal authorities to show that its
procedures for protecting patients were adequate.  Later that
month, the Texas Department of State Health Services released a
report saying Providence Memorial failed to effectively protect
its patients from exposure.

Infants born when Ms. Martinez was off duty may still have come in
contact with the nurse's assistant during their hospital stays,
according to the lawsuit.  However, their tuberculosis tests will
not be covered by the hospital, and the plaintiffs say that's an
attempt to hide negligence.

The proposed class action was initially filed in a Texas state
court, but Tenet requested the suit be moved to federal court
because of its size.

The families have asked the court to force Tenet to pay for "gold
standard" tuberculosis tests that will be more accurate than a
typical skin test and chest X-ray.  The more accurate tests are
also more expensive, at $150 per test.  They have also requested
the tests be interpreted by an impartial third party; the initial
tuberculosis tests on infants were interpreted by Providence
Memorial employees, the complaint said.  The parents voiced
concern that the employees could be biased and try to minimize the
hospital's liability.

In addition, the plaintiffs have also requested damages for lost
earnings, mental anguish, bodily injury and other issues stemming
from the tuberculosis exposure.  They estimate the total damages
will exceed $1.5 billion.


THERANOS INC: Faces $140MM Walgreens Suit Amid Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that Walgreens
has filed a $140 million breach of contract suit against Theranos
Inc., compounding the woes of the Silicon Valley-based medical
device startup.

The suit was filed under seal in Delaware federal court on
Nov. 8.  It's not clear what exactly the Illinois-headquartered
pharmacy chain is alleging, but the docket describes the case as a
breach of contract suit with a demand of $140 million.

Walgreens is represented by Sidley Austin and Potter Anderson &
Corroon of Delaware.  Attorneys did not immediately respond to
messages seeking comment.  Phil Caruso, a spokesman for Walgreens,
said the company is not discussing the lawsuit.

Theranos did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Walgreens in June announced that it was terminating its
relationship with Theranos after the company said it was voiding
two years' worth of blood test results.  Walgreens closed down all
40 "Theranos Wellness Centers" at its stores in Arizona.

Theranos' voiding of the test results led to a flood of class
action suits on behalf of patients who were given potentially
inaccurate information.

The embattled company also faces a lawsuit brought on behalf of an
investor by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.  The company has said that
suit is "without merit, the assertions are baseless, and the
plaintiff is engaging in revisionist history."

Theranos has been represented in other litigation by Boies,
Schiller & Flexner.  Founding partner David Boies also sits on the
company's board of directors.


TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL: "Jackson" Sues Over Insurance Bad Faith
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leslian Jackson, an individual, Plaintiff, v. TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California company; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 639944 (Cal. Super., County of
Los Angeles, November 8, 2016), alleges on behalf of similarly
situated, breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and unfair
business practices arising out of Defendant(s) unlawful conduct of
imposing a $2,500.00 sublimit for claims for "loss caused by
smoke, soot or ash."

Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, Policy # 983673631 633 1,
insured the Plaintiff's property located at 3224 Crestford Drive,
Altadena, California 91001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
     Levi M. Plesset, Esq.
     HAFFNER LAW PC
     445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 514-5681
     Fax: (213) 514-5682
     E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
             lp@haffnerlawyers.com

        - and -

     Neil R. Anapol, SBN 141764
     LAW OFFICES OF NEIL R. ANAPOL
     2550 Hollywood Way, Suite 202
     Burbank, CA 91505
     Phone: (818) 566-7355
     Fax: (818) 566-7875


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Class Action Jury Selection Set for Nov. 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico, reports that before
Donald Trump raises his right hand to take the oath of office in
January, he's set for a less-auspicious swearing-in: taking the
witness stand in his own defense in a federal court civil trial
over alleged fraud in his Trump University real estate seminar
program.

Mr. Trump faces a legal ordeal no president-elect has ever
encountered: juggling defending himself before a jury with
preparing for the vast challenges a political novice will face in
assuming the presidency.

And the class-action case set for trial the on Nov. 7 after
Thanksgiving is just one of a plethora of lawsuits and threatened
suits Trump was entangled in during the campaign -- litigation
that doesn't seem likely to disappear anytime soon and might even
intensify with Mr. Trump headed to the White House.

In addition to several suits over Trump University, Mr. Trump has
threatened lawsuits against a dozen or more women who've accused
him of sexual impropriety in recent months -- and several of those
women have threatened to countersue if he comes after them.

There's also a New York state investigation into his charitable
foundation and a reported federal investigation into some of his
advisers' ties to Russia.

Beyond that, there's litigation that Mr. Trump himself launched,
like the pair of suits against celebrity chefs who backed out of
plans to open restaurants in his new luxury Washington hotel.

However, the most immediate challenge for Mr. Trump is a Trump
University class-action lawsuit set to begin jury selection
Nov. 28 in San Diego, with Mr. Trump called as a witness by both
sides and certain to face sharp questioning about his venture's
marketing practices.

Adding to the drama, the trial will bring Trump face to face with
U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel.  During the campaign,
Trump triggered widespread outrage by arguing that Judge Curiel's
Latino heritage made the judge irredeemably biased against him.
The GOP presidential hopeful also called the judge "Mexican" and
"Spanish."  He was born in Indiana.

Judge Curiel has made only passing reference in public to
Mr. Trump's attacks, noting in a written opinion that Mr. Trump
had "placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue."

Mr. Trump's lawyer, Daniel Petrocelli, has signaled that he may
try to delay the trial further.  However, Judge Curiel denied a
recent effort by Mr. Petrocelli to push the trial back and seems
intent on getting it completed before the inauguration.

In addition, the suit set for trial later this month has been
pending for six years and some of the plaintiffs are elderly.

Judge Curiel was scheduled to hear arguments on what kinds of
evidence and questions will be off limits during the trial on Nov.
10.

At the hearing, Judge Curiel was also scheduled to consider
whether Mr. Trump's campaign trail statements will be fair game at
the trial and whether all references to allegations about his
"personal conduct" should be off limits, as his lawyers' have
urged.

Because it's a civil case and not a criminal one, Mr. Trump is not
required to be present throughout the trial, although as it stands
now he would have to be in the courtroom to testify for his side
and the plaintiffs.  He already gave two depositions in the case
while he was campaigning.

There are actually two pending federal suits: the one set for
trial this month involves Trump University students from
California, Florida and New York, addressing claims that the
program violated those states' tough laws against defrauding
consumers and the elderly.  The other case is national in scope
and invokes a federal racketeering statute.

Attorneys pressing the suits against Mr. Trump on behalf of former
Trump University students say the program fraudulently advertised
that instructors were hand-picked by Trump and that students would
learn the real estate mogul's "secrets."  Even calling the program
a "university" was a fraud, the lawsuits contend.

Mr. Trump's lawyers say claims that students would be told Trump's
"secrets" or that he was personally involved in selecting teachers
were, at worst, marketing "puffery" not intended to be taken
literally.

The other pending suits involving Mr. Trump's businesses could
also head to trial after he's in the White House.  In a 1997 case
involving President Bill Clinton and a woman suing him for sexual
harassment, Paula Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that a sitting
president is not immune from litigation over actions taken before
he took office.

The high court did say deference to the president in terms of
scheduling would be appropriate, though not a deferral until he
leaves office.

"Although scheduling problems may arise, there is no reason to
assume that the district courts will be either unable to
accommodate the President's needs or unfaithful to the tradition-
especially in matters involving national security of giving 'the
utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities,'" Justice John
Paul Stevens wrote.  "We have confidence in the ability of our
federal judges to deal with both of these concerns."

Of course, if Mr. Trump's keen on cutting back some of his legal
thicket, he could simply drop some of the cases he's filed, like
the suits against the restaurateurs.  He could forgo his plans to
sue his female accusers.  And to make the Trump University cases
he could do something he has long vowed not to do: swallow his
pride and pay up.


UNITED RECOVERY: Certification of Class Sought in "Kroell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kroell asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action entitled MICHAEL KROELL, on behalf of plaintiff and a
class v. UNITED RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LP, and URS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10524 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action
against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  The Plaintiff defined the class as:

     (a) all individuals with addresses in Illinois (b) to whom
     defendant sent a letter stating that "Please be aware that
     if the amount of debt forgiven as a result of this
     settlement is equal to or greater than $600, [defendant's
     client] may be required by the IRS to report the forgiven
     debt and issue a form 1099c to you" (c) which letter was
     sent at any time during a period beginning one year prior to
     the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the
     filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NIfzH9He

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com


VASCO DATA: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
VASCO Data Security International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the court has not made any rulings with respect to the
appointment of the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit by
Linda J. Rossbach.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security
International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming
VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as
defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf
of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities
between February 18, 2014 and July 21, 2015, and seeks to recover
damages allegedly caused by the defendants' alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as
a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees.

Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the
court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to
file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead
plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. The defendants
will then have sixty days to answer or otherwise respond to the
operative complaint.

To date, the court has not made any rulings with respect to the
appointment of the lead plaintiff. Although the ultimate outcome
of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company
believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against the action vigorously.

Vasco designs, develops, markets and supports both proprietary and
open standards-based hardware and software security systems that
manage and secure access to information assets.


VIRGIN AMERICA: "Palkon" Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Virgin America 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 Dennis Palkon's
class action lawsuit has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On April 20, 2016, a putative shareholder class
action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, against us, our board of
directors, Alaska Air Group, Inc. and Alpine Acquisition Corp.,
captioned Dennis Palkon v. Virgin America, et al., Case No.
CIV538282 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). The complaint alleged, among other
things, that our directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Merger Agreement. The complaint sought, among other
things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it
should it be consummated, as well as other equitable relief and
damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The plaintiff
filed a request for dismissal without prejudice on August 10, 2016
and the court granted such request on August 16, 2016."

The Company said, "On April 1, 2016, we entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, with Alaska Air Group
Inc., or Alaska Air Group, pursuant to which a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Alaska Air Group will, subject to the satisfaction
or waiver of the conditions contained in the Merger Agreement,
merge with and into Virgin America, and Virgin America will be the
successor or surviving corporation of the merger and will become a
subsidiary of Alaska Air Group, or the Merger. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement and subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of the closing conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, at the effective time of the Merger, each share of
common stock of Virgin America issued and outstanding immediately
prior to the effective time of the Merger will be converted into
$57.00 in cash, without interest."

Virgin America is a premium-branded, low-cost airline based in
California that provides scheduled air travel in the United States
and Mexico.


VIRGIN AMERICA: "Houston" Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Virgin America 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 Thomas Houston's
class action lawsuit has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, a putative shareholder class
action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware against the outside directors on our board of
directors, captioned Thomas Houston v. Donald J. Carty, et al.,
Case No. 12235 (Del. Ch.). The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Merger Agreement. The complaint sought, among other
things, to enjoin the proposed transaction, or to rescind it
should it be consummated, and to require the outside directors to
exercise their fiduciary duties and commence a sale process and
obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of
stockholders, as well as other equitable relief and damages,
including attorneys' and experts' fees. On August 11, 2016, the
parties filed a stipulation concerning Plaintiff's voluntary
dismissal of the action, which was granted by the court on August
12, 2016."

The Company said, "On April 1, 2016, we entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, with Alaska Air Group
Inc., or Alaska Air Group, pursuant to which a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Alaska Air Group will, subject to the satisfaction
or waiver of the conditions contained in the Merger Agreement,
merge with and into Virgin America, and Virgin America will be the
successor or surviving corporation of the merger and will become a
subsidiary of Alaska Air Group, or the Merger. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement and subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of the closing conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, at the effective time of the Merger, each share of
common stock of Virgin America issued and outstanding immediately
prior to the effective time of the Merger will be converted into
$57.00 in cash, without interest."

Virgin America is a premium-branded, low-cost airline based in
California that provides scheduled air travel in the United States
and Mexico.


VIRGIN AMERICA: "Zwang" Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Virgin America 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 Henry Zwang's
class action lawsuit has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On May 10, 2016, a putative shareholder class
action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, against C. David Cush, our
president and chief executive officer, our board of directors,
Alaska Air Group, Inc. and Alpine Acquisition Corp., captioned
Henry Zwang v. C. David Cush, et al., Case No. CIV538604 (Cal.
Sup. Ct.). The complaint alleged, among other things, that our
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
Agreement. The complaint sought, among other things, either to
enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be
consummated, as well as other equitable relief and damages,
including attorneys' and experts' fees. The plaintiff filed a
request for dismissal without prejudice on July 11, 2016 and the
court granted such request on July 12, 2016."

Virgin America is a premium-branded, low-cost airline based in
California that provides scheduled air travel in the United States
and Mexico.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces "Zink" Suit Over Defeat Devices in Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES H. ZINK, c/o Giles & Lenox LLC, 1080 Delta Avenue, Suite
202, Cincinnati, Ohio 45208, Plaintiff, vs. Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft a/k/a Volkswagen AG; Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.; Audi Aktiengesellschaft a/k/a Audi AG, Audi of
America, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01068-MHW-TPK (S.D.
Ohio, November 9, 2016), alleges on behalf of all others similarly
situated that the Defendant(s) installed "defeat devices" on its
vehicles that are designed to circumvent U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency emissions standards for air pollutants.

Volkswagen AG is in the business of designing, developing,
manufacturing, and selling automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian T. Giles, Esq.
     Bryce A. Lenox, Esq.
     GILES LENOX
     1018 Delta Avenue, Suite 202
     Cincinnati, OH 45208
     Phone: (513) 815-3853
     Fax: (513) 824-8160
     E-mail: Bryce@GilesLenox.com
             Brian@GilesLenox.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Group 1 to Receive $13.2 Million
-----------------------------------------------
Group 1 Automotive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
has received notification from Volkswagen that it is entitled to
receive, in the aggregate, approximately $13.2 million in
connection with the Company's current and prior ownership of seven
Volkswagen dealerships in the U.S.

In September 2015, Volkswagen admitted that certain of its diesel
models were intentionally programmed to meet various regulatory
emissions standards only during laboratory emissions testing. In
late June 2016, Volkswagen agreed to pay up to an aggregate of
$14.7 billion to settle claims stemming from the diesel emissions
scandal. On October 25, 2016, a U.S. Federal judge approved this
settlement. On or about September 30, 2016, Volkswagen agreed to
allocate $1.21 billion among its 652 dealers for a class
settlement in exchange for their agreement not to sue Volkswagen.

In October 2016, the Company received notification from Volkswagen
that it is entitled to receive, in the aggregate, approximately
$13.2 million in connection with the Company's current and prior
ownership of seven Volkswagen dealerships in the U.S. The Company
will receive half of the compensation immediately in a lump sum
amount, and the rest of the compensation in 18 monthly
installments. The Volkswagen brand represented 1.7% of the
Company's total new vehicle retail unit sales for the nine months
ended September 30, 2016.

Group 1 is an operator in the automotive retail industry. Through
its dealerships, Group 1 sells new and used cars and light trucks;
arranges related vehicle financing; sells service and insurance
contracts; provides automotive maintenance and repair services;
and sells vehicle parts.


VOGUE NAILS: Violates FLSA, "Lopez-Ramirez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------
AQUILINA LOPEZ-RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. VOGUE NAILS OF S.I. LLC (d/b/a VOGUE NAILS)
and EUN HEE HONG, Case No. 1:16-cv-06291 (E.D.N.Y., November 11,
2016), alleges that the Plaintiff regularly worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate
minimum wage or overtime compensation for any of the hours that
she worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the New York Labor Law.

Vogue Nails of S.I. LLC, doing business as Vogue Nails, is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York.  Vogue Nails is a nail salon owned by Eun Hee Hong
located at in Staten Island, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


WASHINGTON COUNTY, UT: Public Defender System Class Action Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Miller, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that a
federal judge has tossed a proposed class-action lawsuit
challenging Washington County's public defender system.

The lawsuit -- filed in January against the state of Utah,
Washington County and several public officials -- claimed the
county's current public defender system is broken, and that the
attorneys who handle those contracts are overworked, underpaid and
are not given the proper support to defend their clients.

The two named plaintiffs, William Cox and Edward Paulus, are two
Washington County men who have been assigned public defenders for
their pending criminal cases.

But in an order dismissing the case filed on Nov. 7, U.S. District
Judge Dee Benson ruled that because the plaintiffs' criminal cases
are not resolved, they cannot yet claim they have been harmed or
that they have had ineffective counsel. The judge wrote that their
claims were "sweeping, yet unsupported."

"Cox and Paulus have counsel," Judge Benson wrote.  "Neither has
alleged that he had not been represented at any point in his
proceeding.  Both of their criminal cases are pending and neither
has been convicted or sentenced."

Ogden-based attorney Michael Studebaker, who filed the lawsuit,
said on Nov. 8 that they are "definitely disappointed" by the
judge's decision.

"It sets back indigent defense many years," he said in an email.
"We are evaluating an appeal and will make a decision within the
appropriate timelines."

The lawsuit alleged that because of large caseloads and flat-fee
contracts, public defenders in Washington County can't meet with
their clients in a "meaningful manner" before they go to court,
can't adequately investigate the charges against their clients and
do not, or rarely, use expert witnesses or forensic testing at
trial.

Lawyers for the state of Utah and Washington County had asked for
the case to be dismissed, arguing that it was improper for a
lawsuit to be filed by criminal defendants before their cases had
been resolved.  Instead, the defendants should seek "post-
conviction relief," they said.  They also argued that it was
improper to ask a federal judge to order "the complete
restructuring of a public defender system" in Washington County.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1963 that defendants facing
possible jail time are entitled to an attorney, even if they can't
afford one.  Utah is one of two states in the nation that delegate
this responsibility to individual counties, which have had no
state oversight to guide their efforts in meeting the Sixth
Amendment obligation.

Each county differs in how it handles that responsibility.  In
Salt Lake and Utah counties, a nonprofit public defender
association provides services, while Washington County and others
rely on contracts with public defenders and private attorneys.
This can lead to a crushing number of cases, and public defenders
often won't -- or can't -- ask for funds for experts or private
investigators.

And that is just one of myriad problems with Utah's current
indigent defense system, according to studies by the ACLU and the
Sixth Amendment Center.

There is a lack of uniform structure, no state oversight and
inadequate funding that varies from county to county, the studies
found.  And some county prosecutors are involved in picking who
fills public defender contracts, in essence handpicking who they
will go up against in court.

During this last legislative session, lawmakers created a state-
wide indigent defense commission, tasked to gather data about
Utah's public defender system and dole out $1.5 million to
counties that need support.

But some critics felt this action was not adequate to address the
problems plaguing the system.  The American Civil Liberties Union
of Utah filed its own lawsuit against the state in June, asking
that a judge find that the current system is not constitutional.
The ACLU argues in its lawsuit that the system is inadequate,
underfunded and unfair to Utahns accused of crimes who rely on
public defenders.

That lawsuit is still pending in federal court as the plaintiffs
seek class-action status.


WESTON EDUCATIONAL: Waunsch et al. Sue Alleging WARN Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANNE WAUNSCH, AMY D'ANDREA, TANJA JOHNSON and CLAY ADAIR on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WESTON EDUCATIONAL, INC., d/b/a Heritage
Institute, d/b/a Heritage College, d/b/a Missouri College and EARL
WESTON, individually and in his representative capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02739 (D. Col., November 8, 2016),
seeks to recover 60 days' wages and benefits from Heritage because
Plaintiffs were allegedly not provided 60 days advance written
notice of their terminations, as required by the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

Weston Educational, Inc., doing business as Heritage College,
provides educational services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
     Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 245-1000
     Email: jar@outtengolden.com
     Email: rsr@outtengolden.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Appeal of Class Certification Order Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, 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
appeal of the order granting class certification remains pending.

The Company said, "In November 2014, a former employee filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, with the caption
Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc. The complaint alleged, among other
things, claims that we failed to provide meal and rest breaks,
failed to pay overtime, and failed to keep accurate records of
employees' hours worked."

"After the court granted our two motions to dismiss certain
claims, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that includes
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"On November 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On February 26, 2016, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

"On May 5, 2016, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit for an
immaterial amount. The settlement does not contain any admission
of liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties.
The settlement class includes all current and former inside sales
consultants employed by Zillow, Inc. in any office from January 1,
2010 through the present.

"We have recorded an accrual for an immaterial amount related to
the settlement as of September 30, 2016. The settlement is
contingent on the court approving the class action settlement and
upon Zillow, Inc.'s complete resolution of the DOL compliance
review.

"On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted our
petition for permission to appeal the order granting class
certification. We do not believe there is a reasonable possibility
that a material loss in excess of amounts accrued may be
incurred."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related
information marketplaces on mobile and the Web, with a
complementary portfolio of brands and products to help people find
vital information about homes and connect with local
professionals.


ZIMMER GMBH: B.C. Supreme Court Okays Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gillian Scott, Esq. -- gscott@osler.com -- Joshua Krusell, Esq.
-- jkrusell@osler.com -- of Osler, in an article for Mondaq,
report that in Jones v. Zimmer GMBH, 2016 BCSC 1847, Justice
Bowden of the B.C. Supreme Court recently approved settlement of a
class action despite the objections of a number of class members
to the settlement agreement that had been reached between the
representative plaintiff, class counsel and the defendant.  This
decision is instructive for class action defendants negotiating
and arranging settlements with class counsel.

Events Leading To The Settlement Of The B.C. Class Action
This past July, we wrote about the decision of Justice Perell of
the Ontario Superior Court in Crider v. Nguyen, 2016 ONSC 4400,
where he ordered that an Ontario plaintiff could pursue an
individual action against a manufacturer of a hip implant device,
Zimmer, while claims relating to that same device were already
being advanced against Zimmer as part of two class actions: one
certified in British Columbia (Jones v. Zimmer), and the other
certified in Ontario (McSherry v. Zimmer).

The representative plaintiffs in the Jones and McSherry class
actions reached a settlement agreement with Zimmer, to which some
fourteen objections were filed by certain class members who did
not agree with the settlement.  Two of the fourteen objections
arose from members of the Ontario McSherry action, while the
remaining twelve arose from the B.C. Jones action.

Shortly after issuing his decision in Crider, Justice Perell
approved settlement of the Ontario McSherry class action despite
the two objections that had been filed, and the parties then
sought approval of the settlement of the Jones action from the
B.C. Supreme Court.

The Objections Of Certain Class Members To The Settlement Of The
B.C. Class Action

The proposed settlement agreement provided that class members
would receive compensation in exchange for a release of their
claims.  The amount of compensation was to vary with the nature of
a class member's individual claim.  For example, a class member
who underwent an uncomplicated revision surgery to correct
complications with the hip implant might be eligible to receive up
to $97,500, while one who experienced a complicated revision might
be eligible to receive up to $172,500.  On the other hand, a class
member who had not undergone revision surgery by September 1, 2015
(the "Eligibility Deadline") would only be entitled to receive
$600.

Justice Bowden summarized the twelve objections that had been
filed by certain class members against this settlement into five
categories:

   1. that the proposed settlement limited the potential damages
of those class members who had not undergone revision surgery or
scheduled such surgery prior to the Eligibility Deadline to a
nominal $600..

   2. The proposed settlement did not include class members who
require revision surgery but for various reasons did not have it
or schedule it before September 1, 2015.

   3. The proposed settlement was reached before expert reports
were exchanged or oral examinations for discovery were held. As a
result, the defendants would have known that that plaintiff had
little interest in going to trial.

   4. The proposed settlement did not provide any compensation for
individual claims such as loss of earnings or pain and suffering
short of revision surgery.

The timing of the notification of the terms of the proposed
settlement was such that class members were not able to opt out of
the B.C. class action.

On October 6, 2016, Justice Bowden approved settlement of the
Jones action despite these objections.

The B.C. Court's Treatment Of The Objections And Approval Of The
Settlement

In coming to his decision, Justice Bowden noted that individual
class members do not participate in the conduct of the litigation
during the common issues phase of a class action.  When the Jones
class action was certified by the B.C. Supreme Court, the Court
appointed a representative plaintiff to prosecute the action on
behalf of the class and to instruct counsel for the class. Justice
Bowden commented that it would not have been feasible or
appriopriate for class members to generally be involved in the
private and privileged mediation sessions and settlement
negotiations that were conducted with the defendant over a number
of years.

While the most serious objections to the proposed settlement were
with respect to the Eligibility Deadline that determined a class
member's level of potential compensation, Justice Bowden found
that this deadline had been selected by the representative
plaintiff, class counsel and the defendant on a principled and
reasonable basis that reflected the increasing difficulty for
class members to prove causation with the further passage of time.

With respect to the various levels of compensation that were part
of the settlement, and the overall quantum of the settlement,
Justice Bowden noted that class litigation is in the hands of
class counsel, as instructed by the representative plaintiff, and
is not subject to the views of class members in general;
therefore, Justice Bowden found any objection that the overall
settlement amount is insufficient to be unpersuasive because, in
his view, a settlement is a compromise of claims.  Justice Bowden
observed that it is a court's task to determine whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the
class as a whole, and if it a court so finds, then the objections
of a few class members cannot be persuasive in changing this
determination.

Finally, with respect to the objection that many class members
only learned of the terms of the settlement after the deadline by
which they could have opted out of the class action, Justice
Bowden highlighted that the B.C. class action legislation requires
that class members make a decision to opt in or opt out of the
proceeding before the outcome of the litigation is known and that,
therefore, class members must elect to be bound by the judgment on
the common issues, whether by settlement or a decision of the
court, and whether favourable or unfavourable.  In Justice
Bowden's view, a class member is not permitted to wait on the
sidelines and make their decision after knowing the results of the
litigation; the predictability and finality required by the
parties to resolve a class action would be undermined if a class
member could change their election after knowing the results of
the litigation.

Justice Bowden's decision indicates that representative
plaintiffs, class counsel and class action defendants may
negotiate and arrange settlements of class actions and obtain
approval of such settlements despite the objections of some class
members so long as the settlement agreement that is submitted for
the court's approval is fair, reasonable, and in the best
interests of the class as a whole.


* Courts Lift Stays in Several ECJ Cases Following FDA Guidance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Creighton Magid, Esq. -- magid.chip@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in recent
years, a boomlet of litigation -- primarily in California -- has
arisen regarding the product known as "evaporated cane juice" or
"ECJ."  The product -- made by extracting fluid from crushed sugar
cane, clarifying the fluid, evaporating the fluid to create a
concentrate, filtering and crystallizing the concentrate, and then
separating out the molasses using centrifugation -- is sometimes
used as a sweetener in consumer products, including yogurts and
beverages.  Several class-action suits have been brought in the
name of consumers who claim to have been health conscious but
duped into thinking that products labeled as containing ECJ were
free of added sugars.

Courts largely put the cases on hold, awaiting guidance from the
federal government under the "primary jurisdiction doctrine,"
which allows courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint
without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the
special competence of an administrative agency.

In May, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its long-
awaited "Guidance for Industry" regarding ECJ.  In its Guidance,
the FDA concludes that "such sweeteners should not be declared on
food labels as 'evaporated cane juice' because that term does not
accurately describe the basic nature of the food and its
characterizing properties (i.e., that the ingredients are sugars
or syrups).  Moreover, the use of 'juice' in the name of a product
that is essentially sugar is confusingly similar to the more
common use of the term 'juice' -- 'the aqueous liquid expressed or
extracted from one or more fruits or vegetables, purees of the
edible portions of one or more fruits or vegetables, or any
concentrates of such liquid or puree' (21 C.F.R. Sec 120.1(a)).
Thus, the term 'evaporated cane juice' is false or misleading
because it suggests that the sweetener is 'juice' or is made from
'juice' and does not reveal that its basic nature and
characterizing properties are those of a sugar." Further, because
federal regulations require that "ingredients required to be
declared on the label or labeling of food . . . shall be listed by
common or usual name," 21 C.F.R.
Sec. 101.4(a)(1), a food labeled as containing "evaporated cane
juice" would be considered mislabeled; the proper term, according
to the FDA, is "sugar" -- with or without a descriptive term (such
as "cane sugar" or "turbinado sugar").

In light of the FDA's Guidance, courts have lifted stays in
several ECJ cases. See, e.g., Swearingen v. Pacific Foods of
Oregon, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-4157 (N.D. Cal.); Perera v. Pacific
Foods of Oregon, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-2074 (N.D. Cal.).

After lifting such a stay, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California issued a
ruling on August 17, 2016, largely denying Santa Cruz Natural,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss claims brought against it by a putative
class of consumers who claim to have been misled by the use of
"evaporated cane juice" on the label of a line of beverages.
Swearingen v. Santa Cruz Natural, Inc., No. 13-cv-04291 (N.D. Cal.
Aug. 17, 2016).  The plaintiffs, claiming to be "health conscious
consumers who wish to avoid 'added sugars' in the food products
they purchase," claim that they read the labels on Santa Cruz
Natural's flavored beverages, noted that "sugar" was not listed as
an ingredient, and supposedly therefore reached the conclusion
that the products did not contain any added sugar. (The fact that
the labels also disclosed that the drinks had between 29 and 35
grams of sugar apparently did not serve as a red flag; the
plaintiffs claim that they assumed that the sugars were naturally
occurring in the other ingredients, such as lemon juice and mango
puree.)

Judge Illston's decision to allow the case to move forward may
serve as a playbook for plaintiffs in other ECJ lawsuits.  The
Court ultimately found plaintiffs had standing to bring the
lawsuit, adequately pleaded "injury in fact" to establish standing
under Article III of the Constitution, and that the state law
claims were not preempted by the FDCA.  In addition,  Santa Cruz
Natural's argument that the plaintiffs could not meet the
"reasonable consumer" test of the California consumer protection
statutes -- under which a plaintiff must show that consumers
acting reasonably in the circumstances would have been deceived --
fared no better.  Although Judge Illston noted that she had "some
reservations as to whether a reasonable consumer would be misled
as regarding added sugars in the Lemonade Soda and Ginger Ale
Soda" -- whose 35 grams and 32 grams of sugar, respectively, were
unlikely to occur naturally in ginger root or lemon juice -- she
nonetheless found that, because other sodas were closer calls (a
reasonable consumer might conclude that the 29 grams of sugar in
the Orange Mango Soda, for example, occurred naturally in the
orange juice and mango puree listed as ingredients), the question
of whether a reasonable consumer would have been misled was a
question better decided by a jury.

The FDA's Guidance is likely to embolden plaintiffs who have
brought (or who are considering bringing) ECJ claims.  Judge
Illston's opinion in Swearingen, moreover, provides sufficient
direction on pleading and sufficient precedent (at least in the
9th Circuit) for careful plaintiffs to survive motions to dismiss.
The combination of the two makes it unlikely that the boomlet in
ECJ litigation will end anytime soon.


* Supreme Court to Likely Weigh on Class Action Waiver Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin B. Leblang, Esq. -- kleblang@kramerlevin.com -- and
Robert N. Holtzman, Esq. -- rholtzman@kramerlevin.com -- of Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, in an article for Lexology, report
that that recent decisions by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit have adopted the reasoning
of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") in D.R. Horton,
Inc. and Michael Cuda, in which the NLRB held that an employer
violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") by requiring
employees to execute arbitration agreements that contained a bar
on collective or class actions.  The recent Seventh and Ninth
Circuit decisions, major victories for employees, break with the
Fifth Circuit's holding in the appeal from the NLRB's decision in
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, and decisions by the Second and Eighth
Circuits, all of which rejected that position.  This well-defined
circuit split serves as a clear invitation to the Supreme Court to
resolve the irreconcilable stances taken by the Circuits.

The Seventh Circuit's decision in Lewis v. Epic Systems
Corporation and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Morris et al. v.
Ernst & Young LLP both hold that mandatory employee arbitration
clauses that prohibit class and collective actions violate
employees' rights under Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA and are not
enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").  Section 7
guarantees employees' rights to act in concert "for their mutual
aid or protection." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 157. Section 8(a) states that
it shall be an "unfair labor practice to interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
[Section 7]." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158.

In Lewis, the Seventh Circuit determined that the arbitration
agreement at issue, which stated that claims "will be arbitrated
only on an individual basis" and that employees "waive the right
to participate in or receive money or any other relief from any
class, collective, or representative proceeding," clearly violated
Sections 7 and 8(a).  Similarly, in Morris, the Ninth Circuit
determined that an arbitration agreement that required employees
to bring claims in "separate proceedings" violated an employee's
rights under the NLRA.

In direct opposition to the Fifth Circuit's holding in D.R.
Horton, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits both found that the FAA,
the 1925 law that provides for resolution of private disputes
through binding arbitration, does not override an employee's
Section 7 rights.  Citing Section 2 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 2,
which states that an arbitration agreement "shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract," the Seventh
and Ninth Circuits both determined that because a class action
waiver provision conflicts with Sections 7 and 8(a) of the NLRA,
such waivers are not enforceable under the FAA. Further, the
Seventh and Ninth Circuits both concluded that the right to class
or collective action is a substantive right, rather than a
procedural one, that cannot be waived in an arbitration agreement.

The Supreme Court will likely weigh in on the enforceability of
class action waivers in employment agreements.  Until then, the
Lewis and Morris decisions create ambiguity as to whether
employers can lawfully require that disputes with employees be
resolved through individual arbitration, and companies that have
employees in a variety of locations will face different standards
in different jurisdictions.


* Trump May Defang Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
-------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that "The courts have
often served as a defense against injustice and abuse.  They will
need to do so again."

That's what Paul Bland, the executive director of Public Justice,
wrote on Nov. 9 in his blog, where he pledged that the non-profit
will "continue bringing, and winning, the most impactful cases."

It's not just him.

With Republicans in control of the White House and Congress and
poised to pick the tie-breaking ninth Supreme Court justice, the
plaintiffs bar is now one of the few checks on government power.

Scary, I know.

Of course, I don't mean the "Have-you-been-injured-call-now"
lawyers whose ads you see on the sides of buses.  But from product
liability to environmental protection to civil rights, plaintiffs
lawyers and public interest advocates may be the last bulwark in
opposing government actions.

Consider the ACLU's homepage on Nov. 9, which featured a photo of
Donald Trump and the headline: "See You in Court."

The ACLU cited Mr. Trump's campaign remarks where he called for
mass deportations, banning the entry of Muslims to the country,
aggressive surveillance of Muslims, punishing women for having
abortions and reauthorizing waterboarding and other forms of
torture.

These proposals "are unlawful and unconstitutional.  They violate
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendments.  If you do
not reverse course and instead endeavor to make these campaign
promises a reality, you will have to contend with the full
firepower of the ACLU at every step," wrote ACLU Executive
Director Anthony Romero.  "Our staff of litigators and activists
in every state, thousands of volunteers and millions of card-
carrying members and supporters are ready to fight against any
encroachment on our cherished freedoms and rights."

Romero's battle call was echoed on Nov. 9 at public interest law
firms across the country.

Marielena Hincapie, executive director at the National Immigration
Law Center, said that "Many of Trump's immigration proposals don't
square with our Constitution.  Our communities have successfully
beaten back similar ill-conceived proposals in states like Arizona
and Alabama, and we will continue fight -- in the courtroom, if
necessary -- to ensure that the rights of immigrant and refugee
communities are protected across the country."

Or Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive
Rights, who pledged that her group "will continue to harness the
momentum of the recent victory in Whole Woman's Health and is
ready to bring the full force of the law in order to oppose any
attacks on reproductive freedom in the courts and Congress."

Public Citizen President Robert Weissman called for resisting
Trump's agenda "with everything we've got.  That means suing to
block unconstitutional maneuvers."

And Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, boasted
that "We see no reason to stop being on offense on climate and
clean energy.  We defeated most of the new coal plants proposed
during the George W. Bush administration -- 184 to be exact --
with grassroots power, and we can and will do similar work under
the Trump administration."

The biggest problem is that these groups are small and not very
well-funded.  There's only so much they can do.

In some areas, they'll get an assist from the private bar. For
example, if Mr. Trump's U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission is no longer interested in bringing, say, sexual
harassment suits, there are plenty of plaintiffs lawyers who can
fill the void.

Or if the Trump administration goes forward with its plan to
eliminate the "food police" at the Food and Drug Administration,
as suggested in a September fact sheet, we won't go back to the
days of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle."

Product liability laws mean that food producers will still answer
to plaintiffs lawyers like Bill Marler of Marler Clark or Fred
Pritzker -- fhp@pritzkerlaw.com -- of Pritzker Hageman if they
poison their customers.

This fear of liability will remain a powerful check on companies
across multiple industries -- think automakers, pharmaceuticals,
building materials -- that might otherwise be tempted to cut
corners in the absence of government oversight.

Because almost certainly, there will be less oversight: Mr. Trump
has pledged that for every new regulation added, two must be cut,
and he's called for a government-wide hiring freeze to reduce the
federal workforce through attrition.

Consumer protection in other areas may also take a hit.

Mr. Trump in speeches has called for repealing all or part of the
Dodd-Frank Act, which created the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.  He hasn't spoken specifically about his plans for the
agency, but he's no fan of Senator Elizabeth Warren, who came up
with the idea for it.  According to CBS News, as recently as
Nov. 7, Mr. Trump called Ms. Warren a "terrible person," ''a
terrible human being" and a "terrible senator."

It might look bad to kill the agency outright, but it seems
certain to be de-fanged, especially now that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the CFPB director serves
as the pleasure of the president, just like cabinet secretaries.
(I can only assume Richard Cordray is currently looking for a new
job.).

The kinds of cases that the CFPB brings generally have a private
right of action.  For example, Wells Fargo has been hit with
multiple private lawsuits for creating unauthorized customer
accounts after the CFPB fined the bank $100 million.

Plaintiffs lawyers will happily continue to bring such suits --
but it's unclear how they'd know about the wrongdoing or be able
to build a case absent government involvement.

Still, Mr. Bland from Public Justice vowed his group would do
their best to step in.  "If the CFPB is hamstrung or even
imperiled, that doesn't mean that consumers should go
unprotected," he wrote.  "It just shows how crucial it is to have
an energetic, creative, strategic, thoughtful and most of all,
hard working community of advocates to fill that gap."


                            *********

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  * * *